In November 1985, the British Museum turned over to me photographs in their files that they had made while conserving the leather binding of 
75 for the Bibliothèque Bodmer, which contained fragments of Luke and John not previously published in the editio princeps or otherwise available to scholarship. This article reports on these fragments and includes three plates of the photographs.
I first completed this essay on 15 October 2005, then revised it on 20 January 2006, and again on 25 April 2006 for publication in the Harvard Theological Review, and again on 24 April 2007; I gave it in its present form to HTR on 28 November 2007. These delays, of course, call for some explanation.
While in Tokyo at a conference of the Japan Bible Society in May 2006, I met Klaus Wachtel of the Münster Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung. He told me that a colleague of his there, Marie-Luise Lakmann, was publishing for the Bibliothèque Bodmer an edition of the fragments from the cartonnage of 75. I had given the Münster Institute's founders, Kurt and Barbara Aland, the ultraviolet photographs of the fragments from the cartonnage on which she has largely based her essay. Hence I delayed publication of my essay until her detailed text-critical analysis had appeared. I contacted her, and she responded on 19 July 2006 that she had submitted her article in January 2006 to Mme Métry of the Bodmeriana and had “used the photographs you passed on to our Institute.” Her essay does in fact acknowledge dependence on them although without explaining how she obtained access to them:
Die neuen Fragmente ergänzen weitere Lücken des Textes. Sie stammen überwiegend aus den ersten und letzten erhaltenen Blättern des Kodex, die zur Stabilisierung des Einbandes zusammengeklebt waren, in den 80er Jahren jedoch im British Museum teilweise voneinander gelöst werden konnten. Sichtbar wurden dadurch einige bisher unbekannte Textstücke, andere Textpassagen können nun in grösserer Klarheit und Vollständigkeit gelesen werden. . ..
Teile dieses “Einbandes” konnten im British Museum Mitte der achtziger Jahre gelöst und mittels Infrarottechnik photographiert werden, . . .
Diese Seite des Papyrus [John 12:47–13:10] ist an einigen Stellen mit Klebstoffspuren überzogen; darunterliegende Buchstabenreste sind zum Teil jedoch auf den Infrarotphotos, die bei der Restaurierung dieser Blätter im British Museum erstellt worden sind, zu sehen.Footnote 1
The new fragments supplement further lacunae of the text. They come primarily from the first and last surviving leaves of the codex, which were pasted together to stabilize the binding, but in the ’80s could nonetheless be partially separated from one another in the British Museum. Thus a few previously unknown bits of text became visible, other passages of text can now be read with greater clarity and completeness. . ..
Parts of this “binding” could be separated in the British Museum in the middle of the ’80s and photographed with the help of infrared technology. . ..
This side of the papyrus [John 12:47–13:13] is in a few places covered with traces of paste; nonetheless vestiges of letters lying beneath can be partially seen in the infrared photos that have been produced in the British Museum during the restoration of these leaves.
Yet, in an opening footnote, Lakmann indicates that she publishes not the photographs of the British Museum on file in Münster but those of the Bibliothèque Bodmer in Cologny near Geneva:
Mein herzlicher Dank gilt der Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Genève/Cologny, für ihre freundliche Aufnahme und Unterstützung sowie die Bereitstellung der beigefügten Photos.Footnote 2
My hearty thanks are due to the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana of Geneva/Cologny for its amicable acceptance and support, as well as for providing the appended photos.
These photographs of the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana do not comprise the same infrared photographs of the British Museum that Lakmann used in preparing her excellent text-critical essay, which for this very reason proves so remarkable and useful. But rather the older photographs of Bibliotheca Bodmeriana appear so inadequate that other textual critics cannot use them to verify her readings. We cannot read the fragment of Luke 3:21–22 on her Plate IbFootnote 3 nor the much too enlarged verso with Luke 4:1–2 on Plate II;Footnote 4 yet Lakmann has transcribed both correctly.Footnote 5 The fragment at the bottom to the right in the top half of Plate III,Footnote 6 containing some of Luke 5:37–39, appears printed upside down, although the ink appears too obscure to make this visible; yet Lakmann has transcribed it correctly.Footnote 7 The photograph of John 12:47–13:10 on plate VIII appears less legible than the infrared photograph.Footnote 8 The cropping off of the bottom margin included the last line (line 41); yet Lakmann included it in her transcription.Footnote 9 The photograph of John 14:26–15:10 on plate X, taken before the British Museum had removed vestiges of the leather cover and the paste used in making the cartonnage,Footnote 10 appears completely illegible; yet Lakmann has produced a largely complete transcription.Footnote 11 Obviously her transcriptions come from the infrared photograph of the British Museum. Since Lakmann does not state in her essay how she got access to the infrared photographs, a reader seeking to verify her transcriptions would naturally turn to the British Museum (now the British Library) only to find that it no longer has the infrared photographs (since they gave them to me in November, 1985). Since the Bibliothèque Bodmer did not provide the photographs of the British Museum for Lakmann's essay, we do not know whether the Bibliothèque Bodmer has copies of these photographs, and, if so, how other textual critics could get access to them. Hence I include three plates of British Museum photographs in the present essay, so that interested textual critics can have access to the best extant photographs.
