Review of Garrick Allen, Words Are Not Enough: Paratexts, Manuscripts, and the Real New Testament

 

In the September 2025 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society appears my review of,

Garrick Allen. Words Are Not Enough: Paratexts, Manuscripts, and the Real New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2024)

My review of the book is positive, my chief disappointment being the lack of detailed discussion of commentary manuscripts. Here is my concluding assessment.

"Though Allen uses nonacademic language, the work is replete with extensive footnotes providing a well-researched and documented study. At nineteen pages, the bibliography is an excellent resource in itself, providing a ready starting point for research into this complex field. Overall, Words Are Not Enough is a welcome introductory work that meets a need in the broader field of NT manuscript studies." (JETS 68.3 (2025), 579)

Some Observations on Orthography and the Π Group

A Shelf in the Old Library at Magdalen College, Oxford

After having completed my dissertation for some months, and with it now recently being made available online, I have had time to reflect back on some of the conclusions of the years of study. After transcribing all of the witnesses to be included in the examinations, I had to regularize those readings that were not genealogically significant, which means tagging these readings to be ignored by the collation software. Chapter 3 of the dissertation covers in detail the entire process (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, pp. 71-102). I noticed that many of the regularizations were spelling differences involving the substitution of similarly sounding vowels or the omission of the same letter in a word containing a double consonant (i.e. λλ). Tables 3.1 through 3.6 in Chapter 3 list out the number of orthographic variations (pp. 91-98). It seems to me that those who used these manuscripts were comfortable with variations in spelling as long as the words sounded the same when pronounced while being read out. Because so many of these manuscripts were prepared and used for lectionary readings, this may be a byproduct of this type of environment. I conclude that

"[this] may reflect a more utilitarian attitude of the scribe who may have cared more for function rather than perfection. That is, as long as orthography did not impede the transmission of meaning, then it did not impede its usefulness." (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, p. 102)

Most of these manuscripts reflect late antique or medieval attitudes towards the copying of texts, so it may not be applicable to earlier centuries. With that said, I wonder how much of the modern textual critic's approach to errors in the text related to spelling are actually anachronistic to some degree. It makes me wonder how many more variations, especially those that hardly affect meaning, such as transpositions or word substitutions with a synonym that have a large semantic overlap, would have been considered an acceptable byproduct of hand copying. For those who created and used these manuscripts, the vast majority of these types of variations would likely not have been considered "errors" as we see them today, which can be the cause of many modern day apologetic, epistemological, and theological crises.

Review of; "A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament" by Philip Wesley Comfort

A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament. By Philip Wesley Comfort. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015, 416 pp., $29.99.

 This book review had originally been written nearly two years previously and was submitted to a journal for publication. After languishing in their ‘accepted’ folder for months, it was subsequently withdrawn from submission and, instead, published on ‘The Textual Mechanic’ blog and on Academia.edu.

