5. An Incipits Amulet Featuring Jesus’s Letter to Abgar
In 2012, J. E. Sanzo published Brit. Lib. Or. 4919(2) (= P.Lond.Copt. 317), a Coptic amulet in the British Library that “uniquely” featured the incipit of Jesus’s letter to Abgar alongside the incipits of the four canonical gos- pels. “This is the only ‘non-canonical’ incipit, of which I know, in the extant apotropaic record of late antique Egypt.”1 Here I present an additional example of this rare phenomenon, in a papyrus that also contributes valu- able data for the textual criticism of Mark and makes a unique request for the healing of animals. The text published here is an iatromagical amulet bearing incipits of each of the four gospels, lxx Psalm 90, and Jesus’s letter to Abgar.2 While scholars continue to debate the religious and ritual significance of the prac- tice, it is clear that scriptural incipits, especially those of the four gospels, were commonly employed on apotropaic and iatromagical amulets through- out late antiquity.3 Psalm 90 and the Abgar-Jesus correspondence are also popular texts for such amulets.4 By incorporating these texts alongside the
I thank AnneMarie Luijendijk for her helpful suggestions and corrections on an earlier draft of this edition. 1 Sanzo, “Brit. Lib. Or. 4919(2)” 99. 2 Mindful that both descriptions are not-entirely-unproblematic modern taxonomic cat- egories, I classify this papyrus as “iatromagical” rather than “apotropaic” simply because the final invocation explicitly calls on God to “heal” (ⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ) rather than protect. 3 For a thorough appraisal of the practice and recent bibliography, see Sanzo, Scrip- tural Incipits and de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian 143-46. Sanzo lists seven Coptic papyri that exhibit this practice and contain all four gospels: Brit. Lib. Or. 4919(2) = P.Lond.Copt. 317 (LDAB 112657), P.Anastasy 9 (LDAB 100023), P.Berol 22 235 (unpub- lished), P.Mich. 1559 (LDAB 102263), P.Ryl.Copt. 104 (TM 98059), P.MoscowCopt. 36, and the Robert Nahman Coptic Amulet (TM 98054). To these we can now add P.Stras.Copt. 5 (TM 382628). 4 On the use of Psalm 90 for apotropaic and healing devices, see Kraus, “Septuaginta- Psalm 90 in apotropäischer Verwendung” and de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian 166- 171. For a list of amulets bearing the incipit of Psalm 90, see Sanzo, Scriptural Incipits 106-120. On the apotropaic utility of the Abgar-Jesus correspondence, particularly in the Coptic version, see Given, “Utility and Variance” and de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian 153-157. There are at least 22 other known Coptic witnesses to the correspondence, at least 13 of which are likely amulets and all but one of which are considered by scholars to have magical or apotropaic significance: P.Anastasy 9 (TM 100023), Österreichische National- bibliothek K 8636 (TM 91418), Österreichische Nationalbibliothek K 8302 (TM 91437), Österreichische Nationalbibliothek K 3151 (TM 102251), Österreichische Nationalbiblio- thek Parchm. 78 (TM 111685), P.Oxy. LXV.4469 (TM 58906), P.Lond.Copt. 316 (= Lond. Brit. Lib. Or 4919(3); TM 111688), P.Lond.Copt. 317 (= Lond. Brit. Lib. Or 4919(2); TM 112657), Freiburg Bibel und Orient Mus. ÄT 2006.8 (TM 135855), P.Mich.
Journal of Coptic Studies 19 (2017) 42–49. doi: 10.2143/JCS.19.0.3271904 © 2017 by Peeters. All rights reserved. 5. an incipits amulet featuring jesus’s letter to abgar 43 gospels in the common amuletic strategy of deploying incipits, this papy- rus displays a distinctive consolidation of six Christian texts of ritual power. Aside from P.Lond.Copt. 317, the closest extant parallels to this papyrus are P.Stras.Copt. 5, which contains the incipits of Mark, John, and Matthew, the entirety of Psalm 90, and Luke 4:17-18; and the Lei- den codex P.Anastasy 9, which includes among other texts the incipits of the four gospels, the incipit of Psalm 90, and the entirety of the Abgar- Jesus correspondence. The order of the four gospels in this text is significant. Unlike P.Stras. Copt. 5, here the incipits of the four gospels are grouped all together, but the order (Jn, Mt, Lk, Mk) is idiosyncratic. As Sanzo notes, instability in the order of the gospels is a regular feature in the earlier Greek tradition, but among Coptic amulets bearing all four gospel incipits only P.Lond. Copt. 317 (Mt, Lk, Jn, Mk) and R.Nahm.Copt.Am. (Mt, Jn, Lk, Mk) break the canonical order.5 This could indicate, as Sanzo suggests with regard to P.Lond.Copt. 317, that P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 “was written at an early stage in the apotropaic use of Gospel incipits in Coptic, before the order was standardized.”6 The number of comparable papyri is small enough, how- ever, that the addition of P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 to the field may instead force us to reconsider whether the ordering of gospel incipits in the Coptic tradi- tion was ever, in fact, “standardized.” Even though P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 contains only the incipits of the gospels, lxx Psalm 90, and Jesus’s letter to Abgar, its value for textual criticism of the Sahidic versions of these texts should not be underesti- mated.7 I have collated the incipits of John and Luke with the editions of H. Quecke,8 Matthew with G. Aranda Perez,9 Mark with A. Boud’hors
Copt. 166 (TM 107871), P.Mich. Inv. 6213 (TM 108581), Ryl.Copt. Suppl. No. 50 (TM 111687), P.Mon.Epiph. 50 (TM 112549), P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 182 (TM 108824), O.CrumST 36 (TM 111175), O.Crum 22 (TM 110390), O.Saint-Marc 398 (TM 700755), St. Petersburg, Private Collection Golenischeff, unnumbered ostracon (TM 112629), an unpublished papyrus in a private collection, an unpublished ostracon in the Coptic Museum (variants published in Drioton, “Un Apocryphe Anti-Arien”), an inscription from Bawit (= Coquin, “Un nouveau témoin”), and an inscription from Faras (= Sayce, “Glean- ings from the Land of Egypt”). The outlier is a bilingual Bohairic-Arabic parchment Codex that includes the Abgar-Jesus correspondence among other texts on “liturgical subjects” (see al-Masīḥ, “An Unedited Bohairic Letter of Abgar”). 5 Sanzo, “Brit. Lib. Or. 4919(2).” 6 Ibid. 7 On the value of non-continuous manuscripts, especially amulets, for textual criticism of the New Testament, see Jones, New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets. 8 Quecke, Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch; Das Lukasevangelium saïdisch. 9 Aranda Perez, El Evangelio de San Mateo. 44 Textes coptes and S. Torallas Tovar,10 and lxx Psalm 90 with E. A. W. Budge and A. Ciasca.11 As P.Stras.Copt. 5 is a significant witness to the Sahidic incipit of Mark and Psalm 90, I have also noted variants in these texts from this papyrus in my apparatus.12 In the case of Jesus’s letter to Abgar, I have collated the incipit with É. Drioton’s diplomatic edition of P.Anastasy 9 and Y. al-Masīḥ’s diplomatic edition of P.Mich.Copt. 166,13 as well as Sanzo’s edition of P.Lond.Copt. 317. Among the textual variants preserved in this papyrus, perhaps the most significant are found in the incipit of Mark. Although preserving only a verse and a half of the gospel, P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 manages to incorporate readings previously thought to be distinctive of three separate stages in the development of the Sahidic version of Mark.14 Like P.Stras.Copt. 5, P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 initially follows the simple opening of the earliest Sahidic manuscript of Mark, P.PalauRib. Inv. 182 (ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲙⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲓ⳱ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ⳱ⲥ), omitting the ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ which follows in the 9th c. Sahidic version found in Pierpont Morgan Library M569, but subsequently mirroring M569 (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ) against P.PalauRib. Inv. 182 (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ) in the opening phrase of verse 2.15 Whereas P.Stras. Copt. 5 ends in the middle of verse 2 with ⲡⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ϫⲉ, however, P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 continues for a few more words, further complicating its place in the textual tradition: it continues to parallel M569 in giving ϯⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲁⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ instead of P.PalauRib. Inv. 182’s ϯⲛⲁϫⲉⲩ ⲡⲁⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ, but subsequently aligns with yet another Sahidic version of Mark (Boud’hors and Torallas Tovar’s sa II) by giving ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲕϩⲏ, over against P.PalauRib. Inv. 182’s and M569’s ϩⲓ ϩⲏ ⲙⲙⲟⲕ. While P.Stras. Copt. 5’s brief incipit of Mark was perhaps explicable as a mid-point in the development between the text found in P.PalauRib. Inv. 182 and that of M569, P.PalauRib. Inv. 412’s more eclectic incipit substantially compli- cates our understanding of the development of the Sahidic version of Mark.
10 Boud’hors and Torallas Tovar, “Mc. 1,1-11: La tradition manuscrite copte.” 11 Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter; Ciasca, Sacrorum Bibliorum fragmenta. 12 See the edition of P.Stras.Copt. 5 by Anne Kreps. 13 Drioton, “Un Apocryphe Anti-Arien;” al-Masīḥ, “An Unedited Bohairic Letter of Abgar.” The Sahidic version in P.Mich.Copt. 166 is presented in the second part of the article, vol. 54, 21-23. 14 For a discussion of these text types, synoptic comparison, and French transla- tion, see Boud’hors and Torallas Tovar, “Mc. 1,1-11: La tradition manuscrite copte” 38-45. 15 For a recent comprehensive analysis of the text-critical evidence for the “shorter” and “longer” versions of the Greek text of Mark 1:1, see Wasserman, “The ‘Son of God’ was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1).” 5. an incipits amulet featuring jesus’s letter to abgar 45
The significance of variants in the incipit of Jesus’s letter to Abgar is more difficult to assess, as the Coptic version of the letter exhibits a fair degree of textual fluidity.16 It must nevertheless be noted that, as in the opening words of Mark, here the papyrus preserves a version of the let- ter’s opening that omits the Christological title ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ, found in all of the other editions collated here. Aside from these textual peculiarities, P.PalauRib. Inv. 412’s chief significance lies undoubtedly in the set of texts grouped together for the iatromagical needs of the amulet’s bearer. As I have argued elsewhere, the combined witnesses of P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 and P.Lond.Copt. 317 indicates that, for at least some Christians in Late Antique Egypt, Jesus’s letter to Abgar functioned unproblematically alongside the gospels and Psalms to avert disease or danger, irrespective of its supposedly “apocry- phal” status. These papyri bear witness to a set of scriptural practices in which a sacred text’s status as “canonical” or “apocryphal” did not mat- ter so much as the fact that the text worked for the ritual tasks to which it was applied.17 Beyond the contents of the text itself lingers the question: what was the object actually used for? Regular vertical creases suggest that the papyrus was at some time folded or rolled (and subsequently crushed), but the pat- terns of breakage around the corners also suggest holes in each corner, as if it was at some time mounted on a surface with nails. While most com- parable amulets seem to have been designed for personal wear, these dam- age patterns and the sheer size of the papyrus are inconsistent with such use; moreover, the closing invocation clearly indicates a different purpose: “heal these animals.” Might the papyrus have been mounted on a wall or building near livestock, then? I am unaware of any other examples of comparable iatromagical amulets from late antique Egypt explicitly designed for the healing of animals.18 Whether or not it is truly unique, this amulet presents intriguing new evidence for the breadth of scriptural and magical practices in domestic and agricultural life.
