DCLP Transcription [xml]
Introduction
Medical recipes with theological extracts. The text is written per fibras on the recto of a papyrus sheet (30.2 x 15.4 cm). The lower part of the fragment is practically complete, but in the upper part nearly all the right-hand half is missing. A vertical kollesis is visible in the middle of the sheet. Four different textual sections are separated by paragraphoi and introduced by staurograms (a coronis occurs at l. 22). The beginning and the end of the text consist of medical recipes: the first for a purge (ll. 1-14), the other for curing strangury and wounds (ll. 30-36). The middle portion is taken up with two theological extracts, apparently derived from an uncanonical gospel (or a fictitious tale) – ll. 15-22 – and from a (Jewish?) apocalyptic work – ll. 23-29. They have evidently been inserted on account of their medical interest; the link connecting these healing legends (historiolae) with the medical prescriptions is probably not so much the mention of the olive-oil and myrrh as relieving sickness, and the sponge as relieving the eyes, but in the implied virtue of an appeal by name to the Trinity and to Jehovah Sabaoth. The handwriting is a rather large, irregular semiuncial, showing numerous mistakes of spelling. It is datable to the 5th or 6th cent. AD.
† κυμίνου (δραχμαί) δ
μαράθου (δραχμαί) β
σελίνου (δραχμαί) δ
5κόστου (δραχμαί) δ
μαστίχης (δραχμαί) δ
κωρίου(*) (δραχμαί) ζ̣
δαφνόκοκκα κα̣
καροίου(*) (δραχμαί) [ -1-2- ]
10πέρνης (δραχμαί) [ -1-2- ]
γλήχωνος (δραχμαί) [ -1-2- ]
φοί\λ/λου(*) (δραχμαί) [ -1-2- ]
ἅλατος [ -1-2- ]
ὄξους [ -1-2- ]
——
15† ἀπήντησαν ἡμ̣[ῖν τινας](*) [ἄνδ]ρε̣ς̣
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ κα̣[ὶ εἶπαν τῷ κ(υρί)ῳ](*),
’Ι(*)εσοῦ(*), τί<ς> ἔνη θαραπ̣ία̣(*) ἀ̣ρ̣ρ̣ώ̣[στοις;](*)
καὶ λέγ<ε>ι αὐτοῖς, ἔλεομ(*) ἀπέδ̣[ωκα](*) [ἐ-]
λήας(*) καὶ σβύρν[α]ν̣(*) ἐ̣ξ̣έ̣χ̣[υσα τοῖς]
20πεποιθόσ̣ι τ[ῷ ὀνόματι](*)
πατρὸς καὶ ἁγ[ί]ο̣υ̣ [πν(εύματο)ς καὶ](*)
υ(*)ἱοῦ. ((coronis))
——
† ἄγγελοι κ(υρίο)υ ἀνῆρθαν(*) πρὸς μ̣[έσον]
τὸν(*) οὐρανὸν ὀφθαλμοὺς
25πονο<ῦ>ντες καὶ σφόγγον(*) κρα-
τοῦντες. λέγι αὐ\τ̣ο̣ῖ̣ς̣/ ὁ κ(υρίο)υ τί ἀνήρ-
θατε(*), ἁγνοὶ(*) πανκάθαροι; ἴ(*)ασιν λαβ<ε>ῖν
ἀνήλθαμεν(*), ’Ι(*)αὼ Σαβαώθ, ὅτι σοὶ
δοινατὸς καὶ \οἰ/σχιρός(*).
——
30 ((eisthesis)) εἰς στραγγουριτία(*), ἰ(*)ᾶσε(*) τὸν πονο<ῦ>ν̣τ̣α•
† λαβὸν(*) σπέρμα ἀγίνου(*) ξερὸν(*)
τρίψας μετὰ {υ}οἴνου ’Ασκαλω̣-
νίτου εἶτα θερμὰ πίν{ν}ε.