As the methods of New Testament textual criticism develop and as more manuscripts are discovered, handbooks and textual commentaries of the New Testament require updating and revision. Philip Comfort’s A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament endeavors to provide such an updated resource. This work is a concise handbook on the manuscripts of the New Testament, a brief introduction to the theory and practice of textual criticism, a commentary on textual variations within the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, and an introduction to the curious scribal features known as nomina sacra.
Philip Comfort is senior editor of Bible reference at Tyndale House publishers and has taught at Trinity Episcopal Seminary, Wheaton College, Columbia International University, and Coastal Carolina University. He is well known for the Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (2001), edited together with David P. Barrett, and for his New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (2008).
In the introduction of A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament Comfort set out the goal for the work when he wrote, “[i]n this commentary readers will be reading commentary on actual manuscripts. . . No other Bible commentary does this” (p. 7). Besides providing annotation on textual variation, every instance where a nomina sacra appears within the text of these manuscripts is noted throughout the commentary.
Between the brief introduction and chapter one is placed a segment entitled simply as “Early Manuscripts” (p. 11-14). In this section, the earliest manuscript evidence is presented by chapter for each New Testament book. Though some may dispute the earlier dates given for some of the papyri (see discussion below), the list accurately reflects the manuscript data (regardless of dates) extant for each New Testament book.
Chapter one, “Introducing the Manuscripts, Text, and Nomina Sacra,” briefly presents the New Testament papyri (p. 20-22) and “Significant Uncial Manuscripts” (p. 22-23). Next, under the heading “Assessing the Manuscripts to Establish the Text of the New Testament,” Comfort orients the reader to the methods used to weigh manuscripts according to their textual “accuracy” (p. 23-29). Under this heading, the textual relationship between P66, P75, and B is surveyed (p. 24-26), and the Alands’ classification of manuscripts into the “strict,” “normal,” “at least normal,” and “free” categories is evaluated (p. 27-28). Comfort then provides some “corrective” to several of the Alands’ classifications and then proposes his own set of terminology in categorizing these papyri (p. 28-29). Following this, under the heading “The Canons of Textual Criticism,” he surveys the internal criteria used by critics to evaluate which reading gave rise to all the others in each variant unit (p. 29-31). The chapter closes by briefly introducing the nomina sacra, which are found within nearly all of the earliest New Testament manuscripts (p. 31-41).
Chapter two, “An Annotated List of the Manuscripts of the New Testament,” presents the 127 New Testament papyri with their editio principes and (for the more significant papyri) a brief analysis of their dates and textual character (p. 41-91). This segment closes with a section subtitled “Other Papyrus Manuscripts,” which discusses the Egerton Gospel, P. Antinoopolis 2.54, P.Oxy 655, and P.Oxy 5073 (p. 91-92). Under the heading “Significant Uncial Manuscripts,” the primary majuscule codices are listed with their editio principes, date, textual make-up, and characteristic features (p. 93-111). Next are listed the most important “Minuscules” with their dates, historical features, characteristics, and textual make-up (p. 11-113). Included under this heading are brief discussions of Family 1 (p. 111-112) and Family 13 (p. 112). Next, “Ancient Versions” are listed with a concise introduction, approximate date when the version first appeared, and, if applicable, the major manuscripts used in consulting the version (p. 115-123). The versions listed are, Syriac, Old Latin, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Gothic, and the translation of the Diatessaron. Chapter two is completed by listing out, with no discussion, the “Church Fathers” consulted in this commentary along with their date (p. 123-124).
The Greek New Testament textual commentary begins in chapter three, which encompasses “The Synoptic Gospels” (p. 127-245). Chapter four deals solely with “The Gospel According to John” (p. 247-276). The “Acts of the Apostles” is discussed in chapter five (p. 277-298). Chapter six examines “The Epistles of Paul” (p. 299-369). Chapter seven is dedicated to the epistle of “Hebrews” (p. 371-382). In chapter eight “The General Epistles” are reviewed (p. 383-403). The textual commentary portion of the volume concludes with chapter nine, “The Revelation of John” (p. 405-413). Between the end of chapter nine and the appendix appears a brief “Select Bibliography” (p. 415-418).
The volume closes with an appendix entitled “The Significance of the Nomina Sacra (Sacred Names)” (p. 419-443). In this appendix, Comfort continues the brief introduction of the nomina sacra found in chapter one. The following nomina sacra abbreviations are discussed in full: “Lord” (p. 419-420), “Jesus” (p. 420-423), “Christ” (p. 423-424), “God” (p. 424-427), and “Spirit” (p. 427-433). The remainder of the appendix discusses other nomina sacra abbreviations found in the New Testament manuscripts under the heading “Other Prominent Divine Names: Father, Son, Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David” (p. 433-441). In the appendix, Comfort argues that the “nomina sacra were intended to be understood only by initiates—i.e., those trained to read and decode the New Testament writings for their congregations” (p. 420). He also states that the “name ‘Jesus’ was treated as a nomen sacrum very early” and that it was likely the “second nomina sacra to be created—following right behind (if not concurrent with) ‘Lord’” (p. 420). Because the scribe of P46 inconsistently employed the nomen sacrum for “Spirit,” Comfort argues that this codex must be early, copied during the “transition” period in which this nomen sacrum was first being developed (p. 428-429).
Those who are familiar with Comfort’s New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (2008) may wish to learn of the similarities and differences between the two volumes. Due to space considerations, it is impossible to evaluate every point of commentary, therefore, this review will limit itself to two well-known variation units: the ending of Mark, and the Pericope de Adultera in John. At nine pages, the commentary on the endings of Mark is quite lengthy (p. 197-206). Comfort discusses the five variation units along with their manuscript, versional, and patristic attestation. The discussion appears to be taken nearly word-for-word from his Text and Translation Commentary. In contrast, though Comfort discusses the manuscript, versional, and patristic evidence, the commentary on the Pericope de Adultera, at two pages (p. 258-259), is highly abridged when compared to his Text and Translation Commentary. Therefore, it appears that some of the material is nearly identical and some an abridgment of the commentary already published in his previous Text and Translation Commentary. Only two features are absent in the current commentary, a list of English Bible translations that contain a particular reading, and the Greek text of the variation units. When variation units are listed, only English translations of the readings are provided.
