‘God the Father’ or ‘God our Father’? Galatians 1.4–9 on a Miniature Parchment Leaf

Abstract

This article publishes for the first time a Sahidic parchment leaf containing portions of Gal 1.4–9. Its main interest lies in the omission of the possessive in Gal 1.4d, which reads ‘God the Father’ as opposed to the mainstream ‘God our Father’. Two possible explanations are proposed: scribal error or translational assimilation, involving the more complex question of the relationship between the Coptic and Greek versions. Beyond the biblical textual criticism, this article also adds to the study of miniature codices.

1. Introduction

Paul's greeting to the Galatians (Gal 1.1–5) ends with a phrase referring to Jesus Christ, who sacrificed himself for our sins and rescued us from evil according to the will of God. The Coptic version of this text is not entirely clear: it can be translated as either ‘the will of God our Father’ or ‘the will of God the Father’. Collating the Coptic with the Greek text does little to clarify the intended meaning, since the Greek version is also ambiguous, either referring to ‘the will of our God (and) Father’ or ‘the will of God and our Father’. Below I present a new textual witness, a Sahidic manuscript (P.Hal. inv. 58), which makes a contribution to this discussion.

The extant part of the manuscript contains two consecutive pages of Galatians 1, which, among other things, is shown by the original pagination, with Gal 1.4d–7a on page ⲕⲍ (27) and continuing on page ⲕⲏ (28) with Gal 1.7b–9a. The page ⲕⲍ begins with Gal 1.4d, which reads [- - -ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩ]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓ̅ⲱⲧ, i.e. ‘God the Father’, and not ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ, i.e. ‘God our Father’, which is provided in both Herbert Thompson's and George W. Horner's standard editions.¹ The former variant is supported only by Morgan MSS (M 570) and is not immediately obvious since at least two interpretations are plausible.

If we look at the sequence ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ and ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉⲡⲓⲱⲧ, it is easy to confuse one with the other. Moreover, the confusion is further facilitated by the arrangement of the text and a scribe's eye-skip between the pages, as the last syllable of ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ was moved to the next page and ligatured to ⲡⲓⲱⲧ so that it resulted in the isolated ⲧⲉⲡⲓⲱⲧ. The scribe might have therefore simply copied ⲧⲉⲡⲓⲱⲧ instead of ⲡⲉⲡⲓⲱⲧ due to the graphical similarity of the majuscule ⲧ and ⲡ, and ⲡ and ⲛ, especially in the scriptio continua. An analogous case is also applicable to Morgan MSS (M 570), where ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ stands in a new line, thus more easily contributing to the omission (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Morgan MSS (M 570), Gal. 1.4d

A similar scribal omission might also have occurred in other parallel passages of the Pauline epistles such as 1 Thess 1.1: ϩⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ versus ϩⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ in Morgan MSS; 1 Thess 3.11: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ versus ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ in Morgan MSS; and Eph 1.2: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ versus ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ in Morgan MSS. It is, however, not possible to ascertain if the copyist's error in our manuscript was primary or secondary, i.e. whether it was committed during copying from an already corrupted version. If it was secondary, this is probably not the tradition represented by Morgan MSS since, beyond one coherence in the variant in question, they differ in other places, namely: Gal 1.5: ⲉⲛⲉⲛⲉϩ is omitted in Morgan MSS; Gal 1.8: ⲙⲡⲃⲟⲗ reads ⲡⲃⲟⲗ in Morgan MSS; and Gal 1.9a: ⲛⲧⲁⲛϣⲣⲡϫⲟⲟⲥ reads ⲛⲧⲁⲓϣⲣⲡϫⲟⲟⲥ in Morgan MSS.

