The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 69

e ΜΕΤΑΜΕΛΕCΘΑΙ To repent/regret nelle Visioni di Erma', Miscel·lània Papirològica Ramon Roca-Puig (Barcelona 1987) 97–102, and the commentary to P. Bodm. If this holds, S’s μετανοήσουσιν could be a correction of μεταμελήσουσιν. It should be noted, however, that μεταμέλεσθαι is not attested elsewhere in Hermas, while μετανοεῖν to repent occurs frequently.

9 αλλ’ with B: αλλα SA.

αυτους themselves: εαυτους SBA. The uncontracted form is common in Hermas. For a similar case of disagreement between the MSS, cf. 22. 9 (εαυτο S^c: αυτο S: ἑαυτόν A).

12 τα αμαρτηματα σου your sins with S: σου τὰ ἁμαρτήματα A: τας αμ]αρτιας ς[ου your sins B.

---

4706. HERMAS, VISIONES III 4.3, 6.6, 9.7, 13.4–IV 1.1, 7–9; MANDATA II 4–5, IV 1.1.7–9, 3.6, 4.3–4, V 1.6–7, VI 1.3–5, VII 5, VIII 6, IX 7–8, X 1.1

106/47(a)                                              fr. 13 5.1 × 10.2 cm                                      Second/third century

Twenty-seven fragments of a roll, blank on the back; ten of them have not been placed. A crude kollesis papyrus join is visible in fr. 5. The lower margin measures 2.8 cm (frr. 1, 16); the upper margin is extant to 0.6 cm (?fr. 12); the intercolumnium space between columns is c.1 cm wide (fr. 20). The dimensions of the original roll and of the column of writing (we know only that each line contained 22–26 letters) cannot be reconstructed.

The hand is informal with cursive tendencies, of the kind that C. H. Roberts described as ‘reformed documentary’ (Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London 1979) 14). I would assign it to the earlier part of the third century, though I would not exclude a date in the very end of the second. There is some similarity to XXXI 2611 of 192/3, and VIII 1100 = GLH 20b, of 206; cf. also L 3532 = GMAW² 86, assigned to the later second century. Letter forms of note: narrowly pointed α; the apexes of α, δ, λ are leftward-facing hooks; ζ has a curved base; the stem of τ joins the crossbar at one-third length; ξ, ρ, φ, and ι when ligatured to ε, reach well below the line.

Θεός God and κύριος Lord are not contracted; this is also the case in P. Mich. 130, another Hermas fragment. The only lectional sign in evidence is a diaeresis over initial upsilon (fr. 3.4). There is no opportunity to observe how elision was treated. Titles are preserved for Vis. IV (fr. 5.13) and Mand. VIII (fr. 14.6). There are three itacistic mistakes (frr. 1.3; 3.4; 13.2), and a morphological aberration of common type (fr. 5.1). There is one correction, probably by the original scribe (fr. 13.10).

The original roll must have contained the Visiones as well as the Mandata (it is less likely that we have fragments of two different rolls). Compare the Codex Sinaiticus, which contained all three parts of the Pastor. This is of some interest, since it has repeatedly been argued that Mandata and Similitudines circulated independently of Visiones I–IV (Vis. V serving as an introduction to Mand. and Sim.); contrast, however, Aland and Rosenbaum, Repertorium pp. lxxxvii–xciv, especially the codicological part of their argument.

The papyrus is of more than average textual interest. Frr. 1–4 + 5 (part) transmit sections of the text also extant in S, B, and A; the papyrus tallies three times with SB against A