Introduction to Papyrus 69

Papyrus 69 (P69) is a fragmentary manuscript of the New Testament that is particularly significant due to its potential relationship to both the canonical Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Marcion. Dated to 175–225 C.E., it provides critical insights into the textual history and variations of the Gospel of Luke, especially its treatment of key passages in Luke 22. The fragment is housed in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England, under the designation P. Oxy. 2383, as it was originally discovered in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, a site renowned for yielding numerous early Christian and other ancient texts.

Date of Papyrus 69

Papyrus 69 is dated to the late second or early third century C.E., approximately between 175 and 225 C.E. This dating is primarily based on paleographic analysis, comparing its script to other known manuscripts of similar age. The handwriting style of P69 has been characterized as a reformed documentary hand, which is less formal than some contemporary manuscripts such as P. Oxy. 412 but more formal than others like P. Teb. 268 and P. London 2565. These comparisons solidify its placement in the middle third century.

This date is particularly significant in the context of early Christian textual transmission, as it positions P69 during a period of intense textual activity and variation in the transmission of New Testament texts. The late second and early third centuries saw the proliferation of various text types, including the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean, and P69’s alignment with the Western text-type adds to its historical importance.

Content of Papyrus 69

P69 preserves portions of Luke 22:40, 45–48, and 58–61, all of which pertain to the events surrounding Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, Judas’ betrayal, and Peter’s denial. These passages are pivotal in the Passion narrative of Luke, yet P69 is distinctive for its omission of Luke 22:42–45a. This lacuna includes the verses where Jesus asks for the cup of suffering to be removed, the angel’s appearance to strengthen Him, and His sweating of blood.

The omission of these verses aligns P69 with other early witnesses such as P75, Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Sinaiticus (א1), which suggest that these verses might have been later interpolations in some textual traditions. This absence has led scholars to debate whether P69 reflects a proto-Marcionite text or an earlier version of Luke that lacked these verses altogether.

Physical Features of Papyrus 69

P69 is a single leaf, originally measuring approximately 15 cm by 25 cm. It was likely part of a codex, which is consistent with the transition from scrolls to codices in the second and third centuries. The fragment’s layout suggests that the original manuscript may have contained two columns per page, although the precise line length cannot be determined due to its fragmentary nature.

The script of P69 is executed in a reformed documentary hand, a style characterized by more deliberate and careful writing than standard documentary scripts. The manuscript’s lettering has been compared to that of P1, another third-century papyrus, indicating similarities in style and formality. Such physical features offer insights into the manuscript’s production and its possible use, suggesting it was part of a broader effort to preserve and disseminate Christian texts.

Textual Character of Papyrus 69

The textual character of P69 aligns it with the Western text-type, although it displays significant freedom and variability. Kurt and Barbara Aland categorized P69 as a Category IV manuscript, indicative of its highly divergent text. It exhibits readings that are precursors to the D-text (a key representative of the Western text-type), yet it also contains numerous disagreements with the D-text.

One notable textual feature of P69 is its omission of Luke 22:42–44. E. G. Turner, the editor of the papyrus, argued that the copyist’s exemplar likely lacked these verses, making P69 an early witness to this omission. This omission is shared with other Alexandrian witnesses, further complicating its classification as strictly Western. The three examples of D-text readings are counterbalanced by eight disagreements, highlighting the fluidity and diversity of the Western text during this period.

The hypothesis that P69 reflects a Marcionite version of Luke stems from its textual peculiarities, particularly its omissions and its alignment with certain aspects of Marcion’s theology, such as a diminished emphasis on Jesus’ humanity and suffering. Claire Clivaz and François Bovon have supported this view, while others, such as Peter M. Head, have dismissed it, emphasizing that P69 might simply reflect an earlier stage of the Lukan text rather than a distinct theological agenda.

Broader Textual Contexts: Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean Text Types

P69 provides a lens through which to examine the broader textual landscape of early Christianity. The Alexandrian text-type, known for its conciseness and accuracy, contrasts sharply with the Western text-type’s tendency for expansion and paraphrase. P69’s Western affinities highlight the textual diversity within early Christian communities and underscore the challenges of reconstructing the original New Testament text.

The Byzantine text-type, which later became the basis for the Textus Receptus, is notably absent from the early period represented by P69. Its later dominance in medieval manuscripts underscores its status as a more standardized and harmonized text, unlike the freer and more variable Western text represented by P69.

