There was some talk in the blogosphere last year about P.Oxy 5072. (here, here, here, and here) It has been published in the most recent volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (vol. 76, p. 1-10, ed. J. Chapa) and, even better, images are online (recto, verso), and they’re clear and relatively readable.

After all the hubbub, however, nobody (that I have seen) has really mentioned it again, let alone really interacted with the text of the papyrus. I ran across it again when looking for fragments of ‘apocryphal’ gospels in Greek to include with the fragments in my Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments and Agrapha project. I am still unsure if P.Oxy 5072 will be included in that work (should I? please let me know!), but am leaning towards doing so.

I could not, however, locate vol. 76 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in a library anywhere near me. A friend (you know who you are) came to the rescue and sent along pictures of the article. For that I’m grateful. It gave me an opportunity to work through the text visible on the papyrus images available online in consultation with the official transcription and reconstruction.

I begin by readily admitting I am not familiar with more recent volumes of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri; I have only been able to examine portions of the first 15 volumes in any detail while working on other fragments (e.g. P.Oxy 840; P.Oxy 1224) as those volumes are in the public domain and relatively easily available via archive.org. But those early volumes seem, to me, much more helpful than this portion on P.Oxy 5072. Grenfell and Hunt give a transcription, they discuss possibilities, they determine which they think is most likely, and they give a translation. Their work is very helpful, most of the time.

Chapa’s discussion, however, nearly made me pull my hair out. The issues and possibilities are thoroughly discussed, but positive statements are almost never made about which possibilities could be thought most likely and why. To be sure, Chapa does make some decisions in that reconstructions are included in the transcriptions. Even still, I was frustrated that Chapa’s discussions and suggestions concluded with text like “again, this is speculative” and “which makes it difficult” and “but the expected traces are not visible” and the like. I appreciate the discussion of options (it is helpful and thorough) and understand there is a place for “scholarly caution,” but I also want decisions and positive prescriptions. Of course guessing about reconstructions is not certain. That’s the point, and that’s why experts need to weigh in.

Also, I was a bit surprised that there is no translation of P.Oxy 5072 given; though perhaps lack of translation is standard with the newer P.Oxy volumes. Since no translation was available, I thought I’d offer a preliminary transcription and two(!) translations below. While informed by Chapa’s work, I do not simply copy it. If you consult the below against the transcription in P.Oxy 76, you’ll find a few spots where I’m more uncertain than Chapa is (rightly so, I have not examined the actual papyrus, only the images online) and perhaps even differ. You will note that I did not put any accents/breathing marks on the text (they are in Chapa’s reconstruction in P.Oxy 76). I also do not include Chapa’s reconstructions in this transcription, though I do translate Chapa’s reconstructions and mention them in the notes (so one can see what I’m translating). The suggestions I offer as reconstructions are things that seem relatively secure to me; I even differ with Chapa in a few spots.

I would not be surprised if there are typos in the transcription and issues with the translation. This is not final, by any means. I’m still working through it and need to do more work examining the possible parallels. If you cite it, please note its provisional nature, and please link to this page.

Also, rather than note actual/probable numbers of missing characters using specific under-dots, I simply note that a group of characters is missing with a “[…]”. Images are readily available (recto, verso) so check them for the actual layout. “.” indicates a visible but indiscernable character. Letters with under-dots indicate uncertainty. Recto line 3 υ(ι)ε indicates an expanded abbreviation and possible nomen sacrum, as does verso 9 βα(σι)λεια. If you hover the asterisk at the end of most lines, you should see a note pop up. All notes are offered at the end, numbered by line, though some may be slightly edited/expanded.

