Database of Objectively Dated Greek MSS: The CDDGB

A few days ago, Grant Edwards, PhD student at ITSEE in Birmingham and affiliated to Baylor University announced a new resource he has been compiling for some time, "The Collaborative Database of Dateable Greek Bookhands" (image below). This will be a collaborate and growing resource as users are able to sign up and submit new dateable manuscripts as well as suggesting revision to existing entries.

Here is Edwards announcement (via Papy-L) with links to the database and further description:

Dear Colleagues, 

I am pleased to announce a new online resource: The Collaborative Database of Dateable Greek Bookhands. The CDDGB is a catalogue of objectively dated Greek manuscripts written in a literary script between 0-899 CE. In time, manuscripts from earlier centuries will be included as well. 

The database and a complete description of the project can be found here: 

https://www.baylor.edu/classics/index.php?id=958430

To access the database directly click below:

https://airtable.com/shrZEkjkKomzgWh5Y

I hope this resource proves useful to those tasked with assigning dates to Greek manuscripts and to anyone interested in Greek handwriting.

If you have questions or comments please email me directly at cddgb.baylor@gmail.com.

Best regards,

Grant Edwards | PhD student 

Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing

University of Birmingham

Justified Commitment Issues in Dating P.Egerton 2 + P.Köln VI 255 (and Other Literary Papyri)

P.Köln VI 255 (inv. 608) →
(Image courtesy of the Kölner Papyrussammlung website) 

One of the helpful trends in more recent palaeography has been marked by a more explicit recognition of virtually impossibility to assign narrow, ‘precise’ dates to undated literary manuscripts, lest one runs the risks of arbitrariness. As a result, scholars have preferred to assign broader date ranges, spanning hardly ever less than 100 years. I say ‘more explicit’ recognition, because there have always been voices that called for greater caution such as E. G. Turner or after him P. J. Parsons, but the problem does seem to be recognised much more widely nowadays (with Comfort’s problematic undertakings in this area being something of an exception). In my view a less helpful trend amongst recent scholarship has been an abandonment of classic palaeographical method, which is characterised by the comparative analysis of graphic background, style, and typology. For this reason (and despite occasional minor disagreements), I’ve found particularly the work of Pasquale Orsini to be of great pedagogical value. (N.B. Orsini is a pupil of Guglielmo Cavallo’s, probably the most important living palaeographer.) For methodological purposes, I’d recommend especially the article he co-wrote with Willy Clarysse (ETL 88 [2012] 443–74), which deals specifically with the palaeographical problems pertaining to the NT MSS. The comparative method they follow is neatly summarised in the following quote from the said piece:

Palaeographical comparison may lead to chronological results when an undated manuscript is compared to an explicitly dated or to a datable one ... Such parallels may lead to different results. They may: 1. connect an undated script with the same general graphic background to one or more dated and/or datable examples; 2. bring an undated manuscript into the context of a “stylistic class,” whose chronological range can be reconstructed thanks to various dated manuscripts; 3. link an undated script to a “style,” whose history and main distinctive aspects can be reconstructed thanks to dated and undated manuscripts; 4. connect an undated script with a “canonical” or “normative script” for which a system of internal rules and a history can be reconstructed; 5. attribute an undated manuscript to the hand of a scribe, known by other manuscripts, dated or undated. (p. 448)

I utilised a similar method in my work on P47, and assigned a date in 250–325 CE. (Incidentally, the range could be extended as far as to 350, if I allowed for a Coptic comparandum [P.Lond. VI 1920 (TM 44659)]). 

Especially owing to the prolific output of Brent Nongbri, a number of other NT MSS have received fresh scrutiny, often resulting in later assignments. On the one hand, I’ve not been inclined to agree with Nongbri’s take on P66 and P75: I think both articles begin to lose force precisely when he undertakes to suggest alternative (in some cases graphically inappropriate) parallel scripts with later dates. In general, however, I’ve found Nongbri’s call for caution—reflected in his broader (and typically later) suggested datings—helpful. 

