The eighty-first volume of the Oxyrhynchus papyri contains ‘assorted “firsts”’ (p. v). In addition to its new texts, this volume is the first to feature editions of literary and sub-literary texts produced with the help of the Ancient Lives project (but see P. Oxy. LXXVIII 5156 and CR 64.2 [2014], 331). Twelve black-and-white plates present twenty of the thirty-two papyri.

Four new literary texts (5261–4), sixteen known literary texts (5265–80) and five sub-literary texts (5281–5), of which three preserve hypotheses to plays by Euripides, form the core of this volume. This review will briefly discuss these editions before turning to the four documents (5286–9) and the oldest fragment of 1 Timothy (5259), which, with the first Oxyrhynchus fragment of Ephesians (5258) and a text of the Hymn of the Cross (5260), frame this volume.

New fragments of a novel about the legendary pharaoh Sesonchosis (5262 and 5263) and a narrative about a queen who conquered Egypt and built pyramids (5264) receive thorough commentary (pp. 19–46). As an addition, it might be noted that in 5263 forms of φοῖνιξ and ἀκτίϲ (and a derivative) are consistently spelled with <ει> for <ῑ> (fr. 2, col. ii, lines 25, 26–7, 29 and 30). The longest fragment of 5264 ends τροπ̣[c.1] . [|, for which the editor suggests τρόπ̣[αι]α̣ and supplies a supporting discussion of the pyramids as ‘memorials of power’ (μ[νη]|μεῖα τῆϲ δυνάμε|ωϲ: lines 8–10) in contrast to their usual identification in Greek literature as tombs. I considered τρόπ̣[ον] α̣, but doubt that it is more plausible. In support of τρόπ̣[αι]α̣, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (4.25.3) may be added, who lists the pyramids at Memphis among various monuments that were πλούτου καὶ πολυχειρίαϲ ἐπίδειξιϲ (in the opinion of Tullius).

5261 provides the first direct attestation of Simonides, fr. 25 West² (known from Athenaeus) and, as such, is ‘new’. The papyrus shows an accent on τ̣ῆϲ, probably, as the editor notes, to signal that it is a demonstrative, and ‘confirms’ West's conjecture of contracted χείτω for χεέτω (Bergk's χεάτω is ‘rejected’). The accent on χέιτω (sic) also calls for comment. The diplomatic transcription (]τ̣ῆϲχέι[) is confirmed by Plate I: the first vowel of the diphthong is accented. This practice is found in P. Oxy. XV 1790 (Ibycus, second century bce) and, among others, in the Hawara and Harris Homers as well as in the much later addition of accents to Codex Vaticanus.

Few of the known literary texts are Classical in a strict or relatively loose sense. Papyri of Plutarch (5270–1), Epictetus (5272–4), Lucian (5275), Oppian (5276–8), [Hermogenes] (5279) and Themistius (5280) show that these authors were read in Egypt within a generation or two of their lives in some cases and, in others, within a century or two (pp. 71–2, 73, 81 and 91). These papyri give us copies much closer in date to the originals and illustrate the lectional aids (pp. 61 and 88) and various qualities of production of ancient books (‘luxury’, 5272; ‘written fairly quickly’, 5270; a ‘cursive’ ‘private copy’, 5275). Some preserve nonsense (5266 and 5279↓4; cf. 5277), transmit unmetrical (5266) or singular readings (5277, 5278, 5280 and, perhaps, 5270), and show omissions (5266, 5275 and 5278) and corrections (5272, 5274 and 5278). The linguistic implications of variant spellings and their corrections are not always considered (e.g. 5268, pp. 61–2, and 5272, p. 74). Still, 5267 gives us a fascinating glimpse of a pre-epitomised Polybius, and the lyrics of 5266, another piece of the same find of Byzantine fragments as P. Oxy. XI 1369–74, seem to have unique lineation.

