Reading for the Spirit of the Text: nomina sacra and πνεῦμα Language in P46*

Joel D. Estes

doi:10.1017/S0028688515000259

Reading for the Spirit of the Text: nomina sacra and πνεῦμα Language in P46*

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 August 2015

Joel D. Estes

Show author details

Joel D. Estes*: Affiliation:
Princeton Theological Seminary, PO Box 821, 64 Mercer Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08542, USA. Email: joel.estes@ptsem.edu

Article contents

Abstract
Introduction
Orientation to P46
Nomina sacra and πνεῦμα Language in P46
Πνεῦμα Language of P46 in its Social and Theological Location
Footnotes
References

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

This study examines every reference to πνεῦμα in NT Papyrus 46 (P. Chester Beatty ii / P. Mich. Inv. 6238) and whether or not it is contracted as a nomen sacrum. Against expectations, the scribe does not always use nomina sacra to designate the divine Spirit, nor are other kinds of spirits always written out in full. This discovery destabilises the assumption that we can access the scribe's understanding of πνεῦμα simply by identifying where nomina sacra do and do not occur. At the same time, such scribal irregularity itself may illustrate wider theological ambiguities among some early Christian communities concerning the status and role of the Holy Spirit.

Keywords

nomina sacra P46 Spirit scribes theology manuscripts

Information

Type: Articles
Information: New Testament Studies , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 566 - 594

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688515000259 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

Introduction

In recent years, New Testament scholarship has increasingly recognised the value of studying ancient texts as physical artefacts.Footnote ¹ One of the most widely discussed features of early Christian manuscripts is their distinctive use of special abbreviated forms called nomina sacra.Footnote ² These words are usually contracted to the first and last letters of their inflected forms, with a horizontal stroke written above the remaining letters,Footnote ³ which apparently functions to depict visually their unique significance for Christian communities.Footnote ⁴

Recent work has tended to focus on the four earliest examples of this phenomenon – Jesus, Christ, Lord and God – with comparatively little attention devoted to the term ‘spirit’ (πνεῦμα), even though it is also attested as a nomen sacrum in many of our earliest manuscripts.Footnote ⁵ This essay seeks to address this imbalance by exploring how πνεῦμα language is rendered in NT Papyrus 46 (P. Chester Beatty ii / P. Mich. Inv. 6238).Footnote ⁶

My analysis of all the occurrences of πνεῦμα and its derivatives in P46 reveals considerable irregularity, both in form and meaning. Against expectations, at several points πνεῦμα is written out in full (plene) to signify the divine Spirit, and in numerous places nomina sacra are used to clearly reference something other than the divine Spirit. This discovery destabilises the assumption that we can access the scribe's interpretive decisions about the meaning of πνεῦμα merely by identifying where nomina sacra do and do not occur.Footnote ⁷ Moreover, since scribal practices are inextricably linked to larger socio-cultural realities, the idiosyncratic treatment of πνεῦμα in P46 may offer a physical illustration of broader theological ambiguities among early Christians around the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

In what follows, I will: (1) provide a brief orientation to P46, (2) offer an analysis of all of the appearances of πνεῦμα language in P46, and (3) consider how the scribe's treatment of this language may reflect second- and third-century theological developments and shed light on the complex relationship between manuscripts and their socio-cultural contexts.

1. Orientation to P46

Dated to about 200 ce,Footnote ⁸ P46 is the earliest extant collection of Paul's epistles, and thus provides an exceptional window into early Christian scribal practices. It is one of only a handful of early Christian manuscripts that preserve the word πνεῦμα and its derivatives both as nomina sacra and written out in full.Footnote ⁹ As such, it affords a unique lens on emerging scribal conventions surrounding this term, preserving a snapshot of developing patterns while they were still in flux.

As it stands,Footnote ¹⁰ P46 contains most of the epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, including Hebrews, but excluding 2 Thessalonians, Philemon and the Pastorals (see Table 1).Footnote ¹¹

Table 1.

Contents of P46

Internal evidence indicates that P46 was produced by a trained scribe from an early, excellent exemplar. The manuscript is written in a good scribal hand and, aside from some later corrections and minor additions, the same hand is used throughout.Footnote ¹² That the scribe was a professional is indicated by the stichoi notations at the end of several books (e.g. Romans),Footnote ¹³ which were used to mark the number of lines copied in order to calculate commensurate pay (see Figure 1).Footnote ¹⁴

Figure 1.

Stichometric note at the end of Romans (f. 21. r.)

In spite of numerous errors that may seem to cast doubt upon his grammatical facility or his ability to understand the sense of the text he was copying,Footnote ¹⁵ several features of the manuscript indicate that the scribe of P46 was not just a passive copyist, but an active reader and interpreter of the text. First, at least nine times the scribe corrected himself immediately in the act of writing (in scribendo), which suggests he had a certain awareness about the text's meaning.Footnote ¹⁶ Second, in a number of places, scribal blunders and harmonisations seem to occur due to the influence of context.Footnote ¹⁷ Third, at several points in the manuscript, the scribe adds extra spaces to indicate sense divisions (as occurs, for example, between the last word of Gal 1.5, ἀμήν, and θαυμάζω, the first word of Gal 1.6) (see Figure 2).Footnote ¹⁸

Figure 2.

Sense division in Gal 1.5–6 (f. 81. r.)

Although Royse argues that the scribe of P46 ‘seems to have difficulty understanding the abbreviations for nomina sacra that stood in his Vorlage, and accordingly often introduces an impossible form’,Footnote ¹⁹ it is important not to exaggerate the scribe's incompetence. As we shall see, when we take into account the terms consistently abbreviated, the scribe's total rate of error is actually quite low.Footnote ²⁰ Moreover, Royse's assessment assumes that the nomina sacra copied by the scribe in fact appeared in his Vorlage. Since it is such an early manuscript, this may not be the case, especially when it comes to nomina sacra for πνεῦμα.Footnote ²¹ In fact, the inconsistent use of nomina sacra for πνεῦμα language in P46 may indicate that the scribe was working from an exemplar where such forms were often, or always, written out in full, thereby requiring that he make interpretive decisions about how to copy these terms case by case.Footnote ²²

If so, this would fit with Kim Haines-Eitzen's characterisation of early Christian scribes not only as readers and copiers but also as ‘users’.Footnote ²³ For Haines-Eitzen, these scribes-as-users were theologically invested in the texts they (re)produced, could manipulate them, and, therefore, wielded a certain power over the texts they copied.Footnote ²⁴ For the purposes of our study, this possibility raises two questions: to what extent was the scribe of P46 engaged interpretively and invested theologically in the copying of πνεῦμα language? And, in what ways might his use or non-use of nomina sacra for such language relate to wider second- and third-century understandings of the Holy Spirit? Addressing these matters requires a closer look at the text.

2. Nomina sacra and πνεῦμα Language in P46

In what remains of P46, the noun πνεῦμα, the adjective πνευματικός and the adverb πνευματικῶς are clearly visible some 132 times.Footnote ²⁵ Of these occurrences, 36 are written plene and the rest as nomina sacra. Breaking these totals down further, πνεῦμα appears in the manuscript 109 times, where it is written 19 times in full and 90 times as a nomen sacrum. The adjective πνευματικός appears 22 times, and is written 17 times in full and 5 times as a nomen sacrum. The adverbial form πνευματικῶς occurs only once, and is written as a nomen sacrum (see Table 2).

Table 2.

‘Spirit’ terminology in P46

That these terms appear in P46 both as nomina sacra and in full begs the question: is there any interpretive significance to the scribe's usage of these forms? One way to approach this question is to look for any discernible patterns in how these forms are used in the text. Given the general pattern in the earliest Christian manuscripts of using nomina sacra for the divine names or titles ‘Lord’, ‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’ and ‘God,’ it might seem reasonable to begin with the assumption that the different forms of πνεῦμα in P46 signal a distinction between the divine Spirit and any other spirit, be it a human spirit, something characteristically spirit, an evil spirit or the wind.Footnote ²⁶ If this were the case, one would expect to find nomina sacra only in passages that clearly designate the divine Spirit, and the full form in places that refer to any other type of spirit.

Curiously, however, this is not always the case. While the scribal pattern of using nomina sacra to distinguish between sacred and non-sacred referents exhibits a high degree of stability for θεός, κύριος, Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός, the same cannot be said for πνεῦμα and its derivatives. Close inspection of these terms clearly proves the point (see Table 3).Footnote ²⁷

Table 3.

Patterns in the earliest nomina sacra in P46^a

*Places where nomina sacra are used with a ‘non-sacral’ (i.e. ‘profane’) referent, or where plene forms appear with a ‘sacral’ referent.

^aFor a complete list of all verse references where these forms appear in P46, consult the Appendix.