There are some noteworthy shortcomings to A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament. Readers may be disappointed to learn that there is no discussion of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), which is now being used by the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) to produce the Editio Critica Maior (ECM). Along these same lines, Comfort seems to have completely disregarded the 34 changes in the Catholic (General) Epistles in the ECM that were incorporated into the main text of the NA28. Users who may have Comfort’s new commentary open alongside their NA28 edition of the Greek New Testament will be disappointed that there is absolutely no discussion of theses variations in light of the CBGM. Especially considering the conjectural emendation that has been incorporated into the main text of the NA28 at 2 Peter 3:10.
Significant criticism has already been directed towards Comfort’s other publications with regard to the palaeographic method employed to date some of the papyri earlier than the dates assigned in the NA28. Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse have critiqued Comfort’s tendency to date papyri by comparing single letters and words. Instead, they argue, Comfort should be dating papyri by placing the hand in question within the history of a graphic type (“Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography,” ETL 88.4 (2012), p. 450). Comfort has made no attempt to clarify or defend his dating method against these criticisms. Users of this commentary may come away with the (wrong) impression that some of Comfort’s assigned dates are more broadly accepted in the palaeographical community.
With that said, in most cases Comfort’s assigned dates for the papyri align with the standard dates given in the NA28. In some instances, his proposed dates fall on the lower end of the more broadly accepted ranges, or are twenty five to fifty years earlier (see for example P46, P52, P66, and P75). Most non-specialists would not see these differences as significant. At the very least, including the more broadly accepted dates alongside his own would have served better the purpose of a handbook on the manuscripts of the New Testament and would better represent the discipline of palaeography.
Most typographical mistakes are minor and forgivable, however, there is one major error in this commentary that might be distracting for users. It appears that at some point during the planning stages, what is now chapter one “Introducing the Manuscripts, Text, and Nomina Sacra,” was meant to be chapter two. Chapter two, “An Annotated List of the Manuscripts of the New Testament,” gives a detailed list and commentary on the manuscripts of the New Testament, was meant to be chapter one. During the course of the introduction in chapter one, when a particular manuscript is mentioned, the text reads “see discussion above,” presuming readers had already encountered the annotated list of manuscripts, but this annotated list occurs later, in chapter two. Even more confusing, in the appendix, “The Significance of the Nomina Sacra (Sacred Names),” the text reads, “[t]his appendix provides a continued discussion of the Nomina Sacra as presented in chapter two” (p. 419). However, the Nomina Sacra were discussed in chapter one, and readers who may pick up the commentary and turn immediately to the appendix may be confused as to where in the volume they may find the previous discussion of the nomina sacra.
One particularly disappointing error is found in the first paragraph of Chapter One, “Introducing the Manuscripts.” Here Comfort compares the “over 5,500 manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament, or portions thereof.” Boasting that “[n]o other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers. Homer’s Iliad, the greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; and Euripides’s tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts” (p. 19). Of course, these numbers are woefully out of date. For example, a simple search on Leuven Database of Ancient Books (http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/) reveals that there are well over 1500 copies of Homer’s Iliad extant. For a work that is purporting to be commentary on manuscripts, this is an unfortunate mistake and hopefully is not representative of other less obvious errors in the rest of the work.
Despite these drawbacks, Comfort’s A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament is a valuable handbook that can be used alongside Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed. 1994) and the NA28. Comfort’s commentary is bound in a similar hardback format with nearly identical dimensions as the NA28, and, along with a ribbon bookmark, makes for a nice companion volume that is easily portable.
The section entitled, “Early Manuscripts” is an excellent reference for quickly determining the earliest manuscript support by chapter for each New Testament book (p. 11-14). This will be particularly useful for pastors, preachers, and students of the New Testament text. It provides a strong visual representation of the manuscript attestation, which for some books, like Matthew and John, is remarkably extensive and early.
Chapter two, “An Annotated List of the Manuscripts of the New Testament,” is nearly worth the price of the volume. It provides a handy reference, especially for non-specialists, who may be working through a particular passage in the New Testament and come across an unfamiliar manuscript or versional sigla in the apparatus. The list of editio principes, date, textual make-up, and characteristic features provide a quick reference for those who wish to examine a specific manuscript in greater detail.
Finally, the most useful feature of this commentary is that it offers a wealth of information on the location of nomina sacra within the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. As far as this reviewer knows, there is no other resource which provides a textual commentary on the nomina sacra in this way. For each New Testament book, Comfort has annotated when a particular manuscript uses a nomina sacra within the text. This feature is a valuable resource for those engaging in a systematic study of the nomina sacra. Comfort highlights these curious scribal features in such a way that many who use this commentary will probably encounter them for the first time.
These features outweigh the shortcomings of the volume and the low price ensures its accessibility for a broader readership. Comfort’s A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament is a valuable handbook that will prove useful to pastors, preachers, students, and scholars of the New Testament manuscripts and text.