One general concern is that papyri are said to ‘confirm’ conjectures, emendations and corrections (pp. 16, 19, 56, 59, 60, 66, 90 and 146) or to ‘refute’ them (pp. 60, 66, 78 and 79). Papyri can confirm, or corroborate, conjectures: modern conjectures are upgraded in status to attested ancient readings. Such an ancient reading may preserve the author's text or it may be itself a conjecture (or, of course, a copying error). When a scholar's conjecture receives an endorsement from antiquity, it is not proved to be the original reading simply because it is attested at a date much earlier than the medieval manuscript tradition. However, papyrological discoveries never ‘refute’ conjectures, certainly not by their agreement with the medieval manuscript tradition. Papyri only demonstrate that passages regarded as in need of emendation by at least one modern scholar existed in that form as early as the time of those papyri. Some passages were already as corrupt in Roman times as they now may be thought to be (as some notes make clear: e.g. pp. 49, 50–1, 53–4 and 56; cf. p. 60).

It is better to state that a papyrus text ‘supports’ or ‘does not support’ a conjecture (pp. 69 and 84; cf. p. 146), ‘anticipates modern emendation’ (p. 65) or ‘is partially in agreement with a modern conjecture … and may well be the original reading’ (p. 53). In this regard, the edition of 5266 is exemplary in its labelling of one reading as ‘an unmetrical trivialization’ (Sophocles, Philoctetes line 118) and in its discussion of the manuscript reading θνητῶν (line 177, where Lachmann's θεῶν is widely accepted). The reading of the papyrus, θανάτων, suggests θνᾱτῶν as a precursor, a form preferable in a lyric passage.

The three papyri of Euripidean hypotheses receive appropriately cautious editions and expert commentary from Meccariello (pp. 109–51). 5283 provides two new opening lines: the line-end for the Dictys and ‘scanty traces’ for the Danae. 5285 is thought to preserve an original reading (p. 150). The commentary ranges as far as discussing compound verbs with multiple preverbs (pp. 127 and 142), writing <ει> for <ῑ> (pp. 143 and 145) and syllable division before <ϲ> (pp. 132, 135 and 151).

The three fragments of 1 Timothy 3:13–4:8 from a third-century codex (5259) are of immense interest, not only because they are the earliest published witness to 1 Timothy (since 𝕻⁴⁶ [c. 200 ce] famously could not have contained the Pastoral Epistles), but also because they span one of the most notorious variation units in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:16: ὅϲ א* A* C* (some later witnesses and Church Fathers), θεόϲ א^e A² C² D² (some later witnesses, the Received Text and some Church Fathers) or ὅ (D* 061 [spelled as Ω], the Itala and Vulgate, and some Latin Church Fathers).

As is often the case with papyri, this fragment disappoints because it is damaged at exactly this point. The editor restores the line as [ευϲεβειαϲ μ]υ̣ϲτ[ηριον οϲ]. That is plausible on the basis of the evidence of the manuscripts, but it should be noted that the choice is between ὅϲ and not θεόϲ, but the nomen sacrum θϲ, which would also fit the space (the editor uses that nomen sacrum in her suggested restoration of lines 1–2). In addition to the citation of the 1884 partial transcription of 061 by T. Zahn, there should be a reference to the full transcription, images and commentary of B. Reicke, ‘Les deux fragments grecs onciaux de I Tim. appelés 061 publiés’, Coniectanea Neotestamentica 11 (1947), 196–206.

