| В 1955–1956 гг. швейцарский библиофил Мартин Бодмер (1899–1971) приобрел несколько папирусных кодексов, датируемых началом 3 в., в которых содержатся большие фрагменты Евангелий от Иоанна и Луки ( папирусы Бодмера 2, 14 и 15, хранящиеся в Женеве и Ватикане). Рубежом 3–4 вв. датируются папирусы Бодмера с фрагментами 1 и 2 посланий Петра и послания Иуды (Я Bodmer 7, 8I; Женева). [См.: Papyrus Bodmer 2: Evangile de Jean chap. 1–14/Ed. Martin 5. Cologny–Geneva, 1958 (rev. ed./Ed. Martin V., Bams J.W.B. Cologny–Geneva, 1962); Papyrus Bodmer 14–15: Evangiles de Luc et Jean/Ed. Martin 5., Kasser R. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Papyrus Bodmer 14: Evangile de Luc chap. 3–24; Vol. 2. Papyrus Bodmer 15: Evangile de Jean chap. 1–15. Cologny–Geneva, 1961. Cm. также: Robinson J.M. The Story of the Bodmer Papyri, the First Christian Monastic Library. Nashville, 1987; Voicu S.H. Bodmer Papyrus: History Becomes Reality. (Bodmer Papyrus 14–15 arrives at the Vatican)/L’Osservatore Romano: Weekly Edition in English. 2007. 7 Febr. P. 8.] Один из наиболее важных документов для ранней истории канона Нового завета – канон Муратори, опубликованный в 1740 г.; кодекс, где содержится рукопись, датируется 8 в. Предполагают, что этот латинский текст является переводом с греческого, который сделан после начала 5 в.; при обсуждении его датировки исследователи склоняются к тому, что он написан в конце 2 в. – не позднее 200 г. Есть подозрения (впрочем, необоснованные), что канон Муратори может быть латинским переводом какого–то труда Ипполита Римского . В каноне упомянуты Евангелия от Матфея, Марка, Луки и Иоанна, Деяния апостолов, 13 посланий Павла (по два – к Коринфянам и Фессалоникийцам, по одному – к Ефёсянам, Филиппийцам, Колоссянам, Галатам, Римлянам; при этом отвергаются два послания – к Лаодикийцам и Александрийцам – за их маркионитский дух), послания Иуды и два – Иоанна и два апокалипсиса – Иоанна и Петра, в связи с которыми упоминается и «Пастырь» Ерма . По непонятным причинам канон включает также книгу «Премудрости, написанной друзьями Соломона в его честь». Отсутствуют в каноне оба послания Петра, послание Иакова и послание к Евреям. |
| Any scholar of manuscripts is aware of countless fragments of wellknown literary compositions in the manuscript sources. When such a fragment is discovered, nobody claims straight off that this fragment is not just a fragment but the original nucleus of a corresponding composition – such idea deserves a very profound textological argumentation. Therefore, it was absolutely natural that Andrieu and Collomp took the Strasbourg papyrus as just a fragment of the well-known anaphora of Mark, and from the textological point of view there is no need to doubt their interpretation. But liturgical texts are not transmitted in the manuscripts in the same way as literary texts are. They are usually changing together with the changing practice 140 . In other words, if a 4–5 th -century manuscript contains a liturgical prayer, it is quite natural to expect that the form of this prayer corresponds with the actual liturgical practice of the 4–5 th centuries. Consequently, while we knew little regarding the form of Egyptian Eucharistic prayers in the 4 th century 141 , the Strasbourg papyrus could have been interpreted as a stand-alone text of a complete Eucharistic prayer. But the publication of the Barcelona papyrus – which is older than the Strasbourg papyrus (the papyrus itself is not younger than the 4 th century and its text, as was shown above, is not younger than the mid-4 th century and may go back to the 3 rd ) and is of Egyptian provenance as well – shows that at least in the mid-4 th century Egyptian liturgical practice already knew a much more elaborated form of Eucharistic prayer. Consequently, in the light of the evidence of the Barcelona papyrus, we have no longer any reason to interpret the Strasbourg papyrus, which is in fact a fragment of a well-known text, as a stand-alone nucleus of the latter: the doxology in the end of the Strasbourg papyrus, as was pointed out by Spinks, proves nothing, and, as a liturgical text, the prayer from the Strasbourg papyrus should have been mirroring the current Egyptian liturgical practice, which by the time of creation of this papyrus already knew the anaphoral Sanctus, epiclesis etc. The fact that the discovery of the Barcelona papyrus leaves the hypothesis of the Strasbourg papyrus’ integrity unfounded has been already noted by Heinzgerd Brakmann 142 . And, together with this hypothesis, it leaves the different variants of the «4 th -century interpolations» theory without any actual documentary proof. |
