University of Oxford, Sackler Library, Oxford, England
Cite
Griffin, B.W. and Blumell, L.H., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 85, no. 5478, Egypt Exploration Society: London, England, 2020.
Size
8.3 x 7 mm; 2.9 x 17.8 mm
Papyrus 141 (designated as 𝔓141 in the Gregory-Aland numbering system) is what remains of an early copy of the New TestamentinGreek. It is a papyrusmanuscriptofLuke. The text survives on two disparate fragments of the same codex, one from chapter 2 and one from chapter 24. The manuscript has been assigned paleographically to the 3rd century.[1]
2:33 𝔓141 supports the reading πατηρ with 010305019032ƒ11317001241, compared to the majority reading of ιωσηφ.
2:34 𝔓141 reads ηυλογηϲεν with 01032036047349579713 1510 2542,[1] compared to the standard reading of ευλογηϲεν.
2:42 𝔓141 contains the plus αυτω prior to ετη (although ετη was added supralinearly as a prima manu correction) along with 05, compared to the standard reading ετων and the deviant reading οτων of 01.
24:23 𝔓141 has the standard reading ηλθον as compared to the orthographic variant ηλθαν of 𝔓75 and 03.
24:24 𝔓141 evidently had the standard reading of καθωϲ και as compared to just καθωϲ of 𝔓75 and 03, and just ωϲ of 05.
24:28 𝔓141 has the standard reading of ηγγιϲαν compared to ηγγικαν of 𝔓75 and 03.
24:32 𝔓141 lacks space for about six letters in the lacuna preceding τ̣η οδω, as compared to ωϲ ελαλει ημιν εν of 𝔓75 and 03, the majority reading εν ημιν ωϲ ελαλει ημιν εν being too long to fit. Griffin[1] reconstructs the reading (based on its support in the Latin manuscripts a b ff² l r¹) as εν ημιν, meaning that the words for "as he was speaking with us" in the Alexandrian base text were replaced with "in us" in alignment with the majority reading.
24:33 Griffin views the lacuna as having been too long for the Alexandrian (𝔓7501030533) reading ϲυνηθροιϲμενουϲ and reconstructs the text as having contained the majority reading ηθροιϲμενουϲ.
24:36 Griffin reconstructs the text, on the basis of line spacing between the extant sequences εϲ on line 19 and ει on line 20 of the second fragment's verso, as having contained the standard reading και λεγει αυτοιϲ, which on the basis of its absence in 05 (and the Latin manuscripts e a b d ff² l r¹) was omitted from the edited texts of Westcott and Hort 1881 and Michael Holmes 2010.[3]
