Sunday, May 24, 2009

The NA27 apparatus lists the following contents for P99 (dated as “ca. 400”, currently held in the Chester Beatty Library). I’ve given the references in an English-based system (though I still use “.” for a chapter/verse separator, instead of “:”, because I’m lazy and don’t like to hit the shift key unless I really have to), translated from the German system in the printed NA27 apparatus appendix.

Ro 1.1; 2Co 1.3-6; 1.6-17; 1.20-24; 2.1-9; 2.9-5.13; 5.13-6.3; 6.3-8.13; 8.14-22; 9.2-11.8; 11.9-23; 11.26-13.11; Gal 1.4-11; 1.18-6.15; 1.14-2.4; 2.5-3.19; 3.19-4.9; Eph 1.4-2.21; 1.22(?); 3.8-6.24

I have two questions, actually.

First, what’s up with Galatians? Why the large range covering most of the book (1.18-6.15) followed by subranges amounting to 1.14-4.9? Is this content duplicated in the papyrus? I’ve searched online for other contents listings of P99 only to see the same exact list duplicated in numerous locations. I’m confused as to what the duplication might be indicating—or if it is a typo of some sort (it feels like a book name is missing, but Galatians and Ephesians are in canonical order, so it can’t be that … I don’t think).

Second, what’s up with Ephesians? Why is “1.22(?)” appended? Is it that it occurs out of order after 2.21?

Just trying to get a handle on what’s listed in this particular entry and why. P99 is not in Comfort & Barrett (too late for them, apparently) so I can’t check there; it is also not in Tischendorf because, well, Tischendorf is just far too early. Other ranges in the NA27 appendix do not have overlapping ranges (well, not up through P99 nor through the uncials). Poking through the site for the Chester Beatty Library was a dead end as well (though I’d love to be proved wrong).

If you have any help for me, I’m all ears.

Post Author: rico
Sunday, May 24, 2009 1:25:22 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]
Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:00:04 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Chester Beatty P99 isn't a "normal" NT manuscript but is a glossary containing various Greek words and phrases with a Latin gloss. You can check A. Wouters, ed. The Chester Beatty Codex AC 1499: A Graeco-Latin Lexicon on the Pauline Epistles and a Greek Grammar (Chester Beatty Monographs, no. 12; Leuven: Peeters, 1988). 9068311247, 9789068311242.
Also K. Wachtel and K. Witte (eds.), Die paulinischen Briefe, Teil 2: Gal, Eph, Phil, Kol, 1 u. 2 Thess, 1 u. 2 Tim, Tit, Phlm, Hebr (vol. 2 of Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), LXVII-XC. I don't know how your German is but that second work is the bomb. It is readable on Amazon. It is clear from page lxvii that P99 has various sections and is a real mishmash. Enjoy your studies!
Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:55:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I'd gathered that P99 wasn't normal but couldn't get beyond the general description that everyone (online) seems to have copied. There is scant info on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_99 ). My German is worse than my Latin (and my Latin is non-existent) but p. LXVII in Wachtel & Witte is helpful. I'm still trying to figure out why P99 is a "Consistently Cited Witness of the First Order" for Romans. P99 has one verse of Romans (Ro 1.1), and it is not cited at Romans 1.1. This makes no sense to me. And in light of Elliot's comment (cf. Wikipedia citation) about P99 perhaps being a school exercise, and the haphazard collection of verses, I'm wondering why it's in there at all (outside of being a large chunk of text from the fifth century or before, I guess). Either way, thanks for the references. In answer to my initial question, it looks like there is duplication of text; but it also appears true that the order the references are cited in the NA apparatus (canonical) is not the order "in situ".
Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:40:29 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
That's a great question regarding Romans. David Parker dedicates a whole sentence to P99 in NT Manuscripts and Their Texts, saying that it has been included "perhaps because of its date and significance" (41). I have the 1998 corrected printing of NA27 and P99 isn't even mentioned. Nor is it included in their online edition so I don't think they consider it that important.
Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:48:46 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hi Rick thanks for mentioning my blog a couple posts back - I appreciate it. I am not on the top fifty list this month but who know, perhaps I'll come and go? -Brian
Friday, June 05, 2009 1:43:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Dear Rick,

I've been trying to email you about your Beta-code to unicode converter. But I can't get your email address and, since I'm not using Outlook, can't get your link to work. Would you email me?

Thanks,

Roger Pearse
Comments are closed.