Notes By Line

Recto

1. [no notes]
2. There is a possibility that instead of οσα. at the end of the line, it could be ο σα., thus opening the door for possible readings like ο σατ[ανας] or others. Chapa discusses and dismisses this, noting that "traces of ink" exclude these as possibilities (Chapa 10).
3. Parallel passages that mention casting out of demons (Mk 5:7; Lk 8:28; Mt 8:29) all use υιε του θεου in address of Jesus; it is very possible this is used here too.
4. Chapa reconstructs the beginning of the line as ηλ]θες, in line with parallels (particularly Mt 8:29).
5. Chapa reconstructs the end of the line as λε[γων.
6. Chapa also suggests εξ]ελθε at the beginning of the line.
7. [no notes]
8. Chapa reconstructs the beginning of the line as α]υτων.
9. Chapa reconstructs the beginning of the line as Ι(ησου)]ς.
10. Chapa does not read the last character in the line (σ) as it could be either an omega or a sigma, but from the images it appears to be consistent in shape and placement with other probable sigmas (cf. especially verso line 4).
11. [no notes]

Verso

1. [no notes]
2. Chapa notes the following parallels for reconstructions of lines 2–5: Lk 12:8–9; Mt 10:32–33; Lk 9:26; Mk 8:38.
3. [no notes]
4. Chapa reconstructs the beginning of the line as μ]ου; the end of the line as αισ[χυνομενος.
5. Chapa notes the following parallels for reconstructions of lines 5–7: Mt 10:37–38; Lk 14:26–27, 33. He reconstructs the start of the line as εσ]χατα and the end of the line as ο φ[ιλων.
6. Chapa reconstructs the beginning of the line as αυ]του. He also suggests εστ[ιν at the end of the line.
7. The word μαθητης seems frequent, hence the suggestion at the start of line 7 and line 12. This agrees with Chapa. The end of the line, however, Chapa neglects to reconstruct because γραμματικ[οι/γραμματικ[ος is not known in the New Testament as it has been received. However, the word is in use (Is 33.18; Dan 1.4, 17), and I think it could have been used here in a sense similar to γραμματευς.
8. [no notes]
9. [no notes]
10. Chapa reconstructs the beginning of the line as εμπρο]σθεν; the end of the line as υμω[ν.
11. Chapa reconstructs the beginning of the line as συν]ετων; the end of the line as απεκ[ρυψε.
12. Chapa also suggests μ]αθητας at the start of the line.
13. [no notes]

I’ve been working through fragmentary texts and agrapha for my Greek Apocryphal Gospels project. As such, I’ve been referencing Ehrman and Pleše’s The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (amazon.com) (henceforth EP) heavily, as well as Andrew Bernhard’s Other Early Christian Gospels (amazon.com). Both are invaluable.

I’ve found a few things that can probably be classed as “errata” in EP. None are really a big deal, but I thought I’d record them here. I would like to give EP a hearty “Thanks!” for the wide margins, it makes adding notes (and line numbers used by different editions for easy reference) much easier. These notes are largely for my own purposes, to keep them all in one place; but I figure they might be helpful for others as well.

I should say again: I’m very happy with EP’s edition. It is wonderful in that it gives the original language and a modern translation of everything included, and as a result, I’d say, is required for anyone interested in the history of the early Christianity and its development. Whether you like him or not, Ehrman is an excellent writer and his skill shows through on the translations in this volume.

P.Berol. 11710 EP pp 238-239

EP and Bernhard have the text in the same order but disagree on terminology. That is, EP have:

• Fragment a recto
• Fragment a verso
• Fragment b recto
• Fragment b verso

Whereas Bernhard has:

• Fragment a verso
• Fragment a recto
• Fragment b verso
• Fragment b recto

“Recto” and “verso” are terms that have to do with the orientation of fibers of the papyrus; Bernhard actually uses arrows instead of the term as terminology is in flux and lacks specificity. Some use “recto” and “verso” as synonyms for “front” and “back”, respectively, regardless of the fibers of the papyrus (recto = horizontal fibers, verso = vertical fibers). I’d chalk EP’s difference up to that, however, there are other places where EP have papyri ordered verso-recto. Also, EP are using Bernhard’s transcription, so the difference is even more confusing.

Again, there is no functional difference in the transcription or EP’s translation; the lines fall in the same order. It is just the description of recto/verso.