^bBy my count, there are at least 16 clear instances where the form of πνεῦμα (plene or nomen sacrum) does not match the ‘sacrality’ of ‘non-sacrality’ of the referent. There are an additional 13 debatable instances for the noun and 22 debatable instances for the adjective and adverb. For the sake of comparison, Paap indicates 48 exceptions, that is, 25 plene forms used in a ‘sacral’ sense and 23 nomina sacra used in a ‘profane’ sense (Nomina Sacra, 8). Unlike Paap (and also Ebojo, who tabulates 40 exceptions (10 ‘sacral’ plene forms and 30 ‘non-sacral’ nomina sacra) in ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 352), I have cautiously provided only a range of possible exceptions in this figure, being careful not to presume a perspicacious understanding of all the texts in question and whether or not they refer to the divine Spirit (determining the referential ‘sacrality’ of the adjective and adverb is particularly nettlesome). On this issue, see n. 35, the notes to Tables 5–7, and nn. 103 and 104 in the Appendix.

In P46, θεός appears 344 times and is always rendered as a nomen sacrum, with only three exceptions: it is written plene twice in 1 Cor 8.5 (f. 47. v.) and once in Gal 4.8 (f. 84. r.).Footnote ²⁸ In all three cases the full form is plural and designates false gods (see Table 4).Footnote ²⁹

Table 4.

Θεός written plene in P46*

*Transcriptions in this and the remaining figures are drawn from the 2009 Accordance electronic version of Comfort and Barrett, Text (Portland, OR: OakTree Software, 2009), which I have checked against the facsimile edition and digital images of P46 to ensure accuracy. The transcriptions do not attempt to reproduce exactly the line breaks and spacing of the manuscript. Translations are my own.

On the flip side, in the 341 places where θεός is written as a nomen sacrum, it is always singular and refers to the true God. The only exception is Phil 3.9, where the nomen sacrum is used to describe those whose ‘god is the stomach’ (ⲟ ⲑⲥ ⲏ ⲕⲟⲓⲗⲓⲁ, f. 89. r.).Footnote ³⁰ Therefore, out of 344 occurrences of θεός in P46, the 3 that are written in full are always plural and consistently indicate false gods, while all other occurrences are nomina sacra and refer to the one true God, with only a single exception.

The pattern for κύριος is equally stable. When it appears as a nomen sacrum (172 times) it is always used in a sacral sense; when it appears plene (4 times) it is always plural and is used to refer either to false ‘lords’ (1 Cor 8.5; see Table 4) or to human ‘lords’ (i.e. masters: ⲧⲟⲓⲥ ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲟⲓⲥ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲥⲁⲣⲕⲁ, Eph 6.5, 9a; Col 3.22).Footnote ³¹ The only possible exception is Rom 14.4, where κύριος with a non-sacral referent is abbreviated to describe how each person must stand or fall before ‘their own lord’ (ⲧⲱ ⲓⲇⲓⲱ ⲕⲱ, f. 17. r.).

The nomina sacra for Ἰησοῦς are also very consistent. Of its 114 occurrences in P46, Ἰησοῦς always appears as a nomen sacrum. There are only three places where the use of the nomen sacrum seems inappropriate: Heb 4.8 (f. 24. r.), which uses the form for the OT figure ‘Joshua’;Footnote ³² Col 4.11 (f. 93. v.), where it refers to one of Paul's fellow workers, a certain ‘Jesus, called Justus’ (ⲕⲁⲓ ⲓⲏⲥ ⲟ ⲗⲉⲅⲟⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲥⲧⲟⲥ); and 2 Cor 11.4 (f. 71. v.), in which Paul cautions the Corinthian church against any who might proclaim ‘another Jesus’ (ⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛ ⲓⲏⲛ). Interestingly, in the latter half of 2 Cor 11.4 Paul goes on to admonish the Corinthians not to accept a ‘different spirit’, which is written out plene (ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲟⲛ).

Finally, Χριστός exhibits complete consistency, which we might expect given the restricted meaning of the word in the NT.Footnote ³³ It appears 250 times in the manuscript, and always appropriately as a nomen sacrum. Thus, the four earliest nomina sacra – θεός, κύριος, Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός – display considerable consistency in P46. With few exceptions, they are used in a ‘sacred’ sense, and are only written in full to distinguish between the true God or Lord and false gods or lords. Although the abbreviated forms of these nomina sacra vary considerably,Footnote ³⁴ their meanings are remarkably stable.

By contrast, the scribe's usage of nomina sacra for πνεῦμα and its derivatives is far less predictable. By my count, there are at least 16, and possibly as many as 51, places in P46 where the scribe departs from the pattern established by θεός, κύριος, Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός (see Table 3). In other words, the scribe does not always use nomina sacra to designate the divine Spirit, nor are other kinds of spirits always written out in full.Footnote ³⁵ A brief look at just a few of these examples will demonstrate the point. We will begin with the noun, and then look at the adjective and adverbial forms of πνεῦμα.

2.1 Noun: πνεῦμα

a. Πνεῦμα plene to refer to the divine Spirit

First: the noun. Of the 19 times πνεῦμα is written in full, the divine Spirit is clearly in view in at least 4 places: Rom 8.23; 15.13; 15.16; and 2 Cor 13.13.Footnote ³⁶ Rom 15.13 and 15.16 are especially noteworthy. In both of these cases, πνεῦμα is directly linked to ἅγιος, and yet is still written in full (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Plene forms of πνεῦμα to refer to the divine Spirit

^aⲉⲗⲁⲃ]ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲩⲟⲑⲉⲥⲓⲁⲥ, ‘you received (the/a) S/spirit of adoption’ (f. 11. v.). English translations with an uppercase ‘Spirit’ include: CEV, ESV, GNT, KJV, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT; those with a lowercase ‘spirit’ include: NASB (with a note that recognises the alternative reading), NRSV.

^bⲇⲓⲁ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲟⲥ ⲁⲓⲱⲛⲓⲟⲩ, ‘through the eternal S/spirit (f. 30. v.). ‘Spirit’: ESV, GNT, KJV, NASB (while noting the alternative reading), NCV (with a note explaining other interpretive options), NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV; ‘spirit’: CEV (‘eternal and spiritual sacrifice’), cf. Comfort, Encountering, 237.

^cⲏⲙⲉⲓⲛ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲡⲉⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲉⲛ ⲟ ⲑⲥ ⲇⲓⲁ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧ̣[ⲟⲥ][ⲧⲟ] ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲁ ⲉⲣⲁⲩⲛ̣[ⲁ][ⲕ]ⲁⲓ ‘For God has revealed to us through the S/spirit, for the S/spirit searches everything’ (f. 30. v.). ‘Spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV, cf. Fee, Presence, 99–100; ‘spirit’: Comfort, Encountering, 236 (displaying, perhaps, exegetical overreliance on the plene forms in P46).

^dⲟⲩⲅⲣⲁⲙⲙⲁⲧⲟⲥ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲟⲥ, ‘not of letter, but of (the) S/spirit’ (f. 63. v.). ‘Spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT, cf. Fee, Presence, 304–7; ‘spirit’: KJV, NRSV, cf. Comfort, Encountering, 236–7.

^eⲟⲓ ⲉⲛ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲓ ⲗⲁⲧⲣⲉⲩⲟⲛⲧⲉⲥ, ‘the ones who worship in/by (the) S/spirit’ (f. 88. v.). Since this is a variant reading (with most manuscripts reading ‘Spirit of God’, see NA²⁸), comparison with modern translations is unhelpful (but see the brief discussion of this text in Comfort, Encountering, 237).

If, as it is usually asserted, the purpose of nomina sacra is to mark off names and titles for special reverence,Footnote ³⁷ it seems strange that the scribe fails to employ them in these passages. What might account for this? One explanation is scribal oversight. If the scribe's exemplar had πνεῦμα written in full at these spots, it is conceivable that the scribe simply neglected to convert them to the appropriate nomina sacra, especially considering that the scribe of P46 was not always particularly careful.Footnote ³⁸

Or perhaps the scribe did not feel a need to write πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum in these cases since the context makes its referent obvious. However, an investigation of other places in the manuscript where an accompanying adjective clearly designates πνεῦμα as the divine Spirit undermines this hypothesis. Although in Heb 9.14 πνεῦμα is written in full when accompanied by αἰώνιος (ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲟⲥ ⲁⲓⲱⲛⲓⲟⲩ, ‘the eternal S/spirit’), it appears as a nomen sacrum everywhere else in P46 where it is connected with an adjective clearly designating the divine Spirit. Nine other verses in P46 refer to the ‘Holy Spirit’, and they always use the nomen sacrum form.Footnote ³⁹ The same can be said of the phrase ‘Spirit of God’, which occurs 6 times in the manuscript,Footnote ⁴⁰ and ‘Spirit of Grace’, which appears as a nomen sacrum in Heb 10.29. Thus, the use of the plene form of πνεῦμα with ἅγιος in Rom 15.13 and Rom 15.16 represents an exception to the norm.