| Analysis of these prayers is hampered by errors in Roca-Puig’s edition of the papyrus. Erroneous readings in the prayers for the sick were already corrected by the scholars mentioned above; my preliminary reading of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer appeared in an extensive review of Roca-Puig’s book in the journal Khristiansky Vostok 16 together with Vinogradov’s reading of the acrostic hymn. In the present article I offer my reconstruction of text of the anaphora and the thanksgiving prayer, taking into account the former’s two other fragments, Louvain. Copt. 27 and PVindob. G 41043. Finally, I discuss briefly whether their evidence might shift current scholarly presuppositions about the 4 th -century anaphoral history. I. The Text In the edition of the Barcelona papyrus by Roca-Puig (hereafter: R.-P), the critical edition of the Greek text of the anaphora is preceded by a diplomatic edition of the text that transcribes every letter of the papyrus. Despite the fact that a diplomatic version should decipher the manuscript verbatim, in R.-P diplomatic edition of the anaphora its text is already divided into words. This rash division has unfortunately prejudiced R.-P’s reading of the papyrus. In fact a few of R.-P’s crucial conjectures in his critical edition of the prayers can be avoided just by choosing another word-division of the continuous papyrus text. R.-P substantiates his conjectures by many examples from other liturgical texts, but the clear evidence of the papyrus itself should undoubtedly prevail as the main criterion of its reconstruction. In order to avoid prejudiced readings of the papyrus, I start by providing new diplomatic versions of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer from the Barcelona papyrus, using the facsimile edition of the papyrus given at the end of R.-P’s book 17 . I.1. Diplomatic Text of the Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus [P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b] ΕΙΣΘΕΟΣΗΣΟΥΣΟΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΑΣΠΕΡΙΑΡΤΟΥΚΑΙΠΟΤΗΡΙΟ ΑΝΩΤΑΣΚΑΡΔΙΑΣΗΜΩΝΕΥΞΟΜΕΝΠΡΟΣ |
| But it is time to get more specific. What is the actual state of play with regard to the discovery of early Christian manuscripts? In order to proceed towards an answer, we’ll need a little background information. In what follows I shall be referring to ‘papyri’, that is, to copies of early Christian writings written not on parchment but on papyrus, a common writing material made from the stalk of the papyrus plant which grows along the Nile. I shall refer to these papyrus manuscripts by their customary reference ‘P’ followed by a number. The ‘P’ stands for papyrus, and the number reflects the order in which each document was discovered and catalogued by scholars known as textual critics. Every papyrus fragment of a New Testament writing so far discovered and published has been assigned a number. For example, P 52 and P 90 refer to the fifty-second and the ninetieth papyrus manuscripts catalogued which contain a portion of a New Testament writing (both of these happen to be fragments of John). These manuscripts may also be identified by other abbreviations which designate the collections to which they now belong. Early Christian writings which are not in the New Testament do not have a ‘P number’ but are identified only by their collection numbers. For example, ‘P. Egerton 2’ stands for the second manuscript in the Egerton collection of papyri; ‘P.Oxy. 4009’ refers to the 4009th manuscript catalogued in the collection of papyri discovered in Oxy-rhynchus, Egypt. When speaking of papyrus discoveries, this exotic-sounding place called Oxyrhynchus (it’s meaning in Greek is as odd as its sound in English: city of the sharp-nosed fish) must take pride of place. Excavations of the ancient Oxy-rhynchus rubbish heaps conducted in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, mainly by two Oxford scholars, Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, have provided the world with about 500,000 pieces of papyrus to study – only about one percent of which have so far been published. 16 It is from Oxyrhynchus, more than from any other single place, that the flow of once-lost New Testament papyri has come. Scholars are now able to work with a total of 126 papyrus fragments of New Testament texts from the first several centuries of Christian history (along with over 5,000 later, parchment manuscripts), at least fifty-four of which were discovered at Oxyrhynchus. |
