Papyrus No. 4

 Objective of the article:

1- To clarify the extent of the difference in determining the date of early manuscripts.
2- To clarify the content of early papyri in terms of (number of texts), whether they are mostly just small scraps or not.
3- To clarify the extent of the degree of difference in texts between early papyri and the current text.
4- To discuss the term (experienced scribe) and its meaning.

the date

INTF [1]	LDAB [2]	Tm [3]	BNF [4]	WW [5]	UBS5th [ 6 ]
Early third/late third	mid 2nd to late 3rd	2nd/3rd century	(6th century)	3rd century	3rd century
CSNTM [7]	Philip C. [8]	V. Sch [9]	J. Merell [10]	Ch.W. [11]	BM&GM [12]
3rd century	Second half of the second century	6th century	4th century	2nd century/3rd century	4th century

BNF = Bibliothèque nationale de France
BM&GM = GEORG MALDFELD and BRUCE M. METZGER
CSNTM = The Center For The Study of New Testament Manuscripts
Ch.W. = CHARLESWORTH
INTF = Institute Fur Neutestamentliche Textforschung
LDAB = Leuven Database of Ancient Books
Philip C. = Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett.
Tm = TRISMEGISTOS
UBS = United Bible Societies
WW = Wieland Willker
V. Sch = Vincent Schiel 'Archéologie Varia'

Note: Placing the date between brackets (...) means that the party that gave this date is not very sure of the date.

The most common date given to the papyrus is the third century, says James Snape: " In practice, anyone who gives the manuscript an earlier date of production than Vincent Schell's date, usually around the beginning of the third century. "

"In any event, practically everyone else has assigned a much earlier production-date to the manuscript, usually a period around 200."

Papyrus 4 and the Mystery at Coptos

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...at-coptos.html

[1] http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscr...ce?docID=10004
[2] https://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/about.php
[3] https://www trismegistos.org/text/61783
[4] https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004472k?rk=429186;4#
[5] A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, by Wieland Willker, Fragmentary papyri, pg3.
[6] Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C.M., & Metzger, B. (Eds.). (2014). The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Fifth Revised Edition, p. 12). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; American Bible Society; United Bible Societies.
[7] http://csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P4
[8] The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, A Corrected, Enlarged Edition of The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, Edited by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett.,pg43
[9] V. Scheil, 'Archéologie Varia', Revue Biblique 1 (1892) 113.
[10] J. Merell 'Nouveaux fragments', 7.see also; EXPLORING THE COMMON IDENTIFICATION OF THREE NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS: P4, P64 AND P67, Philip W. Comfort, pg54.
[11] TC Skeat, P64+67 andP4, and the Problem of Fiber Orientation in Codicological Reconstruction, SD CHARLESWORTH, pg600
[12] DETAILED LIST OF THE GREEK PAPYRI OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GEORG MALDFELD and BRUCE M. METZGER, pg364

---

Text type

Alexandrian text

Von Soden : Heiseki text = Alexandrian
Joseph Lagrange : Vatican-like text
Sanders : Alexandrian with some Western and Caesarean readings and a little Byzantine
Jean Merle : Vatican-like text
Roca Puig : Sinaitic-like text
Kurt Aland : Alexandrian text
Skeet: Alexandrian text

Wasserman says:

"Earlier research on the text of 𝔓4 and 𝔓64+67 To my knowledge, Hermann von Soden, who had access only to the first fragments of 𝔓4 published by Scheil, was the first to characterize its text, and he labeled it as “guter H -text” (H = Hesychian), i.e., basically a good representative of the traditional Neutral or Alexandrian text.6 Several other scholars confirmed this judgment in the decades to follow. For example, Marie-Joseph Lagrange drew attention to the textual similarity of 𝔓4 and Codex Vaticanus.7 Likewise, Schofield stated that the papyrus “has a very good Alexandrian text, following B quite closely, often in opposition to Aleph, which frequently joins with D.”8 Sanders, who examined 𝔓4 in sixty textual variants which he had previously assigned to four different text types, agreed that the papyrus was mainly Alexandrian but he also identified a strong admixture of Western and Caesarean readings and a slight admixture of Antiochian (Byzantine) readings.