P.Egerton 2 EP pp. 252

EP have have the recto/verso (and content) of fragment 3 swapped. These are fragments with little recognizable content. Anyway, Bell & Skeat (and Bernhard) go frag 3 verso, then frag 3 recto. EP go recto, then verso. This is a little confusing because EP note (p. 246) that they’ve followed Bell & Skeat’s sequence of the fragments.

P. Merton 51 EP pp. 257

Note 1 on the bottom of the page has “Mark 9:7”, it should be “Mark 7:9” (cf. Rees, p. 3).

Gospel of Thomas Greek Fragments, P.Oxy. 655 p. 344

In EP, Saying 36 purports to be in col 1 lines 1-17, but actually floats onto the 18th line. On the next transcription page (p. 346), it notes the next fragment starting on line 17, and that is the line based on the numbers given on that page.

In Bernhard, the lines given are 0-17. EP 1/Bernhard 0 is completely reconstructed. My guess is that EP should be numbered like Bernhard.

Gospel of Mary, Greek Fragments pp. 589

EP note they are using the edition of Pasquier, “We have taken the text from the edition of A. Pasquier” but doesn’t note if that is for the Coptic only, or for Coptic + Greek. My guess is that the Greek comes from Lührmann, but that is simply because most other fragmentary Greek comes from Lührmann. Also, I think the either the image of P.Ryl.463 “page 2” on the Rylands library site have recto/verso misstated (or are using to mean front/back instead of fiber direction, or the ‘V’ on the image here doesn’t mean what I think it means).

If you hadn’t noticed, Bart Ehrman now has a blog, of sorts: ehrmanblog.org. He also has a new popular book, on “Did Jesus Exist?”

More importantly, in the past year he and Zlatko Plese released their diglot edition of the Apocryphal Gospels (amazon.com). It is awesome, you should get a copy. Really. And in December 2012 another scholarly-level book is slated, Forgery and Counter-Forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (amazon.com). It is already on my Amazon wishlist. I’m sure I won’t agree with parts of it, but I can’t wait to read what he’s got to say (any early review copies available? )

Why mention all of this? I’ve had a love-hate relationship with Bart Ehrman’s books in the past. It reached its zenith at the point of the Gospel of Judas release where I wrote a post called “Bart Ehrman has Jumped the Shark.” I’ve calmed down a bit since then.

While I gratefully consume most of Ehrman’s scholar-level stuff (edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Apocryphal Gospels, translations and editions of other writings) his popular-level stuff gives me heartburn so I don’t plan on reading any of it. But not for the reason you’d think. It’s because he’s such a good writer, and I don’t like where he ends up.

Anyway, I think it was a smart move for Ehrman to start a blog. Yes, I realize he’s charging for it; but that’s OK, and the proceeds are for good causes. Still, it is a good idea. Why? Because it humanizes him. Without an online presence (beyond an author-based site to serve as marketing hub for his books), it is easy to think of him as far away and unattached to reality; he is easy to discount and write cheap shots (you know, like about him jumping a shark). But if he writes regularly (and makes stuff publicly available with some regularity) people will get a better idea of who he is, what he’s about, and why he does what he does. And that’s a good thing.

I’m looking forward to reading more from his blog (well, the publicly available stuff). And can’t wait for the book in December.

Side note: Long-time ricoblog readers know that a “Bart Ehrman” frequents the comments from time to time. If that really is Bart Ehrman, then my invitation to dinner here at my home in Bellingham (or heck, at SBL in Chicago, though I’m sure your schedule is booked) still stands.

Just over two weeks ago, Logos (my employer) put an edition of the Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments, and Agrapha on pre-pub. This meant that when enough pre-orders were made to cover the cost of the project, we would begin development. I mentioned it on this blog, it was mentioned on the Logos blog as well.

I was expecting it to take a few months for costs to be covered. To my surprise, it took about 10 days.

So I wanted to make sure all those who haven’t yet deleted this feed from their readers also knew that this project is now under development.

