Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T08:54:29.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Fragment of the Protevangelium Jacobi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2011

Thomas Wayment  and
Alexander Ladenheim
Thomas Wayment
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Alexander Ladenheim
Affiliation:
Clovis, California
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This single, mutilated leaf from a papyrus codex consists of twelve lines of text written in a nearly upright biblical uncial. The practiced scribal hand has consistent spacing of letters and serifs adorning τ, χ, κ, and η. A dieresis is written above iota in line 4, and an apostrophe marks the end of Iωακειμ (line 7), which may indicate that the name lacked an ordinary Greek declension. Joseph van Haelst originally dated the hand to the beginning of the fourth century, and its similarities to P.Oxy. 1250 and 4804 confirm a fourth century dating.1

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , 15 July 2011 , pp. 381 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2010

This single, mutilated leaf from a papyrus codex consists of twelve lines of text written in a nearly upright biblical uncial. The practiced scribal hand has consistent spacing of letters and serifs adorning τ, χ, κ, and η. A dieresis is written above iota in line 4, and an apostrophe marks the end of Iωακειμ (line 7), which may indicate that the name lacked an ordinary Greek declension. Joseph van Haelst originally dated the hand to the beginning of the fourth century, and its similarities to P.Oxy. 1250 and 4804 confirm a fourth century dating.Footnote 1

The provenance of this fragment is unknown. Van Haelst reported that he had seen a photograph of the fragment sometime prior to the publication of the Catalogue in 1976.Footnote 2 At that date the fragment was described simply as “lost,” until a photograph of the fragment was identified as belonging to the Protevangelium Jacobi by Alex Ladenheim working at the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri while sorting through images in the Saskatchewan International Digital Archive of Papyri.Footnote 3 Now catalogued as Greek Papyrus JE 85643 (SR 6P/1817), the papyrus is housed in Cairo.

Combined with P.Bodmer 5, PSI 1.6, P.Oxy. 8 (Bodl. MS. Gr. th. G. 1), and P.Oxy. 3524, this fragment preserves one of the earliest Greek witnesses to the Protevangelium Jacobi.Footnote 4 Unfortunately, because of its small size it does little to facilitate the quest to isolate the earliest form of the Protevangelium, the accretion of chapters 22–24, or other questionable interpolations. It does, however, preserve twelve lines of the Protevangelium from the fourth century, and it witnesses a strong affinity to the Bodmer papyrus.

Protevangelium Jacobi 4.6–10 (9.3a–15)

  1. 1 [μοσχουϛ τοιϛ ιερ]εῦσ [και γερ-

  2. 2 ουσια και εκατ]ον χεἴμαρουϛ

  3. 3 και εσον]κατον [χειμαροι παν-

  4. 4 τι τω λ]αω και δο [ηκει Iωακειμ

  5. 5 μετα] των ποιμ[νιων αυτου

  6. 6 και εστ]η αννα πρ[οϛ τη πυλη

  7. 7 και ειδεν I]ωακειμ’ ερ[χομενον

  8. 8 μετα των] ποιμνιω[ν αυτου και

  9. 9 εδραμεν] η αννα και [εκρεμασθη

  10. 10 ειϛ τον τ]ραχηλον α[ου Αννα

  11. 11 λεγουσα] ν οιδα οτι [κ(υριοϛ) ο θ(εο)ϛ

  12. 12 ευλογησεν] με σ [οδρα ιδου γαρ]

(An angel is speaking to Joachim.)

(And bring me … twelve) calves for the priests, and for the elders also one hundred rams, and the one hundred rams shall be for the entire populace.” And behold Joachim has come along with his flocks, and Anna stood at the gate, and she saw Joachim coming with his flocks. And Anna ran and she hung herself from his neck, and Anna said, “Now I know that the Lord God did bless me so very much, for behold!

1–2. τη om. Z, add Z2

2. και εκατον χιμαρουϛ ZADEFa Ti Syra Armb Georg: και ϕερετε μοι BCLR Pos Armc [Arma Aeth]; | και ϕερετε μοι ωδε L | χημαρρουϛ A |

3. και … χιμαροι ZBCFaLR Syra Armbc Tay: om. ADE Ti Georg [Arma Aeth] |

4. τω λαω Iσραηλ L | δου pap., om. FaFb Syra [Armc] | ηκει ZCDR Armb | ερχεται B | ηκεν CR Ti | veniebat Syra Arma Georg: ηλθεν AFbL | κατεβη Fa [Armc Aeth] | ηκει ιωακειμ Z Syra Arma | ιωακειμ ηκεν cp Ti Armb Georg [Armc Aeth] ιωακιμ Z2 | ειωκιμ Z