Jean Merell, who published further fragments of 𝔓4 in 1938, did not attempt to classify the text but confirmed Lagrange's observation of the proximity of 𝔓4 and Codex Vaticanus; However, at the same time he noted some sixteen divergent readings apart from orthographic differences. The editiones principes of 𝔓64 and 𝔓67 were published in 1953 and 1962, respectively. These are significantly smaller fragments than 𝔓4. As for textual affiliation, CH Roberts, who edited 𝔓64, simply noted that the papyrus showed divergence from the two other Matthean papyri, 𝔓37 and 𝔓45.11 R. Roca-Puig, who edited 𝔓67, noted that it exhibits close affiliation to Codex Sinaiticus 12
As we have noted, Kurt Aland discussed the possibility of that 𝔓4 belonged to the same codex as 𝔓64+67 as observed by one of his colleagues in Münster in the 1960s. However, he was not entirely convinced that this was the case, and held on to diverging dates (3d cent. and ca. 200, respectively).13 When Kurt and Barbara Aland later listed the papyri in their handbook, they retained the distinct dating and is characterized by 𝔓4 as a “normal text,” whereas 𝔓64+67 appeared as a “strict text.”14 I should point out again that the different textual character does not preclude the possibility that the MSS comes From the same codex, but, nevertheless, the difference is interesting.
In Skeat's subsequent study he included a brief analysis of the text of 𝔓4, providing “some basic facts,” whereas 𝔓64+67 were too small to analyse. Unfortunately his analysis of 𝔓4 is unsatisfactory, since it is based only on deviations from the Textus Receptus. Skeat found that 𝔓4 differed from the TR in 107 places. He then compared 𝔓4 with other MS in these 107 places. Table 1 shows the agreements and disagreements relative to other MSS. [1] "

Skeet says:

"[N]ow that the whole theory of localized text-forms has been virtually abandoned, the most that can be said, if any label is to be attached, is to describe the text [of 𝔓4] as 'Alexandrian' in inverted commas " [2]

[1] A Comparative Textual Analysis of 𝔓4 and 𝔓64+67, by Tommy Wasserman, pg2-3

[2] Skeat, “Four Gospels,” 24, citing Wasserman.

---

Content

Remains of 8 pages, containing passages from 93 texts, or 8%, of the Gospel of Luke.

Page 1
Text: Luke 1.58, Luke 1.59, Luke 1.60, Luke 1.62, Luke 1.63, Luke 1.64, Luke 1.65, Luke 1.66, Luke 1.67, Luke 1.68
, Luke 1.69, Luke 1.70, Luke 1.71, Luke 1.72, Luke 1.73


Page 2
Text: Luke 1.75, Luke 1.76, Luke 1.77, Luke 1.78, Luke 1.79, Luke 1.80, Luke 2.1, Luke 2.6, Luke 2.7