So much for the NT MSS. But what about other early Christian papyri? For quite some time, I was bothered by how texts, particularly the Egerton Gospel (P.Egerton 2 + P. Köln VI 255 [LDAB 4736]), were repeatedly invoked as instances of ‘earliest’ Christian literature, all the while ignoring the same palaeographical difficulties loom large over them as well. So I took a closer look at the Egerton papyrus and became quite dissatisfied with its traditional dating (early second century, based solely on palaeography), while not being particularly impressed by the rationale for the alternative suggestion (early third century, based on the presence of apostrophe). As one does, I then spilled out my frustration in a Facebook status, upon which Lorne Zelyck PM-ed me (being more sensible, I reckon) expressing his own misgivings. Long story short, we then concocted an article (ZPE 204 [2017] 55–71), where we survey the history of the debate (there’s a good measure of nonsense involved, especially in the recent years) and suggest that, at the very least, the possible date should be extended to 150–250 CE. Interestingly, the closest parallels, in fact, come from the turn of the third century, hence it is plausible that our papyrus is of the early-third century date. But since that palaeographical inquiry cannot yield very narrow results, keeping the assigned dating broad seems the best way forward.

Moral of the story, then: When dating literary manuscripts, it is too firm a commitment that may be an issue.

[UPDATE:] I'm very pleased that Brent came across this post and swiftly wrote, as one might expect, a most eloquent response. In particular, he called for clarification on my own part concerning my specific objections to some of the comparanda he adduced in re-dating P66 and P75. This I did in a comment under this post as well as under his (in a slightly revised form). Brent then wrote another post where he clarified the differences between his argument in P66 and P75, which I found very helpful. We still disagree about the applicability of his comparandum in P66 and the nature of typological classification in the case of P75, but we are also very much on the same page concerning the need for caution in dating manuscripts palaeographically as well as the limits of such undertaking. Above all, it was so refreshing to have such an amicable back-and-forth whose outcome is, as it seems to me, greater clarity and understanding of each other's views. Thanks very much, Brent!

Questions about “First Century Mark”

Discussion is beginning again about the claim that there is a first century manuscript of part of Mark’s Gospel. In particular LiveScience reports such a claim associated with Craig Evans and this has been reported positively elsewhere. The report in the International Business Times is a bit more critical.

So I thought it would be good to raise a few questions about this alleged “First Century Mark”, hereafter FCM.

If we begin with the LiveScience report, which is our most recent ‘source’ for information about FCM, we note that it has not been written with great care about accuracy. The second century is said to consist of dates between 101 and 200. It is suggested that ‘ordinary people’ had mummy masks.

It is said: “In recent years scientists have developed a technique that allows the glue of mummy masks to be undone without harming the ink on the paper”. It would be hard to harm the ink on the paper of a mummy mask, because one can be sure one will not find paper in one.

This and other features of the article mean that one must show extreme care about using this report as a source to gain information. I am not even confident that we can use it with any accuracy as a source for what Craig Evans has said.

Therefore although I’d be delighted if we could rely on the source to establish that we have a single sheet of papyrus, and that currently seems probable, it’s difficult to be certain.

We come now to a central paragraph:

“Evans says that the text was dated through a combination of carbon-14 dating, studying the handwriting on the fragment and studying the other documents found along with the gospel. These considerations led the researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before the year 90.”

As the source is demonstrably not particularly careful and as this is also not a direct quotation from Evans it is difficult to know what Evans actually said.

However, C14 dating will not render a date as precise as ‘before 90’; nor will palaeography. That leaves us with two other methods of dating: archaeological context and associated writings.

If for convenience we suppose that other manuscripts in the mask are ones with dates that survive (remembering that for a majority of texts no date survives) and that the mask luckily enough contains four texts with firm date formulae (which would be really nice, but quite unlikely) and that these date formulae show manuscripts from the years 50, 60, 70 and 80, that would still not mean that they could not be put together with a manuscript from considerably later than the year 90 to make a mummy mask.

Finally, it might be possible that archaeological context would date a mummy mask to a particular date, but that would be highly unusual, and would not accord well with Dan Wallace’s earlier emphasis on the expertise of an unnamed palaeographer as the basis for the dating. Palaeographers don’t normally deal with archaeological dating.