The Caesarean text-type, though less prominent, also illustrates the regional diversity of early Christian texts. P69’s Western features provide a counterpoint to the Alexandrian precision and Byzantine uniformity, reflecting a milieu in which textual transmission was dynamic and varied.

Establishing the Originals: The Documentary Method

The study of P69 highlights the value of the Documentary Method in establishing the original text of the New Testament. By prioritizing external evidence from manuscripts like P69 and considering internal evidence judiciously, scholars can weigh the Alexandrian text’s fidelity against the Western text’s interpretive tendencies. P69’s alignment with certain Alexandrian readings, despite its Western classification, underscores the necessity of a balanced approach that considers all available evidence.

Conclusion

Although P69 is fragmentary, it provides significant insights into the textual history of Luke’s Gospel and the early transmission of the New Testament. Its alignment with the Western text-type, combined with its omissions and textual peculiarities, situates it within the broader debates about the origins and development of the New Testament text. As a witness to a highly dynamic period in early Christian textual transmission, P69 continues to be a vital resource for understanding the complex history of the New Testament.

Philip W. Comfort, Greek Text [recto] [location of upper margin is uncertain] 22 40εις πειρασ]μ̣[ον] 41κ̣[αι αυτος απεσ❏ πασθη απ αυτων ωσ]ε̣ι λιθου βο̣λ̣[ην και θεις τα γονατα προσ]η̣υχε̣τ̣ο̣ 45ελθων προς τους μαθ]η̣τ̣[ας ευ ρεν αυτους καθευ]δ̣οντας κοι μωμενους απο τη]ς̣ λυπης [46κ]α̣ι̣ ειπεν αυτοις] τ̣ι καθευδε τε ανασταντες πρ]ο̣σ̣ευχεσθε ϊνα μη εισελθητε εις πειρ]ασμ̣ο̣ν 47ετι δε αυτου λαλουντος ϊ]δ̣ου̣ ∩ οχλος και ο λεγομενος ϊου]δ̣α̣ς εις των ι̅β̅ προηρχετο α]υ̣[τ]ους και εγγισας εφιλησε]ν̣ τ̣ον ι̣̅η̅ν̅ 48ι̅η̅ς̅ δε ειπεν αυτω ϊουδα φι]λ̣η̣[ματι [location of lower margin is uncertain] [22:49–57 missing] [verso] [location of upper margin is uncertain] 58ϊδων] α̣υ̣[τ]ω̣ ε̣[φη και συ εξ αυτων ει ο̣ δ̣ε ειπεν [α̅ν̅ε̅ ουκ ειμι 59και δι α̣σ̣τασης ωσ̣[ει ωρας αλλος τις ϊσχυ ριζ̣ετο λεγ[ων επ αληθειας και ου̣τ̣ο̣ς ην μ[ετ αυτου και γαρ γα λ̣[ι]λ̣α̣ιος εστ̣[ιν 60ειπε δε ο πετρος α̣̅[ν̅]ε̅ ουκ οι[δα ο λεγεις και ετι αυ̣του λαλου̣[ντος παραχρημα εφωνησεν̣ [αλεκτωρ 61και στρα φεις ο πε̣τ̣ρ̣[ος ενεβλεψεν αυ τ̣ω τοτε [ϋπεμνησθη ο πετρος τ̣ου ρημ[ατος του κ̅υ̅ ως ειπεν αυτω π[ριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι ση μ̣ε̣ρ̣ο̣ν̣ [απαρνηση με τρις 62και [location of lower margin is uncertain]

Edward D. Andrews, Translation Recto (Luke 22:40–48, Partial) 40 “…into temptation.” 41 And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and kneeling down, he prayed. 45 And coming to the disciples, he found them sleeping, having fallen asleep from grief. 46 And he said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Rise and pray, so that you may not enter into temptation.” 47 While he was still speaking, behold, a crowd appeared, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them, and approaching, he kissed Jesus. 48 But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” Verso (Luke 22:58–61, Partial) 58 And seeing him, someone said, “You also are one of them.” But he said, “Man, I am not.” 59 And after about an hour had passed, another affirmed, saying, “Certainly, this one also was with him, for he is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are saying.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. 61 And turning, the Lord looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” [End of Fragment Text] This rendering adheres to a literal translation philosophy, preserving the structure and word order of the original Greek to reflect the text faithfully.

You May Also Enjoy

How Does the Documentary Approach Impact New Testament Textual Criticism?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION