| New Testament manuscript | |
 A folio from𝔓46 containing 2 Corinthians 11:33–12:9. As with other folios of the manuscript, text islacunose at the bottom. | |
| Name | P. Chester Beatty II; Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan, Inv. 6238 |
|---|---|
| Sign | 𝔓46 |
| Text | Pauline epistles |
| Date | c. 175–225 |
| Script | Greek |
| Now at | Dublin,University of Michigan |
| Cite | Sanders,A Third Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul |
| Size | 28 cm by 16 cm |
| Type | Alexandrian text-type |
| Category | I |
| Note | Affinity withMinuscule 1739 |
Papyrus 46, also known asP. Chester Beatty II, is an early GreekNew Testamentmanuscript written onpapyrus, and is one of the manuscripts comprising theChester Beatty Papyri. It is designated by thesiglum𝔓46 in theGregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts. Manuscripts among the Chester Beatty Papyri have had several provenances associated with them, the most likely beingthe Faiyum.[1] Using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography), it has been dated to between 175 and 225,[2] or to the early 3rd century CE.[3] It contains verses from thePauline Epistles ofRomans,1 Corinthians,2 Corinthians,Galatians,Ephesians,Colossians,Philippians,1 Thessalonians, andHebrews. Someleaves are part of the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, and others are in theUniversity of Michigan Papyrus Collection.[4]
In November 2020, theCenter for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) in conjunction withHendrickson Publishers released a new 1:1 high-resolution imaged facsimile edition of𝔓46 on black and white backgrounds, along with𝔓45 and𝔓47.[5]
The manuscript is acodex (the precursor to the modernbook format) made frompapyrus in single quire (this being the papyrus leaves placed on top of each other, and folded in half), with thefolio size approximately 28 by 16 centimetres (11.0 in × 6.3 in). The text is written in single column, with the text-block averaging 11.5 centimetres (4.5 in), between 26 and 32 lines of text per page, although both the width of the rows and the number of rows per page increase progressively. Lines containing text at the bottom of each page are damaged (known as lacunose), with between 1–2 lines non-extant in the first quarter of the codex, 2–3 lines non-extant in the central half, and up to seven lines non-extant in the final quarter. Though unusual for ancient manuscripts,𝔓46 has each page numbered.[6]
Throughout Romans, Hebrews, and the latter chapters of 1 Corinthians, small and thick strokes or dots are found, usually agreed to be from the hand of a reader rather than the initial copyist, since the ink is always much paler than that of the text itself.[7]: 17 They appear to mark sense divisions (similar toverse numbering found inBibles), and are also found in portions of𝔓45, possibly evidence of reading in the community which held both codices. Edgar Ebojo made a case that these "reading marks" with or without space-intervals were an aid to readers, most likely in a liturgical context.[8]
𝔓46 uses an extensive and well-developed system ofnomina sacra.[2] It contains the following nomina sacra (nominative case examples):ΚΣ (κυριος /Lord)ΧΣ orΧΡΣ (χριστος /anointed)ΙΗΣ (Ιησους /Jesus)ΘΣ (θεος /God)ΠΝΑ (πνευμα /Spirit)ΥΙΣ (υιος /Son)ΣΤΡΟΣ (σταυρος /cross).[9]: 208–334
The use of nomina sacra has featured in discussions on the dating for𝔓46, with scholar Bruce Griffin arguing against scholar Young Kyu Kim, in part, that such an extensive usage of the nomina sacra system nearly eliminates any possibility of the manuscript dating to the 1st century. He admitted, however, that Kim's dating cannot be ruled out on this basis alone, since the exact provenance of the nomina sacra system itself is not well-established.[2]
On the other hand, papyrologistPhilip Comfort (preferring a date c. 150–75) notes indications the scribe's exemplar made limited use of nomina sacra or none at all.[10]: 131–39, 223, 231–38 In several instances, the word forSpirit is written out in full where the context should require a nomen sacrum, suggesting the scribe was rendering nomina sacra where appropriate for the meaning but struggling withSpirit versusspirit, without guidance from the exemplar. The text also inconsistently uses either the short or the long contracted forms ofChrist.[10]: 231–237, 223
𝔓46 contains most of thePauline epistles, though with some folios missing. It contains (in order): the last eight chapters ofRomans;Hebrews;1–2 Corinthians;Ephesians;Galatians;Philippians;Colossians; and two chapters of1 Thessalonians. All of the leaves have lost some lines at the bottom throughdeterioration.[11]
(CB =Chester Beatty Library;Mich. = University of Michigan)
| Folio | Contents | Location |
|---|---|---|
| 1–7 | Romans 1:1–5:17 | Missing |
| 8 | Rom 5:17–6:14 | CB |
| 9-10 | Rom 6:14–8:15 | Missing |
| 11–15 | Rom 8:15–11:35 | CB |
| 16–17 | Rom 11:35–14:8 | Mich. |
| 18 (fragment) | Rom 14:9–15:11 | CB |
| 19–28 | Rom 15:11–Hebrews 8:8 | Mich. |
| 29 | Heb 8:9–9:10 | CB |
| 30 | Heb 9:10–26 | Mich. |
| 31–39 | Heb 9:26–1 Corinthians 2:3 | CB |
| 40 | 1 Cor 2:3–3:5 | Mich. |
| 41–69 | 1 Cor 3:6–2 Corinthians 9:7 | CB |
| 70–85 | 2 Cor 9:7–end, Ephesians, Galatians 1:1–6:10 | Mich. |
| 86–94 | Gal 6:10–end, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians 1:1–2:3 | CB |
| 95–96 | 1 Thess 2:3–5:5 | Missing |
| 97 (fragment) | 1 Thess 5:5, 23–28 | CB |
| 98–104 | Thought to be 1 Thess 5:28–2 Thessalonians, and possibly Philemon; as for 1–2 Timothy, and Titus (see below) | Missing |
