Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

brill.com/nt

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia in Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts
A New Proposal
Springfield, IL

Wally V. Cirafesi

Abstract
In contrast to previous studies, this article argues that the use of in a group of Johannine papyrus manuscripts is fundamentally characterized by their occurrence in bilingual manuscripts or manuscripts influenced by a bilingual social setting (GreekCoptic or Greek-Latin). Rather than seeing them as some sort of biblical commentary or oracular statements used for divination, it is suggested that, in light of their bilingual character, the Johannine functioned as liturgical tools to facilitate early Christian worship services needing to accommodate the use of two languages within a particular community.

Keywords
; Johannine papyri; bilingual manuscripts; Codex Bezae; Codex St. Germain

1 Introduction For over a century scholars have debated the character and function of the word occurring in a particular group of Johannine papyrus manuscripts. The word appears alone and centered below a portion of Johannine text and looks to be followed by a short statement in either Greek, Coptic, or both languages.1 To date, the discussion has been characterized by the concern
1 The issue as it relates to Johannine manuscripts goes back at least to the beginning of the 20th century. In 1902 H. von Soden published and described the now lost Johannine parchment from Damascus, Kubbet el Chazne, which was of John 6:2631 and supposedly had two

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 14|doi 1.1163/15685365-1341438

46

Cirafesi

over the nature of these statements and how they compare to similar statements found in Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain. Scholars have puzzled over whether these statements should be understood as some sort of commentary on the biblical text,2 or whether they should be seen as detached oracles used for the practice of divination within early Christian communities (see below).3 A third view has been put forth recently, which suggests that the statements are neither biblical commentary nor oracle; rather they are biblically motivated and connected reflections on the biblical text, perhaps utilizing similar language.4 However, major treatments of the and there are only a few have not considered the significance of a characteristic common to each of the statements: all of the manuscripts in which the occur are either bilingual or evince the influence of a bilingual context.5 The primary argument of
statements that read: and [sic] (H. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt. Teil 1 [Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1902] 1:xi; cf. J. van Haelst, Catalogue des papyrus littraires juifs et chrtiens [Universit de Paris IV Paris-Sorbonne Srie Papyrologie 1; Paris: Sorbonne, 1976] no. 445). In 1904 W.E. Crum published his description of two Coptic papyri from Antinoe, Egypt, one of which is in twelve fragments but has multiple statements positioned below verses from John 3, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 21 (Two Coptic Papyri from Antinoe, Proceedings from the Society of Biblical Archaeology 26 [1904] 174178 [see esp. 174 175]). See discussion below. This view is represented by K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament (trans. E.F. Rhodes; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 85. This view is represented by B.M. Metzger, Greek Manuscripts of Johns Gospel with Hermeneiai, in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A.F.J. Klijn (ed. T. Baarda et al.; Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1988) 162169. D.C. Parker simply assumes this position, although, admittedly, his article is not directly concerned with the statements themselves, but rather with the value of the documents containing them as witnesses to the text of Johns Gospel. See D.C. Parker, Manuscripts of Johns Gospel with Hermeneiai, in his Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 19772007 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009) 121138. S.E. Porter, The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, in Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses. Wien, 2228. Juli 2001 (ed. Bernhard Palme; Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007) 573580 (579). H. Quecke notes the bilingual manuscript P.Berlin inv. 11914 (P63) and the Coptic-Greek manuscript from Antinoe (see below), and he spends a good deal of space treating the relationship between the Greek and Coptic statements. However, he seems to suggest that these manuscripts are exceptions to the general rule that the appear only in Greek, and so in reality he downplays the significance of the bilingual character of these manuscripts (Zu den Joh-Fragmenten mit Hermeneiai, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40 [1974] 407414 [408]).

2 3

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

47

this article is that the defining feature of the in the Johannine manuscripts is their use within bilingual settings.6 Secondarily, the article suggests that, in light of their bilingual character, the likely functioned early on within liturgical settings as tools to aid the facilitation of early Christian worship services in which participants needed an interpretation/translation of liturgical material into Greek, Coptic, and, later, Latin. Further, this tradition was applied at a later stage of transmission in a slightly different and more systematized manner to other bilingual manuscripts such as Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain, which is why there are both striking similarities and pronounced differences between the Greek-Coptic in the Johannine papyri and the Greek-Latin in Bezae and St. Germain. Since much of the secondary literature remains in less accessible locations, the starting point will be a brief history of scholarly discussion. This will be followed by (1) methodological considerations regarding which Johannine manuscripts will be included in the analysis, (2) a description of the manuscripts themselves with the goal of establishing the bilingual character of each, and (3) a brief comparison of the in these manuscripts with the of Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain, along with the suggestion of a hypothesis that explains the available evidence. 2 History of Scholarship

Hermann von Sodens 1902 edition of Gregory-Aland 0145, a parchment from Damascus, was the first publication of a Johannine manuscript with unfortunately this parchment is now lost.7 Two years later, in 1904, W.E. Crum published a short article with comments on two Coptic manuscripts from Antinoe, a city located in the northeast quadrant of Egypt.8 In it he is primarily concerned with M. Gayets discovery of twelve fragments from a papyrus book showing a text in Sahidic Coptic that is of the exact same character as the Greek text of von Sodens leaf of Johns Gospel.9 That is, on these
6 What I mean by bilingual setting is simply a situational context that is influenced by two languages, whether or not individuals within this setting actually speak two languages. 7 For his short description of the manuscript, see von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1:xi. 8 Crum, Two Coptic Papyri, 174178. At the start, Crum makes reference to a leaf of Johns Gospel in Greek that had been discovered in a German-led search in the Qubbah (Kubbet) at Damascus, i.e., the same leaf edited by von Soden in 1902. 9 Crum, Two Coptic Papyri, 174.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