Page 3
Text: Luke 5.3, Luke 5.4, Luke 5.5, Luke 5.6, Luke 5.7, Luke 5.8


Page 4
Text: Luke 4.29, Luke 4.30, Luke 4.31, Luke


Page 6 Text : Luke 3.8 ,
Luke 3.9, Luke 3.10, Luke 3.11, Luke 3.12, Luke 3.13, Luke 3.14 3.20, Luke 3.21, Luke 3.22, Luke 3.23, Luke 3.24, Luke 3.25, Luke 3.26, Luke 3.27, Luke 3.28, Luke 3.29, Luke 3.30, Luke 3.31, Luke 3.32, Luke 3.33, Luke 3.34, Luke 3.35, Luke 3.36, Luke 3.37, Luke 3.38, Luke 4.1, Luke 4.2 Page No. 7 Text: Luke 5.30, Luke 5.31, Luke 5.32, Luke 5.33, Luke 5.34, Luke 5.35, Luke 5.36, Luke 5.37, Luke 5.38, Luke 5.39, Luke 6.1, Luke 6.2, Luke 6.3, Luke 6.4 Page No. 8 Text: Luke 6.4, Luke 6.5, Luke 6.6, Luke 6.7, Luke 6.8, Luke 6.9, Luke 6.10, Luke 6.11, Luke 6.12, Luke 6.13, Luke 6.14, Luke 6.15, Luke 6.16

---

Number of differences

• Number of differences between Papyrus 4 and the major manuscripts:

Papyrus 4 is a remnant of 8 leaves, containing parts of 93 texts from the Gospel of Luke, and yet in this small number of textual remnants it differed from the current received text 107 times! A difference rate of up to 74%!

It differed from the Sinaiticus 40 times,
from the Vaticanus 23 times,
from the Alexandrian 94 times,
from the Pisa 66 times,
from the Regius 42 times
, from the Washington 45 times,
and from the Cordinianus 85 times.

Wasserman says: “ Table 1, textual comparison in 107 differences from the received text .”

Table 1 Textual comparison in 107 deviations from the TR (Skeat) [1]

Another table by William Warren, shows that the percentage of variation with the received text = 74% of the readings, and that the percentage of variation with the important manuscripts ranges from 7% to 73%, Wasserman says:

“At the 1998 SBL Annual Meeting, William Warren presented a quantitative analysis, in which he compared the text of 𝔓4 to a number of control witnesses representing a spectrum of different texts in 120 genealogically significant variation-units.16 He calculated the following quantitative relationships of 𝔓4, presented in Table 2 in descending order: Table 2 Quantitative analysis of 𝔓4 (Warren) ” [2]

• Papyrus 4 differs from the critical text on 19% of textual problems, says Wasserman:

“In this sample 𝔓4 agrees with the reconstructed initial text in 108 units (87.8%) and deviates in fifteen units (12.2%).

In addition to this sample, 𝔓4 deviates from the printed text in eleven other variation-units giving a total of twenty-six deviations in 134 variation-units (19.4%).” [3]

