The codex is made from papyrus in single quire, with the folio size approximately 28 by 16 centimetres (11.0 in × 6.3 in). The text is written in single column, with the text-block averaging 11.5 centimetres (4.5 in), between 26 and 32 lines of text per page, although both the width of the rows and the number of rows per page increase progressively. Lines containing text at the bottom of each page are damaged (lacunose), with between 1–2 lines non-extant in the first quarter of the codex, 2–3 lines non-extant in the central half, and up to seven lines non-extant in the final quarter. Though unusual for ancient manuscripts, 𝔓46 has each page numbered.[6]
Throughout Romans, Hebrews, and the latter chapters of 1 Corinthians, small and thick strokes or dots are found, usually agreed to be from the hand of a reader rather than the initial copyist, since the ink is always much paler than that of the text itself.[7]: 17 They appear to mark sense divisions (similar to verse numbering found in Bibles), and are also found in portions of 𝔓45, possibly evidence of reading in the community which held both codices. Edgar Ebojo made a case that these "reading marks" with or without space-intervals were an aid to readers, most likely in a liturgical context.[8]
Nomina Sacra
𝔓46 uses an extensive and well-developed system of nomina sacra.[2] It contains the following nomina sacra in abbreviated form (nominative case): ΚΣ (κυριος / Lord) ΧΣ or ΧΡΣ (χριστος / anointed) ΙΗΣ (Ιησους / Jesus) ΘΣ (θεος / God) ΠΝΑ (πνευμα / Spirit) ΥΙΣ (υιος / Son) ΣΤΡΟΣ (σταυρος / cross).[9]: 208–334
The use of nomina sacra has featured in discussions on the dating for 𝔓46, with Bruce Griffin arguing against Young Kyu Kim, in part, that such an extensive usage of the nomina sacra system nearly eliminates any possibility of the manuscript dating to the 1st century. He admitted, however, that Kim's dating cannot be ruled out on this basis alone, since the exact provenance of the nomina sacra system itself is not well-established.[2]
On the other hand, Philip Comfort (preferring a date c. 150–75) notes indications the scribe's exemplar made limited use of nomina sacra or none at all.[10]: 131–39, 223, 231–38 In several instances, the word for Spirit is written out in full where the context should require a nomen sacrum, suggesting the scribe was rendering nomina sacra where appropriate for the meaning but struggling with Spirit versus spirit, without guidance from the exemplar. The text also inconsistently uses either the short or the long contracted forms of Christ.[10]: 231–237, 223
Gal 6:10–end, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians 1:1–2:3
CB
95–96
1 Thess 2:3–5:5
Missing
97 (fragment)
1 Thess 5:5, 23–28
CB
98–104
Thought to be 1 Thess 5:28–2 Thessalonians, and possibly Philemon; as for 1–2 Timothy, and Titus (see below)
Missing
Missing contents
The contents of the seven missing leaves from the end is uncertain as they are lost. Kenyon calculated that 2 Thessalonians would require two leaves, leaving only five remaining leaves (10 pages) for the remaining canonicalPauline literature — 1 Timothy (estimated 8.25 pages), 2 Timothy (6 pages), Titus (3.5 pages) and Philemon (1.5 pages) — requiring ten leaves in total (19.25 pages). Thus Kenyon concluded 𝔓46 as originally constructed did not include the pastoral epistles.[12]
Overall, Kenyon was open to different possibilities regarding the contents of the lost leaves at the end of the codex. He entertained the idea that the last five leaves could have been left blank or that additional leaves could have been added to the quire to create space for the pastoral letters.[13] In 1998, Jeremy Duff vigorously argued in favor of Kenyon's second suggestion, emphasizing that the scribe of 𝔓46 was increasing the number of letters per page in the second half of the codex. Duff argued that this indicated that the scribe intended to include all of the traditional 14-letter collection and would most likely have added extra leaves if the original quire lacked sufficient space. Duff also pointed to several ancient codices that he considered as good evidence for the attachment of additional leaves to codices to allow for the inclusion of more material.[14] The relevance of the ancient evidence that Duff presented has been challenged, but a survey of surviving examples of ancient single-quire codices does show evidence for the practice of leaving some blank pages at the end of a codex.[13] However, this survey also showed that single-quire codices sometimes had more inscribed pages in the second half of the codex than in the first half (due to, for example, blank front fly-leaves). This leaves open the possibility that the original quire may have contained the traditional 14-letter collection after all. Brent Nongbri summarizes:
We still have much to learn about early single-quire codices and what constituted 'normal' practice for the makers of these books. Duff’s article performed a service by challenging a complacent and largely unreflective consensus with regard to the contents of the Beatty-Michigan Pauline epistles codex. Duff’s positive hypothesis about the addition of extra folia as an afterthought is, however, impossible to prove. And as we have seen, the material comparanda he adduced did not support his case. Yet, Duff’s argument serves as a good reminder that we cannot simply assume the contents of the missing folia. We cannot say, for instance, that the Beatty-Michigan codex is secure evidence for the circulation of a ten-letter collection of Paul’s letters, as has occasionally been argued. In fact, as we have seen, we must be cautious about assuming the contents of the missing folia at the end of the quire because we may have had too much confidence about our knowledge of the number of missing folia at the end of the quire. ...By tying his estimate of the size of the quire to the numbering of the pages, Kenyon may have created a false problem that has needlessly frustrated subsequent generations of scholars.[13]
The question of the contents of the codex as originally constructed thus remains open.
