Steven Avery
Administrator
WIP
Myths and Mistakes - Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 96
A comparison of P.Ryl. 16 and scribe A
of Codex Sinaiticus illustrates the problem
that resulted in Turner’s hesitancy to
assign any date ranges shorter than fifty
23
years on the basis of paleography alone.
These two manuscripts are written in
the same general style, called "biblical
majuscule,” but they were written forty to
two hundred years apart from each other.
The comparison aims to show why one
should not be too eager to accept the
earliest possible or even the latest possible
dates.
PIC
P.Ryl. 16 is a fragment of a comedy that
was reused as a letter. The letter on the
back can be dated to AD 256, giving this
papyrus its terminus ante quem, but we
do not know how long before AD 256 it
was written. In 1967, Guglielmo Cavallo
paleographically dated the manuscript to
24
the narrow window of circa 220-225 (!).
The manuscript is part of an archive,
however, which can shed some additional
light on its date. In a study of reused papyri
with dates on both sides, Turner suggested
that P.Ryl. 16 might be as early as AD 150
because other reused papyri in the archive
were about one hundred years old before
25
reuse.
The other hand of our comparison is
scribe A of Codex Sinaiticus, which has a
terminus post quem because it was produced
with the Eusebian apparatus in the
Gospels. It obviously could not have been
made before Eusebius had developed this
cross-reference system, which probably
happened during the window of AD 290-
340. Codex Sinaiticus could be later but not
earlier. On the basis of the handwriting,
Cavallo dated Codex Sinaiticus to circa 360
26
“or a few years later” (!).
Cavallo described the hand he calls
“biblical majuscule” as emerging from
a “sober and undecorated script." “True
biblical majuscule" has a “visible contrast
between thin horizontal strokes and fatter
vertical ones (particularly gamma, pi, tau),
while oblique [i.e., diagonal] strokes appear
in between (alpha, delta, lambda).” Cavallo
continued, “Among late examples . . . the
script shows a stronger contrast between
fat and thin strokes and decorative buttons
at the extremities of the latter, in particular
on the horizontal strokes of gamma, delta,
27
epsilon, pi and tau." In other words, the
hand that we are comparing should have
thick vertical strokes and thin horizontal
strokes. The later the hand is, the more
the contrast there will be. Later examples
of the hands tend to have decorative serifs
on horizontal strokes, but earlier examples
tend not to have them.
In the above comparison, we see
handwriting from two manuscripts that
Cavallo dated 135 to 140 years apart, and
to be fair, P.Ryl. 16 is earlier than Codex
Sinaiticus. There are differences between
the two hands, admittedly. The epsilon
(e) and sigma (c) are not the same—
they are slightly more decorative in Codex
Sinaiticus. The phi (cf>) in Codex Sinaiticus is
more angled than round. Codex Sinaiticus
has generally more difference between the
thick vertical strokes of nu (N) and the
thinner diagonal stroke (but not always;
23. Thanks are due to Brent Nongbri, who inspired me to compare P.Ryl. 16 with Codex Sinaiticus.
24. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica, 45-46.
25. Turner, "Recto and Verso,” 106. However, there is no guarantee that P.Ryl. 16 was written as early as AD 150. At least one papyrus in this
archive was reused after only nine months, and several others after fifteen to thirty years.
26. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica, 5 8.
27. Guglielmo Cavallo, "Greek and Latin\ Writing in the Papyri,” in The Oxford Handbook
28. It is also problematic to look merely at “test letters,” so I have reproduced the samples in groups of the same words.
29. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 22.
30. P. J. Parsons, “Review of Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica by Guglielmo Cavallo,” Gn 42, no. 4 (1970): 380.
31. Brent Nongbri writes of P52, "I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute ‘dead ringers’ for the
handwriting of P52, and even if I had done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way” (“Use and Abuse of P52,” 46).
A comparison of P.Ryl. 16 and scribe A
of Codex Sinaiticus illustrates the problem
that resulted in Turner’s hesitancy to
assign any date ranges shorter than fifty
23
years on the basis of paleography alone.