[1] A Comparative Textual Analysis of 𝔓 4 and 𝔓 64+67, by Tommy Wasserman, pg3

[2] A Comparative Textual Analysis of 𝔓 4 and 𝔓 64+67, by Tommy Wasserman, pg4

[3] A Comparative Textual Analysis of 𝔓4 and 𝔓64+67, by Tommy Wasserman, pg4

---

Examples of some differences

Current text	𝔓4+ Supporting manuscripts to read	Copies and manuscripts contrary to papyrus	Comment
Luke 1:63 Then he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, saying , “His name is John.” And they all marveled.	same	The word ( saying ) is deleted.	Adding the word (saying) aims to answer the question (How did everyone wonder? Did they read the written word or hear it so that they wondered?) And since it is not logical for everyone to read the word due to illiteracy, it was more logical to add the word (saying) to clarify that they heard it so they wondered.
Luke 1:66 And all who heard it laid them up in their hearts, saying, “What kind of child will this be?” And the hand of the Lord was with him.	66And all who heard it laid it up in their hearts, saying, “What will this child be?” For the hand of the Lord was with him.	The word (because γάρ) and the word (was ἦν) are deleted . - Evidence that deletes the word (because): A C2 Θ 0130 ƒ 1 .13 33 𝔐 syp.h - Evidence that deletes the word (was): D it vg ms sy s	Papyrus 4 added the phrase (because it was) to clarify that the phrase was said by Luke the author, contrary to the deletion reading, which makes the phrase said during the question by the Jewish neighbors and not by Luke, so that the text in the evidence of deletion became as follows: “ Do you see what this child will be, and the hand of the Lord is with him?” So the copyist wanted to clarify the real speaker of the phrase from his point of view, and to remove any possible ambiguity, as inserting the phrase prevents any other understanding of the text.
Luke 1:76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.	And you, O child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High, for you shall go before the Lord to prepare His ways. The papyrus deleted (in front of the face προ προσωπου) and wrote instead (ἐνώπιον = in front of). It was also deleted by: א BW 0177; Or	ACDKL Γ Δ Θ Ψ 0130 ƒ1.13 33. 565. 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424. 2542. l 844. l 2211 𝔪 sy; Irlat	The papyrus deleted the phrase (before the face of God) because describing God as having a face is likening him to people, so they wanted to absolve God of resembling his creatures.
​
Luke 3:9 9And even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.	The papyrus does not contain the word ( well καλους ) , nor does Origen and the old Latin manuscripts.	Most of the manuscripts	Other manuscripts added the word (good) because even a tree that bears bad fruit deserves to be cut down. This makes the Jews whom John is addressing worthy of being cut down even though they bear bad fruit (apply the law).
​
Luke 3:19 Now Herod the tetrarch, being rebuked by him for Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife ,	The papyrus omits the word ( Philips Φιλίππου ) as do the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.	Post-5th century manuscripts	The manuscripts added the word (Philip) to make the passage match its counterpart in Mark 6:17 [Reconciliation of the Scriptures]
​
Luke 3:22 22And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven, saying, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased .”	Papyrus 4 and most of the manuscripts read with the same current reading	Old Latin manuscripts and the Latin Fathers read ( Today I have begotten you Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε) instead of ( In you I am well pleased ) D ita, (b), c, d, ff2, l, r1 Justin (Clement add ἀγαπητός after σύ) Methodius; Hilary Tyconius Faustus-Milevis Latin mssacc. to Augustine BJ TOB .	The papyrus changed the phrase from (I have begotten you today) to (I am well pleased with you). The first reading supports the doctrine of the Adoptionists who believe that Christ is the adopted Son of God, adopted by Him on the day of baptism and not His Son from eternity [obliterating the evidence of heretics].
Luke 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove.	The manuscripts agree on reading ( physical σωματικῷ ) except for Papyrus No. 4 where it reads ( spiritual πνεύματι ).		The reason is clear. The copyist of Papyrus No. 4 hated that the Holy Spirit be a body because he saw that physicality is the opposite of the spiritual nature of the Holy Spirit, so he removed (physicality) and put (spirituality).
Luke 3:24 son of Mattthat , son of Levi,	Most manuscripts read ( Mthat Ματθάτ ), but Papyrus 4 reads ( Mthat Μαθθάθ ).		This difference is most likely caused by an auditory error resulting from the similarity of the pronunciation of the letters (tau + theta τθ) with the letters (theta + theta θθ), but the seriousness of this matter is that it shows that the copyist of the papyrus did not have a great knowledge of the Greek language, because there is no word in Greek in this form Μαθθάθ , and yet he wrote it.
Luke 3:28 28The son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosham, the son of Almodam , the son of Er,	Most manuscripts read ( modamΕλμαδάμ ), but Papyrus 4 reads ( mosam᾽Ελμασάμ ).		The similarity in shape between delta δ and sigma σ led the copyist to mix it up. The seriousness of this mistake is that it proves once again the copyist’s lack of deep knowledge of the Greek language, as there is no name in this form in Greek ( ᾽Ελμασάμ ) and yet he wrote it.
Luke 3:32 32The son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon ,	Papyrus 4, in addition to Sinaitic, Vatican, Sinaitic Syriac, Upper Egyptian Coptic, and some Bohairic, reads ( Sala Σαλά ).		Since there is no person named ( Salah ) in Hebrew, the scribes changed the name to ( Salmon ) to correct the error.
Luke 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Aram, the son of Hezron,	Papyrus 4, Sinaiticus, Regis Codex, Family 13 manuscripts, and Bohairic Coptic manuscripts read: ( son of Amminadab, son of Adman, son of Arni ) (τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ )		The scribes changed the reading of Papyrus 4 to the current reading to make the genealogy of Jesus in Luke match that of Matthew 1:3-4.
​
Luke 5:33 33And they said to him, “Why do John’s disciples fast so often?	Papyrus 4 ( whyδιὰ τί ) is deleted in addition to BLW Ξ 33 892 * 1241 pc sa bo pt		The scribes added the word “ why ” because the scribes and Pharisees were asking Jesus a question.
Luke 5:38 38 But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.	The phrase ( so that they may all be preserved ) is not found in Papyrus No. 4, Papyrus (75), Papyrus Sinaiticus, Papyrus Vaticanus, and a number of other manuscripts 𝔓 4 , *א BL (W βάλληται) f1 33 157 205 579 700 1241		The scribes added the phrase ( so they will all be preserved ) intentionally to make the text here match its counterpart in Matthew 9:17 in what is known as the phenomenon of “harmonization” between the books.
Luke 5:39 39And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new ; for he says, ‘The old is better.’	The word ( for the time εὐθέως ) is not found in the five oldest Greek witnesses to the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, which are Papyrus 75 [and Papyrus No. 4 and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Washington and others 𝔓 4.75vid ℵ BC* LW ƒ1 579 1241 pc co		The text without the word ( for the time ) means: “People drink only old wine and do not drink new” while John 2:10 tells us that the winemaker offers the people old wine first and when they are drunk he offers them new wine: (10And he said to him, “Everyone sets out the good wine at the beginning, and when they are drunk, then the inferior; but you have kept the good wine until now!”) The word (for the time) aims to show that there is a time for new wine. There is a second important goal, which is to open the door to the coming of the New Testament. The text is viewed as a symbol of the Old and New Testaments. If someone does not want the new wine at all , then the New Testament has no value. However, the phrase “for the time” indicates that the new wine, the “New Testament,” has a time in which it is offered.
Luke 6:1 And on the second Sabbath after the first,	Papyrus 4 and the following witnesses delete the phrase ( the second after the first δευτεροπρώτῳ ) א BLW f1 33 157 205 579 1241 itb, c, l, q, r1 syrp, hmg, pal copsa, bopt eth		This strange word ( the second after the first δευτεροπρώτῳ ) was not used by any writer in the New Testament. The copyists added it to differentiate between this second Sabbath and the first Sabbath on which Jesus taught, in Luke 4:31.