It may be significant that several of the aberrations listed in Table 5 occur towards the end of their respective letters. In his careful analysis of P46, James Royse shows that ‘P46's performance varied considerably from book to book and from section to section’ and is demonstrably less accurate towards the end of individual books.Footnote ⁴¹ While neglecting to write πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum may not technically constitute a scribal error, perhaps it was an unintentional scribal blunder due to exhaustion. However, such rapid deterioration of scribal accuracy is more evident in Hebrews and 1 Corinthians than it is in Romans, where it occurs less dramatically, while the error rate of 2 Corinthians, conversely, remains relatively constant with actually a slight improvement in the latter third.Footnote ⁴² There does not seem to be any spatial reason that the scribe would seek to avoid abbreviating πνεῦμα in these texts,Footnote ⁴³ and the presence of other nomina sacra nearby argues against any notion that writing them had grown tiresome; there are eight nomina sacra on the same page as Rom 15.13 and 16, including one for πνεῦμα θεοῦ at 15.19. Furthermore, the benediction of 2 Cor 13.13 includes nomina sacra for Lord, Jesus, Christ and God within the span of two lines, and πνεῦμα is abbreviated as nearby as 12.18, which appears on the verso of the same folio. Therefore, the unexpected forms of πνεῦμα in these passages resist easy explanation.

b. Πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum to designate something other than the divine Spirit

Similar unpredictability surfaces in the scribe's copying of πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum to designate something other than the divine Spirit. Of the 92 occurrences of πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum, there are over a dozen cases in which the referent is clearly not the divine Spirit. Indeed, the scribe is comfortable employing the nomen sacrum to designate nearly the full range of meanings for πνεῦμα (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Nomen sacrum forms of πνεῦμα not referring to the divine Spirit

^aⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲧⲟ ⲡⲛⲁ ⲧⲟ ⲉⲕ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲑⲩ, ‘but the S/spirit from God’ (f. 40. r.). ‘Spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, NASB, NCV, NET, NLT, NIV, NRSV; ‘spirit’: KJV, cf. the discussion and references in J. A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (AB 32; New Haven: Yale University, 2008) 181.

^bⲉⲅⲱ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲡⲱⲛ ⲧⲱ ⲥⲱⲙⲁⲧⲓ ⲡⲁⲣⲱⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲧⲱ ⲡⲛⲓ … ⲥⲩⲛⲁⲭⲑⲉⲛ ⲧⲱⲛ ⲩ̈ⲙⲱⲛ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲙⲟⲩ ⲡⲛⲥ ⲥⲩⲛ ⲧⲏ ⲇⲩⲛⲁⲙⲉⲓ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲩⲓⲏⲩ … ⲓⲛⲁ ⲧⲟ ⲡⲛⲁ ⲥⲱⲑⲏ ⲉⲛ ⲧⲏ ⲏⲙⲉⲣⲁ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲩ, ‘for though I am absent in body, I am present in (the) S/spirit … ⁴when you are gathered and my S/spirit is present with the power of the Lord Jesus … ⁵in order that the/his S/spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (f. 43. v.). Although nearly all modern translations take πνεῦμα in this passage to refer to the human spirit, the NLT interprets v. 3 as the divine Spirit (while noting the alternative reading). Interestingly, one of the editors for this translation was Philip Comfort; one wonders whether his own exegetical interpretation of nomina sacra in P46 exercised some influence on the translation at this point (cf. Comfort, ‘Light’). Virtually all modern translations interpret πνεῦμα in v. 4 as the human spirit, but Fee makes a case that it could also refer to the divine Spirit in a similar sense as v. 3; thus, he translates the two occurrences of πνεῦμα in 1 Cor 5.3–4 with the non-committal ‘S/spirit’, but the occurrence in 5.5 as ‘spirit’ (see his discussion in Presence, 121–7). Conversely, Fitzmyer (First Corinthians, 236–40) argues for ‘spirit’ in 5.3–4, but ‘Spirit’ in v. 5 (as in the Spirit present to the community), noting the absence of αὐτοῦ and citing as support several ancient and modern commentators.

^cⲡⲛⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲗⲁⲗⲉⲓ ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲁ, ‘but he speaks mysteries in the S/spirit (f. 55. r.). ‘Spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT (which notes the possibility of ‘in your spirit’), NRSV, cf. Fee, Presence, 217–18 (especially n. 525); ‘spirit’: KJV, NASB (‘in his spirit’). Note the presence of the definite article in some witnesses in the manuscript tradition (see NA²⁸).

^dⲡⲣⲟⲥⲉ]ⲩ̣ⲝ̣[ⲟⲙ]ⲁ̣[ⲓ] ⲧⲱ ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲓ̣, ‘I will pray in the/my S/spirit’ (only partially visible at the bottom of f. 55. v.). ‘Spirit’: (possibility noted in NLT), cf. Fee, Presence, 229–31; ‘spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV.

^eⲉⲩⲗⲟⲅⲏⲥⲏⲥ ⲡⲛⲓ, ‘bless by/with the S/spirit’ (f. 56. r.). ‘Spirit’: NIV (with no footnote), cf. Fee, Presence, 231; ‘spirit’: CEV (‘your spirit’), ESV (‘your spirit’), GNT (‘in spirit only’), KJV, NASB (‘in the spirit only’), NCV (‘your spirit’), NET (‘your spirit’), NLT, NRSV. Note the inclusion of the definite article in some manuscripts (see NA²⁸).

^fⲟ ⲉⲥⲭⲁⲧⲟⲥ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲛⲁ ⲍⲱⲟⲡⲟⲓⲟⲩⲛ, ‘the last (Adam became) a life-giving S/spirit’ (f. 59. R.). ‘Spirit’: NLT, GNT; ‘spirit’: CEV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NRSV, cf. Fee, Presence, 264–7.

^gⲡⲛⲓ ⲡⲉⲣⲓⲉⲡⲁⲧⲏⲥⲁⲙⲉⲛ, ‘(did we not) conduct ourselves with/by the (same) S/spirit’ (f. 74. r.). ‘Spirit’: NIV, cf. Fee, Presence, 357–9; ‘spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, KJV, NASB (while noting the alternate reading), NCV, NLT, NRSV.

^hⲡⲛⲁ ⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁⲥ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲉⲱⲥ, ‘a/the S/spirit of wisdom and revelation’ (f. 75. v.). ‘Spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, NIV (noting the possibility of ‘spirit’), cf. Fee, Presence, 674–5; ‘spirit’: KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NLT (noting the possibility of ‘Spirit’), NRSV.

ⁱⲁ̣ⲛⲁⲛⲉⲟⲩⲥⲑⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲧⲱ ⲡⲛⲓ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲟⲟⲥ ⲩ̈ⲙⲱⲛ, ‘and be renewed in the S/spirit of your mind’ (f. 78. v.). ‘Spirit’: CEV, NLT; ‘spirit’: ESV, KJV, NASB, NET, NIV (‘attitude of your minds’), NRSV; cf. Fee, Presence, 709–12, who translates πνεῦμα as ‘spirit/Spirit’, suggesting a possible analogy with 1 Cor 14.15, where Paul refers to his human spirit as the place where the Holy Spirit prays.

^jⲥⲧⲏⲕⲉⲧⲉ ⲉ[ⲛ ⲉⲛⲓ] ⲡⲛⲓ, ‘you stand firm in [one] S/spirit’ (f. 87. r.). ‘Spirit’: NIV (noting the alternative reading), cf. Fee, Presence, 743–6; ‘spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, KJV, NASB, NET, NLT, NRSV.

^kⲧⲱ ⲡⲛⲓ [ⲥⲩⲛ ⲩ̈ⲙⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲓ]ⲙⲓ, ‘I am [with you] in (the) S/spirit’ (f. 91. v.). ‘Spirit’: Fee translates this verse with S/spirit in Presence, 645–6; ‘spirit’: CEV, ESV, GNT, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV.

For example, several passages clearly utilise the nomen sacrum of πνεῦμα to designate angelic beings: Heb 1.14 refers to ‘ministering spirits;’ 1 Cor 12.10 describes the spiritual gift of ‘discernment of spirits’; and, most notably, Eph 2.2 uses a nomen sacrum to speak of an evil spirit, namely, ‘the spirit of the air who is already working in the sons of disobedience’. 1 Cor 2.12 may also fit within this category, when it contrasts the ‘spirit of the world’ with the ‘S/spirit from God’.

The scribe also uses nomina sacra to describe a particular attitude or state of being. For example, in 1 Cor 4.21, Paul queries, ‘Shall I come to you with a rod or in a spirit of love and gentleness?’, and in Gal 6.1 he counsels those who are spiritual to restore any who transgress in a ‘spirit of gentleness’. Both are nomina sacra.

At several points the nomen sacrum of πνεῦμα denotes the human spirit or the essence of one's presence, even in their physical absence. In 1 Cor 5.3–5 Paul invokes this meaning to emphasise his presence with the Corinthians when they assemble for church discipline, telling them, ‘though I am absent in body, I am present in spirit’. The scribe goes on to use the nomen sacrum to contrast the ‘flesh’ of a disobedient man, destined for destruction, with his ‘spirit’, which may still be saved. Similarly, 1 Cor 7.34 and 2 Cor 7.1 use the nomen sacrum form of πνεῦμα to contrast the body and the spirit of a human, and Eph 4.23 contrasts laying aside one's former way of life in order to ‘be renewed in the spirit of your mind’. Finally, 1 Cor 16.18 describes how Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus ‘refreshed my spirit and yours’, and the letters to the Galatians and the Philippians close with benedictions that unambiguously employ nomina sacra to refer to the human spirit (Gal 6.18; Phil 4.23).