Luke 3:21–22; 4:1–2; 5:37–39; 6:11–12 (pages 221–22).
John 12:47–13:10 (page 223).
John 14:26–15:10 (page 224).
Lakmann received a reply from the Bodmeriana in February, 2006, that the Museum Helveticum was “ravie de publier dans les meilleurs délais votre contribution,” (“delighted to publish with the briefest delay your contribution”). But the Museum Helveticum reported in July 2006 that it had not yet received the essay from the Bibliothèque Bodmer! An inquiry at the Bodmeriana led to a response in September, 2006, that they had assigned to Rodolphe Kasser and his wife, Anna DiBitonto Kasser, the publication of such unpublished tiny bits of papyrus. As a matter of fact, Kasser had announced his assignment in the Newsletter of the International Association for Coptic Studies in October, 2002, as follows:
Édition de divers petits fragments de papyrus ou parchemin se rattachant à des manuscrits (coptes ou grecs) déjà publiés dans la collection M. Bodmer, Fondation Martin Bodmer.Footnote 12
The edition of various small fragments of papyrus or parchment attached to manuscripts (Coptic or Greek) already published in the collection M. Bodmer, Fondation Martin Bodmer.
This announcement appeared again and again—in September, 2005 (Number 48), July, 2006 (Number 49), and July, 2007 (Number 50)—during which time Kasser remained engrossed full-time in editing The Gospel of Judas.Footnote 13 The Bodmeriana submitted Lakmann's essay to the Museum Helveticum and authorized the publication of the present essay.
Actually, Lakmann's essay did not appear until 2007 after the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana had acquired 75 on 22 November 2006 (as acknowledged in Lakmann's essay).Footnote 14 This too calls for some explanation.
The Vatican Library announced the acquisition of 75 in its newspaper L’Osservatore Romano on 24 January 2007, just two days after its acquisition, in a lengthy article written by one of the Vatican's librarians, Sever J. Voicu.Footnote 15The Birmingham News detailed the actual acquisition procedure on 2 March 2007 in an article written by the person most involved in its acquisition, Father Richard Donohoe of St. Paul's Cathedral in Birmingham, Alabama. I had interviewed him on the phone prior to the publication of the article and then in person on 10 March 2007. The article includes a picture of Father Donohoe with the Pope at the presentation ceremony. It actually appears under the name of the staff writer Greg Garrison, as follows:
Donohoe assisted in the Vatican Library's acquisition of two rare pieces of papyrus, including the oldest surviving copy of the Gospel of Luke and one of the two oldest copies of the Gospel of John. . ..
The papyri were bought through Christie's of New York after the auction house announced that the Bodmer Library in Switzerland was putting them up for sale.
Donohoe got involved in late 2005 when former St. Paul's member Amy McCready, an employee of Christie's, told him the artifacts would be coming up for sale and asked if the Vatican would be interested.
Donohoe contacted Gary Krupp of the Pave the Way Foundation, who had previously worked with the Vatican Library. The Vatican expressed interest. In February, Donohoe was asked by the Vatican to raise funds for the purchase. The fundraising and the negotiations during 2006 were kept secret.
With Krupp's help, Donohoe contacted Catholic businessman Frank Hanna III of Atlanta, whose foundation put up the money to purchase the ancient documents and donate them to the Vatican for safekeeping and research. No sale price was announced although it was obviously in the millions. . ..
On Jan 22, Donohoe, Krupp and the Hanna family took part in a ceremony at the Vatican to present the papyri to the pope. . ..
The stunning Vatican acquisition caught the attention of one of the top scholars of ancient biblical documents, James M. Robinson, who this semester is serving as eminent professor of religion at Auburn University.
“It is probably the most important New Testament biblical manuscript to have survived,” said Robinson, general editor of The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Footnote 16
This then brings us to the present article, which in all innocence I had prepared fully ignorant of all these other proceedings!
75, an early third-century codex, consists of Bodmer Papyrus XIVFootnote 17 and Bodmer Papyrus XVFootnote 18 and contains large portions of the gospels of Luke and John published in 1961. In the summer of 1972 Kurt Aland and his text-critical team visited the Bibliothèque Bodmer to photograph both the papyri and the unplaced fragments, a number of which they identified and published in 1976.Footnote 19 The present essay supplements Aland's list with other fragments not available at that time, since they had been pasted together in parts of the cartonnage of the leather cover of the codex containing 75.
The Pachomian Monastic Library
I came upon photographs of these fragments from the cartonnage of 75 quite by chance. The British Museum entrusted the photographs to me to make them available to the scholarly community. Thus I feel morally obligated to pass them on to textual critics of the New Testament as fully as possible.