| The Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus: An Underestimated Testimony to the Anaphoral History in the Fourth Century Abstract New critical text edition (with translation and a commentary) of the oldest extant manuscript containing a complete set of prayers, P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–157b. This text is of prime importance for liturgical studies, especially of anaphoral development. Keywords Anaphora, Egypt, Eucharist, liturgical studies, papyri, thanksgiving prayer A 4 th -century papyrus codex, P.Monts.Roca inv.128–178 1 , now in the library of the Abbey of Montserrat but originally in the possession of Ramón Roca-Puig, is yet to receive the scholarly attention it merits. The manuscript contains a few Latin texts as well as some Christian liturgical prayers in Greek 2 , and a long Greek word-list 3 . The liturgical prayers fully occupy seven of its folia (154b–157b) 4 . These prayers comprise a complete anaphora; a thanksgiving prayer after Communion; two prayers for the sick; and an acrostic baptismal (?) hymn. This papyrus is in fact the oldest manuscript known to contain Christian liturgical prayers conserved in their integrity – while, for example, the famous Strasbourg papyrus, P Straßb. inv. 254, dates from the 4–5 th centuries 5 and has many lacunae in its text, – giving our codex seminal importance for liturgical scholarship. Surprisingly, these prayers are seldom cited in current scholarly literature. The main publications concerning them are those of Roca-Puig himself, to whom the academic community is indebted for the edition of the manuscript 6 . Very important contributions to the study of the anaphora of the Barcelona papyrus have been made by Sebastia Janeras 7 and then by Kurt Treu and Johannes Dlethart 8 , who proved that two other 6 th -century fragments, the now lost Coptic parchment 9 Louvain. 27 (Janeras) and the Greek papyrus 10 PVindob. G 41043 (Treu, Diethart), contain parts of the same anaphora. The prayers for the sick from P.Monts.Roca inv. 155b–156b were studied by Wolfgang Luppe 11 and Cornelia Römer, Robert Daniel and Klaas Worp 12 ; and the acrostic hymn from P.Monts.Roca inv. 157a–157b by Andrey Vinogradov, who supposed the hymn to be baptismal 13 . The anaphora and thanksgiving prayer from P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–155b were studied by me in an article published in 2002 14 . Nevertheless, despite the plain fact that this papyrus, probably connected in some way with the Pachomian monastic community, is the oldest liturgical manuscript containing a full anaphora, its important testimony is almost completely neglected by modern liturgical scholars. It does not play a significant role even in the most notable recent reconstructions of the anaphoral history 15 , receiving at best brief mention. |
| I suggest reading ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝ without any alteration as μεταλαμβνουσιν, «[those who] communicate». And while acknowledging an omission here, I would just mark it without filling in the gap, precisely because any conjecture here (and especially one based on a non-Egyptian source) would be a mere fantasy. In lines 155a, 21–22 R.-P. reads ΜΕΤΟΧΗΝ//ΑΦΘΑΡΣΙΑΝ as μετοχν φθαρσας, «communication of incorruption». While he is probably right in his interpretation, taking into account the fact that the same construction (Acc.+Gen.) is repeated many times in the following enumeration of spiritual gifts (κοινωναν Πνεματος... καταρτισμν πστεως κα ληθεας... συντελεωσιν... θελματος) 52 , it is also true that ΜΕΤΟΧΗΝ//ΑΦΘΑΡΣΙΑΝ could be read as μετοχν, φθαρσαν, «communication [and] incorruption», and this literal reading should not be passed over without commentary. In line 155a, 24 R.-P. correctly reads ΔΟΞΑΖΟΜΕΝ as a conjunctive: δοξζωμεν, «[will] glorify» (cf. lines 154b, 4; 154b, 12; 155a, 15; 155a, 24 of our papyrus). In line 155a, 25 R.-P. reads ΑΓΙΑΣΜΕΝΟΥ as γιασμνου, but I see no need to disturb the clear text of the papyrus, which contains the form γιασμνου not only here, but also in the following prayer of thanksgiving after Communion, which occupies a part of the folium 155b of the papyrus. In line 155b, 3 R.-P. rightly corrects iotacisms (cf. line 154b, 2 of our papyrus) in σοι π τ μεταλμψει, «we offer you thanks for the Communion». In line 155b, 4 R.-P reads ΚΑΙΤΟΥΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΥΚΑΙΤΟΥΑΓΙΑΣΜΕΝΟΥ as κα το ποτηρου το γιασμο, «and of the cup of sanctification». R.-P explains his conjecture by a reference to a Milanese papyrus edited by Ghedini 53 . In his commentaries, R.-P also offers another conjecture: κα το ποτηρου το γιασμνου, «and of the sanctified cup», which he considers an «acceptable sense». For me, the literal reading of what the papyrus itself contains, κα το ποτηρου κα το γιασμνου, already is an «acceptable sense»: in the anaphora, He who is called γιασμνος is Christ Himself – see my commentary on line 155a, 25 above. |