Thus, the evidence simply does not support the assumption that the scribe of P46 ‘signaled the Spirit's deity by writing pneuma as a nomen sacrum’, and ‘distinguished the divine spirit from any other spirit … by not writing these as a nomen sacrum’.Footnote ⁴⁴ Even in passages where the text clearly contrasts the human spirit with the divine Spirit the scribe does not always mark this distinction with nomina sacra. As we have seen, the scribe sometimes writes πνεῦμα in full exactly at spots where the nomen sacrum would seem most appropriate, such as the ostensibly Trinitarian benediction in 2 Cor 13.13. Once again, these observations reinforce the conclusion that the scribe's use of nomina sacra for πνεῦμα language is idiosyncratic and inconsistent and, therefore, serves as an unreliable indicator of meaning.

2.2 Derivatives of πνεῦμα – Adjective: πνευματικός / Adverb: πνευματικῶς

The same could be said for the derivatives of πνεῦμα that appear in P46: the adjective πνευματικός and the adverb πνευματικῶς. The adjective πνευματικός occurs 22 times in P46, written 17 times in full and 5 times as a nomen sacrum. When it appears in full, πνευματικός is used to refer to such things as spiritual matters (Rom 15.27; 1 Cor 2.13), spiritual people (1 Cor 2.13; 1 Cor 14.37; Gal 6.1), spiritual blessings (1 Cor 9.11; Eph 1.3), spiritual forces (Eph 6.12), spiritual wisdom (Col 1.9), spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12.1; 14.1), spiritual food and drink (1 Cor 10.3–4), a spiritual rock (referring metaphorically to Christ, 1 Cor 10.4), the spiritual body (1 Cor 15.44) and spiritual songs (Col 3.16). In none of these cases is the plene form surprising. What is, perhaps, unexpected is the appearance of the adjective as a nomen sacrum in 5 places that do not seem to refer obviously to the divine Spirit: 1 Cor 2.15; 3.1; twice in 15.46, and again in 15.47 (see Table 7).Footnote ⁴⁵

Table 7.

Nomen sacrum forms of πνευματικός

Although there is apparently no difference in meaning between the ‘spiritual people’ in 1 Cor 2.13 and those mentioned in 2.15 and 3.1, in the former πνευματικός is written plene while later it appears twice as a nomen sacrum. In between these references, the scribe also represents the adverb πνευματικῶς with the exact same nomen sacrum as the adjective to characterise spiritual things as being ‘spiritually discerned’ (ⲡⲛⲥ ⲁⲛⲁⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉⲧⲁⲓ).

In 1 Cor 15 the manuscript exhibits similar irregularity. Even though πνευματικός is used identically in vv. 44 and 45 to refer to a ‘spiritual body’ in contrast to a ‘physical body’, in v. 44 it is written in full while in v. 45 it appears as a nomen sacrum. The scribe continues to use the nomen sacrum to designate the last Adam as a ‘life-giving πνεῦμα’ in v. 45, and then with the adjective twice in v. 46 to describe the ‘spiritual body’. Most interesting is the scribal insertion in v. 47, which appears in no other extant manuscripts of this verse. Instead of ‘the first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven’, P46 adds πνευματικός as a nomen sacrum to the second line, thus reading ‘the second spiritual man is from heaven’. Here the scribe departs from his Vorlage, tampering with the tidy parallelism of the clauses, while also inserting a word that makes good sense of the meaning of the passage. This singular reading suggests at least three things about the scribe: (1) he was not mindlessly reproducing his exemplar, operating as a mere copyist, (2) he was aware of the meaning of the text and could alter it in a grammatically appropriate way, and (3) he not only felt free to insert a word, but was able to represent it accurately as a nomen sacrum.Footnote ⁴⁶

And yet, even if this singular variant demonstrates a certain measure of scribal awareness and intentionality, it does not necessarily prove the same qualities were operative elsewhere in the manuscript. Nor does it buttress a case for scribal consistency. As we have seen, P46 regularly modulates between writing πνεῦμα in full and as a nomen sacrum with no consistent difference in meaning. In contrast to the stability that characterises the scribe's rendering of θεός, κύριος, Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός throughout P46 in forms appropriate to their meaning and context, the scribe's use of nomina sacra for πνεῦμα language displays comparative instability and unpredictability.

3. Πνεῦμα Language of P46 in its Social and Theological Location

So what does this suggest about the scribe's activity, function and social location? For Haines-Eitzen, the scribe's idiosyncratic application of nomina sacra in P46 ‘points toward a mode of transmission in which standardization and uniformity was not in existence’Footnote ⁴⁷ and illustrates how textual modifications may reflect ‘the discursive contests of the second- and third-century church’.Footnote ⁴⁸ In other words, fluctuating forms of πνεῦμα not only illustrate developing scribal patterns, but may also reflect second- and third-century theological ambiguities surrounding the Spirit.Footnote ⁴⁹

Like the scribal inconsistency we have observed in P46, discussions of the Spirit from this period betray considerable diversity and fluidity. It is not until the end of the second century and into the third that theologies of the Spirit begin to receive more definitive doctrinal formulation, notably in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus haereses), Tertullian (Adversus Praxean) and Origen of Alexandria (De principiis).Footnote ⁵⁰ Reflection on the Holy Spirit in these works was prompted by such diverse movements as Montanism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Monarchianism and Neo-Platonism. As a result, their pneumatology is not cut from the same cloth. Earlier writings, such as the Second Epistle of Clement (ca. 120–40 ce) and The Shepherd of Hermas (mid-second century ce), are even less fixed and consistent in their understanding of the Spirit. Neither distinguishes clearly between the Son and the Holy Spirit, and both sometimes elide the Holy Spirit and the human spirit.Footnote ⁵¹ For example, consider the following well-known passage from The Shepherd:

God made the Holy Spirit dwell in the flesh that he [Or: it] desired, even though it preexisted and created all things. This flesh, then, in which the Holy Spirit dwelled, served well as the Spirit's slave, for it conducted itself in reverence and purity, not defiling the Spirit at all. Since it lived in a good and pure way, cooperating with the Spirit and working with it in everything that it did, behaving in a strong and manly way, God chose it to be a partner with the Holy Spirit. For the conduct of this flesh was pleasing, because it was not defiled on earth while bearing the Holy Spirit. Thus he took his Son and the glorious angels as counselors, so that this flesh, which served blamelessly as the Spirit's slave, might have a place of residence and not appear to have lost the reward for serving as a slave. For all flesh in which the Holy Spirit has dwelled – and which has been found undefiled and spotless – will receive a reward (Shep 5.6.5–7).Footnote ⁵²

In his book The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, Henry Swete comments on this passage: ‘What are we to make of the place [the author] here assigns to the Holy Spirit? Is he thinking of the Spirit of the Conception and the Baptism? Or is the Spirit in this passage to be identified with the Son – the pre-existent Divine nature of Christ?’Footnote ⁵³

This ambiguity around the nature and role of the Spirit is hardly confined to The Shepherd. Consider a couple of other passages from Second Clement:

Since Jesus Christ – the Lord who saved us – was first a spirit and then became flesh, and in this way called us, so also we will receive the reward in this flesh (2 Clem 9.5)Footnote ⁵⁴

And even though the church was spiritual, it became manifest in Christ's flesh, showing us that any of us who protects the church in the flesh, without corrupting it, will receive it in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is the mirror image of the Spirit. No one, therefore, who corrupts the mirror image will receive the reality that it represents. And so, brothers, he says this: ‘Protect the flesh that you may receive the Spirit.’ But if we say that the flesh is the church and the Spirit is Christ, then the one who abuses the flesh abuses the church. Such a person, therefore, will not receive the Spirit, which is Christ (2 Clem 14.2–4).Footnote ⁵⁵

The apparent lack of pneumatological precision in passages such as these illustrates a wider indeterminacy in early Christian writings regarding the status and function of the Holy Spirit, which persisted well into the fourth century.Footnote ⁵⁶ It is this environment of theological ambiguity that I suggest may also be reflected in P46's scribal irregularities surrounding πνεῦμα.Footnote ⁵⁷ Yet, caution is in order. Correlation does not entail causation, and we will do well to remember that many factors were probably at play in the emerging patterns of nomina sacra in early Christian texts.Footnote ⁵⁸ Moreover, it is important to note that scribal practices for rendering πνεῦμα in later manuscripts did not necessarily gravitate towards simple standardisation. For example, in Codex Sinaiticus, πνεῦμα is almost always rendered as a nomen sacrum; in Codex Bezae it is abbreviated less consistently; while in Codex Vaticanus it is hardly abbreviated at all.Footnote ⁵⁹ There is no tidy correlation between these differing scribal treatments of πνεῦμα and concomitant developments in the realm of theology.

At the same time, scribal practices should not be interpreted in isolation from their wider socio-cultural contexts. As Haines-Eitzen puts it, ‘The debates over issues of doctrine and praxis that occupied the early Christian church indeed all found their way into the textual arena.’Footnote ⁶⁰ Bart Ehrman similarly remarks: ‘The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless reproduction. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day.’Footnote ⁶¹ P46 is no exception.