I came upon the fragments in the following way. I had received permission from the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin to publish (in 1990) a papyrus (Chester Beatty Codex Accession 1390) containing a segment from the Gospel of John (10:7–13:38) in Subachmimic. I had developed an interest in this papyrus upon determining that it constituted part of a manuscript discovery, whose provenance I had stumbled upon in tracing back the Nag Hammadi Codices to their place of discovery in Upper Egypt.
The locals in Upper Egypt know this second manuscript discovery as the “Dishna papers,” named for the town where they had traded them. The discovery occurred near the headquarters monastery of the Pachomian order, or, more precisely, between it and the cliffs (i.e., about where they would have buried the monks [and manuscripts]).
The Dishna papers represented the remnants of the library of the headquarters monastery of the Pachomian order, which they had buried a couple of centuries after Pachomius had created a chain of monasteries along the Nile in the fourth century. When Athanasius had to flee for refuge from Alexandria, rumor had it that he had gone in hiding in the Pachomian monasteries.Footnote 20 He might have taken some of the patriarchate's library holdings with him for his own personal use and perhaps to save them from falling into the hands of heretics. This could explain how 66 and 75 (both about a century older than the founding of the Pachomian order itself) ended up buried for safekeeping as part of the Pachomian monastic library.Footnote 21
I learned at the Chester Beatty Library that the British Museum conserved their papyri for them and, in the conservation work, made photographs, which might prove useful in the process of editing Chester Beatty Codex Accession 1390. I went in November 1985 to the British Museum, and they provided photographs of several Chester Beatty manuscripts that I thought came from the Pachomian monastic library.
The time of my visit turned out propitious. For the conservator of papyrus had just retired, and they needed to clean his office of his materials. On seeing my interest in New Testament manuscripts, the Museum entrusted me to make available to the academic community other photographs of a similar nature. These photographs included those of the fragments from the cartonnage of 75 that had stuck to fragments of the leather cover. They had become separated when sent by the Bibliothèque Bodmer to the British Museum for this purpose.
The monks had rebound this papyrus codex, as part of the Pachomian monastic library, in late antiquity. In the rebinding process, they had pasted broken papyrus fragments of Luke and John inside the leather covers to stiffen them and thus created the cartonnage conserved at the British Museum.
Cartonnage usually consisted of trash paper such as documentary papyri of no value. They do not normally use fragments from the literary texts of the codex itself for this purpose. By the time the dwindling Pachomian monastic order buried its library, the monks must have no longer read Greek. For them, the broken fragments did not represent texts to read, but just part of a venerated relic from the monastery's beginnings that they wanted to preserve.
The infrared photographs given to me by the British Museum contained two almost complete leaves reassembled from fragments as well as some pictures of their individual fragments and of their partially assembled leaves:
John 12:33–47, and its other side, John 12:47–13:10;
John 14:8–26, and its other side, John 14:26–15:10.
We have also photographs of both sides of two small fragments:
Luke 3:21–22 and Luke 6:11–12, and, on the other side, Luke 4:1–2 and Luke 5:37–39, respectively.
On 5 November 1985, I wrote letters to Bruce Metzger and Matthew Black, chairs of the American and British committees of the International Greek New Testament Project primarily responsible for the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament, and to Kurt and Barbara Aland, chairs of the committee of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster responsible for the Novum Testamentum Graece, and enclosed to each copies of the photographs that the British Museum had given to me.
The Alands replied with appreciation on 9 December 1985 and reported that, from a preliminary analysis, the material I had sent fell into four categories: 1) the text and photographs about which they already knew, but had inaccurately placed; 2) a transcription that they already had available, but without photographs; 3) additions to these transcriptions that they could make; 4) some completely unknown pieces: John 13:1–8; 14:30–15:6; 15:9–10.
Metzger and Black, although not acknowledging receipt of my mailing, did incorporate material from it in the fourth revised edition of The Greek New Testament, to judge by the fifth printing, which includes papyri 98–116, in its unaltered sixth printing of 2002.
The editiones principes had already published facsimiles of the individual pages, which included some of the material subsequently sent to the British Museum for conservation. But they did not deem all the material suitable for publication as facsimiles, since it remained covered by vestiges of the leather of the cover. Indeed a few pieces remained stuck together and needed the work of conservation professionals to separate them in order to become accessible.
Novum Testamentum Graece
I cite the relevant policies of Nestle-Aland regarding papyri of the New Testament as follows:
The Novum Testamentum Graece 26 states:
Im kritischen Apparat sind die Lesarten neu bekanntgewordener Papyri und Majuskeln verzeichnet.Footnote 22
In the critical apparatus are listed the readings of papyri and majuscules that have newly become known.