5. ποιμενων Fa

6. εστηκει Fb | εξηλθεν A | τη πυλη ZBC | την πυλην cp Ti

7. ιωακειμ’ pap. | ιωακειμ ZB | τον ιωακειμ cp Ti

8. μετα … αυτου ZCDEFaFbR Armab Georg Mat | om. AB Ti Syra Armc Aeth Bud | ποιμνιων ZCDER Armab Mat | ποιμενων FaFb Georg [Syra Armc Aeth]

8–9. post αυτου add. και ιδουσα αννα αυτον Z, om. co Ti vo | και ευθυϛ Z, ευθυϛ om. co Ti vo

9. εδραμεν αννα και cp Ti Arma Georg | εδραμεν και ZE Armbc | δραμουσα BDFaI Ti Pos om. Syra [Aeth] | εκρεμασεν ατην Z1 | εκραμασεν ατην Z | εκρεμ(μ)ασθη co Ti [vp]

10. ειϛ τον τραχηλον ZBILR | επι τον τραχηλον AC | περι τον τραχηλον Fb | προϛ τον τραχηλον E | επι του τραχηλου D | αννα Z | om. co Ti vo

12. με co Ti vo | μοι A | σε Z.

Notes

1. The text is restored exempli gratia because none of the margins has survived. The papyrus probably omitted the later interpolation ἅπαλούϛ καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δώδεκα μόσχοι (BDEFa).

1. The inclusion of καί before γερουσίᾳ follows ZADEFa Ti Syra Armb Georg, while the probable omission of τῇ follows Z (corrected by Z2).

2. With the omission of οἱ in the passage καί … ἑκατόν the text follows ZBCFaLR Syra Armbc Tay against ADE Ti Georg [Arma Aeth], although the inclusion of χίμαροι creates an unusually long line. If the line lacked χίμαροι, then it was the result of scribal homoeoteleuton and not the transmission of an alternate reading.

4. ἰδού follows the majority of manuscripts. Omission of ἰδού is likely an error of FaFb Syra [Armc]. Consideration of line length alone is insufficient to determine the ending of the line; we have chosen to restore it to Z, which it follows closely in the majority of instances.Footnote 5

6. The accusative variant cannot be determined on line length alone, but the preference for matching the Z text makes the dative likely.

8–9. The definite article before ννα is unattested but certain following the traces of ink. Against Z, εὐθύϛ is likely omitted following καί.

9. Following cp Ti Arma Georg, the text preserves the longer explanatory reading ννα, opposed to Z and its correctors.

10. Although the preposition preceding the accusative τράχηλον cannot be determined definitively, following the majority of witnesses, we restore εἰϛ.

12. Against Z, με follows the reading of co Ti vo.Footnote 6

Courtesy of the Berkeley/Saskatchewan International Digital Archive of Papyri.

References

1 Haelst, Joseph van, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976) 601Google Scholar; Oscar Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” in Gospels and Related Writings (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. R. McL. Wilson; vol. 1 of New Testament Apocrypha; 2 vols.; rev. ed.; Louisville, Ky.: WestminsterJohn Knox, 1991) 414–20; Hock, Ronald F., The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (The Scholars Bible 2; Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1995) 8Google Scholar.

2 Van Haelst, Catalogue, 601

3 For editions of the Protevangelium Jacobi, see Boyd L. Daniels, The Greek Manuscript Tradition of the Protevangelium Jacobi (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1956); Strycker, Émile de, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le Papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée (Subsidia hagiographica 33; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1961Google Scholar); Lewis, Agnes S., Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae (Studia Sinaitica 11; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1902Google Scholar); Tischendorf, Constantin von, Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1876) 9–10Google Scholar; Otero, Aurelio de Santos, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der altslavische Apokryphen (Patristische Texte und Studien 20, 23; 2 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Martin McNamara, Jean-Daniel Kaestli, and Rita Beyers, eds., Evangelia Infantiae (vol. 1 of Apocrypha Hiberniae; Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum 13; Turnhout: Brepols, 2001) 41–52.

4 de Strycker, Émile, “Die griechischen Handschriften des Protevangelium Iacobi,” in Griechische Kodikologie und Textuberlieferung ed. Harlfinger, Dieter; Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft, 1980) 597–607Google Scholar; for the origin of P.Bodmer 5, see Wasserman, Tommy, “Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex,” NTS 51 (2005) 137–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Similarly, Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protevangile de Jacques, 83.

6 Ibid., 83 n. 15.