History of Discovery and Research on PPennMuseum E16694.patr Fragments

2a. E16694 frgs 6 + 19 written against the fibers preserve a lower margin from Marcellus/Athanasius De Incarnatione et Contra Arianos [PG 26.1005 and 1008]; this identification was not discovered until the next leaf of the same text (below, frgs 3, 4, 11 = 2c) had been identified. Since that next attested page (below, frgs 3, 4, 11) preserves fragments also written along the fibers from about 35 lines later in the same text, the present page (written || then --) could have been the first part of a bicolon (two joined pages from the middle of a quire, if the quire began and ended ||, as seems to have been normal). The first side of the present page (the joined frg of which is virtually illegible) should have ended about 35 lines above the second side, perhaps with the words [PG 26.1005.30]:

     ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ λέγει· Τὸ γεγεννημένον
     ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστι, καὶ τὸ
     γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστι.
01 Καὶ πάλιν· Τὸ Πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει, πνεῖ,
02 καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις· ἀλλ’
03 οὐκ οἶδας, πόθεν ἔρχεται, καὶ ποῦ
04 ὑπάγει. Οὕτως ἐστὶ πᾶς ὁ γεγεννη-
     [the lower margin is expected here, with the flip side beginning as below]

2b. E16694 frgs 6 + 19 written along the fibers

     μένος ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀρχῇ τοῦ
     Εὐαγγελίου Ἰωάννης λέγει· Ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον
     αὐτὸν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ . . . [missing lines]
. . . πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ Θεὸς λαλήσας
01 τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, ἐπ’ ἐσ-
02 χάτου τοῦ ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐ-
03 λάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ. Καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ λέ-
04 γει, ὅτι ὁ Υἱὸς λαλεῖ· Εἰ δοκιμὴν, φησὶ,
     [bottom margin]


2c. E16694 frgs 3 + 11 written along the fibers preserves a right margin and lower margin (frg 11), from the next page of Marcellus/Athanasius De Incarnatione [PG 26.1008]; and frg 4 has parts of 3 lines from the left margin of the same page.

This page would have contained about 35 lines, beginning with the words
     ζητεῖτε τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ.
     Ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα εἶπε τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν τοῖς . . . [missing lines]
     . . . Εἴ τις γάρ ἐστι ναὸς
01 τοῦ Πνεύματος, οὗτος ναός ἐστι τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ
02 τοῦ Πατρός· ὅπου γὰρ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ κα
03 τοικεῖ, ἐκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς κατοικεῖ. Καὶ, Ὥσπερ
04 ὁ Πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζωο
05 ποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζωο
06 ποιεῖ. Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος
07 λέγει, ὅτι Τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ζωοποιοῦν,
08 ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν. Πρὸς δὲ
09 Κορινθίους γράφει Παῦλος· Τὸ δὲ
10 Πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ. Ὁρᾷς, ὅτι ἅπερ ἐστὶν
     [lower margin]


2d. E16694 frg 3 written against the fibers has a left margin, from the next page [PG 26.1009];
frg 4 has parts of 3 lines from the left margin, and frg 11 has the last line and lower margin, but lines 4-9 (at least) must have had significant variants from the TLG text. For frg 4v see below!

     ἔργα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ταῦτα λέγει . . .
     [about 24-25 lines missing from top of the page to the next preserved material]

     μερίς μου εἶ ἐν γῆ ζώντων. Ὁ δὲ Ἱερεμίας
     λέγει, ὅτι Ὁ πλάσας τὰ πάντα,
01 αὐτὸς κληρονομία τοῦ Ἰακὼβ, Κύριος
02 ὄνομα αὐτῷ. Τῶν οὖν προφητῶν
03 τὸν Κύριον κληρονομίαν
04 λεγόντων τῶν ἁγίων, ὁ Παῦλος τὸ
05 ἅγιον Πνεῦμα κληρονομίαν εἶναι εἶπεν·
06 Ἐν ᾧ, φησὶ, καὶ πιστεύσαντες, ἐσφρα-
07 γίσθητε τῷ Πνεύματι τῆς
08 ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀῤῥαβὼν τῆς κληρονομίας ἡμῶν· ὡς καὶ Μωσῆς τὸ
09 πρόσωπον ἐσφραγίσθη τῷ ἁγίῳ
10 Πνεύματι, ὅτε ἔλαβε νόμον παρὰ Θεοῦ,

frgs 4 and 11 appear to be part of the same page as frg 3, but 4v indicates significant variation in lines 4ff.

No identification has been made for frg 1 and a few more smaller pieces.

3a. E16694 frg 1, written with the fibers ("recto"), is an upper left corner, with margins preserved -- not yet identified

3b. E16694 frg 1, written against the fibers ("verso"), is an upper right corner, with margins -- not yet identified

Unfortunately, Colin Roberts had not seen fit to comment on the possible date of the hand -- pending closer computer examination, the frgs all seem to come from the same hand. My own relatively unsystematic probes thus far suggest that the paleographical date range is wide, from 4th to 7th (or even 8th) centuries. To say "6th to 7th" does not narrow things very much.

A physical description can be made with much more confidence. The Chrysostom piece probably represents a page of about 33 lines, with an average of 25-30 letters per line. There are probably some minor textual variations, such as the absence of gar in two places.

The Marcellus (or is it Athanasius?) fragments are similarly formatted, with a similar number of lines per page (33-36), and about the same number of letters per line as the Chrysostom piece. Of course, textual variants in the many missing lines could easily affect the respective page sizes. My suspicion is that they were basically the same format, perhaps the same codex. The usual "nomina sacra" seem to have been abbreviated in the usual manner for this period. The two Marcellus pages may have been the inner bicolon of a quire, or two consecutive pages at the break between quires.

What is the remaining large unidentified fragment (#1)? Are we dealing with a large codex or series of patristic codices, or possibly with a more modest book of excerpts of some sort? Your help is invited. How unusual is it to have such fragments on papyrus? Do we have other evidence for these authors "traveling together," as it were? What is this "Marcellus" text, and how is it associated with Athanasius?

The University Museum collection also includes two items that were labelled "Original" roll #1 (L 55-232B) and roll #2 (L 55-232C) when I worked with them in 1967. They include large pieces with wide margins and little evidence of writing that appear to be similar to fragment #1 above, and thus might be related to the patristic materials. This requires further exploration

As for the technological aspects of working with such materials, the "unofficial" digitized images are being made available for wider inspection until the official scans from the University Museum are ready. My presentation to the Berlin Papyrological Congress, dealing with some non-literary fragments at the University's Center for Judaic Studies, illustrates how computer assisted maniputlation of the images can aid in the research.

//end; updated and transferred to html 30ja2009 and 03fe2009//