While it is impossible to know the exact extent to which theological ambiguities around the Spirit may have played a role in the scribe's decisions to write πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum or in full, it is easy to imagine how the ideological commitments and socio-cultural location of a scribe would inevitably surface through the tip of his pen. Yet, as we have seen, treating the nomina sacra as reliable indicators of theological meaning is fraught with hazards.Footnote ⁶² The pattern simply is not stable enough to bear interpretive weight. Still, the variability that precludes such interpretive certainty itself testifies to the general fluidity of both scribal practices and pneumatological reflection during the period in which P46 was produced. The idiosyncrasy of πνεῦμα language in P46 reflects its sociological situation within a flurry of emerging scribal and theological developments. It also suggests some relationship between the two, even while reminding us that scribal patterns do not map directly onto their theological and socio-cultural landscapes.

Exactly how these realities overlay in P46 is a matter for further investigation. Could the scribe's decision not to record πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum in the Trinitarian benediction of 2 Cor 13.13 indicate some hesitance to ascribe equal status to Father, Son and Spirit, similar to the subordinationism evident in Tertullian and Origen? Does the usage of nomina sacra to refer to spiritual persons in 1 Cor 2 suggest some affinity with the notion of theosis? Or might the nomina sacra for πνεῦμα in P46 serve a more symbolic than theological function – simply to express visually the identity of Christians as a discrete social group?Footnote ⁶³ It is difficult to say for certain. What we do know is that the very phenomenon that so stubbornly resists explanation reveals scribes at work in the fascinating process of cultural conveyance, reading and writing not simply by the letter, but also for the spirit of the text.

Appendix

Forms of θεός, κύριος, Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός and πνεῦμα (+ derivatives) in P46Footnote ⁶⁴

Footnotes

This article began as a project for a doctoral seminar on ‘Canon Formation and the Sociology of Reading’ with AnneMarie Luijendijk at Princeton University. I am grateful for her perceptive comments on an earlier draft of this essay, as well as for the feedback from my colleagues in that seminar: Philip Michael Forness, Jonathan Henry, Alex Kocar, George Rambow and Geoffrey Smith. A version of this article was presented in the ‘Papyrology and Early Christian Backgrounds’ section of the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Baltimore, Maryland. I am thankful for the insightful comments, questions and constructive criticism I received there that pushed me to refine this project further. Many thanks, as well, to the anonymous reader who suggested several improvements, and who directed my attention to a recent thesis on P46 by Edgar Battad Ebojo. Any errors that remain are my own.

References

1 For a survey of recent contributions in this area, see the discussion and bibliography in K. Haines-Eitzen, ‘The Social History of Early Christian Scribes’, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. B. D. Ehrman and M. W. Holmes; Leiden: Brill, 2013²) 479–95.

2 The label nomina sacra derives from Ludwig Traube, whose 1907 study Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung (Munich: Beck; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967) brought this feature to the attention of the scholarly community. Traube's work was updated and supplemented by A. H. R. E. Paap in his 1959 work Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries (Leiden: Brill). Other important studies of the topic include: José O'Callaghan, Nomina sacra in papyris Graecis saeculi iii neotestamentariis (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970); C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University, 1979) 26–48; P. W. Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005) 199–254; L. W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 95–134; A. Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Harvard Theological Studies 60; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008) 57–78. For additional studies on the nomina sacra, consult the references in Hurtado, L. W., ‘The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal’, JBL 117 (1998) 656 n. 6Google Scholar; Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord, 58 n. 5; and Haines-Eitzen, ‘Social History’, 490–1.

3 Hurtado, ‘Origin’, 655–60. Hurtado clarifies: ‘This distinguishes them from the kinds of abbreviations in non-Christian Greek manuscripts, ostraca, and inscriptions, which are usually abbreviated by “suspension”, the first letter or two written and the rest omitted, with varying marks to indicate an abbreviated word’ (‘Origin’, 658).

4 Hurtado, ‘Origin’, 655. It is helpful to remember, however, that there is a wide range of texts that employ nomina sacra (Hurtado, ‘Origin’, 657–8). In her examination of documentary papyri from Oxyrhynchus, Luijendijk astutely observes that ‘nomina sacra appear in all sorts of Christian manuscripts and cross the rhetorical territories of “orthodox” and “heretical” writings’, for example in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Luke and some magical texts (Greetings, 60).

5 Nomina sacra for πνεῦμα (plus derivatives) are visible, for instance, in the following early manuscripts: P1 (Matt 1.18, 20), P4 (Luke 1.57, 80; 3.16, 22; 4.1), P5 (John 1.33; 20.22), P15 (1 Cor 7.40), P20 (Jas 2.26), P24 (Rev 5.6), P27 (Rom 8.14), P37 (Matt 26.41), P38 (Acts 19.1–2, 15), P45 (Mark 7.25; 9.20, 25; Luke 9.39; 10.20–1; 11.13; 13.11; Acts 4.31; 5.32; 6.10; 7.55; 8.15–19, 39; 9.17; 11.12; 13.9; 16.16, 18; 17.16), P47 (Rev 11.11; 13.15; 14.13; 16.13–14), P49 (Eph 4.23), P50 (Acts 8.29), P66 (John 1.32; 3.5, 8 (where a scribe changed a plene form to a nomen sacrum); 3.34; 4.23–4; 6.63; 7.39; 11.33; 13.21; 14.17, 26; 19.30), P72 (1 Pet 1.2, 11–12; 2.5 (which preserves unusual forms for the adjective); 3.4, 18–19; 4.6; 2 Pet 1.21; Jude 1.19), P75 (Luke 3.22; 4.36; 6.18 (the previous two examples have unusual forms of the nomen sacrum for ‘unclean spirits’); 8.29 (again for an ‘unclean spirit’); 8.55; 9.39, 42 (for an ‘unclean spirit’); 10.21; 11.13, 24, 26; 12.10, 12; 13.11; 23.46; 24.37, 39; John 1.32–3; 3.5–8, 34; 4.23–4; 6.63; 7.39; 14.17), P101 (Matt 3.11, 16; 4.1), P106 (John 1.32–3), P113 (Rom 2.29), P115 (Rev 11.11), P123 (1 Cor 14.32); see also Uncial 0189 (Acts 5.3). For those, like Hurtado, interested in tracing the origins of the nomina sacra and in demonstrating early standardisation of special forms that reflect proto-orthodox piety, the abbreviations for πνεῦμα do not play a large factor because they seem to have emerged slightly later and display less consistency than the four earliest forms. In his book Encountering the Manuscripts, Comfort does devote significant attention to the nomina sacra for πνεῦμα in early papyri, but both his analysis and conclusions are misguided as a result of two faulty assumptions: (1) that there is basically a fixed pattern to the usage of nomina sacra for forms of πνεῦμα, and (2) that this enables us to infer from their presence or absence whether or not a scribe interpreted πνεῦμα as a reference to the divine Spirit. While Comfort and others have highlighted (as anomalous) the few places where πνεῦμα is written in full and yet still refers to the divine Spirit, what most have failed to appreciate fully is the converse. One exception is Paap, who observes this phenomenon but whose study does not focus on interpreting its significance (see his tables in Nomina Sacra, 8–9, 82–3 and his limited discussion on 102–3). Another, more recent, exception is Edgar Battad Ebojo, who correctly notes the inconsistency in the manuscript tradition concerning the contraction or non-contraction of πνεῦμα relative to its referent (‘A Scribe and his Manuscript: An Investigation into the Scribal Habits of Papyrus 46’ (PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2014) 352–4. eTheses (4838), accessed 30 October 2014, http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/).

6 In contrast to earlier studies of nomina sacra (e.g. those of Traube and Paap), which have mainly surveyed a broad range of papyri (some very fragmentary), there are several methodological advantages to focusing on one extensive manuscript, including the following: (1) tracing patterns across fragmentary papyri may produce distorted results, while attending carefully to patterns in a single extensive witness paints a more accurate portrait of developing trends; (2) since so few early witnesses are extant, attempting to relate them to each other can be ‘like trying to set up a molecule with the spheres but not the rods to connect them’ (D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 2); (3) examining nomina sacra within the context of a single manuscript allows for a more nuanced investigation into their ‘sacral’ or ‘non-sacral’ status relative to their referents. For more on the benefits of this methodology, see Parker, Codex Bezae, 1–4; Ebojo, ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 324–7.

7 Contra Comfort, P. W. (‘Light from the New Testament Papyri concerning the Translation of Pneuma’, Bible Translator 35.1 (1984) 130–3)CrossRef Google Scholar, who goes so far as to suggest that the presence or absence of nomina sacra in early manuscripts can aid modern Bible translators in their decisions about whether or not to capitalise the word ‘S/spirit’.

8 The date of the papyrus has been the subject of some debate, though a date around 200 ce claims wide support. For a lucid discussion of the various proposals, see J. R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 199–201.

9 Comfort claims that P46 is one of only four early Christian manuscripts that write πνεῦμα both as a nomen sacrum and plene, the others being P45, P66, P75, which all date to the late second or early third century (Encountering, 234). However, it should be noted that many of the earliest manuscripts do not preserve enough text to allow us to discern whether both forms of the term were originally present. Moreover, as Paap's chart of all the occurrences of πνεῦμα in the first five centuries amply demonstrates (Nomina Sacra, 82–3), the presence of both the nomen sacrum and plene forms of πνεῦμα, while uncommon, is not quite as exceptional as Comfort asserts.