| This means that Christ «is sanctified» either by God the Father or by Christians – and if the first interpretation, that Christ is eternally sanctified by God the Father, may seem dubious, the second finds its parallel in other Egyptian anaphoras, which depict Christian worship as a «sanctification» of God by the worshippers 54 . So the line in question should be read literally: κα το ποτηρου κα το γιασμνου, «and of cup and of [Him, Who is] sanctified [i. e. Christ]». In lines 155b, 5–6 R.-P is right in correcting three orthographic errors of the scribe: παρακαλομν σε, «we beseech You», (papyrus: ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΥΜΕΝΣΟΙ; cf. line 155a, 16 of our papyrus) and μετειληφτας π’ ατν, «those who have received a part from them [e. g. Holy Gifts – M. Zh.]» (papyrus: ΜΕΤΕΛΗΦΟΤΑΣΥΠΑΥΤΩΝ) 55 . In line 155b, 8 R.-P reads ΑΓΙΑΝ as γνεαν, «purity», noting in his commentary that other readings could also be suggested, e. g. γιωσνη, γειαν, γεαν, δειαν. Of these, I would prefer γεαν, «health», because it is more natural phonetically – to spell γεαν as γαν, not γνεαν; furthermore, a wish that Holy Communion should grant a communicant both bodily and spiritual health is very common in the thanksgiving prayers. In lines 155b, 9, 11 and 12 R.-P rightly corrects three orthographic errors of the scribe: νανωσιν, «renewal» (papyrus: ΑΝΑΙΝΕΩΣΙΝ) 56 , φιλαλληλαν, «mutual love» (papyrus: ΦΙΛΛΗΛΙΑΝ) 57 , νθρωπον τν κατ Θεν κτισθντα, «man who is created after God» (papyrus: ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝΤΟΚΑΤΑΘΕΟΝΚΤΙΣΘΕΝΤΑ) 58 . In line 155b, 13 R.-P. reads ΑΜΑΧΥΝΤΟΙ as νασχυντοι, «shameless». I suggest μχητοι, «invincible», instead. My reading seems to be more satisfactory phonetically, because it needs no guesswork in replacing μ by ν and α with αι (stressed!), while an interchange of υ and η in the papyri «occurs frequently in all phonetic conditions throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods» 59 , and insertions of nasals before stops are also «very frequent» 60 . Finally, in line 155b, 14 R.-P reads ΑΠΟΠΑΝΤΟΣΑΝΟΜΙΩΝΚΑΙΤΕΛΕΙΟΜΕΝΟΙ as π παντς (κακο κα λελυτρωμνοι π πασν) νομιν κα τλειο(ι κα πεπληροφορη)μνοι, «from every evil and freed from all crimes and accomplished and plentiful». |
| 184 C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief 13, said it is ‘a thoroughgoing literary production’; Skeat, ‘The Oldest Manuscript’, 26, called it an ‘edition de luxe’; G. N. Stanton, ‘The Fourfold Gospel’, New Testament Studies, 43 (1997), 317 – 46 at 328, says it was a ‘high-class codex, a splendid “pulpit edition” intended for liturgical use’; cf. G. N. Stanton, ‘The Early Reception of Matthew’s Gospel’, in David E. Aune (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson, S.J. (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001), 42 – 61 at 49. 186 Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV – XV: Evangiles de Luc et Jean, Vol. 1, Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Evangile de Luc chap. 3 – 24 (Cologny-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961), 13. 187 Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia and London: Trinity Press International/SCM Press, 1990), 377, 402. 188 C. H. Cosgrove, ‘Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon: Observations on the Purpose and Destination of the Dialogue with Trypho’, Vigiliae Christianae, 36 (1982), 209 – 32, at 226. 189 Oskar Skarsaune, ‘Justin and His Bible’, in Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (eds.), Justin Martyr and His Worlds (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 53 – 76. 190 M. Hengel, ‘Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ’, in Charles Horton (ed.), The Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels – The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P 45 (London and New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2004), 13 – 26, at 14. For others, see C. E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 338. 191 G. N. Stanton, ‘The Fourfold Gospel’, New Testament Studies, 43 (1997), 317 – 46, at 330 – 1. Another who thinks that a fourfold Gospel was established in Rome by mid-century is Francis Watson, ‘The Fourfold Gospel’, in Stephen Barton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 34 – 52, at 40. |