48

Cirafesi

Coptic fragments, too, the Greek word appears alone and centered with, written below it, short statements in Coptic and Greek.10 Crum acknowledges that the statements are in most cases disconnected from the verses they follow, although he says a few do seem to have some relation. This leads Crum to suggest that these particular were probably employed in Sahidic liturgical contexts, where such statements often designate a verse from the Psalms and the necessary congregational response to that verse. Thus, many times the relation between the statement and the biblical text, while not immediately evident, is indeed one of association. Crums hypothesis will be considered in more detail later in this article. After the work of von Soden and Crum in the early years of the 20th century, a period of over forty years went by before another treatment of Johannine appeared. It was not until Peter Sanz produced the first edition of the Greek fragment P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) in 1946 that the conversation regained a bit of momentum.11 The fragment, dated to the 6th or 7th century, has eleven lines of text from John 1:3538 written on the verso (against the grain), while the recto (with the grain) contains fifteen lines of text from John 1:3133. However, the word [ appears at the bottom of the verso with no actual statement following (see the section below for a description of the fragment). In light of the truncated nature of the evidence, a major issue for Sanz was how to classify the manuscript in the first place. The presence of [ led him to conclude that it is das Fragment eines Kommentars oder einer exegetischen Homilie zum Johannesevangelium.12 In his comments, Sanz suggests that the fragments recto may have contained a quotation of John 1:3133 as part of an extended commentary on John 1:3538, and that this commentary could explain the use of [ on the verso. Yet he does say: Da es aber nur reinen Bibeltext bietet, habe ich es hier unter die Biblica eingeordnet, and thus he classifies the manuscript as biblical.13 Sanzs classification of P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) as a biblical manuscript probably influenced the conclusions of the editors of two similar manuscripts published four years and twenty years after Sanzs edition.14 In 1950, Lionel
10 Crum gives the statements in both languages marked with traditional Leiden conventions on pp. 174175. 11 P. Sanz, Griechische literarische Papyri christlichen Inhaltes I (Biblica, Vterschriften und Verwandtes) (MPER N.S. IV; Baden bei Wien: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1946) 5859. 12 In Griechische literarische Papyri, 59. 13 Sanz, Griechische literarische Papyri, 59. 14 This suggestion is made by Porter in The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 575.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

49

Casson and Ernest Hettich published their edition of P.Ness. (P.Colt) 2. 3 (P59), a Johannine manuscript with several statements from the 7th to 8th century (none of them complete). In their introduction, they criticize Sanz for believing that P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55)which has close affinity with P.Ness. (P.Colt) 2. 3 (P59)was a page from a commentary or exegetical homily rather than from a Bible.15 While they are not explicit regarding the nature of P.Ness. (P.Colt) 2. 3 (P59) and the statements within it,16 the criticism they marshall against Sanz suggests that they favor viewing both manuscripts as biblical, which in the end actually aligns well with Sanzs classification of P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55). Further, while Casson and Hettich are unable to give an explanation for the particular layout of P.Ness. (P.Colt) 2. 3 (P59), they do say: The simple explanation may be that the itself determined the amount of text; i.e., on a given page, only that portion was included to which the at the bottom referred.17 Thus, it is clear that the editors see the biblical text and the statements as having at least some connection. Similarly to Sanz, Ramon Roca-Puig concludes in his 1966 edition of P.Barc. inv. 83 (P80)a small fragment dated to the 3rd or 4th century containing text from John 3:34 and a statement on the versothat the fall within the category of biblical commentary. By concluding this, he draws the connection between the difficulty early Christians had of interpreting the Fourth Gospel with the subsequent need for special comments in order to clarify its meaning.18 Contemporary to these studies, however, a different line of thought was pursued in the work of Otto Stegmller, who in 1953 published editions of two Johannine manuscripts with : P.Berlin inv. 11914 (P63) and P.Berlin 3607 and 3623 (ms 0210). As the title of his article makes clear (Zu den Bibelorakeln im Codex Bezae), Stegmller sees the Johannine not as commentary
15 In fact they say that they wish to leave such conclusions to the specialists. See L. Casson and E.L. Hettich, Excavations at Nessana. Vol. 2: Literary Papyri (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950) 81. Casson and Hettich, Excavations at Nessana, 82. Casson and Hettich, Excavations at Nessana, 81. See Roca-Puig, Papiro del Evangelio de San Juan con Hermeneia: P.Barc. inv. 83Jo 3, 34, in Atti dell XI Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Milano 28 Settembre 1965 (Milano: Instituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, 1966) 225236, where he says on p. 229: La extensin de la percope, a juzgar por los ejemplos de que disponemos, es limitada; sistemticamente se reserva a pie de pgina el espacio suficiente para un comentario; and on p. 231: Sin forzar las deducciones sobre este aspecto comn, podramos preguntarnos si el cuarto Evangelio, a causa de las dificultades que encerraba su interpretacin, no fue muy pronto objeto de comentarios especiales.