Augustine of Hippo on Greek Accents

At around 410 CE, Paulinus Bishop of Nola (near Mt. Vesuvius in Italy) wrote a lengthy letter to Augustine Bishop of Hippo asking if the great doctor would explain some obscure passages in the scriptures. Towards the end of this epistle, Paulinus asked if Augustine could explain a portion of Psalm 17:14 (16:14, LXX). Paulinus wrote;

In the following psalm I should like to have that passage explained to me where it says: "Their belly is filled from thy hidden stores. They are full of pork," or, as I hear it is written in another version of the psalms: "They are full of children, and they have left to their little ones the rest of their substance." (Aug. Ep. 121) 

The first reference Paulinus quotes appears to be taken from the Greek LXX and the second quotation seems to be taken from Jerome's Latin version. The Greek text of this Psalm reads, "ἐχορτάσθησαν υἱῶν" (Rahlfs') which can be translated "they are satisfied with sons (or children)" or, as the NETS translates the phrase "they were fed with sons."

Augustine did not respond to Paulinus' question until 414 CE. It may be because it took some time before he was able to study a Greek LXX (Latin was his native tongue), for he wrote "I had not been able to consult any Greek texts on certain words of Psalm 16, but afterward I secured some and consulted them" (Aug. Ep. 149). A few paragraphs later he wrote;

As to the following passage, "They are full of pork," I have explained what I think of it. What readings other texts have or are truthfully reported to have--because the more carefully written copies explain this same well-known ambiguity of the Greek word by the accent, according to the Greek method of writing--is a matter somewhat obscure, but it seems to fit in better with the more acceptable meaning. He had said: "Their belly is filled from thy hidden stores," by which words the hidden judgments of God are meant, and no doubt they are hidden from the wretched, who rejoice even in evil, whom "God gave up to the desires of their heart." (Aug. Ep. 149)

Augustine explains that Paulinus may have a corrupted text that had not been copied well and had not been transcribed with the proper Greek accents. In this case, it seems that Augustine is alluding to the similarity between the Greek word for son in the genitive  plural "υιων" and the Greek word for pig in the genitive plural "υων." To further confuse the situation, some forms/styles of the word for son also did not include the iota and were spelled the same as pig (υων).
The perplexing facet to Augustine's explanation is that it is difficult to understand whether he is mistakenly referring to a missing iota in the genitive plural for "of sons" in Paulinus' manuscript (thus it is a poorly copied manuscript); or that he is indicating that, in his understanding of the Greek of his day, these two words were differentiated in the placement of their accents.
It seems that the latter explanation makes the most sense of Augustine's comments. Paulinus probably had an LXX Psalter that had poorly copied (or missing) accents. This ambiguity over accents, coupled with the verb "ἐχορτάσθησαν" (an "eating" verb) led Paulinus to erroneously interpret the words as "pigs" rather than "sons."
Therefore Augustine reminds us of the importance of accents so that when we read Romans 8:19 we do not think that "creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the pigs of God."

 

Saint Augustine. (Circa 1645-1650) by Philippe de Champaigne

_______________________

Augustine, Letters (Sister Wilfred Parsons, trans. The Fathers of the Church. Volumes II and III. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953).

Karl Kelchner Hulley, "Principles of Textual Criticism Known to St. Jerome." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 55 (1944): 87-109.