16 I analyze a number of the significant variants in the Coptic version in Given, “Util- ity and Variance” 201-215. 17 Ibid. 213-215. 18 Perhaps the closest parallel is found in Michigan 593 (TM 100021 = “Magical Text A” in Worrell, “A Coptic Wizard’s Hoard” = no. 133 in Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic), a papyrus codex containing a ritual formulary. Among the prescrip- tions we find, ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ϯⲉⲣ ⲃⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲧϩⲛ ⲛⲧⲃⲛⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲧⲁⲩⲟⲥ ⲉϫ⳰ⲛ ⲟⲩⲛⲉϩ ⲛ⳰ⲅⲧⲱϩ⳰ⲥ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ (Paul A. Mirecki trans. in Meyer and Smith: “For the evil eye that is among domestic animals: Recite it over some oil and anoint them.”) 46 Textes coptes
P.PalauRib. Inv. 412 23.8 × 12.3 cm Provenance unknown Fig. 9 6th-7th centuries?
The text is written in black ink, across the fibers of the medium brown papyrus. The surface of the papyrus is dirty and abraded. Dirt obscures several letters on the top left-hand edge, and small pebbles or bits of sand are embedded in some of the loose fibers across the papyrus. It is split roughly in half, down the middle; the right-hand half is itself broken hor- izontally across its middle, each of these halves are in turn also broken, and smaller pieces have detached across the bottom. The whole, then, is separated into five large fragments and several smaller fragments, but upon viewing in summer 2014 had been reconstructed and mounted by the col- lection’s conservator. Although damaged, it appears that all four margins of the original document have been preserved; only a piece of 4 × 1.5 cm in the middle of the top margin, a piece of 2.5 × 1 cm at the end of line 15, and three of the corners are entirely missing. The lower left corner appears to have had a hole approximately 1 cm in diameter, which has subsequently broken through to the left margin; the upper right corner, though missing, also suggests a hole of approxi- mately 1.5 cm, given the curvature of the bottom of the break and the finger of papyrus preserved along the right margin; the upper left and lower right corners are likewise missing. The cumulative damage to the corners suggests, as noted above, that the papyrus was perhaps at some point mounted on a surface, affixed by nails or some other means through the corners. The verso is blank, with the exception of a large, dull inkblot along the left margin. It bears signs of modern manipulation, perhaps from dealers attempting to hold the piece together: a wad of loose papyrus fragments and several small strips appear to have been pasted on the verso along the central break.19 Vertical creases every 2 cm across the papyrus suggest that it was at one time rolled or folded. While one half is broken across the middle, as described above, the intact half shows no sign of a horizontal crease, so it appears that it was never horizontally folded in half.
19 M. J. Albarrán Martínez, in a presentation at the seminar, entitled “Papyri as Busi- ness Activity,” presented numerous examples of such manipulation in the Palau-Ribes collection, including examples in which dealers appear to have pasted several entirely different papyri together to form a larger, thus more marketable, sheet. 5. an incipits amulet featuring jesus’s letter to abgar 47
Fifteen lines of text are visible, with an additional partial, but indeci- pherable, line discernable across the top. The papyrus is written in a single bilinear and slightly sloping hand, similar to that of P.Stras.Copt. 5. The text comprises the incipits of John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, lxx Psalm 90 (= Psalm 91 in the Masoretic text), and Jesus’s letter to Abgar, as well as a final personal appeal. Each textual segment separated by a dicolon; an additional dicolon appears following the preamble of Jesus’s letter. The dialect is Sahidic with some possible Fayyumic elements, notably the form ⲛⲇⲉ of the Greek particle (see commentary below), the non- standard spelling of some Greek words, the quasi-absence of superlinea- tion, as well as the regular use of ⲃ (ϥ in standard Sahidic) in masculine third-person singular verb forms.20 Contents: 2-3. [ϩⲛ ⲧⲉϩ]ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧⲉ…[ⲡϣ]ⲁϫⲉ: Jn 1:1; 3-6. ⲡϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ… ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ Mt 1:1-2; 6-8. ⲉⲡⲓⲇⲏ…ϣⲟⲣⲡ: Lk 1:1-2; 8-10. ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ…ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲕϩⲏ: Mk 1:1-2; 10-12. ⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲩ…ⲉⲣⲟⲃ: lxx Ps 90:1-2; 13- 15. ⲡⲁⲛϯⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲛ…ⲉⲇⲉⲥⲁ: Letter to Abgar, 1; 15-16. ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ… ϣⲱⲡⲉ:?
↓ . . [ⲭⲙ]ⲅ [ϩⲛ ⲧⲉϩⲟ]ⲩⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ [ⲛϭⲓ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ] ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ [ⲛⲁϩⲣⲙ] [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧ]ⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛ[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣ]ⲁϫⲉ[:] ⲡϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲙⲡⲉϫ[ⲡⲟ ⲛⲓⲥ] [ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲡ]ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ [ⲁⲃϫⲡⲉ] 5 [ⲓⲥⲁⲕ] ⲓⲥⲁⲕ ⲛⲇⲉ ⲁⲃϫⲡⲉ ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ ⲛⲇⲉ ⲁⲃϫⲡⲉ ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ [ⲙⲛ] ⲛⲉϥ- ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ: ⲉⲡⲓⲇⲏ ⲉⲣⲉ ϩⲁϩ ϩⲓ ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲛⲛⲉϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲛⲉϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲟⲧⲛ ⲛϭⲓ ⲛⲉⲛⲧ- ⲁⲩⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲛ <ⲛ>ⲉⲩⲃⲁⲗ· ⲛϫⲓⲛⲉ ϣⲟⲣⲡ: ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲙⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲉ ⲉⲧcⲏϩ ϩⲛ ⲉⲥⲁⲓⲁⲥ [ⲡ]ⲉⲡⲣⲟⲑⲏⲧⲏc ϫⲉ ⲉⲓⲥ ϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ ϯⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲩ (ink blot) 10 ⲙⲡⲁⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲕϩⲏ: ⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲇⲱⲧⲏ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏϩ ϩⲁ ⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ ⲃⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲁ ⲑⲁⲓⲃⲉⲥ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲡⲉ <ⲃ>ⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲣⲉⲃϣⲟⲡⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲃ: vacat ⲡⲁⲛϯⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲛⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ: ⲉⲃⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲛⲁⲩⲕⲁⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲣⲣⲟ ⲛⲉⲇⲉⲥⲁ ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲁⲓⲇⲉ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲕ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲥ ⲛⲧⲉⲕⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲧⲁⲓ 15 [ⲉⲡ]ⲉⲥⲣⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲇⲉⲥⲁ: ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ ⲛ[ϣⲱⲛ]ⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ ⲛⲓⲧⲉⲃⲛⲟⲟⲩⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ ⲉⲥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ
2 ⲛⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛ[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ]: ⲛⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ P.PalauRib.183 M569 || 4 ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ: ⲛⲇⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ M569 || 5 ⲛⲇⲉ…ⲛⲇⲉ: ⲇⲉ…ⲇⲉ M569; ⲁⲃϫⲡⲉ…ⲁⲃϫⲡⲉ Bodl. Woide 1: ⲁϥϫⲡⲟ ⲛ-… ⲁϥϫⲡⲟ ⲛ- M569 || 6 l. ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲇⲏ P.PalauRib.181: ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲇⲏⲡⲉⲣ M569; ⲉⲣⲉϩⲁϩ: ⲁϩⲁϩ
20 Shisha-Halevy notes, “Many magical texts show Fayyumicism (…and ⲃ for ϥ).” (“Sahidic” 199). This feature is in fact common in all kinds of non-literary texts. 48 Textes coptes
P.PalauRib.181 M569; l. ϩⲓ ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲟⲩ; ⲛⲛⲉϣⲁϫⲉ: ⲛⲛϣⲁϫⲉ P.PalauRib.181 M569 || 7 ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲱⲧ M569: ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲱⲧ P.PalauRib.181; ϩⲣⲁⲓ M569: ϩⲣⲁⲉⲓ P.PalauRib.181; ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ: ⲛϩⲏⲧⲛ P.PalauRib.181 M569; ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲁⲁⲥ M569: ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲁⲁⲥ P.PalauRib.181 || 8 ⲛϫⲓⲛⲉ: ϫⲓⲛ P.PalauRib.181 M569; ⲡⲉⲭⲥ P.PalauRib.182 P.Stras. Copt.5: add. ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ M569 || 9 ⲑⲉ ⲉⲧcⲏϩ M569 P.Stras.Copt.5: ⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ P.PalauRib.182; l. ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏc; ϯⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲁⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ M569; ϯⲛⲁϫⲉⲩ ⲡⲁⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ P.PalauRib.182 || 10 ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲕϩⲏ sa144 [=BnF 129(6) f.1]: ϩⲓ ϩⲏ ⲙⲙⲟⲕ P.PalauRib.182 M569; ⲛⲇⲱⲧⲏ: ⲛⲧⲱⲇⲏ Budge Ciasca; ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ: ⲛⲇⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ Budge Ciasca || 11 ϩⲁ: ϩⲛ Budge Ciasca P.Stras.Copt.5; ⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲓⲁ Ciasca: ⲧⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓⲁ Budge P.Stras.Copt.5; ϩⲁ Ciasca P.Stras.Copt.5: ϩⲛ Budge; ⲑⲁⲓⲃⲉⲥ Budge Ciasca: ⲑⲁⲉⲃⲉⲥ P.Stras.Copt.5 || 12 ⲛⲧⲟⲕ P.Stras.Copt.5: ⲛⲧⲕ Budge Ciasca; ⲡⲉ: om. Budge Ciasca P.Stras.Copt.5; ⲡⲁⲣⲉⲃϣⲟⲡⲧ Ciasca P.Stras.Copt.5: ⲡⲁϥⲉϥϣⲟⲡⲧ Budge || 13 ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲗⲏ P.Anastasy9 P.Lond.Copt.317: om. P.Mich.Copt.166; ⲡⲉⲭⲥ: add. ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ P.Anastasy9 P.Lond.Copt.317 P.Mich.Copt.166; ⲛⲁⲩⲕⲁⲣⲟⲥ P.Mich.Copt.166: ⲛⲛⲁⲩⲕⲁⲣⲟⲥ P.Anastasy9; ⲡⲉⲣⲣⲟ: ⲡⲣⲣⲟ P.Anastasy9 P.Mich. Copt.166 || 14 ⲉⲇⲉⲥⲁ: ⲉⲧⲉⲥⲥⲁ P.Anastasy9, ⲉ[ⲇ]ⲉⲥⲥⲁ P.Mich.Copt.166; ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲁⲓⲇⲉ: ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉⲧⲉ P.Anastasy9 P.Mich.Copt.166; ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲕ: add. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲕ P.Anastasy9; 15 ⲉⲇⲉⲥⲁ: ⲉⲧⲉⲥⲥⲁ P.Anastasy9, ⲉⲇⲉⲥⲥⲁ P.Mich.Copt.166
“1 ΧΜΓ 2[In the beg]inning was [the Word] and the Word was [with 3 God] and [the W]ord w[as Go]d. The book of the gen[ealogy of Jesus 4 the Christ, the] son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham [begat 5 Isaac], and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah [and] his 6 brothers. Since many undertook to write the words according to the things 7 which have been agreed upon among them, just as it was given to us by those who 8 saw with their own eyes from the first. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Christ 9 just as it was written in the prophet Isaiah, ‘Behold, I will send 10 my messenger before you’. The praise of song of David. The one who dwells 11 in the aid of the exalted one will be in the shadow of the God 12 of heaven.