16 17 18

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

50

Cirafesi

or translations but as detached oracles. He arrives at this conclusion by comparing them to the Markan in Codex Bezae and the Johannine in Codex St. Germain, which had long before been described by J. Rendel Harris as oracular statements used for the purpose of divination.19 In his 1959 edition of P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76)a 6th century manuscript containing John 4:9 (verso) and John 4:12 (recto)Herbert Hunger ultimately follows Stegmller in suggesting that the texts two statements are oracles, although he does allow for the possibility that Sanzs position is correct.20 Nearly two decades later, Hans Quecke followed Hungers study with similar comments on P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76), fully agreeing with Stegmllers conclusions,21 while Joseph van Haelst in his 1976 Catalogue des papyrus littraires classified all of the Johannine texts with as oracles bibliques.22 The most recent studies of the topic are by Bruce Metzger and Stanley Porter. Metzgers 1988 study differs from those named above in that he does not produce his own edition of an individual manuscript with , but rather provides a synthetic treatment of the use of in several Johannine papyri.23 Similar to Stegmller, Metzger argues that the Johannine introduce oracular statements used for the practice of fortunetelling. His argu19 See, for example, J.R. Harris, Codex Bezae: A Study of the So-Called Western Text of the New Testament (Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891) 711; J.R. Harris, The Annotators of the Codex Bezae (with Some Notes on Sortes Sanctorum) (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1901) 7071. Stegmller says, heisst nicht bersetzung, wie Harris meint, sondern Auslegung, Orakel, wie aus zahlreichen profanen und christlichen Orakelbchern hervorgeht (Zu den Bibelorakeln im Codex Bezae, Bib 34 (1953) 1322 (14 n. 3). Here Stegmller correctly points out that Harris, although he himself understood the as oracular statements, saw some translational element being reflected in their use. Hunger says: Man knnte zunchst an einen Kommentar zum Johannesevangelium denken, wie dies P. Sanzm. E. zu Unrechtvon dem Wiener Papyrus G 26214 annahm, bei dem allerdings nur die berschrift erhalten ist (Zwei unbekannte neutestamentliche Papyrusfragmente der sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Biblos 8 [1959] 712 [10]). See Quecke, Zu den Joh-Fragmenten mit Hermeneiai, 414 where, in agreement with Stegmllers findings, he says: Es sollte hier nur gezeigt werden, dass Stegmller mit seiner Ansicht vollauf im Recht war, wenn er in den Hermeneia nichts anderes als Orakelantworten sah. Es wre jedenfalls vllig verfehlt, darin irgendwelche biblischen Kommentare zu suchen. See van Haelst, Catalogue des papyrus littraires, no. 429. Metzger, Greek Manuscripts, 162169. Several points in this article are recounted and in some ways updated in his The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3rd ed.; New York: Oxford, 1992) 266267. For example, whereas in Greek

20

21

22 23

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

51

ment stands on two foundational premises: (1) that the statements are clearly and completely disconnected from the biblical text above them, and (2) that comparison with similar statements in Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain confirm the oracular nature of the statements in the Johannine manuscripts.24 Porters work on the appears in studies ranging from 2006 to 2013, although his major treatment of the issue is in an article from 2007.25 In short, contrary to both Stegmller (and his followers, esp. Metzger) and Sanz, Porter argues that the statements in the Johannine papyri are neither biblical commentary nor oracular statements. Rather, with an eye toward greater methodological precision, Porter suggests that, whereas the statements in Bezae and St. Germain are indeed oracular, the probably did not originate as such. In light of the close semantic and verbal equivalence of the statements in Bezae with St. Germain (see below), Porter posits the likelihood that the statements in these codices represent a later stage in the transmission process, and thus reflect a different use of the tradition than those in the Johannine papyri. The in the Johannine documents are closer to their original
Manuscripts he considers five Johannine manuscripts with , in The Text of the New Testament he considers eight. I find at least two problems with Metzgers analysis. First, the disconnectedness of the from the main biblical text is not a matter of certainty as Metzger seems to indicate. The studies of Crum and Casson and Hettich indicate that the picture is probably more complex than Metzgers study allows, since these authors saw at least some level of connection, although they did acknowledge the difficultly of identifying what that connection might have been. Second, Metzgers suggestion that the similar statements in Bezae and St. Germain confirm the oracular nature of the statements in the Johannine manuscripts assumes that the statements in Bezae and St. Germain are in fact oracles. As will be seen below, I suggest that there may be a better way to understand them in light of the bilingual context of their use. S.E. Porter, Textual Criticism in the Light of Diverse Textual Evidence for the Greek New Testament: An Expanded Proposal, in New Testament Manuscripts and Their World (ed. Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas; TENT 2; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 322325; Porter, The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 573580 (2007); S.E. Porter, What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Reconstructing Early Christianity from Its Manuscripts, in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Vol. 1 of Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts; TENT 9; Leiden: Brill, 2013) 6063. S.E. Porter and W.J. Porter have produced new editions of P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) and P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76) in New Testament Greek Papyri and Parchments: New Editions: Texts (MPER N.S. XXIX; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) 1825. Plates of the manuscripts are given in Porter and Porter, New Testament Greek Papyri and Parchments: Plates (MPER N.S. XXX; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) nos. 5 and 6.

24

25

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

52

Cirafesi

use and in fact represent biblically motivated and connected reflections (not commentary) on the text of Johns Gospel rather than oracle.26 Treatments of the topic thus far have not considered the from the perspective of their predominant use in bilingual manuscripts or manuscripts influenced by a bilingual context. Therefore, in order to develop this argument and its implications for the function of the , below I consider several methodological issues and offer a description of the relevant Johannine manuscripts. 3 Methodological Considerations for Establishing the Bilingual Nature of

Porters 2007 article brings a level of methodological nuance to the discussion of the Johannine , particularly regarding which manuscripts ought to qualify for inclusion in ones analysis. Metzger lists eight manuscripts in his later treatment: (1) P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55); (2) P.Ness. (P.Colt) 2. 3 (P59); (3) P.Berlin inv. 11914 (P63); (4) P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76); (5) P.Barc. inv. 83 (P80); (6) the lost parchment from Damascus, Kubbet el Chazne (0145); (7) P.Berlin 3607 and 3623 (MS 0210); and (8) P.Vindob. G 26084 (0256). Metzger also claims that P.Ness (P.Colt.) 2. 4 (P60) probably had , but because it is so fragmentary none is preserved. Furthermore, and importantly for this study, he notes the twelve fragments of a Sahidic manuscript that has statements in both Greek and Sahidic Coptic, even though this manuscript does not appear to make his final list for analysis.27 Porter, however, excludes from consideration three of the manuscripts mentioned above, believing it wise to limit the discussion to those (1) that have the word actually written on them, (2) that have biblical text above the word, and (3) that are written only in Greek.28 Manuscripts disqualified by these criteria are: P.Vindob. G 26084 and P.Ness.
26 Significant to note is that Porter sees the Johannine tradition as having its origins in a Greek-language setting, but, in view of what we see happening in Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain, he does believe that the tradition probably later expanded to use in a variety of contexts, for instance those influenced by other languages, such as Coptic...or Latin (Porter, The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 579). However, what I suggest in this article is that the were used in contexts influenced by other languages from the very start. 27 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 266. 28 Porter is never explicit about why he wishes to discard the Coptic manuscript. The only indication is that he simply wishes to focus his study upon the Greek tradition (Porter, The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 574).