At the same time, however, it cannot be ruled out that the omission may in fact be a true reading variant, which would involve the more complex question of the relationship of Coptic translations to one another and to the Greek source text.² The reading variant without the possessive in this passage is unknown in the Greek textual tradition, which unanimously reads θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν.³ In addition, the Greek text including the formulation with the conjunction καί is indeed rare and is attested only three times in this particular configuration: Gal 1.4, 1 Thess 1.3 and 3.13. Much more frequently used instead is θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, which, judging from statistics, seems to be a usual stereotyped formula in the Pauline epistles (although not only found there), unlike the unusual version with καί.

Apart from this point, translators and interpreters also struggle with the question of whether the genitive ἡμῶν refers to both θεός πατήρ or only πατήρ.⁴ If we return to the Sahidic version, it becomes apparent that this version renders the phrase uniformly, entirely ignoring the καί, even in the cases of the three aforementioned exceptions found in the Greek text, and limits the possessive (if present) to ‘Father’ only.⁵ Two scenarios are therefore conceivable. On the first, the Sahidic translation adapted its formula to reflect the more common version without the conjunction καί and the possessive to harmonise with Gal 1.1 and 1.3, especially since this part is constructed as a chiasm.⁶ It may also be the result of a more general translational assimilation to parallel formulae without the possessive and conjunction found elsewhere, although these are fairly infrequent: examples include Eph 6.23, Phil 2.11 and 2 Thess 1.2. By comparison, the Bohairic version opts for a reading without the possessive but with the conjunction, thus reading ⲙ̅ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲫⲓⲱⲧ, i.e. ‘God and the Father’.⁷ On the second scenario, the Sahidic translation simply made use of a Greek text which was already missing the conjunction and the possessive as its base. This is, however, less likely as no such Greek textual witness is known to exist so far. Whatever the case, it is difficult to identify a potential Vorlage since the Sahidic translation could have been produced from either.

In addition to the more significant variant reading discussed above, the text transmitted by our manuscript also represents some other minor variants, which are mostly orthographic in nature. These include, for instance, the tendency to write ⲓ > ⲉⲓ (line 1), ⲙⲡ > ⲛⲡ (line 8), ⲉⲛ > ⲛ (line 8), ⲏⲏ > ⲏ (line 28), ⲉⲧ > ⲧ (line 29) (see also the critical apparatus below).

2. The Manuscript

The manuscript belongs to the small papyrus collection of the Seminar für Klassische Altertumswissenschaften at the University of Halle⁸ and is assigned the inventory designation P.Hal. inv. 58 (Figs. 2 and 3). According to the scarce information available to us,⁹ it was purchased by German Egyptologist and teacher Max Pieper on behalf of the German Papyrus Cartel from local dealer Mansur Ismain at Kafr el Haram at Giza on 2 December 1912. It was subsequently bequeathed to the collection by lot in 18 July 1913, as was common practice in the cartel. There is no clear evidence that would indicate the provenance of the fragment.

Figure 2. P.Hal. inv. 58 (Flesh side)

Figure 3. P.Hal. inv. 57 (Hair side)

The extant portion is a complete single parchment leaf, which measures 7.1 x 8.2 cm and can be classified in terms of Turner's typology of miniatures as belonging to group xiv, i.e. less than 10 cm broad.¹⁰ All margins have been preserved, with the upper one being ca 1 cm, the lower one ca 1.5 cm, the outer one 1.2–1.8 cm and the inner one 0.7–1.0 cm on either side. The small rounded gaps visible at the edge from the side of the inner margin may be suggestive of the string-holes.

In the upper right/left corner of the flesh/hair side directly above the columns the numerals ⲕⲍ (27) and ⲕⲏ (28) indicate the ancient pagination. This also suggests that the present text was preceded by 26 other pages. If we assume that 2 pages of the codex contain roughly 4.5 passages of text (Gal 1.4d to 1.9a), this results in approximately 55–60 passages that correspond to the missing 26 pages. This number is not enough to reconstruct either Hebrews (taking into account the peculiar Sahidic order of books)¹¹ or 2 Corinthians (in the general tradition) preceding Galatians, hence this allows us to suppose a shorter text, such as Titus, Philemon or 2 Thessalonians, if any, from the Pauline epistles. The exemplar was therefore probably not a regular copy of the New Testament or of the Corpus Paulinum, but rather it might have been a kind of vade mecum comprised of selected texts, in all likelihood from the New Testament, which were intended for personal use, as is also suggested by its small format and calligraphic decorations, which were not uncommon in such exemplars.¹²

