An Unpublished Fragment Of Deuteronomy Chester Beatty Papyrus VI, Folio 105, Fragment 2, Recto -- By: Matthew Hamilton

Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 67:1 (NA 2016)
Article: An Unpublished Fragment Of Deuteronomy Chester Beatty Papyrus VI, Folio 105, Fragment 2, Recto
Author: Matthew Hamilton


An Unpublished Fragment Of Deuteronomy
Chester Beatty Papyrus VI,
Folio 105, Fragment 2, Recto

Matthew Hamilton

(hebrew@optusnet.com.au)

1. Introduction

Four fragments of Chester Beatty Papyrus VI folio 105 are extant, two in the Chester Beatty Library and two in the University of Michigan. In 1935 Sanders published the two University of Michigan fragments, listing both as Fragment F as they fit neatly alongside each other.1 In the same year Kenyon published not only the Chester Beatty fragments but also the University of Michigan fragments.2 Both of these editions are without plates and the text is edited in a manner that does not enable the reader to visualise the layout of the folio.

In 1958 the plates were published3 and it became possible to both visualise the layout of the folio and to notice that Kenyon had not published the text found in the fragment at top left of plate 72.4 Unfortunately the plates lack sufficient clarity to identify the text.

2. Content Of Folio 105, Fragment 2 Recto

The recent online publication of high resolution photographs of the manuscript by the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts5 includes a number of images of folio 105, fragment 2, recto, including two images where there is an annotation listing the content of the fragment as Deuteronomy 32:10.

Accompanying the photographs are some notes by Daniel Wallace where the contents of folio 105 are listed, the unpublished fragment noted as ‘f. 105:2r = C1 Deut 32:10–11’. As Deuteronomy 32:10–11 is found in the Michigan fragments it is possible this is an error that confuses the contents of the Chester Beatty fragment with the contents of the Michigan fragments.

3. Identification Of The Traces Of Ink

The recto of this fragment has traces of ink from thirteen lines, the longest lines having traces of ink from up to eight letters. However most of the surface of the fragment is badly degraded: just twelve letters have so far been identified.

Fourth line: Traces of ink from approximately six or seven letters, of which four are identified: ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()