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

53

(P.Colt.) 2. 4, since the word is not visible, and the Coptic manuscript. For his analysis, then, he is left with the first seven manuscripts listed above. Porter is correct to eliminate P.Vindob. G 26084 and P.Ness. (P.Colt.) 2. 4; however, there seems to be no good reasonfor the current study at least to exclude the Coptic manuscript studied by Crum, since statements appear in both Greek and Coptic. To the contrary, I suggest this manuscript from Antinoe, being a bilingual text, may in fact contribute significantly to the debate. Thus, I include the first seven manuscripts listed above, minus the lost parchment from Damascus (0145), and plus the Antinoe manuscript, leaving seven in all. 4 Manuscripts Containing and Their Description

The purpose of this section is to identify and establish the bilingual (GreekCoptic) character of the Johannine papyri with . For some manuscripts this is easy to do, since both languages clearly appear. Other manuscripts, however, are written in only one language (Greek); thus, the assertion of bilingual influence needs support. a Greek Manuscripts Influenced by Coptic I start with two manuscripts from the Vienna collection that have been recently re-edited by Porter and Porter.29 P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) is a small fragment (6.7 11 cm) and contains fifteen lines of text on the recto (with the grain) and twelve lines on the verso (against the grain). On the verso appears [, with a horizontal line and a space above it to separate it from the biblical text (John 1:3538), two small horizontal strokes both above and below the word at the beginning and end, and a space below the word presumably to separate it from the statement to follow (although no statement has been preserved). Pertinent for this study is that though the manuscript is written only in the Greek language, its provenance is likely the Egyptian Fayyum and its hand is Alexandrian majusculea script that by about the 5th century had become widely used for Coptic texts.30 The Alexandrian hand is especially evidenced
29 The present discussion is based on Porter and Porter, New Testament Greek Papyri: Texts, 18, 2122. See the corresponding plates in Porter and Porter, New Testament Greek Papyri: Plates, nos. 5 and 6. I have also consulted the editions of Sanz for P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) and Hunger for P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76). See Guglielmo Cavallo, Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri, in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. Roger S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press) 131. The perspective

30

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

54

Cirafesi

by the thick vertical and horizontal strokes and the presence of serifs at the end of certain letters. Further, at times has a small loop at the bottom and is typically narrow and circular. Porter and Porter make the comment: The forms of the letters, especially the small and unstylized , and the less mannered characteristics, tends to indicate an earlier date [than 6th to 7th century], possibly as early as the fifth century.31 This leads them to suggest that the hand of P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) is an earlier form of the hand of P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76), which contains text from John 4:9, 1112 and dates slightly later to the 6th century. P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76) has moderately larger dimensions (11.2 14 cm) and contains seven lines of text on the verso (against the grain; John 4:9) and eleven lines on the recto (with the grain; John 4:1112). The word appears on the verso and is separated by horizontal lines as well as spaces above and below, which are followed by a statement of two very incomplete lines. Another [, also set apart from the biblical text by horizontal lines and spaces, appears on the recto with a statement of three incomplete lines. The manuscript is written in Greek but it, too, has been clearly written in an Alexandrian majuscule hand. It contains thick, dark characters as well as prominent vertical and horizontal strokes with serifs. The wide and the broad, circular are particularly evident, while the upper and lower strokes of and extend beyond the lines. Therefore, I suggest the Fayyum provenance of P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55), the Alexandrian hand of both P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) and P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76), and the manuscripts close relationship indicates that they were both produced within a context that necessitated the use of Greek but was influenced to some extent by the use of the Coptic language. The statements contained in P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76) are as follows:32

31 32

advocated in the present article regarding the relation between the use of Alexandrian majuscule for Greek texts and the influence of a Greek-Coptic bilingual setting has been largely shaped by Jean-Luc Fournets insightful article, The Multilingual Environment of Late Antique Egypt: Greek, Latin, Coptic, and Persian Documentation, in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, 418452 (esp. 430445). On the bilingual (Greek-Coptic) setting of Roman Egypt and its impact on Greek grammar, see Francis Gignac, Grammatical Developments in Roman Egypt Significant for the New Testament, in The Language of the New Testament: Contexts, History, and Development (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts; Linguistic Biblical Studies 6; Leiden: Brill, 2013) 401420. Porter and Porter, New Testament Greek Papyri: Texts, 18. Cf. the restorations made in Hungers edition (Zwei unbekannte neutestamentliche Papyrusfragmente, 8).

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

55

Verso (against the grain) 5. 6. ].. [ 7. ] .[ Recto (with the grain) 8. [ 9. ] .[ 10. ] [ 11. ] P.Ness. (P.Colt.) 2. 3a 7th to 8th century manuscript discovered in the early 20th century in the city of Nessana in southern Palestineis quite similar to P.Vindob. G 26214 (P55) in page arrangement and stichometry.33 The section with visible consists of two fragmentary leaves that are still attached. The verso of one leaf contains text from John 11:4043, being comprised of fourteen lines, followed by [ and an incomplete statement.34 The recto contains sixteen lines of text from John 11:4446, followed by [] and another incomplete statement. The recto of the other leaf has eleven very fragmentary lines from John 11:4748 and is followed by [] (entirely reconstructed) and one short statement. That leafs verso has seventeen lines of text from John 11:4952, also very fragmentary, which are followed by and a two-word statement. The text is Greek, but once again, as the editors themselves note, we have a manuscript clearly written in an Alexandrian hand, in carefully formed upright uncial.35 The upper and lower strokes of and extend well beyond the lines, with being especially broad. Thick ink spots at the end of vertical strokes, which are typical of an Alexandrian hand, are also present. Besides the Alexandrian majuscule script of P.Ness. (P.Colt.) 2. 3, the influence of Coptic on the manuscript is evidenced by its provenance in the city of Nessana. Rachel Stroumsas study of the peoples of Nessana in the 6th and 7th centuries ce based upon the Nessana papyri provides evidence that during this period the city was probably multilingual, with Coptic being only one of the languages with which the city had significant contact. This contact is shown by
33 34 35 For a fuller discussion of the manuscript, see Casson and Hetttich, Excavations at Nessana, 7982. The spelling of the restorations [ and [] is based on the occurrence of [] on the recto of the first leaf mentioned above. Casson and Hettich, Excavations at Nessana, 81.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