The text is arranged in a one-column format of 13 lines (on the flesh side) and 14 lines (on the hair side) per page. The average number of letters per line is between 10 and 13. The surface of the flesh side is almost fully intact while the hair side is partially abraded. However, although the ink has faded in some areas on the hair side, the letters are still largely readable because they are ‘engraved’ in the parchment.

The script may be briefly described as unimodular, executed in a neat and elegant manner. The pagination and superlinear strokes are written in a smaller and more delicate script, but probably by the same hand. Generally speaking, it reveals a striking resemblance to the Apa Jeremias codices, which are dated to ca 600 ad on the basis of coins discovered alongside them.¹³

Along the outer margins, the scribe has drawn a row of dots at the level of each line. It is not clear what purpose they served: they may have been an aid to count the lines or had something to do with the ruler to guide the scribe. Also, at the left margin of the flesh side, the same scribe has ornamented the text with sketches resembling flowers or something similar originating from the letter ϯ in line 5.

The scribe is inconsistent in the use of a single letter or connective superlinear strokes for consonants such as ⲧⲙ (line 7), ⲧⲛ (l. 9) and ⲙⲛ (line 12). Moreover, the scribe uses the superlinear stroke not only above the sonorants but also quite often above the vowels. In ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁ̅|ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲓϣ (lines 25–6) the superlinear stroke over the preceding vowel replaces the line-final ⲛ, most likely to save a space.¹⁴ The superlinear stroke above ⲓ in ⲡⲓ̅ⲱⲧ (line 2), represents the contraction of the vowel ⲉ.¹⁵ Additionally, the two nomina sacra ⲓⲥ and ⲭⲥ are marked in the conventional way with superlinear strokes. Superlinear strokes are also used above and below the page numbers.

The punctuation marks are not always used logically and consistently. For instance, in line 5, the double dot followed by a spacing indicates a full stop and transition to another section. In the following lines 5, 6 and 7, the same punctuation is employed capriciously and does not signal a full stop. We may also discern the middle dot in line 4 to indicate a colon or comma, and the high dot in line 14 to indicate a colon. The trema is written over ⲓ three times (line 1: ⲡⲁⲓ̈, lines 6–7: ⲛⲧⲉⲓ̈ϩⲉ, line 2: ⲟⲩⲛϩⲟⲓ̈ⲛⲉ) with no apparent meaning.

3. Edition of the Text

P.Hal. inv. 57      7.1 x 8.2 cm      6th–7th cent. ce

Provenance unknown

The restoration of lacunae and word divisions is based on the Thompson edition, but I also consulted the Horner edition. Punctuations, diaereses and superlinear strokes have been reproduced as they appear in the original. The transcript was compared with Horner (= H), Thomspon (= Th) and Pierpont Morgan MSS 570 (= M).

Flesh side

1. 1 ⲕ̅ⲍ̅

   ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓ̅ⲱⲧ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ-      ⋅  Gal 1.4d–Gal 1.5

   ⲧⲉⲡⲱϥ̅ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟ-      ⋅

   ⲟⲩ. ϣⲁⲛⲓⲉⲛⲉϩ       ⋅

2. 5 ⲉⲛⲉⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ:       ⋅

   ϯⲣ̅ϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ϫⲉ: ⟦ϩ⟧ⲛ̅-      ⋅  Gal 1.6

   ⲧⲉⲓ̈ϩⲉ: ϩⲛ̅ⲟⲩϭⲉ-       ⋅

   ⲡⲏ̅: ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲙ̅ⲡⲱ-         ⋅

   ⲱⲛⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲙ̅ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥ-      ⋅