The contents of the seven missing leaves from the end is uncertain as they are lost.Kenyon calculated that 2 Thessalonians would require two leaves, leaving only five remaining leaves (10 pages) for the remainingcanonicalPauline literature —1 Timothy (estimated 8.25 pages),2 Timothy (6 pages),Titus (3.5 pages) and Philemon (1.5 pages) — requiring ten leaves in total (19.25 pages). Thus Kenyon concluded𝔓46 as originally constructed did not include thepastoral epistles.[12]
Overall, Kenyon was open to different possibilities regarding the contents of the lost leaves at the end of the codex. He entertained the idea that the last five leaves could have been left blank or that additional leaves could have been added to the quire to create space for thepastoral letters.[13] In 1998, Jeremy Duff vigorously argued in favor of Kenyon's second suggestion, emphasizing that the scribe of𝔓46 was increasing the number of letters per page in the second half of the codex. Duff argued that this indicated that the scribe intended to include all of the traditional 14-letter collection and would most likely have added extra leaves if the original quire lacked sufficient space. Duff also pointed to several ancient codices that he considered as good evidence for the attachment of additional leaves to codices to allow for the inclusion of more material.[14] The relevance of the ancient evidence that Duff presented has been challenged, but a survey of surviving examples of ancient single-quire codices does show evidence for the practice of leaving some blank pages at the end of a codex.[13] However, this survey also showed that single-quire codices sometimes had more inscribed pages in the second half of the codex than in the first half (due to, for example, blank front fly-leaves). This leaves open the possibility that the original quire may have contained the traditional 14-letter collection after all. Brent Nongbri summarizes:
We still have much to learn about early single-quire codices and what constituted 'normal' practice for the makers of these books. Duff’s article performed a service by challenging a complacent and largely unreflective consensus with regard to the contents of the Beatty-Michigan Pauline epistles codex. Duff’s positive hypothesis about the addition of extra folia as an afterthought is, however, impossible to prove. And as we have seen, the material comparanda he adduced did not support his case. Yet, Duff’s argument serves as a good reminder that we cannot simplyassume the contents of the missing folia. We cannot say, for instance, that the Beatty-Michigan codex is secure evidence for the circulation of a ten-letter collection of Paul’s letters, as has occasionally been argued. In fact, as we have seen, we must be cautious about assuming thecontents of the missing folia at the end of the quire because we may have had too much confidence about our knowledge of thenumber of missing folia at the end of the quire. ...By tying his estimate of the size of the quire to the numbering of the pages, Kenyon may have created a false problem that has needlessly frustrated subsequent generations of scholars.[13]
The question of the contents of the codex as originally constructed thus remains open.
The text of the codex is considered a representative of theAlexandrian text-type. The text-types are groups of different manuscripts which share specific or generally related readings, which then differ from each other group, and thus the conflicting readings can separate out the groups, which are then used to determine the original text as published; there are three main groups with names:Alexandrian,Western, andByzantine.[15] Biblical scholarKurt Aland placed it inCategory I of his New Testament manuscript classification system.[4] Category I manuscripts are those "of a very special quality, i. e. manuscripts with a very high proportion of the early text... To this category have also been assigned all manuscripts to the beginning of the fourth century, regardless of further distinctions which should also be observed[.]"[4]: 335
Theprovenance of the papyrus is unknown. Kenyon believed this codex and the other Beatty Biblical Papyri came from the region of the Fayyum.[18] The coptologist Carl Schmidt was told that the books were found in "‘Alâlme, a village on the east bank of the Nile in the area of Aṭfiḥ, ancient Aphroditopolis."[19]: 105 However, the archaeologists who bought the University of Michigan's portion of the codex believed that it had come from Asyut (ancient Lykopolis).[19] Thus, there is no consensus on the precise find spot.
As with all manuscripts dated solely bypalaeography, the dating of𝔓46 is uncertain. H. A. Sanders, the first editor of parts of the papyrus, proposed a date possibly as late as the second half of the 3rd century.[7]: 13–15 F. G. Kenyon, editor of the completeeditio princeps, preferred a date in the first half of the 3rd century.[12]: xiv–xv The manuscript is now sometimes dated to about 200.[20] Young Kyu Kim[a] has argued for an exceptionally early date of c. 80.[22] Kim's dating has been widely rejected.[23][24][10]: 180ff. [25] Griffin critiqued and disputed Kim's dating,[2] placing the 'most probable date' between 175 and 225, with a '95% confidence interval' for a date between 150 and 250.[26]
Comfort and Barrett have claimed𝔓46 shares palaeographical affinities with the following:[9]: 204–6
They conclude this points to a date during the middle of the 2nd century for𝔓46. More recently, in a wide-ranging survey of the dates of New Testament papyri, P. Orsini and W. Clarysse have assigned𝔓46 "to the early third century," specifically "excluding dates in the first or the first half of the second century."[3]