56

Cirafesi

the textual tradition followed by various literary papyri that were discovered in the city. For example, Stroumsa says regarding the saint-cult legend of St. George that the Nessana papyri follow the non-Greek tradition and have much closer affinity to the Coptic, Arabic, and Syriac traditions.36 Further, she suggests that while monasteries in Palestine and north into Syria primarily used Greek as the language of theology and worship, there is evidence that church services and monasteries throughout Palestine were conducted in other languages as well, Coptic being one of them.37 Further, Sidney Griffiths study demonstrates that Coptic (as well as Syriac and Armenian) played a significant role in the lives of Palestinian monks involved in the christological controversies of the 6th and following centuries.38 Importantly, Griffith says the monastic establishment in the Judean desert, not far from the Negev region where Nessana is located, was very international, with Syriac-, Coptic-, and Armenian-speaking monks forming the heart of Christian orthodoxy at this stage of the empire (i.e., 7th century).39 Therefore, in connection with its Alexandrian script, it is quite plausible that P.Ness. (P.Colt.) 2. 3 originated within a Greek-Coptic bilingual environment and was used within a liturgical setting in which Greek was the language of worship, but the linguistic situation was such that interpretive statements were deemed helpful or needed for an audience influenced by the Coptic language.40 Additionally, the likelihood that by the 8th century (the
36 37 38 Rachel Stroumsa, People and Identities in Nessana, (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2008) 232233. Stroumsa, People and Identities in Nessana, 202. See also Fournet, The Multilingual Environment of Late Antique Egypt, 433434. Sidney H. Griffith, From Aramaic to Arabic: The Languages of the Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51 (1997) 1131 (22). Griffith, From Aramaic to Arabic, 22. Further, it is worth noting that D. Colt says Nessana is in the southwest region of Palestine one hundred miles southwest of Jerusalem on the main road to Egypt and but a short distance from the Egyptian province of Sinai (D. Colt, Forward to Excavations at Nessana, v). In light of this it is quite possible that Copticspeaking monks from Egypt stayed in or passed directly through Nessana on their way to the Judean desert, perhaps carrying with them copies of biblical and liturgical texts. An objection could be raised here regarding manuscriptssuch as P.Ness. (P.Colt) 2. 3 (P59)that are entirely in Greek. The question might go as follows: how can we see the statements in Greek manuscripts as having a bilingual character and thus a liturgical function when only one language is represented on the manuscript? Two points can be made here. First, the importance of Greek as the official language of religion in early Christianity could explain why the language is retained in some Johannine papyri for both the main biblical text and the statements. Second, the statements in Greek-only manuscripts may be instances of intralingual translations used for the

39

40

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

57

time our manuscript may have been written) Greek had become confined to liturgical use in and around Nessana supports both the prospect that the manuscript exhibits bilingual influence and the possibility that its statements functioned for liturgical purposes.41 The statements in P.Ness. (P.Colt.) 2. 3 are as follows: Leaf 1 Verso 41. [ 42. [ Leaf 1 Recto 59. [] 60. ] . Leaf 2 Recto 72. [] 73. [][] Leaf 2 Verso 92. 93. ] [] The next two manuscripts to consider are P.Berlin 3607 and 3623 (MS 0210) and P.Barc. inv. 83 (P80), both of which are also written entirely in Greek. P.Berlin 3607 and 3623 (MS 0210) comprise two parchments leaves from the same book.42 P.Berlin 3607 is 8.5 6 cm, while the more damaged P.Berlin 3623 measures 7.2 6 cm. The recto of P.Berlin 3607 has the Greek number (76) at the top of the page and contains seven lines of text from John 5:44. This is followed by ] and a two-word statement below it. The parchments
purpose of simplifying or rewording the Greek for a non-Greek-speaking group or for a group that lacked a developed facility with the Greek language. This may explain why most of the known statements are short and use simple vocabulary. On the notion of intralingual translation from a modern linguistic theoretical perspective, see the helpful article by K.K. Zethsen, Intralingual Translation: An Attempt at Description, Meta: Translators Journal 54.4 (2009) 795812, who, in drawing on the earlier work of Prague School linguist Roman Jakobson, says: intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language (p. 797). See Stroumsa, People and Identities in Nessana, 202. Stegmller, Zu den Bibelorakeln im Codex Bezae, 17.

41 42

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

58

Cirafesi

verso has the Greek number OZ (77) at the top and contains eight lines of text from John 6:12. This is also followed by and a two-word statement. The only evidence P.Berlin 3623 provides us with is on the leafs recto, which contains eight lines of text from John 6:4142, followed by and a statement of two lines of one fragmentary word each. Significant for this study is that van Haelst identifies the hand of both parchments as Onciale de type copte (i.e., Alexandrian majuscule). Additionally, the manuscript has a likely provenance within the Fayyum. This makes it possible that P.Berlin 3607 and 3623 (MS 0210), too, reflect the influence of a Greek-Coptic bilingual setting, which yields more support for the bilingual character of the Johannine . Below is Stegmllers reconstruction of the text of the .43 P.Berlin 3607 Recto 8. ] 9. ] P.Berlin 3607 Verso 9. 10. [ P.Berlin 3623 Recto 9. 10. ] 11. ] Roca-Puig notes in his edition of P.Barc. inv. 83 (P80) that the manuscript is probably the earliest of all the Johannine papyri containing (3rd to 4th century). The papyruss verso, measuring 10.4 9.6 cm, contains three very fragmentary lines of text from John 3:34. The third line is followed immediately to the right by a marking resembling a closed parenthesis and a raised horizontal dash, which, according to Roca-Puig, is indicando que la percope evanglica ha terminado.44 Below this pericope marker is a clear instance of , which is followed by an incomplete three-line statement and an occurrence of a staurogram (). The recto contains hardly any discernible text, and while the word is reconstructed by Roca-Puig, it is not visible. However, the recto does contain another instance of the pericope marker and another staurogram. Though the provenance of the papyrus is unknown and its hand is
43 44 Stegmller, Zu den Bibelorakeln im Codex Bezae, 1819. Roca-Puig, Papiro del Evangelio de San Juan, 233.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