3. 10 ⲧⲉϩⲙ̅ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̅: ϩⲙ̅-         ⋅

   ⲡⲉϩⲙⲟⲧ̅ ⲙ̅ⲡⲉⲭⲥ       ⋅

   ⲓ̅ⲥ̅: ⲉⲕⲉ̅ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓ̅-       ⋅

   ⲟⲛ: ⲉⲙⲛ̅ⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ⋅          ⋅    Gal 1.7a

   ϣⲟⲟⲡ̅⋅ ⲉⲓ̅ⲙⲏⲧⲓ̅         ⋅

Hair side

• 15 ⋅ ⲕ̣ⲏ

• ⋅ ϫ[ⲉ] ⲟⲩⲛ̅ϩⲟⲓ̈ⲛⲉ         Gal 1.7b

• ⋅ ⲉ[ⲩ]ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ̅ ⲙ̅-

• ⋅ ⲙ̣ⲱ̣ⲧ̣ⲛ̅: ⲉⲩⲟⲩⲱϣ

• ⋅ [ⲉ]ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲉⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ-

• 20 ⋅ [ⲅ]ⲉ̣ⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲙ̅ⲡⲉ̣ⲭ̅ⲥ̅

• ⋅ ⲁⲗ̣ⲗⲁ̣ ⲕ̣ⲁⲛ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ          Gal 1.8

• ⋅ ⲏ̣ ⲟⲩⲁ̣ⲅ̣ⲅ̣ⲉ̣ⲗⲟⲥ ⲉ-

• ⋅ ⲃⲟ̣ⲗ ϩⲛ̅ⲧⲡⲉ⋅ ⲛϥ̅-

• ⋅ ⲧⲁ̣ϣ̣ⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲏ̣ⲧⲛ̅

• 25 ⋅ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̣̅ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁ ̅-

• ⋅ ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲓϣ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟϥ

• ⋅ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ̅: ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥ̣ϣⲱ̣-

• ⋅ ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲃⲏⲏⲧ: ⲛ̅ⲑⲉ            Gal 1.9a

  ⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲛϣⲣ̅ⲡϫⲟⲟⲥ.

1 ⲡⲓⲱⲧ: ⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ H, Th; ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ M    5 ⲉⲛⲉⲛⲉϩ: ⲛ̅ⲉⲛⲉϩ H, Th, M omits    6–7 ⟦ϩ⟧ⲛ|ⲧⲉⲓ̈ϩⲉ: ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲉⲓ̈ϩⲉ H, Th  8–9 ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲙⲡⲱ|ⲱⲛⲉ: ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ H, Th 25 ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲃⲟⲗ: ⲡⲃⲟⲗ H, Th, M  28 ⲉϥⲃⲏⲏⲧ: ⲉϥⲃⲏⲧ H, Th, M 29 ⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲛϣⲣ̅ⲡϫⲟⲟⲥ: ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲛϣⲣⲡϫⲟⲟⲥ H, Th, ⲛⲧⲁⲓϣⲣⲡϫⲟⲟⲥ M

4. Notes

Flesh side (page ⲕⲍ)

1. 2 ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓ̅ⲱⲧ: ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩ]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓ̅ⲱⲧ: ]ⲧⲉ undoubtedly belongs to the final syllable of [ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩ]ⲧⲉ divided over two pages. The remains of a meaningless dot above ⲧ in ⲡⲓ̅ⲱⲧ is visible.

2. 6–7 ⟦ϩ⟧ⲛ|ⲧⲉⲓ̈ϩⲉ: ϩ was erased by the scribe and replaced by the double dot.

3. 8–9 ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲙ̅ⲡⲱ|ⲱⲛⲉ: above the final ⲉ there is a short diagonal stroke that does not have a clear purpose.

Hair side (page ⲕⲏ)

1. 25 ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲃⲟⲗ: the initial ⲙ is uncertain but is more likely than ⲛ. This would tie in with the tendency to write ⲙ instead of ⲛ before ⲡ (cf. lines 8–9: ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲙ̅ⲡⲱ|ⲱⲛⲉ).