Scripture For Sale in 4th Century North Africa

Hugh Houghton, in his monograph "Augustine's Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts" (p. 23-24), brought attention to several quotations from the writings of Augustine that illustrate the sale of biblical manuscripts. (The following English translations are taken from Houghton's book)

"The Lord’s manuscripts are daily on sale, and readers read them; buy one for yourself and read it when you have time—in fact, make time for it: it is better to have time for this than for trifles." (Sermo 114B.15)

"Let someone complain, let him grumble, if this Scripture is not proclaimed and chanted throughout the world, if it should even stop being available to buy in public." (Enarratio in Psalmos 36.s1.2)

"Our writings reveal our religion to them, but we are not afraid. Our manuscripts are put on sale in public: the daylight does not blush for shame. Let them buy them, read them and believe them; or let them buy them, read them and laugh at them. Scripture knows how to call to account those who read and do not believe. A manuscript is carried around for sale, but the one whom its pages proclaim is not for sale...Buy a manuscript and read it: we are not ashamed." (Sermo 198.20)

These comments by Augustine are striking and indicate a flourishing time in North Africa when the scriptures were widely available and literacy was more wide spread than in previous centuries of the Roman imperial age.
For more fascinating insight into the production of books and manuscripts during this time, read Chapter 2 "The Use of the Bible and the Production of Books in the Time of Augustine" (p. 22-43) in Houghton's monograph. The chapter is filled with quotations from Augustine, Jerome and other contemporary figures that paint a picture of rich scholarship and free flow of ideas and books across the Mediterranean region during this time.

___________
Houghton, Hugh. Augustine's Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Cassiodorus on the Task of the Scribe

Cassiodorus (Gesta Theodorici: Leiden, University Library, Ms. vul. 46, fol. 2r)

Cassiodorus is famous for the foundation of his monastery at Vivarium in southern Italy and the copying of books and manuscripts. These activities, however, occurred later in his life. He spent a large part of his earlier career as a Roman statesman serving the administration of Theodoric the Great. Many of his letters are preserved from this time, and in Book 12, letter 21 we find him writing to a certain Deusdedit, a Scribe of Ravenna, about the duties of a scribe. In one place Cassiodorus declares that;

"Banish, therefore, all thoughts of venality from your mind. The worst moth that gets into papers and destroys them is the gold of the dishonest litigant, who bribes the Scribes to make away with evidence which he knows to be hostile. Thus, then, be ready always to produce to suitors genuine old documents; and, on the other hand, transcribe only, do not compose ancient proceedings. Let the copy correspond to the original as the wax to the signet-ring, that as the face is the index of the emotions so your handwriting may not err from the authentic original in anything." (Ep. 12.21)

The context appears to be that of a courtroom, where the scribe is admitting evidence of some kind (contracts, wills, deeds, and the like) and transcribing the minutes of the court proceedings. I find it particularly telling that Cassiodorus declares that the scribes task is to "transcribe only" and not to "compose." And in relation to the copying of texts, he states, "let the copy correspond to the original" and ensure that the "handwriting may not err from the authentic original in anything."
Though the topic of Cassiodorus's letter primarily concerns the scribes task in the courtroom (a primary task for an official city scribe), I cannot help but think that this gives a glimpse into his attitudes towards the copying of biblical texts later in his life.
_____________________
 
Hodgkin, Thomas, trans. The Letters of Cassiodorus. London: Henry Frowde, 1886. (pg. 511-512)

Jerome Against Lavish Bible Manuscripts

Codex Palatinus

While reading through Hugh Houghton's excellent new work "The Latin New Testament," I came across an excellent reference to Jerome (p. 45; see also p. 45 note 5).

