New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity and Their Relevance for Textual Criticism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity and Their Relevance for Textual Criticism Brice C. Jones A Thesis In the Department of Religion Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Religion) at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada April 2015 © Brice C. Jones, 2015 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Brice C. Jones Entitled: New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity and Their Relevance for Textual Criticism and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Religion) complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality. Signed by the final examining committee: Chair Dr. Greg LeBlanc External Examiner Dr. Amy S. Anderson External to Program Dr. Stephen Yeager Examiner Dr. Lorenzo DiTommaso Examiner Dr. Carly Daniel-Hughes Thesis Supervisor Dr. André Gagné Approved by Dr. Leslie Orr, Graduate Program Director March 30, 2015 Dr. André Roy, Dean Faculty of Arts and Science iii ABSTRACT New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity and Their Relevance for Textual Criticism Brice C. Jones Concordia University, 2015 This dissertation examines New Testament citations on all Greek papyrus and parchment amulets from late antique Egypt. Since New Testament textual criticism does not allow for the inclusion of non-continuous manuscripts (of which amulets are a part) in the official catalogue of manuscripts, a large body of textual evidence has fallen outside the purview of scholars. This dissertation, which constitutes the first systematic treatment of non-continuous manuscripts, seeks to remedy the situation in part by determining the ways in which New Testament texts on amulets may be useful for textual criticism. This dissertation has three main objectives. The first objective is to define more closely the categories of continuous and non-continuous by formulating criteria for the identification of the latter. The second objective is to propose a method for analyzing the texts of non-continuous artifacts in terms of their text-critical value. The third objective is to establish a comprehensive database of one category of non-continuous artifacts (amulets) and provide a detailed analysis of both their texts and containers (i.e., physical manuscripts). By analyzing a largely untapped source of New Testament textual data, this project contributes to a methodological question in textual criticism concerning its categories and provides a wealth of source material for the study of the reception of the Bible in early Christianity. Thus, while the study is targeted at textual critics, it contributes to a conversation about early Christianity that is much larger than the project, as these texts demonstrate the various ways in which early Christians used scripture. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation has its genesis in a Q&A session at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans, 2009. Geoffrey Smith had just announced a new papyrus amulet from Oxyrhynchus containing a citation of Mark 1:1-2, when Michael Theophilos raised his hand and asked: “As a rule, this amulet will not be listed in the official list of New Testament manuscripts. So what will be its significance to the field overall?” A “rule”? “Why could it not be catalogued with other manuscripts?,” I thought. And so began the journey. The amulet in question is P.Oxy. 76.5073 and is featured below (no. 16). A project like this would not have been possible without the help and support of many individuals. In particular, I thank my doctoral supervisor, André Gagné, who has gone above and beyond in helping me become the scholar that I am today. He has informed my scholarship and thinking in many ways, and I will always be indebted to him for his contributions, both professionally and personally. I am also grateful to the other members of my doctoral examining committee: Lorenzo DiTommaso, Carly Daniel-Hughes, Amy S. Anderson, and Stephen Yeager. Special thanks goes to Adela Yarbro Collins, who kindly agreed to direct a seminar in papyrology and textual criticism in 2010 during my Masters studies at Yale University. Our visit to the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library to see and handle papyri was infectious and served as the stimulus for my fascination with the wonderful field of papyrology. Many of the publications consulted in the research stages of the dissertation appeared long ago in obscure, and often defunct, periodicals and books. I am thankful to the following colleagues for securing scans of obscure but necessary publications that were not easily accessible to me: Tyler Smith, Hany Takla, Lorne Zelyck, Peter Malik, Brian Larsen Wells, and Sonja Anderson. Several other scholars have kindly assisted me at various stages of the project. In particular, I am grateful to the following people for answering questions and offering v suggestions about specific amulets: Theodore de Bruyn, Roy Kotansky, Hans Förster, Tommy Wasserman, Lorne Zelyck, Joseph E. Sanzo, and AnneMarie Luijendijk. I kindly thank Marius Gerhardt (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung) for providing me with an image of BKT 6.7.1, which was otherwise not available, during my research on this amulet. Graphic designer and personal friend Kyle Newton traced the letters and drawings found in the figures, which provide much visual clarification of complicated descriptions. I owe great thanks to Michael Theophilos and Joesph Sanzo, who read an earlier, complete draft of the dissertation and provided a wealth of helpful comments and suggestions. I am indebted to them for their assistance and excellent scholarship that I hope to model in some way or another. I have been fortunate enough to have a close network of international scholars, whose constant support and constructive ideas were invaluable to me throughout my Masters and Doctoral studies. In particular, I thank: Malcolm Choat, Sofía Torallas Tovar, Klaas Worp, Tommy Wasserman, Juan Hernández, Jr., Dan Wallace, David Eastman, and Jeremy Hultin. Thank you all for the lessons you have taught me. I thank also my Lee University “family,” who instilled in me a thirst for knowledge that remains unquenchable to this day: Michael E. Fuller, Emerson B. Powery, Donald Bowdle†, William A. Simmons, and Ted Ray Gee. Finally, and above all, I thank my precious family for their immeasurable sacrifices that they have had to make throughout this long journey. In particular, my wife Meghan, and my two daughters, Hadley and Leighton, have been a constant source of support, love, humor, joy, strength, and inspiration. For all that you are and for all that you have done—thank you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... x List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xi Editorial Conventions ....................................................................................................... xvi Chapter 1: Introduction and Survey of Scholarship ............................................................ 1 1.1 Project Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Classifying Greek New Testament Manuscripts: The Liste ...................................... 8 1.3 Survey of Research on Non-Continuous Text Manuscripts .................................... 14 1.3.1 Stuart R. Pickering ......................................................................................... 14 1.3.2 Stanley E. Porter ............................................................................................ 17 1.3.3 Peter M. Head ................................................................................................ 20 1.4 Project Limitations and Outline .............................................................................. 23 1.4.1 Project Limitations ......................................................................................... 23 1.4.2 Outline ............................................................................................................ 25 1.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 27 Chapter 2: Terminology and Criteria ................................................................................ 28 2.1 Defining Non-Continuous ....................................................................................... 28 2.2 Criteria for Identifying Non-Continuous Artifacts ................................................. 29 2.2.1 Criterion #1: Textual Continuity between Recto and Verso .......................... 29 2.2.2 Criterion #2: The Use of Amulets .................................................................. 31 2.2.3 Criterion #3: Presence of the Word ἑρμηνεία ............................................... 38 2.2.4 Criterion #4: Context of Citation ................................................................... 41 vii 2.2.5 Criterion #5: Specific Content of New Testament Citation ........................... 43 2.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................