| Textual criticism of the New Testament has achieved outstanding breakthroughs in the 20th century. Currently, there are over 2,328 manuscripts and manuscript fragments in Greek, coming to us from the first three centuries of Christianity. The most ancient New Testament manuscript, a part of the Gospel of John 18:31-33, 37-38, is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, dated 117-138 in the era of the reign of emperor Hadrian. Adolf Deissmann acknowledges the possibility of the emergence of this papyrus even under the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117). It is preserved in Manchester. Another ancient New Testament manuscript is the Papyrus Bodmer , P75. The 102 surviving pages contain the texts of the Gospels of Luke and John. " The editors, Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, date this copy to between 175 and 225 A.D. It is thus the earliest surviving known copy of the Gospel according to Luke available today and one of the earliest of the Gospel according to John " (Bruce M. Metzger. The Text of the New Testament. p. 58). This precious manuscript is located in Geneva. Uncial script on parchment: leather codices with uncial script, (in Latin uncia means inch) letters without sharp corners and broken lines. This script is distinguished by its great refinement and precision. Each letter is disconnected. There are 362 uncial manuscripts of the New Testament. The most ancient of these codices (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) have already been mentioned. Scholars complemented this impressive collection of ancient New Testament manuscripts with the New Testament text, which consisted of 36,286 excerpts of the Holy Scripture of the New Testament found in the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church from the first through fourth centuries. This text is lacking only 11 verses. Scholars of textual criticism in the 20th century did a tremendous job on the collation of all—several thousands of—New Testament manuscripts and identified all textual discrepancies caused by scribal error. An evaluation and typologization was performed. Precise criteria for determining a correct variant were established. For those familiar with this rigorous scientific work, it is obvious that allegations of the distortion of the current holy text of the New Testament are unfounded. In terms of the number of ancient manuscripts and the brevity of time separating the earliest surviving text from the original, no one work of antiquity can be compared with the New Testament. |
| Moreover, the archaic features of the theology of the liturgical texts from the Barcelona papyrus 143 indicate that Sanctus, Institution narrative and epiclesis have been already present in at least some 3 rd -century anaphoras (while some other anaphoras – like, for example, the anaphora of Addai and Mari or the anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition – could still lack all or some of these elements). That means, first, that these parts do not have an interpolated but an organic nature 144 ; and, second, that the idea of an initial pluriformity of early Christian liturgical practice 145 – the practice, which, in the end, knew not only such prayers as those of the Didache community meal or of the charismatic Eucharists depicted in the apocryphal Acts 146 , but also such well packed anaphoras as those of the Apostolic Tradition or from the Barcelona papyrus 147 – is, in fact, working against the belief in the «4 th -century anaphoral interpolations». The 4 th century could be considered to be the time when the anaphoras of the great Episcopal sees were harmonized, i. e. when some anaphoras could indeed have been supplemented by some elements derived from the others, but solid evidence demonstrating any deliberate insertions into the anaphoras of the elements previously absolutely alien to the Eucharistic prayers, appears to be lacking. 1 The manuscript comes either from Dishna (see Robinson J.M. The Pachomian Monastic Library at the Chester Beatty Library and the Bibliothcque Bodmer, in: Manuscripts of the Middle East. Vol. 5 (1990–1991). P. 26–40) or from Thebaid (see Tovar S.T., Worp K.A. To the Origins of Greek Stenography: P.Monts.Roca I. Barcelona, 2006. (Orientalia Montserratensia; 1) P. 15–211). A small piece of this codex is now a part of the Duke papyri collection (P. Duk. inv. 798, formerly P. Rob. inv. L 1; J.M. Robinson is incorrect in calling this piece «P. Duke inv. L 1» (Robinson. Op. cit.). See a short description and an image of the latter piece in the Internet: |
|
|