Jerome (ca. 347-420 CE), while residing in Rome, wrote to Eustochium (ca. 384), a woman who had placed herself under his spiritual guidance. In the letter Jerome set out the proper motives for those who wished to enter into a life of virginity. Also included in the letter was a vivid description of the decadence of the city of Rome. Among many other sins of extravagance Jerome mentions a curious trend of the Christians of Rome;

"Parchments are dyed purple, gold is melted into lettering, manuscripts are decked with jewels, while Christ lies at the door naked and dying." (Epist. 22; NPNF2 6:36)

In his Prologue to Job, Jerome wrote that he had worked hard at translating Job from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. In this prologue he described the horrid textual state of the Latin manuscripts of Job. Apparently responding to those who criticized his efforts, he wrote

"Let those who will keep the old books with their gold and silver letters on purple skins, or, to follow the ordinary phrase, in “uncial characters,” loads of writing rather than manuscripts, if only they will leave for me and mine, our poor pages and copies which are less remarkable for beauty than for accuracy."(NPNF2 6:492)

It seems that there where those who only cared about the beauty and craftsmanship of their manuscripts and not the accuracy of the text of the Bible that they contained. Christians also cared more about the appearance of piety, spending their money on lavish copies of the gospels, rather than on the furtherance of the gospel, or on the poor and needy. 
What is particularly interesting is that a "relatively high proportion of early Latin gospel books are written on purple parchment" (Houghton, p. 187). One in particular, Codex Palatinus, dates to the 4th-or 5th century (during the life-time of Jerome) and is written on purple dyed parchment with gold and silver lettering. Judging by the manuscript evidence, it seems that Jerome's criticisms were no exaggeration.

___________________

H. A. G. Houghton, "The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts" (Oxford: OUP, 2016).

Greek Palaeography: Bookhands of the Imperial Peak

The previous post discussed the type of writing used for copying Greek literature, the bookhand. During the Roman imperial era, this handwriting was bilinear, that is, each letter was written between two parallel imaginary lines. This period is often referred to as the "Imperial Peak" because there is an increase in the number of ancient papyri preserved from this time. Several styles of bookhands developed during the Roman era. This abundance of writing samples has allowed scholars to study the development of these various hand writing styles. This is good news for scholars who are assigning dates to early Christian papyri. The earliest copies of the New Testament writings have been dated during this "imperial peak," from the 2nd through the 4th centuries. In regard to the Roman period, Cavallo wrote;

"[Bookhands], in the course of this period not only reach full maturity but also exhibit a typological variety that allows us to distinguish a whole series of graphic streams sometimes also visible in documents, thereby enabling us to arrive at better-founded dates." (Cavallo, "Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri, p. 112)

During this period, there are several main types of what palaeographers refer to as “scripts,” that is, a type of handwriting used by a scribe that has common stylistic features.

Round Majuscule (Turner: Formal Round)

(In use ca. 1st to the 2nd century CE)

Characterized by the “Hawara Homer” papyrus

Biblical Majuscule

(In use ca. 2nd to the 9th or 10th century CE)

Characterized by Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Alexandrian Majuscule (Turner: Informal Round)

(In use ca. 2nd to the 8th century CE)
Characterized by PSI V 446

Severe Style (Turner: Formal Mixed)

(In use ca. 2nd to the 3rd century CE)

Characterized by the “Bacchylides” papyrus

Ogival Majuscule (Pointed Majuscule)
Developed from the "Severe Style"
(In use ca. 3rd to the 11th century CE)
Upright type characterized by P.Oxy XI 1352
Sloping type characterized by PSI X 1165

Though the development of these scripts are discernible in the papyri, palaeographers are careful not to assign too narrow a date to any particular manuscript. Turner wrote,

"For book hands a period of 50 years is the least acceptable spread of time. A palaeographer familiar with the material will refuse assent to a precise date allocated to a manuscript simply by comparison with other texts and by no other criterion." (Turner, GMAW, p. 23)

_________________
Select Bibliography

Bianconi, Daniele. "Greek Palaeography." Pages 297-305 in Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction. Edited by, Alessandro Bausi, Pier Giorgio Borbone, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Paola BuziJost Gippert, Caroline Macé, Marilena Maniaci, Zisis Melissakis, Laura E. Parodi, Witold Witakowski, Eugenia Sokolinski. Hamburg: Tredition, 2015.

Cavallo, Guglielmo. "Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri." Pages 101-148 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Orsini, Pasquale and Willy Clarysse, “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012): 443-74.

Turner, E. G. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. 2nd edition. Edited by P. J. Parsons. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies, 1987.

 

(Round Majuscule) "Hawara Homer" P.Haw 24-28

(Biblical Majuscule) Codex Sinaiticus

(Alexandrian Majuscule) PSI V 446

(Severe Style) Bacchylides Papyrus [PSI V 446]

(Upright Ogival Majuscule) P.Oxy XI 1352

(Sloping Ogival Majuscule) PSI X 1165