10 Considering its age, P46 is remarkably well preserved. Of the original 104 folios, portions of 86 folios survive, usually with significant loss only to the bottom few lines. Originally, the whole manuscript formed a single quire, with the verso side of the leaf preceding the recto in the first half and the recto preceding the verso in the second half (H. A. Sanders, A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1935) 2). The codex is now divided into two collections. Fifty-six folios are housed in the Chester Beatty library in Dublin, Ireland (Chester Beatty Papyrus ii) and thirty at the University of Michigan (Inv. 6238). Both of these collections have been digitised and are now available online as high-resolution images. The thirty Michigan leaves are available through the Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS) at the University of Michigan (http://www.lib.umich.edu/papyrology-collection/advanced-papyrological-information-system-apis, accessed 4 November 2014), and the fifty-six Chester Beatty leaves are now available at The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P46, accessed 4 November 2014). A facsimile edition of the entire codex was published by Frederic G. Kenyon in 1937, and the photographic plates in this volume, in comparison with the digital images now available online, provide the basis for my study (The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, fasc. 3, supp. 3.2: Pauline Epistles, Plates (London: Emery Walker, 1937). In several places, Kenyon's plates actually preserve text that is now missing from the physical manuscripts that remain due to deterioration (compare e.g. the outer edge of f. 84. r. in Kenyon's plates with the digital image on APIS: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=apis_inv;q1=6238;size=20;c=apis;subview=detail;resnum=57;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=apis;entryid=x-3617;viewid=6238_164.TIF/, accessed 4 November 2014; see also n. 3 in the description of the Chester Beatty images from CSNTM: http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_P46/P46%20(CBL%20BP%20II).pdf, accessed 4 November 2014). To facilitate comparison with Kenyon's plates, I have opted to employ his numbering system throughout this study (e.g. f. 8. v. = folio 8, verso).

11 Since seven leaves (the final fourteen pages) are missing at the end of the codex, it is likely that the codex originally contained 2 Thessalonians. If so, the remaining pages would not have contained enough space for the Pastorals. It is possible that several pages were simply left blank, or that some extra pages were added to the codex to accommodate these letters, but these hypotheses remain speculative. See the discussion in Royse, Scribal Habits, 202–3; D. C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 252–4.

12 See F. G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, vol. iii: Supplement: Pauline Epistles, Text (London: Emery Walker, 1936) xiii; Sanders, Third-Century Papyrus, 12; G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford University, 1953) 18. Royse counts a total of 183 corrections in the papyrus, the majority of which he says appear to be by the scribe himself (Scribal Habits, 211). Of the 183 total corrections in P46, he ascribes 38 corrections definitely to ‘man 1’ (i.e. the scribe) and another 71 to what he believes to be ‘possibly man 1’ (see his chart in Scribal Habits, 223). Following Zuntz (Text, 252–62), Royse also observes that corrections were made by at least three other later hands (Scribal Habits, 213–14).

13 This need not imply, however, that the scribe worked within the context of a scriptorium, as Zuntz suggested on the basis of the correcting activity (Text, 18, 273). See K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 83–91.

14 Rom = 1000; 2 Cor = 1000; Eph = 316; Phil = 225 (or) 222 (depending on whether the text reads or ⲥⲕⲉ or ⲥⲕⲃ; the former seems more likely); cf. Sanders, Third-Century Papyrus, 21–2. For Philippians, P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett, eds., The Text of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001²) 327 has ⲥⲕⲉ (= 225 lines), as does Kenyon, Pauline Epistles, Text, 9.

15 Royse, Scribal Habits, 358.

16 Royse, Scribal Habits, 225.

17 Royse, Scribal Habits, 263.

18 These spatial divisions were also observed by Kenyon, leading him to say, ‘They suggest at any rate some perception by the scribe of the sense of what he was writing’ (Pauline Epistles, Text, xiv). For more on the meaning and function of space divisions in P46, see Ebojo, E. B., ‘When Nonsense Makes Sense: Scribal Habits in the Space-Intervals, Sense-Pauses, and Other Visual Features of P46’, The Bible Translator 64.2 (2013) 128–50CrossRef Google Scholar.

19 Royse, Scribal Habits, 259.

20 See Ebojo, ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 329–30, 355–6.

21 Both Royse and Haines-Eitzen assume that errors involving nomina sacra in P46 are the result of the scribe's inability to reproduce accurately his Vorlage (Royse, Scribal Habits, 259, cited approvingly in Haines-Eitzen, Guardians, 93). However, it seems more likely to me that πνεῦμα and its derivatives were mostly, if not always, written plene in the scribe's exemplar and that the variation of forms for this term indicates the scribe's attempt to alter these forms to appropriate nomina sacra. As Sanders notes, the irregularities of the forms of the nomina sacra, and also the absence of certain forms, indicate an early date for the manuscript (Third-Century Papyrus, 16).

22 Comfort, Encountering, 237.

23 See also the discussion of scribes as readers in B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011²) 336–7.

24 Guardians, 16.

25 These numbers (and the remaining statistics in this study) reflect only those forms that are visibly discernible from the manuscript evidence that remains. In this way, my discussion of these terms is grounded firmly on the evidence that is indisputably apparent in the manuscript itself, rather than in reconstructions of it, however reliable they may be. All of the statistics in this section are tabulated based on my own evaluation of the facsimile edition of P46 (Kenyon, Chester Beatty, 1937), along with the high-resolution digital images available from the Advanced Papyrological Information System at the University of Michigan and The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (see n. 10 above). In an appendix, I have compiled a list of verse references where all of the terms discussed in this study appear in P46, whether as nomina sacra or plene. Compared with modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament (e.g. NA²⁸), there are only two differences concerning the appearance of ‘spirit’ language in P46: (1) in Eph 5.19 the critical text reads ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς (‘spiritual songs’) whereas P46 lacks the adjective πνευματικαῖς; (2) in 1 Cor 15.47, where the critical text reads ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (‘the second man [is] from heaven’), P46 has ⲟ ⲇⲉⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲛⲑⲣⲱⲡⲟⲥ ⲡⲛⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲝ ⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛⲟⲩ (‘the second spiritual man [is] from heaven’).

26 As noted previously, this is the contention of Comfort (Encountering, 234).

27 Due to space constraints, I have restricted my survey of nomina sacra to this core set of names/titles. However, in addition to the terms discussed here, four other words appear as nomina sacra in P46: σταυρός, υἱός, πατήρ and ἄνθρωπος. According to Ebojo, σταυρός appears 19 times and is always contracted, except in Rom 6.6; υἱός, πατήρ and ἄνθρωπος, however, are much more irregularly contracted, indicating that the status of these terms as nomina sacra are, like πνεῦμα, still in the process of refinement (‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 323–66).

28 These totals differ somewhat from those in Paap (Nomina Sacra, 8–9, 82–3), who lists only 311 occurrences of θεός. He does, however, rightly indicate only 3 appearances of the term plene. Since Paap only lists statistics about frequency and not actual verse references, it is impossible to verify his figures without independently checking the manuscript itself, as I have done (see n. 10 above). Ebojo's thorough study of P46 also tallies all occurrences of nomina sacra and their plene counterparts (‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 323–66). My results generally agree with his analysis, with a few slight statistical differences. While Ebojo indicates that he has listed the locations for all the nomina sacra in his Appendix P (see ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 324 n. 2), this appendix has not yet been made available (the version of his dissertation accessible online does not include his appendices). Once Ebojo's complete study becomes available, it will be possible to compare our analyses and to confirm, or perhaps revise, the tabulations offered here.

29 In 1 Cor 8.5 the plene is used in the plural to refer to many false ‘gods’ over against the one true God, written as a nomen sacrum in the subsequent verse. That the scribe is using nomina sacra intentionally in order to differentiate meaning is confirmed by the contrast between many false ‘lords’ (plene) and the one true Lord, Jesus Christ (all nomina sacra) in the same two verses. Thus, the nomina sacra are used consistently here to bolster the rhetorical argument of the passage and accentuate its central contrast; they are absent in v. 5 where the referents are ‘profane’, but punctuate every line of v. 6 where the referents are ‘sacred’. In this passage, then, it seems obvious that the scribe has a good sense of the difference between the forms and uses them consistently to clarify the meaning of the text. The same could be said of Gal 4.8, where, once again, the presence or absence of a nomen sacrum signals an important contrast between the true God (nomen sacrum), and ‘beings that by nature are not “gods” at all’ (plene).