Several uncial fragments are cited as papyri (p. 4): the sigla 𝕻²⁵⁹ and 𝕻²⁶² have not yet been assigned (read ‘0259’ and ‘0262’) and we should have 061 and 088, not 𝕻⁶¹ and 𝕻⁸⁸. This shows the unwieldiness of a system in which uncial texts on papyrus are referred to as papyri, but uncial texts on parchment are referred to as uncials with a number (prefixed ‘0’), even when they were catalogued and published with papyri (e.g. 0308 is P. Oxy. LXVI 4500). Also, some fluctuation ensues in references to those uncials that are known by a capital letter or a number: F and G sometimes are F010 and G012 (p. 7). The manuscripts the editor cites as א, A, C, D and Ψ briefly become 01א, A02, C04, Δ06 and Ψ044 (p. 8). The T(extus)R(eceptus) is uniquely (p. 8) distinguished from the M(ajority)T(ext), while previously only 𝕸 had been used (p. 7). On και καυτηριαϲμενων (sic: either an unreduplicated perfect passive participle or a vox nihili), which is given as the reading of F<010> and 0241^vid (in contrast to κεκαυ(ϲ)τηριαϲμένων), it would be worth noting that F010 clearly presents και (sic) not as an iotacistic spelling for the κε- reduplication, but as καί, since an interpunct separates και and καυτηριαϲμενων. However, 0241 has [ψευδολο]γων κ̣[αι]κ̣αυτηρ[ιαϲ|μενων and no accent, interpunct, or spacing to mark καί as an independent word. J.V. Bartlet (‘A New Fifth-Sixth Century Fragment of I Timothy’, JTS 18/72 [1917], 310), for reasons of space (presumably), supplemented κ̣[αι]-, not κ̣[ε]-, for the reduplication, equating the former with the latter (as a spelling variant). The editor's consideration of whether ἐπεγνωκόϲι (as ‘NA 27’) should have a ‘final mobile ν’ (as ‘NA 28’) is welcome and instructive, since the texts of N(estle-)A(land) 27 and 28 are said not to differ (except in the Catholic Epistles).

The four documents are snapshots of non-literary life at Oxyrhynchus at the beginning of the reign of Domitian (5286), in the brief reign of Pescennius Niger (5287: an application to purchase in an open-bid auction), in June 570 (5288) and in the seventh century (5289). I intend here to enrich the commentaries further. Phrynichus censured the perfect τεθέληκεν (line 3 of 5286, the foot of a letter). Note also the perfect κ̣έ̣κμ̣η̣κα̣ (line 1). The need for a plural (λέγ<ετ>ε τῆι μητρί: line 5) is indicated by the imperative κομίϲαϲθε (line 6), not just, as noted by the editor, by δότε (line 11) and by the address. A contract between a gardener and a noble woman (5288) is the third Greek papyrus to contain the name Georgia (cf. Trismegistos Name #9093; LGPN knows seventeen bearers) and attests a new notary (and, perhaps, presbyter): another Iohannes. (The Greek switches into and from Latin script: line 30.) The phrase ἐν μὲν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρα{ϲ} (line 23) shows a genitive form as a dative (the sigma we are told, ‘was added at a later stage’: p. 157) and is followed, we are told, by an addendum lexicis: ἰλιτήν, or εἰλητήν, a ‘rolled-up bundle’ (‘a substantivised adjective not attested elsewhere’: p. 157). However, the adjective εἰλητόϲ (or εἵ-) is found in medical writers in a suitable meaning (‘rolled’) and the scholia vetera to Aristophanes’ Frogs 339 (ἡ εἵληϲιϲ ἡ τῶν ἐντέρων ἐϲτὶ χορδή, ἣν εἱλητὴν καλοῦμεν ἡμεῖϲ) suggest that εἱλητή was a non-Classical term for χορδή ‘string’. (Cf. E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (1900), p. 425, and DGE s.vv. 2 εἴληϲιϲ, εἰλητάριον and εἰλητόϲ.) The editor of 5289 notes that only the Septuagint also attests the heteroclite (neuter) plural of masculine ἔλεοϲ (line 21; cf. lines 8 and 24). Moreover, the use of ποιέω (and ἔλεος) with μετὰ παντὸϲ ἀνθρώπο̣[υ] (line 23) also recalls the Septuagint (e.g. Judges 8.35AB: see BDAG s.v. μετά A2γג). Further documents on the backs of 5263, 5265, 5271, 5275 and 5276 remain to be published.

Complex and fascinating texts that offer new glimpses of literature and life at Oxyrhynchus have been published here with the utmost care (with only minor errors) and these editions will contribute valuably to many fields of research.