——
† εἰς θαραπίαν οὐλον(*)•
35λαβὸν(*) μῆλα κυπαρίσ<σ>ου
ζέσας κ\λ/οίζου(*).
——
Apparatus
^ 7. l. κορίου
^ 9. l. καρύου
^ 12. l. φύλλου
^ 15. R. Mazza ASE 24 (2007), p. 440 : [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] (or [τρεῖς] or [λεπτροὶ]) prev. ed.
^ 16. or [αὐτῷ], or [τῷ σ(ωτῆ)ρι]
^ 17. l. ’Ιησοῦ : ’ϊεσου papyrus
^ 17. l. ἔνι θαραπεία
^ 17. or ἅ̣π̣τ̣ε̣[ται;]
^ 18. R. Mazza ASE 24 (2007), p. 440 : ἔλεον prev. ed. l. ἔλαιον
^ 18. or ἀπέδ̣[ειξα]
^ 18-19. l. [ἐ]|λαίας
^ 19. l. σμύρν[α]ν̣
^ 20. or τ[ῇ δυνάμει]
^ 21. R. Mazza ASE 24 (2007), p. 440 : [τοῦ] | πατρὸς καὶ ἁγ[ί]ο̣υ̣ [πν(εύματο)ς καὶ τοῦ] prev. ed.
^ 22. ϋιου. papyrus
^ 23. l. ἀνῆλθαν
^ 23-24. or π[έμ]π|τον
^ 25. l. σπόγγον : σφόγ’γον papyrus
^ 26-27. l. κ(ύριο)ς, τί ἀνήλ|θατε
^ 27. corr. ex αγοι R. Mazza ASE 24 (2007), p. 443 (αγοιυι prev. ed.)
^ 27. ϊασιν papyrus
^ 28. corr. ex ανηλθωμεν
^ 28. ’ϊαω papyrus
^ 28-29. l. σὺ | δυνατὸς καὶ ἰσχυρός
^ 30. l. στραγγουρίαν R. Mazza ASE 24 (2007), p. 443 (στραγγουρητίαν prev. ed.)
^ 30. l. ἰᾶσαι : ϊασε papyrus
^ 31. l. λαβὼν
^ 31. l. ἀκίνου
^ 31. l. ξηρὸν
^ 34. l. θαραπηίαν οὐλῶν R. Mazza ASE 24 (2007), p. 443 (θεραπείαν οὐλῶν prev. ed.)
^ 35. l. λαβὼν
^ 36. l. κλύζου
Notes
- 12.
φύλλον in medical writers often stands for ‘medicinal herb’ or ‘medicinal plant’, but it is used sometimes with special reference to σίλφιον (e.g. Hp. Nat.Mul. 72 [7, 404.6 L]).
- 15.
The position assigned to the isolated fragment […]ρες is not certain, but no other place seems at all suitable. The word before [ἄνδ]ρες may well have been a number (e.g. τρεῖς), but since the exact length of the lacuna is uncertain there are several possibilities (for example, λεπτροί – see Ev.Luc. 17.11 – or τινας (cf. the use of indefinite pronouns at ll. 17, 26).
- 17.
After the eventual ἅ̣π̣τ̣ε̣[ται], there would be room for δέ.
- 18.
The fourth letter of απεδ[…], if not δ, can only be lambda, but delta is more suitable.
- 24.
The first letter of μ̣[έσον], if not mu, can only be lambda, nu, or pi. After a lacuna of two letters comes what may be the bottom of a vertical stroke, or merely a stain or accidental spot: π[έμ]πτον is also possible.
- 25.
σφόγγον might be for σπόγγων (see λαβὸν at l. 31) and the plural would be an advantage, but κρατεῖν in the sense of ‘holding in the hand’ would be expected to govern the accusative.
- 27.
λέγουσιν, οἱ δὲ εἶπαν or something similar seems to have dropped out between ἁγνοὶ πανκάθαροι and ἴασιν λαβεῖν.