59

quite different from the Alexandrian majuscule of the manuscripts described above, the editor notes one thing that makes a Greek-Coptic setting at least a possibility for P.Barc. inv. 83 (P80). He says: Sealemos otra particularidad de P.Barc., la en forma de copta; esta aparece en papiros much ms antiguos y por consiguiente no es obstculo para datarlo en el s. III; en formas muy varias, aislada o enlazada se encuentra con frecuencia en papiros de este mismo siglo.45 While the use of Coptic for appears to have been common in thirdcentury papyri and so its value as evidence is limited, it does show that P.Barc. inv. 83 (P80) was probably influenced by the Coptic language on some level at some point in time. Although the editor does not give it much attention, the significance of there being two staurograms on the manuscript should be considered. Details surrounding the origin and function of the tau-rho device in early Christianity have been debated, but it is probably safe to say that in Christian circles the device was an iconographic representation of the crucifixion/cross of Jesus and reflected an important element of Christian devotion to Jesus beginning in the second or third century.46 I suggest here that the combination of the staurograms devotional significance and its use as a terminus marker for the statements in P.Barc. inv. 83 (P80)47 indicates the possibility that the manuscript was at one point used within a liturgical setting, with the functioning as a liturgical tool intended to facilitate worship within a Greek-Coptic linguistic context. The text of the reproduced below is only of the verso from Roca-Puigs edition.48 4. 5. [.........] 6. [.........] 7.

45 46

47 48

Roca-Puig, Papiro del Evangelio de San Juan, 228. For the most thorough discussion on the staurogram to date, see Larry W. Hurtado, The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?, in New Testament Manuscripts and Their World, 207226. Roca-Puig, Papiro del Evangelio de San Juan, 226. Roca-Puig, Papiro del Evangelio de San Juan, 232. On p. 234 the editor offers two possible reconstructions for verso line 6: [ ], or [ ].

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

60

Cirafesi

b. Manuscripts with Greek and Coptic Statements The last two Johannine manuscripts I will consider are P.Berlin inv. 11914 (P63) and the Coptic manuscript from Antinoe studied by Crum in 1904. These papyri contain both Greek and Coptic on the manuscripts themselves, so their bilingual character is rather obvious. However, an explanation is needed for how these bilingual manuscripts may have functioned within their particular linguistic contexts. P.Berlin inv. 11914 (P63) is the largest manuscript of the group considered in this article, being a double leaf (four pages) from a papyrus codex, and having the dimensions 18.5 30 cm. It is dated by editor Stegmller to the 6th century, though its provenance is unknown.49 Each of the four pages has a column of text with varying numbers of lines: column 1 contains eight lines of Greek text from John 3:1415, which are followed by , a two-line statement in Greek, and two lines of the same statement in Coptic.50 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Column 2 contains fourteen lines of Greek text from John 3:1618, followed by [], a one-line statement in Greek, and one line of the same statement in Coptic. 15. [] 16. 17. Column 3 presents seven lines of text from John 4:9; [] follows with a short, fragmentary statement in Greek and the same statement in Coptic.

49 50

Stegmller, Zu den Bibelorakeln im Codex Bezae, 15. Concerning the relationship between the Greek and Coptic, Stegmller says Dann folgt ein Satz in griechischer, darunter derselbe Satz in koptischer Sprache. Im Schriftbild ist zwischen Griechisch und Koptisch kaum ein Unterschied (Zu den Bibelorakeln im Codex Bezae, 15). Thus, there appears to be no difference between them in terms of their hands and the meaning/translation of the statements.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

61

8. [] 9. ] [ 10. Column 4 contains six lines of Greek text from John 4:10, which are followed by and a two-line statement in both Greek and Coptic. 7. 8. [ ] 9. [ ] 10. 11. [ ] As Quecke notes, the Greek-Coptic manuscript from Antinoe consisting of twelve fragments was one of the first Johannine manuscripts with to be published, and provides us with, by far, the most examples of .51 Editor Crum notes that the 6th to 7th century manuscript would probably have measured about 17 13 cm and would have had approximately 1720 lines of text. Crum lists fifteen statements, which, as usual, are separated below from the main Johannine text.52 The pattern seems to be that the Coptic statement comes first, followed by the Greek statement. Below I give only three examples as they are given in Crums article. John 3:3234 [ [ John 3:36 ] ] John 16:2325 ] [ ] ] I suggested above that a plausible context for the use of the Johannine is within a liturgical setting. I make the same suggestion for these two bilingual papyri documents. Particularly helpful in this regard is, once again, Crums

51 52

Quecke, Zu den Joh-Fragmenten mit Hermeneiai, 408. The statements appear under the following verses from Johns Gospel: 3:3234; 3:36; 9:22 23; 9:2425; 10:79 (lost); 10:11; 12:1923; 12:2426; 16:22; 16:2325; 17: 3, 47; 18:2830 (lost); 18:31; 21:15, 16; 21:17. See Crum, Two Coptic Manuscripts,174175.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