1 A few indecipherable traces of ink are visible on the first line. In roughly the middle of the papyrus, a ⲅ is clearly visible immediately following a lacuna. Hence I have reconstructed the cryptic but common Christian marker ΧΜΓ, which often appears at the head of texts. The placement is similar to what we see, for example, in P.Oslo I 5, a Greek papyrus assigned to the fourth or fifth century, in which a bold ΧΜΓ stands centered at the head of a large, horizontally-oriented rectangular amulet. The additional ink traces here, however, suggest that repeated ΧΜΓ’s or other symbols also stood at the head of the text. For recent discussion and bibliography on the ΧΜΓ phenomenon, see de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian 65-66. 5. an incipits amulet featuring jesus’s letter to abgar 49
2-3 The reconstruction of lacunae at the end of line 2 and beginning of line 3 is uncertain. Given the irregularity of the hand, the damage to the corners, and the displacement of fragments in the papyrus’s current state, it is exceedingly dif- ficult to measure and fill lacunae with any precision. It seems that the combined space of both lacunae is too small to fit the more common ⲛⲛⲁϩⲣⲙ (Horner; ⲛⲛⲁϩⲣⲛ P.PalauRib. Inv. 183), so I suggest the slightly shorter ⲛⲁϩⲣⲙ (cf. M569 and P.MoscowCopt. 36). ϩⲁⲧⲙ would perhaps fit best (cf. Sahidic Jn 1:2) but is unattested elsewhere. 4 ⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ Here we see a fluidity between ⲇ and ⲧ in Greco-Coptic morphs common in later Sahidic manuscripts. In the case of ⲇ = ⲧ, possibly a sign of Egyptian-Coptic influence (Layton, A Coptic Grammar §39). The same phenom- enon is evident in ⲇⲱⲧⲏ and ⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ in line 10, and ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲁⲓⲇⲉ in line 14. 5 ⲛⲇⲉ…ⲛⲇⲉ… This is a nasalized form of ⲇⲉ which is generally found in more archaic Coptic. It is found occasionally throughout the Nag Hammadi Codices [see especially the Tripartite Tractate (NHC I, 5), in which it is used extensively] but also reappears in later Fayyumic texts. For further discussion and other examples see P.Bal. I p. 102 no. 79A. ⲁⲃϫⲡⲉ…ⲁⲃϫⲡⲉ Of the five Sahidic witnesses to Matthew 1:1-2 collated by Aranda Perez, only Bodl. Woide 1 (= Horner MS 8) uses the prenominal form of ϫⲡⲟ, as found here. 15 While the reconstruction of the lacuna at the end of this line is admittedly speculative, the identification of Jesus as the one who “heals every illness and every infirmity” (Mt. 4:23∕9:35: ⲉϥⲣⲡⲁϩⲣⲉ ⲉϣⲱⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ϩⲓ ⲗⲟϫⲗⲉϫ ⲛⲓⲙ) is well-documented in Greek amulets (see especially P.Oxy. VIII.1151 and P.Coll.Youtie II.91) and would fit well in the context of this final invocation, following the incipits in this amulet (see de Bruyn, “Appeals to Jesus”). The verb here (ⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ) is different from what is found in the Sahidic version of Matthew (ⲣⲡⲁϩⲣⲉ), and the lacuna is small enough that ϩⲓ ⲗⲟϫⲗⲉϫ ⲛⲓⲙ certainly would not have fit. But at least three Coptic parallels can be adduced for the language here: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek K 8635 (TM 91417) = Stegemann, Die koptischen Zaubertexte XXV (95) l.26-31: ⲓⲥ ⲭⲥ ⲧⲓ ⲡⲧⲁⲗϫⲟ ⲧⲁⲭⲏ ⲧⲁⲭⲏ ϣⲱⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲗⲟϭⲗⲉϭ ⲛⲓⲙ; P.Mich. 593 (TM 100021): ⲛ⳰ⲥⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ ϣⲱⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ; and London Hay 10391 (TM 100015) = Kropp, Ausgewählte koptische Zaubertexte I M l.71: ⲛⲥⲉⲧⲁⲗⲕⲟ ϣⲱⲛⲓ ⲛⲓⲙ. I thank Esther Garel for orig- inally suggesting this reconstruction.
J. Gregory Given [email protected] FIGURES 169 Fig. 9 Inv. 412R) 5 (P.PalauRib. P.PalauRib.Copt.