Here is how Hurtado "upped his numbers":
The possible "hits" in all of John:
BOOK OF John
Chapter 19 The Soldiers Mock Jesus
6 Therefore when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, “Crucify! Crucify!” Pilate says to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.” (3 x)
10 Therefore Pilate says to Him, “Do You not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?”
15 So they cried out, “Away with Him, away! Crucify Him!” Pilate says to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king except Caesar.” ( 2 x)
16 So then, he delivered Him to them, that He might be crucified. Therefore they took Jesus.
17 And bearing His own cross, He went out to the place called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha,
18 where they crucified Him, and with Him two others, on this side and on that side, and Jesus in between.
19 And Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. And it was written, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.
23 Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven from the top all throughout.
25 Now His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, had been standing by the cross of Jesus.
31 Therefore the Jews, because it was the Preparation, so that bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath - for that Sabbath was a high day - asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and they might be taken away.
32 So the soldiers came, and indeed they broke the legs of the first, and of the other having been crucified with Him.
41 Now there was a garden in the place where He was crucified, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid.
That is, sum total:
6 - 3 x crucify
10 - 1 x crucify
15 - 2 x crucify
16 - 1 x crucified
17 - 1 x cross
18 - 1 x crucified
19 - 1 x cross
20 - 1 x crucified
23 - 1 x crucified
25 - 1 x cross
31 - 1 x cross
32 - 1 x crucified
41 - 1 x crucified
Here is the text from Hurtado regarding P66 (
https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1):
Let us first address the question of origins. Our most important evidence, and certainly the earliest, is provided by the instances of this device in some very early Christian manuscripts. 21 We may begin with Papyrus Bodmer II (∏ 66 ), the extant portion of a codex of the Gospel of John (chapters 1–14 relatively well preserved, the rest of John through chapter 21 in very fragmentary condition), and dated palaeographically to ca. 200 ce. 22 In this manuscript the noun staurow (three instances) and at least seven uses of forms of the verb staurov are written in abbreviated forms, and with the tau and rho of these words written as a compendium. In each case, the statement in which the noun or verb appears refers to Jesus’ cross/crucifixion. 23
3 + 7 makes 10, right?
What is in the footnote number 23?
23 K. Aland identified instances of stauros abbreviated and with the tau-rho in John 19:19, 25, 31, and abbreviated forms of stauros with this device in John 19:6 (three), 15 (two), 16, 18 (“Neue neutestamentliche Papyri II,” NTS 10 [1963–64] 75, and further possible cases in 19:17, 20. Cf. instances identified by Martin and Barns in the 1962 augmented and corrected edition of chapters 14–21 of ∏ 66 : forms of staurow in 19:19, 25, plus another one restored as “des plus probables” in 19:18, and forms of staurov in 19:6 (two), 16, 18, plus a proposed restoration of another instance in 19:20. My own examination of the photos published in their 1962 edition enabled me to verify clear instances in abbreviated forms of staurow in 19:19, 25, and 31, and in forms of staurov in 19:6, 15, 16, and 18.
Cleverly, Hurtado puts the details in the footnotes, where exact traceability to names and numbers quickly becomes impossible.
Ona side note, the difference between the two highlighted phrases is unclear to me.
But let's try to reconstruct what Hurtado squeezes in the footnotes:
Aland:
19:6 (3 x) - the first 2 words sit in one big lacuna with nothing discernable, and Hurtado omits to state this. The third word is only very partially visible, also due to being in a lacuna, and again Hurtado omits to state this
19:15 ( 2 x) - check, 2 clearly visible staurograms
19:16 - check, 1 clearly visible staurogram
19:17 (RESTORATION) - by stating this, Hurtado appears to suggest that he will distinguish between visible staurograms and what has been conjectured - which is not true at all. On a side note, there is a lacuna here indeed
19:18 - check, 1 clearly visible staurogram
19:19 - check, 1 clearly visible staurogram
19:20 (RESTORATION) - by stating this, Hurtado appears to suggest that he will distinguish between visible staurograms and what has been conjectured - which is not true at all. On a side note, there is a lacuna here indeed
19:25 - a lacuna again, again not mentioned by Hurtado. There is nothing at all visible here
19:31 - check, 1 clearly visible staurogram
Sum total: 10, plus a possible another 2 by conjecture - according to Hurtado.
In reality? Only 6 clearly visible staurograms, and the remainder is by conjecture!!!
Martin & Barns:
19:6 (2 x)
None in 19:15?!
19:16
19:18
None in 19:19?!
19:20 by conjecture
None in 19:31?!
I wonder what adding Martin & Barns does, they omit 3 clearly visible staurograms.
The biggest surprise is that Hurtado has checked all these fragments himself, and comes to the following conclusion:
My own examination of the photos published in their 1962 edition enabled me to verify clear instances in abbreviated forms of stauros in 19:19, 25, and 31, and in forms of staurow in 19:6, 15, 16, and 18
It is more than devious that he doesn't give any numbers here, this is either incredible incompetence or intentional fraud. There are two alleged staurograms completely invisible in the P66 John 19:6, with the third having only the superlinear and the bulge of the Rho, yet Hurtado counts 19:6 among his "forms of staurow", and it is ambiguous whether the earlier adjective of "clear instances" only applies to "abbreviated forms of stauros", or also extends to "forms of staurow"
Is this exemplary scholarship? No, far from, This is fumbling very important data into the footnotes and happily cherry-picking those numbers from their sum total that suit you, and to mention those in the main body of text. What is worst, Hurtado intentionally omits his own numbers when he states his own research, so he can go with basically any number, while he even seems reasonable for not counting the STATED restorations from Aland, while he hides 4 other lacuna that do get counted by Aland
It seems that we'll have another discussion about that F-word...