30 One other possible exception is 2 Cor 4.4, but damage to the manuscript makes it hard to say for sure. In P46, 2 Cor 4.4 is split across f. 64. v. and f. 64. r. and several lines are missing. This verse speaks of the ‘god of this age [nomen sacrum?]’ who has ‘blinded the minds of those who do not believe so that they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ [nomen sacrum?], who is the image of God [nomen sacrum?]’. The difficulty with this verse is that it is almost indecipherable in P46 due to damage to the bottom few lines of folio 64. On the last visible line of the page, only the very tops of some nine letters remain from the end of v. 3 ([ⲗⲩⲙⲉⲛⲟⲓⲥ] ⲉ̣ⲥ̣ⲧ̣ⲓ̣ⲛ ⲕⲉⲕⲁ̣[ⲗⲩⲙⲙⲉⲛⲟⲛ]), and the rest of the transcription must be worked out based upon a deduction about how many letters would fit between the remaining text on the recto of folio 64 and where the text picks up again at the top of the opposite side (in the middle of v. 4: ⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲟ ⲙⲏ ⲁⲩⲅⲁⲥⲁⲓ ⲧⲟⲛ ⲫⲱⲧⲓⲥⲙⲟⲛ …). While on the basis of spacing it is reasonable to speculate that all of the occurrences of θεός in the missing text were written as nomina sacra, since the nomen sacrum and plene forms of this word only involve a difference of two letters, and since the length of lines in P46 can vary considerably even on the same page (cf. Sanders, Epistles of Paul, 6), it is impossible to know for certain.

31 The scribal distinction between ‘sacral’ and ‘non-sacral’ referents, observed above for 1 Cor 8.5 and Gal 4.8 (see n. 27), is also evident in Eph 6.8–9, where the nomen sacrum and plene forms are used to contrast human ‘masters’ (ⲟⲓ ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲟⲓ) with the ‘Master who is in heaven’ (ⲟ ⲕⲥ ⲉⲥⲧⲓⲛ ⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛⲟⲓⲥ, f. 80 v.).

32 For Heb 4.8, Ebojo (‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 339–40) points out a blog entry by Peter Head, which suggests that the use of the nomen sacrum form here might indicate that P46 is ‘interpreting this verse in terms of “Jesus” rather than “Joshua”’ (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-jesus-had-given-them-rest-heb-48-in.html/, accessed 3 November 2014). Ebojo also notes a similar suggestion in Comfort, Encountering, 222 (see ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 340). While such an explanation is possible, it seems more likely, given the complete absence of the plene form in P46, that the scribe simply contracted every occurrence of Ἰησοῦς as a matter of course, without careful consideration for its referent (Ebojo, ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 340; cf. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 37).

33 Cf. BDAG 1091.

34 Cf. Royse, Scribal Habits, 248; Haines-Eitzen, Guardians, 93.

35 It is not always easy to discern when the original author/text intends to signify the divine Spirit versus some other kind of spirit. For this reason, in the figures below I differentiate between ‘clear’ and ‘possible’ instances of exceptions. For many of the examples listed in the ‘possible’ category a strong case could be made that they, too, clearly break the ‘pattern’, but I have taken a conservative approach to include only the most convincing examples in the ‘clear’ category. In making these judgements, immediate context is my primary guide, including such criteria as the presence of direct contrasts (e.g., flesh/spirit; letter/spirit) and descriptive modifiers (e.g. holy, eternal, Spirit of God/grace, etc.). In each case, I have also checked my decisions (for heuristic purposes, recognising, of course, the differences between P46 and the eclectic critical text of the NT) against several standard commentaries (e.g. ICC, AB, WBC) and modern translations (e.g. NRSV, NIV), as well as G. D. Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), and have included in the ‘clear’ category only those instances in which the referent of πνεῦμα is generally beyond dispute. For ‘possible instances’ I have listed a sampling of English translations that either capitalise or do not capitalise ‘S/spirit’ in order to indicate its ‘sacrality’. As a result, my judgements are more cautious than those of Ebojo, who offers statistics about the ‘sacrality’ or ‘non-sacrality’ of the nomina sacra for πνεῦμα with more confidence than I feel the evidence permits (see e.g. the discussion and Table 4-C4 in ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 361).

36 In the case of 2 Cor 13.13, most other ancient manuscripts include the adjective ‘holy’ before ‘Spirit’ (τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος), thus removing any doubt about the referent (see the critical apparatus of NA²⁸). Without the adjective, P46 is slightly more ambiguous and, admittedly, it is conceivable to interpret the fellowship τοῦ πνεύματος as the connection between human spirits rather than the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (similar to how Paul can describe being with people in spirit but not in body). Nevertheless, it seems much more plausible to understand the referent of πνεῦμα in this passage as the divine Spirit, in line with the majority of ancient witnesses.

37 See Hurtado, Artifacts, 120–33.

38 See Royse, Scribal Habits, 266 (and his citations in n. 366); also see his helpful summary of the copying activity of the scribe of P46 on pp. 357–8.

39 Rom 9.1; 14.17; Heb 2.4; 3.7; 6.4; 9.8; 10.15; 1 Cor 6.19; 2 Cor 6.6.

40 Rom 15.19; 1 Cor 2.11; 3.16; 6.11; 12.3; Phil 3.3.

41 Royse, Scribal Habits, 263–4.

42 Royse, Scribal Habits, 264.

43 Unlike, for example, Codex Vaticanus (Matt 4.1), where πνεῦμα is contracted at the end of the line to conserve space; in this case, Paap says that ‘we may infer that the text he copied had the word in full and, as a rule, he followed his model, using the contracted form as an abbreviation, i.e. where he was short of space’ (Nomina Sacra, 121). Space considerations also occasionally play a role in the use of nomina sacra in Codex Sinaiticus (see D. Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (Texts and Studies, Third Series 5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007) 83).

44 Comfort, Encountering, 234.

45 However, see Fee's discussion of the possible ‘sacral’ meaning of the adjective in such passages (Presence, 28–32, 107–12, 267–9; cf. my notes in the Appendix).

46 Moreover, the fact that this singular reading was not corrected by a later hand indicates that it was palatable to subsequent users of the manuscript. Earlier in P46 a second hand felt compelled to correct a nomen sacrum for πνεῦμα that was out of place; in Heb. 9.14 the text that appears originally to have been copied, ⲧⲟ ⲡⲛⲁ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲭⲣⲩ (‘the spirit of Christ’), was corrected by a later hand to ⲧⲟ ⲁ̣ⲓ̣ⲙ̣ⲁ̣ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲭⲣⲩ (‘the blood of Christ’ – interestingly, the suprascript line was retained, creating an anomalous nomen sacrum for ‘blood’). However, through several waves of scribal corrections, the singular variant in 1 Cor 15.47 remained untouched, evidently because it did not present a problem for later readers.

47 Haines-Eitzen, Guardians, 93.

48 Haines-Eitzen, Guardians, 112.

49 It is widely acknowledged that during the first few centuries ce precise formulation of the person and work of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, lagging behind emerging Christology, which occupied the forefront of early Christian debates (Cf. V.-M. Kärkkäinen, The Holy Spirit: A Guide to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012) 10–11, 27).

50 A. I. C. Heron, The Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 64.

51 S. M. Burgess, The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984) 19, 24.

52 B. D. Ehrman, trans., The Apostolic Fathers, vol. ii (LCL 25; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2003) 336–7. Note that here and in the quotations that follow decisions about where to capitalise πνεῦμα reflect the translator's interpretation.

53 H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church: A Study of Christian Teaching in the Age of the Fathers (London: MacMillan, 1912) 28.

54 B. D. Ehrman, trans., The Apostolic Fathers, vol. i (LCL 24; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2003) 179, 187–8.

55 Ibid.

56 For helpful surveys of the developing reflections on the Spirit in the early church, see Swete, Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church; Heron, Holy Spirit, 63–86; G. Verbeke, L’évolution de la doctrine du pneuma du Stoïcisme à S. Augustin: étude philosophique (Paris/Louvain: L'Institut Supérior de Philosophie, Université de Louvain, 1945); Bolgiani, F., ‘La Théologie de l'Esprit Saint. De la fin du 1er siècle après Jésus Christ au concile de Constantinople (381)’, Quatres Fleuves 9 (1979) 33–72Google Scholar; J. P. Burns and G. M. Fagin, The Holy Spirit (Message of the Fathers of the Church 3; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984); Burgess, Spirit and the Church; J. C. Elowsky, ed., We Believe in the Holy Spirit (Ancient Christian Doctrine 4; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009); Kärkkäinen, Holy Spirit, 10–28; A. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit – in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013); Cf. C. W. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 ce (Leiden: Brill, 1990).

57 In her discussion of nomina sacra, Haines-Eitzen observes that there is ‘an apparent transition from an inconsistency and lack of uniformity in the second and third centuries to a consistent, standardized, and uniform use that emerges only in the fourth and later centuries’ (Guardians, 94).

58 Such caution is warranted by the fact that several other terms are also treated irregularly as nomina sacra in P46, including πατήρ, which is treated at least as idiosyncratically as πνεῦμα (see e.g. the fluctuating use of plene and nomen sacrum forms in Gal 1.1, 3; 2 Cor 1.2–3; Eph 5.31), without necessarily indicating any theological ambiguity about the ‘sacrality’ of God the Father (Ebojo, ‘A Scribe and his Manuscript’, 348–50).

