The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 73

the division into stichoi lines of verse of the textus receptus the standard received text. However, some traces suggest the use of dicolon to mark the end of a stichos line of verse (in →8 and in ↓5 the end of a stichos coincides with the end of a verse, and a blank space was possibly left before the beginning of the new verse; see ↓5 n.); dicolon perhaps occurs also in ↓2, again corresponding to verse-end, but no space can be discerned. Examples of this use of dicolon are to be found in PUG I 1 and XI 1352 (in the last item somewhat erratic). Inorganic diaeresis occurs in →5.

Psalm xc is well represented in papyri and parchments from Egypt. Table 1 identifies them by their numbers in A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, rev. D. Fraenkel, I i (Göttingen 2004), abbreviated R–F, and also by their numbers in J. van Haelst, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens (Paris 1976), abbreviated vH. In the table the column ‘Type of Text’ includes a summary of the contents, and a rough classification of the texts. Most of these are or may have been single sheets, which presumably served as amulets. This psalm was a favourite text for such a use because of its exorcistic content; it appears also on personal jewellery (see vH 184–91; T. J. Kraus, XXIV Congr. Proc. 497–514; id., Biblische Notizen 125 (2005) 39–73).

A number of these items show a free use of the text of Psalm xc in a remarkable variety of arrangements and layouts. Three principal categories can be distinguished. (1) Items that use the text of Psalm xc alone (R–F 2105, 2124, 2020, 2062) or with minor additions (2106, 2179). (2) Items that omit parts of the text (2048) or select a short section of it (2081), with a strong preference for the incipit. (3) Composite items, which contain individual lines of this psalm together with quotations from other sources, mainly from the New Testament (2115, OS-54, OS-25, 2075, 2074).

As it stands, 4931 can be ascribed to the first category, but since it is clearly not a single sheet but one leaf from a codex we cannot prove that it did not contain other materials. The closest parallel to our text in size and format is 2124, a miniature codex; cf. also 2105, a single bifolium or a miniature codex. Of course, the miniature format is not confined to amulets (P. Köln IV p. 37; M. J. Kruger, JTS 53 (2002) 81–94); but a miniature codex that presents a careless text in informal script may well have served this function.

For collation I have used the edition of A. Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis (Göttingen 1979^3). In the notes, several spelling mistakes and spelling variations in the other papyrological witnesses have intentionally been recorded to offer a more precise picture of the level of linguistic competence peculiar to amuletic texts.

4931 presents no significant deviation from the textus receptus, except for two idiosyncratic omissions (perhaps simply mechanical mistakes) in →4 and ↓2.