62

Cirafesi

1904 study. His fundamental argument is that in Egyptian papyri,53 including those in the Antinoe papyrus, were used in the Sahidic liturgies to designate versestypically from the Psalms, except in the case of the Antinoe textand to lead the congregation in a response to the biblical text.54 They were often said by the () and typically followed a homily. Crum acknowledges that the and the biblical verses to which they refer often appear unrelated and lack any perceptible bearing on the text. However, importantly, he notes that likely had varying functions within the liturgy. Several examples are: (1) they were used to commemorate saints days, (2) they were used in the context of a dignitarys visit to a monastery, and (3) at times they were connected to the lesson taught by the presbyter.55 One could, therefore, easily foresee the need in each of these circumstances for a bilingual manuscript. In the case of the Antinoe papyrus, the need may have been for a manuscript that could be used within a predominately Coptic-speaking congregation having within it at least some Greek speakers.56 Additionally, in light of Crums study, the dissonance between the biblical text and the statements argues against the notion that introduce biblical commentary, but it does not necessitate seeing the statements as completely detached oracles; the apparent disconnect may simply be due to the particular liturgical function a statement is serving. Crums proposal of a liturgical function for the statements in the Antinoe papyrus can be easily extended to P.Berlin inv. 11914 (P63), as well as to all of the Johannine papyri that have been considered. That is, there is
53 Crum says that he was unable to find employed liturgically outside of Egypt (Two Coptic Papyri, 175). However, this point does not weaken my proposal, particularly for P.Ness. (P.Colt) 2. 3 (P59), since I have proposed that it is quite possible that it, along with all the Johannine papyri with , have been influenced to some degree by the Coptic language. Quecke dismisses Crums suggestion of a Sahidic liturgical use of the in the Antinoe manuscript, but he does not say why. He simply asserts: Crum suchte dann, von den Hermeneiai der koptischen Liturgie ausgehend, unsere Hermeneiai in denselben Zusammenhang zu stellen, was aber gleichfalls ein Irrweg war (Zu den Joh-Fragmenten mit Hermeneiai, 408 n. 4). Crum, Two Coptic Papyri, 17576. The reverse could be true for P.Berlin inv. 11914 (P63), i.e., it was used within a predominately Greek-speaking community with at least some speakers of Coptic. Howeverand I prefer this possibilityit could be that in some places, especially within Egypt, Greek itself was the language of the sacred liturgy. Thus, the main biblical text and the appear in Greek, but statements in Coptic are present for the benefit of Coptic monolinguals.

54

55 56

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

63

nothing in the wording of any of the statements that prohibits us from seeing them as liturgical tools used within a bilingual setting. As part of his study, Porter notes that the language of the statements in P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76) resembles the language of statements in most other Johannine manuscripts (esp. P.Barc. inv. 83 [P80], P.Berlin 11914 [P63], P.Berlin 3607 and 3623 [MS 0210], and P.Ness. [P.Colt.] 2. 3 [P59]).57 More importantly, however, Porter indicates that the statements themselves seem to be more reflective of Johannine language, i.e., that the statements are reflections rooted in language that corresponds to biblical or biblical-like language. This suggestion makes complete sense if the were intended to be used within bilingual settings as liturgical tools loosely connected to the biblical texts under which they appear, whether they were used pastorally as exhortations to faith (e.g., [ ] ), to commemorate a saints day (] ), or for the visit of a dignitary to a monastery ( ).58 5 Parallels with Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain

The pattern for most studies of the Johannine has been to establish their character based on comparison with the Greek of Marks Gospel in Codex Bezae and the Latin statements of Johns Gospel in Codex St. Germain.59 With the exception of Porters 2007 article (and the editions of Sanz and Roca-Puig), such studies have concluded that the in these
57 Porter particularly notes (based on Hungers reconstruction) the use of the second person singular conditional clause in P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76), ] [ (cf. P.Berlin inv. 11914 [P63] col. 4 line 8) as well as the use of ] [ (The Use of Hermeneiai and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 576). In contrast, Hunger believes that such statements scattered throughout the Johannine papyri confirm that P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76) should be classified among the Orakelbcher (Zwei unbekannte neutestamentliche Papyrusfragmente, 11). Hunger is clearly influenced by Stegmllers work six years earlier. For him there appears to be only two options as to the nature of the : Gospel commentary or biblical oracle. Since P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76) cannot be Gospel commentary, it must be oracle, as Stegmller believes. See especially the studies of Stegmller, Quecke, Metzger, and Porter (2007). The statements in Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain are listed by Harris in his Annotators, 5964. They are also listed in F.H. Scriveners original publication of Bezae, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1864) 451452. On the sortes sanctorum in Codex St. Germain, see J.R. Harris, The Sortes Sanctorum in the St. Germain Codex (g1), AJP 9.1 (1888) 5863; F.C. Burkitt, Codex Bezae and the Sortes Sangallenses, JTS 28 (19261927) 5859.

58

59

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

64

Cirafesi

codices represent exactly the same phenomena as those in the Johannine papyri, i.e., that they are oracular material used for the purpose of divination. I am inclined to think that, while certainly there are similarities between the two groups of manuscripts, there are also significant differences that must be appreciated. Thus, convergences and divergences need to be briefly considered in order to assess how the evidence aligns with what has been proposed thus far. Metzger, emphasizing the similarity between the statements in the Johannine manuscripts and those in the two codices, draws attention to two formal features they share. The first is that the in both the Johannine manuscripts and Codex Bezae are found at the foot of the page (though in St. Germain the statements are in the side margins). Second, in both sets of manuscripts the are followed by a series of short apothegms.60 In some cases the substance of the statements is also quite similar. For example, Porter suggests that the statement on line 6 of P.Vindob. G 36102 (P76), ].. [, could be similar to the oracular statement in Bezae, (no. 46) and the Latin statement in St. Germain, si credideris gloria tibi (cf. P.Berlin inv. 11914 [P63] col. 4 line 8).61 One similarity often not picked up on is the fact that in both sets are used in bilingual manuscripts or manuscripts influenced by a bilingual settingGreek-Coptic for the Johannine papyri and Greek-Latin for Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain.62 This point strengthens the thesis that a key component surrounding the character and function of is their use in bilingual manuscripts and/or bilingual contexts. I wish to suggest one further similarity between the in the Johannine papyri and those in Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain. While, to my knowledge, scholars are unanimous in their conclusion that the in Bezae and St. Germain represent oracular material, a liturgical function for these statements is not entirely out of the question. One of the major differ60 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 266; cf. Metzger, Greek Manuscripts, 165166. 61 Porter, The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 576. The text comes from Harris, Annotators, 62. See Metzger, Greek Manuscripts, 167 for more supposed similarities of content. 62 On Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain as bilingual manuscripts, see D.C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 5070, 181258. The in Bezae may reflect an ecclesial situation in 9th or 10th century Lyons, where liturgies were performed primarily in Latin even though there was a small Greek-speaking population. The statements would then have functioned as liturgical aids for these Greek speakers. On Bezae in Lyons, but at a different point in time, see Parker, Codex Bezae, 277.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

65

ences between Bezae and St. Germain and the Johannine papyri is that the in the former group are clearly later additions to the manuscripts, whereas in the latter group the are part of the manuscripts original layout.63 In his attempt to sort out the very complex issue of the secondary hands of Codex Bezae, Parker indicates that the pen responsible for the lectionary notes in the Gospel of Luke is likely the same pen that wrote the in Marks Gospel.64 Despite all the complexities involved regarding the philology of the lectionary notes and the dating of the various hands, Parkers study intimates that the lectionary notes and the statements may not have been originally envisaged as two completely distinct features of the manuscript, but rather were intended to form part of the same category of annotation, i.e, annotations used for expressly liturgical purposes.65 A notable difference between Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain and the Johannine papyri needs to be highlighted. While there are a number of similarities between the wording of statements in the two groups of manuscripts, there is a far greater correspondence between the statements in Bezae and those in St. Germain. Note what Harris says: When we examine these Greek Sortes [in Codex Bezae] by the side of the Latin system in the S. Germain MS we easily see that they form a part of the same system. For example, the sentence quoted above [ ] is evidently the same as appears in g1, under the form si mentiris, arguent te; and this is only one out of a large number
63 The statements in the two codices are either squeezed at the bottom of the page (as in Bezae) or pushed into the margins (as in St. Germain), and are written by a very different (poor-quality) hand. Harris calls the scrawling hand of Codex Bezae rude and dates it to the 10th century (Harris, Codex Bezae, 7, 9). Parker dates the hand from the mid-6th to the mid-7th century (Parker, Codex Bezae, 44). For high-quality pictures of Codex Bezae, see the Cambridge University-based website: http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-0000200041/551. The site is managed by Parker. Casson and Hettich, Excavations at Nessana, 80 and Porter, The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 578 both note that the in the Johannine papyri are written in the same hand as the main biblical text, thus being a part of the original layout of the manuscript. See Parkers discussion beginning with Hand L in Codex Bezae, 4144. Specifically, he mentions that the forms of , with diaeresis, and are very similar (p. 43). See also Harris, Codex Bezae, 1415. I note that Parker does not argue this explicitly, but whether he is aware of it or not, the evidence he provides us with leads us strongly in this direction. This suggests that Parker may wish to re-evaluate the assumption made in his article Manuscripts of Johns Gospel with Hermeneiai that the in Codex Bezae were used for divination.

64

65

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

66

Cirafesi

of coincidences so complete that we may be certain some connection exists between the two systems. Moreover the list in D may be seen to be a translation from the Latin, by a frequently prefixed word : as if the sentences had originally stood in two languages in some bilingual codex.66 In other words, while the statements in Bezae and St. Germain do not possess a derivative relation, they do appear to have an identical origin in a previous system, perhaps one that was even bilingual.67 Porter is correct to see Harriss statements as demonstrating the likelihood that the in the two codices represent a stage at least one step later in the transmission process than those in the Johannine papyri.68 This point finds confirmation not only in that a later hand is responsible for the in Bezae and St. Germain (9th or 10th century), but also in that there are places where Bezae and St. Germain seem to have expanded the Johannine text. For example, [ in P.Berlin inv. 3607 becomes in D no. 28 and absolueris post tres dies in g1 no. xxvii.69 Thus, the view that the tradition had more than a single stage of development explains the different manner in which it is applied in Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain, but it also appreciates the similarities these bilingual codices have with the tradition found in the Johannine papyri. 6 Conclusion In this article, I have sought to offer a new proposal regarding the use of in a handful of Johannine papyrus manuscripts. The focus has been to establish the bilingual character of these manuscripts and, subsequently, to posit a plausible functional context within which the can be understood. I have suggested that in light of their bilingual character, the Johannine
66 Harris, Codex Bezae, 910. See esp. p. 10, where Harris gives nine examples of parallel statements in Bezae and St. Germain. 67 For Harriss full argument, see Annotators, 7071. Harris believes that one of the indications of this origin in a previous system is that the oracles are not simply the answers to implied questions, but the nature and subject of the question is also included. Two examples are in oracle no. 37 with (D) // no. xxxvi with iudicio (g1), and no. 42 with (D) // no. xli with de contentatione (g1). 68 Porter, The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 578. 69 This example is Porters (see The Use of Hermeneia and Johannine Papyrus Manuscripts, 579).

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67

The Bilingual Character and Liturgical Function of Hermeneia

67

are interpretive comments (loosely understood) that functioned as liturgical tools to facilitate early Christian worship services needing to accommodate the use of two languages within a particular community. Additionally, I have suggested that the in Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain represent a later segment in the development of the same tradition, which explains both the similarities and differences they have with the Johannine papyri. While the differences are indeed pronounced, two similarities should be particularly considered: (1) both the Johannine papyri and Codex Bezae and Codex St. Germain are bilingual manuscripts or at least evince the influence of a bilingual context, and (2) the use of in both sets of manuscripts fits nicely within a liturgical setting.70

70

I learned only after receiving the proofs of this article that Brice C. Jones of Concordia University (Montreal) has recently discovered a Sahidic Coptic fragment containing verses from John 3 and two (fragmentary) statements. The manuscript is in the possession of Yale University, and is apparently the first known example of a Coptic-only manuscript. While I have not yet studied the manuscript myself, its discovery would seem to support one of the major arguments of the present article, that the use of the originated within a linguistic milieu heavily influenced by the use of the Coptic language. Jones has edited the manuscript, which is due to be published as A Coptic Fragment of the Gospel of John with Hermeneiai (P.CtYBR inv. 4641), NTS 60.2 (2014) forthcoming. I learned of Joness work through personal e-mail correspondence with him on 20 September 2013.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 45-67