59 To be more specific, in Codex Sinaiticus all but four occurrences of πνεῦμα (or 99%) appear as nomina sacra, and the four exceptions are all the product of a single scribe (Jongkind, Sinaiticus, 67, 80). Likewise, the adjectival form is always rendered as a nomen sacrum, and θεός, κύριος, Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός almost universally (98–9% of the time) appear as nomina sacra (Jongkind, Sinaiticus, 67). In Codex Bezae, there is less consistency, with only about 81% of occurrences contracted, and ‘no thorough attempt … to confine the use to places where the text refers to the sacred’ (Parker, Codex Bezae, 98–100, 106). By contrast, the NT portion of Codex Vaticanus contracts πνεῦμα in only about 2.9% of the occurrences (T. Bokedal, ‘Notes on the Nomina Sacra and Biblical Interpretation’, Beyond Biblical Theologies (WUNT 295; ed. H. Assel, S. Beyerle, C. Böttrich; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 277). Bokedal's essay as a whole helpfully lays out developments in the system of nomina sacra across the first several centuries of their use. See also his broader treatment of the topic in The Formation and Significance of the Christian Biblical Canon: A Study in Text, Ritual and Interpretation (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014) 83–123, and especially his suggestion about the relationship between nomina sacra and the development of the regula fidei on p. 120.

60 Guardians, 20.

61 Orthodox Corruption, 3.

62 Indeed, after analysing nomina sacra for πνεῦμα language across the first five centuries of early Christian manuscripts, Paap concludes: ‘One can hardly notice any distinction in meaning between the word contracted and fully written’ (Nomina Sacra, 102).

63 Cf. Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord, 61.

64 Verse references in regular type indicate occurrences of nomina sacra; those in bold type indicate plene forms; verses with a double underline represent clear exceptions between the form and referent (i.e. nomina sacra used with a ‘non-sacral’ referent or plene forms used with a ‘sacral’ referent); verses with a single underline represent possible exceptions between the form and referent. References are listed in the order in which the text appears in P46. The total number of occurrences for each individual book (including both nomina sacra and plene forms) is placed in a rectangular box. All tabulations are based on my own independent observation of Kenyon's facsimile of P46 (Chester Beatty, 1937) and the digital images available through APIS and CSNTM (see n. 10), in consultation with Comfort and Barrett's transcription (Text, 202–334). Only the occurrences clearly visible in the extant manuscript (or at least visible enough to discern whether or not the forms in question are nomina sacra) are included in these lists. Footnotes clarify where only a small part of the word is visible (or only the suprascript line above the word, i.e. the overbar).

65 All three plene forms are plural (1 Cor 8.5: ⲑⲉⲟⲓ twice; Gal 4.8b: ⲑⲉⲟⲓⲥ).

66 Overbar is just visible at the bottom of f. 26. v.

67 Overbar is just visible at the bottom of f. 50. v.

68 Overbar is just visible at the bottom of f. 59. r.

69 Form is just visible at the bottom, outside of f. 70. r.

70 Overbar is just visible at the bottom of f. 88. r.

71 Form is just visible at the bottom of f. 88. r.

72 ⲟ ⲑⲥ ⲏ ⲕⲟⲓⲗⲓⲁ, f. 89. r.

73 All four plene forms are plural (1 Cor 8.5: ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲟⲓ; Eph. 6.5: ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲟⲓⲥ; Eph 6.9a: ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲟⲓ; Col. 3.22: ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲟⲓⲥ).

74 Overbar is just visible at the bottom of f. 13. r.

75 ⲧⲱ ⲓⲇⲓⲱ ⲕⲱ, f. 17. r.

76 The first of these occurrences is just visible at the bottom, outside f. 17. r.

77 Only the overbar is visible at the bottom of f. 17. r.

78 The overbar is just visible for two occurrences in 15.12 and 13, at the bottom, outside corner of f. 20. r.

79 Form is still visible despite damage to the manuscript at f. 29. v.

80 Form is just visible towards the bottom of f. 39. r.

81 Form is just visible at the bottom of f. 42. r.

82 Final letter and overbar are just visible at the bottom, outside edge of f. 91. v.

83 Final letter and overbar are just visible at the bottom of f. 13. r.

84 A nomen sacrum may also be present in Rom 15.5, where a final ⲛ̅ is visible at the edge of f. 18. r. Comfort and Barrett reconstruct the end of this line as ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲭⲣⲛ ⲓⲏ]ⲛ ⲓ̈ⲛⲁ (Text, 220). However, since a number of early manuscripts reverse the order of the relevant terms at this point (i.e. ⲓⲏⲛⲭⲣⲛ; see NA²⁸), and only the final ⲛ̅ is extant in P46, there is no way to be sure whether the existing letter represents the end of ⲓⲏⲛ or ⲭⲣⲛ. Thus, I have taken the cautious approach to leave Rom 15.5 off the list above.

85 See article, n. 30.

86 In Heb 10.10, a later scribe corrected the text from ⲓⲏⲩⲭⲣⲥ to ⲓⲏⲩⲭⲣⲩ (f. 31. r.); a similar correction takes place in Heb 12.21 (f. 38. v.), indicating either that the initial scribe inaccurately abbreviated the full form, or that this initial scribe was hesitant to alter the nomina sacra already existing in his exemplar, necessitating a correction by a later scribal hand.

87 Only the last two letters of the form are visible at the bottom corner of f. 64. v. (ⲓ]ⲏⲛ).

88 2 Cor 11.4 clearly uses a nomen sacrum with a non-sacral referent (ⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛ ⲓⲏⲛ, f. 71. v.).

89 Damaged, but still visible, on the outside corner of f. 77. v.

90 Form is just visible on the outside edge of f. 87. v. ([ⲕⲥⲓⲏ]ⲥ̣ⲭⲣⲥ). Although only the final sigma remains, we can be confident that it belongs to ⲓⲏⲥ and not ⲕⲥ for four reasons: (1) no extant early Christian manuscript attests anywhere the combination/word order of ⲓⲏⲥⲕⲥⲭⲣⲥ; (2) space considerations seem to demand the presence of four to five letter slots before ]ⲥ̣ⲭⲣⲥ and after the ⲟⲧⲓ on the previous line; (3) in all early Christian manuscripts, ⲕⲥⲭⲣⲥ nowhere appear directly together in this order without ⲓⲏⲥ between them, except in P46 Col 3.24 (f. 93. r.); (4) by contrast, the combination ⲕⲥⲓⲏⲥⲭⲣⲥ is well attested in P46, occurring besides this passage in Rom 10.9; 1 Cor 6.11; 8.6; 2 Cor 1.2; 13.13; Eph 1.2; 6.23. Thus, even though some manuscripts have only κύριος Ἰησοῦς at Phil 2.11, and one has Χριστὸς κύριος, the most plausible reading of P46 is ⲕⲥⲓⲏ]ⲥ̣ⲭⲣⲥ, as it is reconstructed in Comfort and Barrett, Text, and listed in the critical apparatus of NA²⁸.

91 Overbar is just visible at the bottom of f. 89. r.

92 Col 4.11 (ⲓⲏⲥ ⲟ ⲗⲉⲅⲟⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲥⲧⲟⲥ, f. 93. v.) clearly uses a nomen sacrum with a non-sacral referent.

93 First letter and overbar are just visible on the inner edge of f. 8. r.

94 Barely visible on the outside edge of f. 14. r.

95 Overbar and portions of two letters (ⲭ]ⲣ̣ⲥ̣) are just visible at the bottom of f. 43. r.

96 Only the overbar is visible at the bottom of f. 57. v.

97 Overbar and portions of two letters are just visible at the bottom of f. 80. r.

98 Only the final letter and overbar are visible on the bottom, outside f. 82. v.

99 Form is damaged but still visible on the outside margin of f. 86. v.

100 Only the overbar and a portion of the first letter are visible for the second occurrence at the bottom of f. 88. v.

101 Only the overbar is visible on the bottom, outside f. 89. r.

102 Form is visible at the top of f. 93. v., despite some damage to the initial letter.

103 The adjectival forms of πνεῦμα (and sole occurrence of the adverb in 1 Cor 2.14) are indicated by [square brackets]. See the article (esp. n. 35) for a discussion of clear and possible ‘exceptions’ (indicated here by a double underline or single underline respectively).

104 The adjective ‘spiritual’ and the adverb ‘spiritually’ are, in many cases, arguably instances of πνεῦμα with a ‘sacral’ referent, carrying the sense, ‘that which belongs to, or pertains to, the Spirit’ or ‘by means of the Spirit’ (cf. Fee, Presence, 28–32). These words, in brackets above, are all underlined to indicate the possibility that a plene form could carry a ‘sacral’ meaning (even where this possibility is more doubtful, as in 1 Cor 10.3–4; 15.44; cf. Fee, Presence, 141–4, 263), or conversely that the nomen sacrum could be interpreted in sense that does not refer obviously to the Holy Spirit (as in e.g. 1 Cor 2.15; 3.1; 15.46, 47). The only adjective not underlined is Eph 6.12, where the plene form explicitly refers to things pertaining to evil, not the Holy Spirit (ⲧⲁ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲓⲕⲁ ⲧⲏⲥ ⲡⲟⲛⲏⲣⲓⲁⲥ, f. 80. v.).

105 Only the overbar is visible at the bottom of f. 55. v.

106 Singular reading: ⲟ ⲇⲉⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲛⲑⲣⲱⲡⲟⲥ ⲡⲛⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲝ ⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛⲟⲩ, f. 59. r.

107 Variant reading: ⲟⲓ ⲉⲛ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲓ ⲗⲁⲧⲣⲉⲩⲟⲛⲧⲉⲥ, f. 88. v.