---

accidental spelling or typos

The upper reading is the papyrus reading, and the lower reading is the Nestle-Aland critical copy reading. The place where the copyist made an error is shaded in yellow or green, and if the error was an omission, it is shaded in the Nestle-Aland text.

The papyrus scribe was described by many scholars as an experienced scribe, but the scribe made many systematic errors, as he often made mistakes in vowels and mixed them up, especially in people's names, and sometimes he wrote people's names incorrectly that do not exist in Greek, which indicates that the term (experienced scribe)

The upper reading is the papyrus reading, and the lower reading is the Nestle-Aland critical copy reading. The place where the copyist made the mistake is shaded in yellow or green, and if the mistake was to omit something, it is shaded in the Nestle-Aland copy text.
Among
his mistakes are:

• The word “old” and “new” are repeated several times in 5:36 so he made a mistake and put the word “new” in place of the word “old.” [1]

But he quickly noticed this mistake and corrected it.

• Luke 3:29, where the word (Yosei Ιησοῦ) is written in the same way as the word (Jesus), so the copyist made a mistake and wrote it in the form of the sacred abbreviation Nomina Sacra, then later he noticed the mistake and corrected it. [2]

[1] A Comparative Textual Analysis of 𝔓4 and 𝔓64+67, by Tommy Wasserman, pg20

[2] Ibid,21