Then they list the verses that have at least a letter in a given verse for each manuscript.Footnote 23 For 75 the list includes the following: for Luke “3:18–22; 3:33–4,2; 4:34–5,10; 5:37–6:4; 6:10–7:32”; and for John “12:3–13:l, 8–9; 14:8–30; 15:7–8.” This list includes some of the verses represented in the cartonnage (such as Luke 3:21–22; 4:1–2; 5:37–39; 6:11–12; and John 12:33–13:1, 8–9; 14:8–30; 15:7–8) because the editiones principes had already published part of the verses in question, or the Aland team had photographed and/or transcribed them. But other verses represented in the cartonnage do not appear on this list (John 13:2–7, 10; 14:31–15:6, 9–10), which indicates that these fragments from the cartonnage had not yet become accessible.
The Greek-English New Testament states:
This eighth edition differs basically from its predecessors in the Greek part, which now represents the 27th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece. The Greek text remains unchanged from that of the 26th edition, which is also that of the Fourth (and Third) edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, but significant changes have been made in the critical apparatus.Footnote 24
Then, in the Introduction, it states further:
New fragments of 41, 66 and 75 have been incorporated as well as the readings of 90, 91, and 93–116, here reported for the first time.Footnote 25
This edition has enlarged the list of verses in 75: John “12,3–13,10; 14,8–15,10.”Footnote 26 Thus this new listing makes complete all of the verses accessible in the cartonnage.
Since the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament 4 lists in its apparatus criticus only a selection of what it considers the most significant variant readings, it does not list most of the new material in the cartonnage.
I now turn to this new material itself.
Luke 3:21–22 (Page 221)
Plate 1 of the editio princeps of Luke, captioned “Luc III:18–22; VI:4,” contains two separate segments of a leaf, each attached to leather from the cover that still lies on top of much of this papyrus. The smaller of the segments has no legible papyrus visible but only leather. (Concerning the other small fragment without leather attached, from Luke 6:4, the verso from Luke 6:15, see below.) The larger segment (printed upside down) has some text barely visible on it in places where it has no leather from the cover to obscure it. The transcriptions of the editio princeps have the following captions at the tops of the pages 32–33: “Luc III:18–22 (couverture*),” (“Luke 3:18–22 [binding*],”) and “Luc III:33–IV:2 (couverture*),” (“Luke 3:33–4:2 [binding*]”), with the following footnote at the bottom of page 32 to explain the asterisks: “* Feuillets utilisés pour la confection de la reliure, v. intr. pp. 11–13,” (“Leaves used in making the binding, see the introduction, pages 11–13”). At the bottom of page 33, we read the following footnote: “* Cette page d’un feuillet utilisé pour la confection de la reliure (v. intr. pp. 5, 9 et 11–13), n’a pu être photographiée” (“* This page of a leaf used in making the binding [see the introduction, pages 5, 9, and 11–13] could not be photographed”).Footnote 27
The introduction in the first volume, which contains Luke 3–24, reads as follows:
Nous donnons avec la transcription du Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV un fac-similé de toutes les pages de ce document, à l’exception de celles qui sont collées les unes aux autres, dans la reliure du codex. En effet, l’extrême fragilité du papyrus nous a obligés à remettre immédiatement en place les couches que nous avions pu séparer pour le déchiffrement. A l’exception de ces quelques pages, le lecteur disposera donc de l’image complète du texte original. . ..
L’observateur attentif remarquera également de très légères irrégularités dans l’assemblage des fragments. Il n’a pas été possible d’obtenir une plus grande précision, car chaque déplacement des fragments pouvait provoquer de nouvelles détériorations, et, par conséquent, une perte de texte. Il fallut se résoudre à limiter le nombre des manipulations dans l’intérêt même de l’édition.Footnote 28
We give with the transcription of Bodmer Papyrus XIV–XV a facsimile of all the pages of this document, with the exception of those that are pasted one on the other in the binding of the codex. In effect, the extreme fragility of the papyrus has obliged us to restore immediately in place the layers that we had been able to separate for the decipherment. Hence, with the exception of these few pages, the reader will have available the complete image of the original text. . ..
The attentive reader will also note very slight irregularities in the assembling of the fragments. It has not been possible to obtain greater precision, for each deplacement of the fragments could provoke new deteriorations, and, as a result, a loss of text. It was necessary to resolve to limit the number of manipulations precisely in the interest of the edition.
We see the following further clarification on page 9:
L’identification des fragments et leur mise en place a permis de reconstituer plus ou moins complètement 21 nouveaux feuillets, auxquels il faut en ajouter 5 provenant de la reliure.Footnote 29
The identification of fragments and their placement has made it possible to reconstitute more or less completely 21 new leaves, to which it is necessary to add five coming from the binding.
More details appear on pages 11 and 13 (separated by a chart on page 12):
Nous rappelons que les feuilles constituant le cahier sont superposées dans l’ordre de 1 à 36, verso en dessous, et que les restes de celles qui portent les nos 7, 9 et 11 de la série ont été utilisés dans la reliure et récupérés par désintégration partielle de celle-ci. Collées primitivement les unes aux autres, elles adhéraient étroitement à des fragments de cuir appartenant de toute évidence à la reliure du codex ou, plus exactement, aux deux plats de cette reliure. Toutefois, à en juger par son épaisseur, cet agglomérat ne pouvait guère comprendre plus de quatre couches de papyrus au maximum. C’est bien, du reste, ce qu’a confirmé la séparation des couches, dans la mesure où il a été possible de l’opérer. Cette opération a procuré des parties des feuillets 7, 9 et 11.Footnote 30
We recall that the leaves constituting the quire are placed one on another in the order 1 to 36, verso below, and that the vestiges of those that carry the numbers 7, 9, and 11 of the series have been used in the binding and recovered by its partial disintegration. Pasted originally one on another, they adhere directly to the fragments of leather belonging in all probability to the binding of the codex, or, more exactly, to the two sides of this binding. Nonetheless, to judge by its thickness, this conglomerate could at most have hardly contained more than four thicknesses of papyrus. This is, besides, what has been confirmed by the separation of the layers, to the extent that it has been possible to carry it out. This operation has procured parts of leaves 7, 9, and 11.
The chart on page 12 identifies these leaves. Sheet 7* consisted of one leaf containing Luke 3:18–22 / 3:33–4:2 but missing the conjugate leaf. Sheet 9* consisted of a leaf containing Luke 4:34–42 / 4:43–5:10 with a conjugate leaf containing John 14:8–26 / 14:26–15:8. Sheet 11* consisted of a leaf containing Luke 5:37–6:4 / 6:10–15 with a conjugate leaf containing John 12:33–47 / 12:47–13:10. A footnote explains the asterisk: “* marque les folios récupérés dans la couverture,” (“* indicates the folios recovered in the binding”).Footnote 31
The transcription of the editio princeps includes those parts of the cartonnage not covered by leather.
The apparatus criticus both of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 and The Greek New Testament 4 contain no new variant at this text.
Luke 4:1–2 (Page 222)
One might expect the other side of the leaf visible on Plate 1 to show up on Plate 2. But this does not occur. Whereas the larger segment on Plate 1 appears in fact upside down, the larger segment in Plate 2, although not rotated, appears right side up. Clearly, one does not have to do with the front and back of the same leaf. Also the texts themselves make this clear. Whereas Luke 3:18–22 shows up on one side of the larger segment, and Luke 6:10–14 appears on the other, these texts lie too far apart to represent the recto and verso of the same leaf. Hence Plate 1 shows a fragment of a page of one leaf, and Plate 2 has a fragment of a page of another leaf.
A photograph from the British Museum presents (right side up) the right part of the larger segment on Plate 1 (where the cartonnage appears) now separated off as a separate fragment from Luke 3:21–22 (page 221). Once they had separated this fragment from the leather of the cover and from the rest of the papyrus leaf shown on Plate 1, its other side became accessible. A photograph of the British Museum shows this other side of the fragment as part of Luke 4:1–2 (page 222). Once cleaned, one could transcribe part of it. As a result, one can now take out of square brackets some of the transcription on page 33 of the editio princeps that appears in square brackets in lines 11–13 from Luke 4:1–2.
In the apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27, we identify one new variant at this text. It agrees with the critical text in reading ἐν τηἐρἡμῳ.
In the apparatus criticus of The Greek New Testament 4, one finds no new variant at this text.
Luke 5:37–39 (Page 221)
On Plate 2 the bottom left corner of the larger segment contains a fragment of Luke 6:11–12. Once the British Museum had removed this fragment, its other side became exposed. The photograph of the British Museum shows part of Luke 5:37–39 on this other side (page 221). The editio princeps does not have this side of the fragment.
The apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 has three new variants at Luke 5:38–39, all omissions, based on the calculation of the length of the lines. At the end of Luke 5:38, 75 “vid” omits (in agreement with the editio princeps and the critical text) καἰ ὰμÆότεροι συντηρουνται. At Luke 5:39, 75 “vid” omits καἰ; against the critical text itself (which however has καἰ; in square brackets, indicating “doubtful authenticity”). Hence, the editio princeps should have omitted καἰ;. 75 “vid” also omits εὐθέως (in agreement with the editio princeps and the critical text).
In the apparatus criticus of The Greek New Testament 4 at Luke 5:38, 75 reads βλητἑον “vid” in agreement with the editio princeps and the critical text. (This listing does not appear in the Novum Testamentum Graece 27!)
Luke 6:4
One very small fragment on Plate 1 of the editio princeps appears separate to itself and free of leather. A bottom margin also appears. One can read very few letters from Luke 6:4. One can see a text from Luke 6 visible on Plate 1, although it primarily displays text from Luke 3, because the larger segment visible on Plate 1 contains fragments of two leaves attached together and to the leather of the cover, one on top of the other. The lower of these two leaves, with text from Luke 6, does not appear visible otherwise on Plate 1, since on the larger segment it remains hidden behind the fragment of Luke 3:18–22. But on Plate 2, of the editio princeps one can see text from Luke 6:11–14. There the other side of this very small fragment also becomes visible and contains a very few letters from Luke 6:15 (see below). But this very small fragment does not have a bit of a second leaf that would have material from Luke 3. As a result, the other side of the leaf with Luke 6:11–14 has become visible on Plate 1 and shows Luke 6:4.
Neither the apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 nor The Greek New Testament 4 has a new variant at this text.
Luke 6:11–12 (Page 222)
Plate 2 of the editio princeps, captioned “Luc VI:10–15,” comprises the other side of what we see on Plate 1. It contains two separate segments of a leaf, both of which remain attached to leather from the cover. The smaller of the two segments has only a very few letters visible, which the editio princeps seems not to have transcribed. A third, very small fragment (from Luke 6:15), without any leather visible behind it, comes from the last line of the page, to judge by the blank papyrus below the letters. It appears transcribed on page 39 of the editio princeps.
The editio princeps has a transcription, also on page 39, of the larger segment visible on Plate 2 . The fragment in the right upper corner of the larger segment that remains still attached to the leather of the cover forms part of Luke 6:11–12. This fragment, separated at the British Museum from the rest of the larger segment, thereby exposes the other side (Luke 5:37–39, see above), and we have photographs of both sides (pages 221, 222).
The main fragment on the larger segment, from Luke 6:11–14, does not constitute the other side of the main fragment on the large segment on Plate 1, Luke 3:18–22 (see above). Instead, we see fragments of two leaves and of the leather from the cover stuck together. Since the British Museum apparently did not succeed in separating these layers (to judge by the available photographs), the other side of each of the two larger fragments attached to each other and to the leather from the cover remains extant. Hence, text preceding or following Luke 6:11–14 and text preceding or following Luke 3:18–22 remains extant but for the time being inaccessible. One may hope that newer technology will some day enable us to read these fragments.
The apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 lists a new variant for 75: the reading καἰ; . . . καἰ;, in agreement with the critical text.
The apparatus criticus of The Greek New Testament 4 has no new variant at this text.
John 12:33b–47
Plate 97 of the editio princeps of John, captioned “Jean XII:33–47,” contains much of a leaf reassembled from a number of fragments. The transcription has the following captions at the top of the pages: “Jean XII:33–40 (couverture),” (“John 12:33–40 [binding]”), and “Jean XII:40–47 (couverture),” (“John 12:40–47 [binding]”).Footnote 32 We see a strip of leather from the cover stuck on top of the right margin of the page from top to bottom. Fortunately, it does not cover any of the text. A photograph from the British Museum of the bulk of this page shows the same fragments as in the editio princeps, but the leather from the top half of the right margin, largely removed, leaves blackened papyrus in its place. The photograph lacks completely the leather in the bottom half of the right margin. Someone has removed it along with whatever papyrus lay behind it.
The apparatus criticus of both the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 and the Greek New Testament 4 has no new variants.
John 12:47–13:10 (Page 223)
Plate 98 of the editio princeps of John has the caption: “Jean XII:47–49; XIV:8–26.” It contains in the top right corner a small fragment with part of four lines from John 12:47–49, which comprises the top of a page with some top margin. It appears at the top of the leaf with John 14:8–26. Yet the editio princeps correctly transcribed this fragment as part of lines 1–5 of John 12:47–49.Footnote 33
This fragment of John 12:47–49 appears here on plate 98 (which basically shows John 14:8–26) because two leaves remained still attached in the cartonnage to each other and to part of the leather from the cover. But the top right fragment disappeared from the leaf on top, which showed John 14:8–26, and thus made visible this fragment of John 12:47–49, which belonged to the leaf below. In the cartonnage, the leaf with John 14:8–26 facing up must have lain below the leaf with John 12:47–13:10 facing up. Then, when they removed the leaf on top in Geneva to conserve it, its top right fragment (from John 12:47–49) seems to have stayed attached to the cartonnage with John 14:8–26, which also had the leather of the cover still attached behind the left edge. This makes sense of Plate 98, where we find the fragment from John 12:47–49 on the page with the facsimile of John 14:8–26. Page 80 of the transcription, whose caption at the top of the page reads “Jean XII:47–XIII:10 (couverture*),” (“John 12:47–13:10 [binding]”), has a note at the bottom: “Cette page d’un feuillet utilisé pour la confection de la reliure (v. intr. pp. 5, 9 et 11–13) n’a pu être photographiée,” (“This page of a leaf used in making the binding [see the introduction, pages 5, 9, and 11–13] could not be photographed”). The transcription on page 80 does transcribe John 12:47–13:9 with the fragment in its correct place.