These two manuscripts are written in
the same general style, called "biblical
majuscule,” but they were written forty to
two hundred years apart from each other.
The comparison aims to show why one
should not be too eager to accept the
earliest possible or even the latest possible
dates.
PIC
P.Ryl. 16 is a fragment of a comedy that
was reused as a letter. The letter on the
back can be dated to AD 256, giving this
papyrus its terminus ante quem, but we
do not know how long before AD 256 it
was written. In 1967, Guglielmo Cavallo
paleographically dated the manuscript to
24
the narrow window of circa 220-225 (!).
The manuscript is part of an archive,
however, which can shed some additional
light on its date. In a study of reused papyri
with dates on both sides, Turner suggested
that P.Ryl. 16 might be as early as AD 150
because other reused papyri in the archive
were about one hundred years old before
25
reuse.
The other hand of our comparison is
scribe A of Codex Sinaiticus, which has a
terminus post quem because it was produced
with the Eusebian apparatus in the
Gospels. It obviously could not have been
made before Eusebius had developed this
cross-reference system, which probably
happened during the window of AD 290-
340. Codex Sinaiticus could be later but not
earlier. On the basis of the handwriting,
Cavallo dated Codex Sinaiticus to circa 360
26
“or a few years later” (!).
Cavallo described the hand he calls
“biblical majuscule” as emerging from
a “sober and undecorated script." “True
biblical majuscule" has a “visible contrast
between thin horizontal strokes and fatter
vertical ones (particularly gamma, pi, tau),
while oblique [i.e., diagonal] strokes appear
in between (alpha, delta, lambda).” Cavallo
continued, “Among late examples . . . the
script shows a stronger contrast between
fat and thin strokes and decorative buttons
at the extremities of the latter, in particular
on the horizontal strokes of gamma, delta,
27
epsilon, pi and tau." In other words, the
hand that we are comparing should have
thick vertical strokes and thin horizontal
strokes. The later the hand is, the more
the contrast there will be. Later examples
of the hands tend to have decorative serifs
on horizontal strokes, but earlier examples
tend not to have them.
In the above comparison, we see
handwriting from two manuscripts that
Cavallo dated 135 to 140 years apart, and
to be fair, P.Ryl. 16 is earlier than Codex
Sinaiticus. There are differences between
the two hands, admittedly. The epsilon
(e) and sigma (c) are not the same—
they are slightly more decorative in Codex
Sinaiticus. The phi (cf>) in Codex Sinaiticus is
more angled than round. Codex Sinaiticus
has generally more difference between the
thick vertical strokes of nu (N) and the
thinner diagonal stroke (but not always;
23. Thanks are due to Brent Nongbri, who inspired me to compare P.Ryl. 16 with Codex Sinaiticus.
24. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica, 45-46.
25. Turner, "Recto and Verso,” 106. However, there is no guarantee that P.Ryl. 16 was written as early as AD 150. At least one papyrus in this
archive was reused after only nine months, and several others after fifteen to thirty years.
26. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica, 5 8.
27. Guglielmo Cavallo, "Greek and Latin\ Writing in the Papyri,” in The Oxford Handbook
28. It is also problematic to look merely at “test letters,” so I have reproduced the samples in groups of the same words.
29. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 22.
30. P. J. Parsons, “Review of Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica by Guglielmo Cavallo,” Gn 42, no. 4 (1970): 380.
31. Brent Nongbri writes of P52, "I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute ‘dead ringers’ for the
handwriting of P52, and even if I had done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way” (“Use and Abuse of P52,” 46).
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
jr., scriDai i-iaDirs ana i neoiogicai innuences in ine
Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus
Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, WUNT 2/218 (Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2006); Wasserman,
Page 372
Steven Avery
Administrator
Big section on Mark 1:1
Luke 23:34
Canonical issues - Hermas, Barnabas
Luke 23:34
Canonical issues - Hermas, Barnabas
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
Administrator