Text
The text of the codex is considered a representative of the Alexandrian text-type. The text-types are groups of different manuscripts which share specific or generally related readings, which then differ from each other group, and thus the conflicting readings can separate out the groups, which are then used to determine the original text as published; there are three main groups with names: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine.[15] Biblical scholar Kurt Aland placed it in Category I of his New Testament manuscript classification system.[4] Category I manuscripts are those "of a very special quality, i. e. manuscripts with a very high proportion of the early text... To this category have also been assigned all manuscripts to the beginning of the fourth century, regardless of further distinctions which should also be observed[.]"[4]: 335
αρχας προς τας εξουσιας - Majority of manuscripts[17]: 513
Provenance
The provenance of the papyrus is unknown. Kenyon believed this codex and the other Beatty Biblical Papyri came from the region of the Fayyum.[18] The coptologist Carl Schmidt was told that the books were found in "‘Alâlme, a village on the east bank of the Nile in the area of Aṭfiḥ, ancient Aphroditopolis."[19]: 105 However, the archaeologists who bought the University of Michigan's portion of the codex believed that it had come from Asyut (ancient Lykopolis).[19] Thus, there is no consensus on the precise find spot.
Date
As with all manuscripts dated solely by palaeography, the dating of 𝔓46 is uncertain. H. A. Sanders, the first editor of parts of the papyrus, proposed a date possibly as late as the second half of the 3rd century.[7]: 13–15 F. G. Kenyon, editor of the complete editio princeps, preferred a date in the first half of the 3rd century.[12]: xiv–xv The manuscript is now sometimes dated to about 200.[20] Young Kyu Kim[a] has argued for an exceptionally early date of c. 80.[22] Kim's dating has been widely rejected.[23][24][10]: 180ff. [25] Griffin critiqued and disputed Kim's dating,[2] placing the 'most probable date' between 175 and 225, with a '95% confidence interval' for a date between 150 and 250.[26]
Comfort and Barrett have claimed 𝔓46 shares palaeographical affinities with the following:[9]: 204–6
P. Oxy. 8 (assigned late 1st or early 2nd century),
P. Oxy. 841 (the second hand, which cannot be dated later than 125–50),
P. Oxy. 1622 (dated with confidence to pre-148, probably during the reign of Hadrian (117–38), because of the documentary text on the verso),
P. Oxy. 2337 (assigned to the late 1st century),
P. Oxy. 3721 (assigned to the second half of the 2nd century),
P. Rylands III 550 (assigned to the 2nd century), and
P. Berol. 9810 (early 2nd century).
They conclude this points to a date during the middle of the 2nd century for 𝔓46. More recently, in a wide-ranging survey of the dates of New Testament papyri, P. Orsini and W. Clarysse have assigned 𝔓46 "to the early third century," specifically "excluding dates in the first or the first half of the second century."[3]
^ A thorough search of Google Books and the internet found nothing else from or about this author, except a 2015 thesis[21][dead link] implying he was a professor at Calvin Theological Seminary.
^ abSanders, Henry A. (1935). A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul. University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series. Vol. 38. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN978-1498232029.
^Ebojo, Edgar B. (2013). "When Nonsense Makes Sense: Scribal Habits in the Space-intervals, Sense-pauses, and Other Visual Features in 𝔓46". The Bible Translator. 64 (2): 128–150. doi:10.1177/2051677013491868. S2CID145102069.
^ abComfort, Philip W. and Barrett, David P (2001) 'The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts', Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers Inc.
^ abKenyon, Frederic G. (1934). The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fasciculus III - Pauline Epistles and Revelation (Text). London: Emery Walker Limited.
^F. G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: I. General Introduction, (London: E. Walker), 1933, p. 5
^ abBrent Nongbri, "The Acquisition of the University of Michigan’s Portion of the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri and a New Suggested Provenance," Archiv für Papyrusforschung 60/1 (2014) 93-116
^See email from Griffin added in 2005 to Griffin's 1996 paper.
Further reading
Comfort, Philip Wesley; David P. Barrett (2001). The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers. pp. 203–354. ISBN978-0-8423-5265-9.