The leaf itself with John 12:47–13:10 consists of a number of fragments. The same strip of leather that we see more completely on Plate 97 appears on Plate 98 stuck behind the left edge of the leaf from top to bottom. Fortunately, it does not cover any of the text, since it remains stuck to the under side of the leaf. The editio princeps of John 14:8–26 does not include the fragment of John 12:47–49, which the editio princeps of all that belongs on John 12:47–13:10 had included.Footnote 34
A photograph from the British Museum shows John 14:8–26 without the misplaced fragment of John 12:47–49 at the top, which on the photograph of the British Museum lies correctly placed at the top of the page with John 12:47–13:10 (page 223). The fragment at the bottom left half of the page containing the first few letters of each line does not appear in the leaf with John 12:47–13:10. That fragment appears instead on a separate photograph of just that long fragment with the leather behind it.
The apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 lists six new variants. At John 12:49 75 reads “vid” ἒδωκεμ, against the critical text. At John 13:1 75 reads ἦλθεν with the critical text. At John 13:3 75 reads εἰδὠςὃτι, without naming Jesus, thus agreeing with the critical text, and δἑδωκεν, against the critical text. At John 13:6 75 omits καἰ;, with the critical text. At John 13:10 75 omits the definite article with Jesus, against the critical text.
The apparatus criticus of The Greek New Testament 4 has three new variants listed. At John 13:2, 75 reads “vid” Ισκαριὡτης against the critical text. (The apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 does not list this!) At John 13:10, 75 reads “vid” οὐκ ἔχει χρεἱαν, with the critical text, and ἢ τοὺς πόδας νἱψαςθαι against the critical text.
John 14:8–26
The editio princeps has as a caption at the top of the page: “Jean XIV:17–26 (couverture*),” (“John 14:17–26 [binding]”), with a note at the bottom: “Cette page d’un feuillet utilisé pour la confection de la reliure (v. intr. pp. 5, 9 et 11–13) n’a pu être photographiée,” (“This page of a leaf used in making the binding [see the introduction, pages 5, 9, and 11–13] could not be photographed”).Footnote 35 But Plate 98 does in fact reproduce the photograph of John 14:8–26! On the other hand, the following page of the editio princeps has a caption at the top of the page: “Jean XIV:26–XV:8,” with no reference to the cover and no corresponding note at the bottom.Footnote 36 But we have no Plate 99, where one would expect John 14:26–15:8! Apparently the reference to the cover and the corresponding note at the bottom that occur on page 82 really belong on page 83.
Although absent from the British Museum's photograph of the leaf with John 14:8–26, the long thin fragment at the bottom left half of the page, which contains the first few letters of each line, appears on a separate photograph of just that long fragment with the leather behind it.
The apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 has one new variant listed. Against the critical edition, John 14:22 lacks the definite article preceding Iscariot,.
The apparatus criticus of The Greek New Testament 4 lists this same variant.
John 14:26–15:10 (Page 224)
The editio princeps has the caption “Jean XIV:26–XV:8,”Footnote 37 with a minimal transcription of John 14:26–15:8. It lacks John 14:30–15:6 completely as well as 15:9–10, and does not even acknowledge the latter in the caption. When something appears transcribed in the bulk of the page, it has only a very few letters per line, and most appear dotted. The editio princeps does not have plate 99, which would have reproduced this page.
The photographs of the British Museum provide the explanation. We have photographs of major parts of the page before their conservation began, or, more probably, before it had advanced very far, for the surface appears largely blackened with vestiges of leather and of residual black coloration remaining after the removal of the leather itself. Then we have photographs of the British Museum where the Museum has largely removed the blackening and has assembled the fragments into a relatively complete page (although the bottom half of the page lacks the right edge of each line).
Let us begin with the bottom half of the page.
Since the last five lines (from John 15:9–10) do not appear in the editio princeps, clearly no one had yet identified the two bottom fragments, one on the left and one on the right.
Just above these bottom two fragments of John 15:9–10 we see, just below the center of the page, three fragments side by side, which make almost complete lines. The few, mostly dotted, letters of John 15:7 in the editio princeps indicate that two of these three remained in place: the one at the center and the one on the right side. Yet we discern more letters on a blackened photograph of the British Museum. Since these additional letters do not appear in the transcription of the editio princeps, someone must have removed some of the surface blackening at the British Museum before taking the first pictures. Then we see a final photograph by the British Museum where the reassembled leaf, with most of the blackening removed, makes the page much more legible. I consider this photograph, reproduced on page 224 of the present essay, the most important of those from the British Museum.
The photograph of the British Museum before the removal of the surface blackening includes the following: the lower left fragment, but not the lower right fragment (which appears on a separate photograph of this fragment together with one of John 13:10 that we see also at the bottom of the photograph of the assembled leaf John 12:47–13:10); the three parallel fragments just below the center of the page that comprise relatively complete lines; and the relatively large fragment just above them on the left with vestiges of ten lines and the left margin. The transcription of the editio princeps does not include this fragment from John 14:31–15:3.