I’m going to have to do some shifting of my schedule to begin the necessary work; there is much to do — more research, writing, and some code to write. I don’t have a time frame for release, but am committed to make sure it happens in a timely manner.

Thanks to all those who pre-ordered! And you can still pre-order at the discounted pre-pub price!

I’ve been studying the apocryphal gospels off and on for a few years now. They are fascinating documents. I forget what pushed me over the edge, but I realized a few months ago that this is a hole in the Greek offerings of Logos Bible Software.

So I did a lot more research, and proposed that we do our own edition of the Greek Apocryphal Gospels. It is now available for pre-pub purchase.

We plan on using Tischendorf’s edition (without apparatus) for the major documents (Protevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate) and the Descent of Christ to Hell); Swete for the Gospel of Peter (plus transcriptions of P.Oxy.2949 and 4009); Grenfell & Hunt for Greek portions of the Gospel of Thomas. And we’ll do some transcriptions of some fragmentary stuff (P.Merton 51; P.Egerton 2; some P.Oxy stuff as well; see pre-pub page for a full list) as well as an ‘inclusive’ collection of agrapha.

The Greek texts will be morphologically tagged, but in an effort to keep costs down, the analysis will be primarily automated (much like the analysis available for the Logos editions of the Perseus Classics Collection and the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri).

In addition, much like Michael S. Heiser did for our Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha project, I will be writing new introductions and collecting bibliographies for each document/writing contained in the resource.

English translation for most of the material is available in M.R. James’ The Apocryphal New Testamentvolume, which is already available in Logos format. Where James’ edition has translation, the Greek editions will scroll synchronously with James’ edition.

Anyway, that’s the scoop. I’m hoping folks like the idea and that the pre-pub gets enough subscriptions to be funded so we can start into this material. If it goes well, we could have follow-up projects for the apocryphal acts and apocalypses as well.

Instead of the more bookish and sporadic notes, today I figured I’d blog about the Brannan gluten free Thanksgiving. It was yummy and relatively easy. Hope it helps some who have struggled. Oh, these are also dairy free, egg free, and cane-sugar free. And free of other stuff too; the list of allergies around our table today is too long to list. If you have questions, feel free to follow up with me if you’d like (email is on sidebar).

It’s true, we had gluten free turkey, stuffing, gravy, and mashed potatoes. I only made the turkey, stuffing and gravy; my sister-in-law made the mashed potatoes and green beans. Oh, and my lovely wife made GF pumpkin pie and apple crisp. Mom T made the sweet potatoes & fruit salad. Yum, yum yum.

Gluten Free Turkey

Many turkeys are gluten free; you’ll need to check web sites to ensure. Costco’s turkeys were Foster Farms Fresh or something or other, and their web site confirmed their GF-ness. I popped it in a roaster, put lots of Earth Balance (non-dairy butter) between the skin and the breast meat, about 1/3 cup, salt, pepper, rosemary and sage. No stuffing in the bird. It was a 14lb bird, roasted for around 4 hours. Carved the turkey, reserved the drippings.

While the turkey was roasting, I made broth from the neck & giblets. This is very easy. Just put the parts in a saucepan. Fill with water until they’re covered. Bring to a boil, simmer over low heat for like 30 minutes. Strain, set aside; you’ll use this in the stuffing.

Some background at this point: We basically can’t buy anything that lists “spices” in the ingredient list. This means we can’t buy any chicken/beef/veggie stock at any store in the western world. Chicken and turkey stock is gold in our house. So after the the turkey was carved (I cooked it on Wednesday) it was time to make stock. I stuck all the stuff I didn’t put on the meat plate — bones, skin, fat, whatever — into a stock pot. Filled with water until everything was covered. Added some rosemary. Bring to boil, then simmer over low heat for 45-60 mins. Pull bones out, dispose of those. Strain, label containers, put in containers for freezer.

Back to the good stuff.

Gluten Free Stuffing

I winged this one and it turned out. My basic source was Betty Crocker’s recipe, modified as follows.

First, I used a loaf of Trader Joe’s GF Brown Rice Bread. This stuff is heavy. I cut each slice into cubes, then dried in the oven (like, 250 degrees for 10-15 mins). Then I chopped a medium sized onion into oblivion, melted 1/4-1/3 cup butter (Earth Balance) in a frying pan, added a bunch of garlic, and cooked it until the onions were happy.

Dumped the bread pieces into a big bowl. Then 2tbsp parsley (plus a little more); 2tbsp sage (plus a little more); salt, pepper, butter-onion mixture. I’m assuming you’ve done the research to know if your spices are GF. Then Betty’s recipe says 1/2 cup broth, but her recipe assumes you’re putting it in the bird, which will emit all sorts of juices into the stuffing. Instead I baked it seperately. So I needed more broth. I put in at least two cups, probably more like 3. Stirred like crazy. Put it into a casserole dish, mashed it down. This went into the fridge, I ended up cooking it for probably 45 mins on 350F.

Gluten Free Gravy

While the stuffing was turning from wonderful to awesome, I made gravy. Got the reserved drippings and warmed them up again. I also got some GF corn starch and rice milk. Probably at least 1/4 cup corn starch. Put it in a small bowl that has a tight lid. Then add some rice milk, enough to liquefy. Put lid on, shake like the dickens. When drippings are boiling, add the mixture to thicken. Whisk it. If not thick enough, repeat the thickening mixture bit. Simmer it for awhile, and you’re awesome. Add some salt and pepper if you wish.

That’s it.

See, not too hard. The key is to start with the bird, and only use the broth/etc. from the bird to make the other parts. For me, this works better if I do the bird the day before (Wednesday) then the stuffing/etc. the day of (Thursday).

Hope it helps y’all. All I know is it was awesome, and my wife (several food allergies) and sister-in-law (celiac) could enjoy it all too.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The toughest thing about the SBL annual meeting is the book exhibit. It is nearly impossible to not spend too much money on books, it seems. I only bought two books this year, which was my plan — but came home with four, plus an audio CD. Not bad, says me.

Books I bought at SBL

Peter H. Davids, II Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text (amazon.com). Baylor University Press, 2011. This is the latest in the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament series. I knew I was getting it before I left; there is something about these volumes I just love, so I try to get them at SBL the first year they’re out as the price is usually pretty good then.

Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (amazon.com). Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. This is part of the “Text-Critical Studies” series. Essays from a 2008 colloquium; they look to be good and well worth reading.

Books I was given at SBL

These books were given to me by the publisher for review purposes, I will write about them in the future here on ricoblog.

Craig A. Evans, ed., The World of Jesus and the Early Church: Identity and Interpretation in Early Communities of Faith (amazon.com). Hendrickson Publishers, 2011. Essays from two related symposiums, and they look good. More info on the Hendrickson page, including PDF of the intro, TOC, and a list of contributors.

Gary Alan Chamberlain, The Greek of the Septuagint: A Supplemental Lexicon (amazon.com). Hendrickson Publishers, 2011. I’m deep in some Septuagint stuff at my day job (Logos) so I’m happy to give this one a look. I’ve read the preface and part of the intro. It will take some time to work through this, but I’m encouraged by what I’ve seen so far. The idea is to supplement BDAG for the one who is attempting/starting to read the LXX. Again, more info is on the Hendrickson page.

John D. Schwandt, The Audio Greek New Testament (amazon.com) (MP3s on a DVD). Hendrickson Publishers, 2011. My friend Randall Buth will give me grief for this one because Schwandt reads with the Erasmian pronunciation. Randall should be happy, however, because at least I’ll be listening to the GNT. I’d be happy to listen to Randall’s as soon as the whole GNT gets recorded (don’t think he has it yet, but could be wrong). Schwandt reads the UBS4 edition of the GNT. My guess is I’d be able to internalize Buth’s better, but listening to Schwandt will do more good than harm.