We turn to the top of the page. The fragment at the top left, including the left margin with the opening letters of about nine lines from John 14:27–29, appears transcribed in the editio princeps. Touching the right edge of the first two lines of this fragment, we may discern vestiges of a separate very small fragment. We can identify it as separate because it appears more legible than the other lines, and both the alignment of the letters and the letters themselves do not fit the text of the fragment on the left. Another small but more legible fragment appears just to the right of its bottom part. Then we see the much larger fragment to its right, including the right margin. We see three small, hardly legible fragments in the middle of the page, all three absent from the editio princeps, which reads no text at all in John 14:30–15:6.
The apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27, has six new variants. At John 14:31, 75 reads “vid” ὲνιολἠν ἔδωκἑν μοι ό πατἡρ, against the critical text. In John 15:2, 75 reads Æἑρων καρπόν, against the critical text, and in John 15:5, 75 reads οὐδὲ ἓν, against the critical text. In John 15:6, 75 reads μἑνη, with the critical text, and “vid” αὐτά, with the critical text. In John 15:9, 75 reads ύμας ἡγάπησα, with the critical text. In John 15:10, 75 reads “vid” του πατρός τἀς ἐντολἁς, against the critical text.
The apparatus criticus of The Greek New Testament 4 lists no new variants.
Evaluating the Results
The fragments from the cartonnage of 75 have thus “cast their vote” in the apparatus criticus of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27 on eighteen textual variants. Since no changes occur in the critical text of the New Testament itself between the 26th and 27th editions, we cannot identify the influence of the cartonnage of 75 in actually changing a reading in the critical text. Indeed, the variants in the cartonnage do not have great significance and hence will hardly change the Greek text of future critical editions. Yet we should consider anything in 75 important and worth rescuing.Footnote 38
In comparing the fragments from the cartonnage of 75 with the exciting number of early papyrus fragments of Luke and John that have recently emerged, most but not all from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, we see that the fragments from the cartonnage of 75 can well hold their own:
97 (sixth–seventh cent., P.Chester Beatty 17) contains text from Luke 14:7–14. In Luke 14:10, it shows one variant that agrees with the critical text and one “vid” variant against the critical text. In Luke 14:13, we see one variant that agrees with the critical text.
111 (third cent., P.Oxy. 4495) shows text from Luke 17:11–13; 17:22–23. In Luke 17:12, it has one variant that agrees with the critical text.
106 (third cent., P.Oxy. 4445) contains text from John 1:29–35; 1:40–46. In John 1:30, it has one variant “vid” that agrees with the critical text. In John 1:34, it has one variant “vid” against the critical text. In John 1:42, we see one variant that agrees with the critical text, and in John 1:45 one variant that agrees with the critical text.
95 (third cent., Florence) shows text from John 5:26–29, 36–38. John 5:36 has one variant against the critical text. John 5:37 has one variant that agrees with the critical text.
93 (fifth cent., Florence) has text from John 13:15–17 and no variants listed.
107 (third cent., P.Oxy. 4446) shows text from John 17:1–2; 17:11. John 17:2 has one variant against the critical text. John 17:11 has one variant “vid” against the critical text.
108 (third cent., P.Oxy. 4447) shows text from John 17:23–24; 18:1–5. In John 17:24, it shows one variant “vid” against the critical text.
90 (second cent., P.Oxy. 3253) has text from John 18:36–19:1; 19:2–7. In John 18:38, we see one variant that agrees with the critical text, and in John 18:39, one variant that agrees with the critical text. John 19:1 has one variant against the critical text. John 19:3 has one variant that agrees with the critical text. John 19:4 has two variants against the critical text. John 19:6 has one variant “vid” against the critical text. John 19:7 has one variant against the critical text.
109 (third cent., P.Oxy. 4448) shows text from John 21:18–20; 21:23–25. In John 21:20, we find one variant “vid” that agrees with the critical text.
The number of textual variants in Luke and John resulting from the photographs of the cartonnage of 75 taken by the British Museum thus compares favorably with the number of textual variants found in recently accessible papyrus fragments. From the cartonnage of 75, we count eighteen new variants, five from Luke (four agreeing with the critical text, one against the critical text) and thirteen from John (five agreeing with the critical text, eight against the critical text). From the recently accessible papyrus fragments, we count twenty-two variants, four from Luke (three agreeing with the critical text, one against the critical text) and eighteen from John (eight agreeing with the critical text, ten against the critical text).
This analysis constitutes only a rough comparison of the fragments from the cartonnage of 75, first documented from the photographs of the cartonnage when the British Museum conserved it, with the early papyrus fragments of Luke and John that have recently emerged. Yet it serves to illustrate the great importance of these photographs and of the fragments visible on these photographs. The fragments, if not the photographs, presumably went back from the British Museum to the Bibliothèque Bodmer, and from there to the Vatican, when the Pope received 75 on 22 January 2007.