Therefore the public claims about the basis for dating this fragment appear incoherent.

Ethics
Something should be said about the ethics of extracting texts from mummy masks. I actually have no objection to this in principle. Obviously the process is somewhat destructive, but archaeology is inherently destructive. However, every effort must be made to minimise destruction and every step should be carefully recorded photographically and scholars should keep a record for posterity of exactly what they’ve done and explain why they chose to do so, and show a process of evaluation in which the benefits of what they do are shown to be superior to other options, including leaving the mask intact.

There are also ethical questions which surround the acquisition of such items.

It is common for researchers to have explicit statements on ethics and it is important for scholars to have an ethical code that they have written or one to which they publicly subscribe prior to handling such controversial matters.

What is the Oldest Manuscript of the New Testament?

For years the answer to this question was easy: P52, a manuscript identified and housed in Manchester, handsomely dated to the early 2nd century. C.H. Roberts wrote in the original publication of this fragment

‘On the whole we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which P. Ryl. Gk. 457 was most probably written—a judgment I should be much more loth to pronounce were it not supported by Sir Frederic Kenyon, Dr. W. Schubart and Dr. H. I. Bell who have seen photographs of the text and whose experience and authority in these matters are unrivalled’ (C.H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935], 16).

A lot has happened since then in the study of Greek palaeography and with the increase in readily available collections of digital images and refined classification one would assume that the experts are able to form an even more informed opinion now than they were in the 1930s. A 2012 article by Orsini and Clarysse provides exactly this re-evaluation. Their method is solid and responsible, both scholars have a tremendous track record, and in general I don’t find much to disagree with, even though in some of the finer distinctions Orsini and Clarysse make I cannot always follow them. Their evaluation of the date is not far off from what Roberts came up with in giving the range 125-175 for P52. So is P52 still the earliest fragment of the New Testament?

Possibly, but looking through the results presented by Orsini and Clarysse there is another candidate, P104, an interesting fragment of Matthew 21, published in 1997. This papyrus receives a date 100-200. Some particular scripts are easier to pin down than others and that is why P104 has a span of a century, whilst P52 only half a century. So we have P52 and P104 both dated by a range that has its median in the centre of the second century (it may be earlier, it may be later).

So what is the oldest manuscript? Well, there are two candidates, P52 of John 18, and P104 of Matthew 21; the former oldest manuscript has become part of a double act (two times 52 is 104).

P52 (left) and P104 (right)

**Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis 88, no. 4 (2012): 443-74.

Greek Palaeography in Oxford

This is a guest post by Peter Gurry who just came home from the fifth Summer School of Greek Palaeography in Oxford:

* * *

Last week was the fifth Summer School of Greek Palaeography hosted by Lincoln College in Oxford. This year’s program was run by Georgi Parpulov and a small cadre of other instructors.

The program ran for five days and concluded with a review exam on Saturday morning. The students were organized into groups of nine with each group led by a seasoned palaeographer. The majority of time was devoted to deciphering various Greek hands starting with Codex Bezae and quickly jumping to manuscripts from the 8th–15th century (so almost all minuscules). My own group spent time with about 30 manuscripts and I assume most of the other groups were the same. The focus was decidedly on matters of palaeography and codicology, so there was very little translation.

Nigel Wilson giving hands-on instruction at Christ Church library.

The late mornings were spent at either Christ Church library or the Bodleian examining manuscripts of roughly the same time period as in our reading groups. We got to examine a number of Psalters and Gospel books but the highlight was seeing a book of patristic excerpts presented to Queen Mary I (“Bloody Mary”) that had been commissioned by the last Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury. At something like 2.5 feet tall by 2 feet wide, I was told it was the largest Greek book in the Bodleian’s collection.

Georgi Parpulov explaining codices in the Christ Church library.

The evenings were given to lectures from Nigel Wilson (Oxford), Hugh Houghton (University of Birmingham), Ilse de Vos (King’s College London), and Elisabeth Jeffreys (Oxford).

Nigel Wilson opened the series with a lecture on “The Rewards of Palaeography.” The main reward, he said, was filling in some lacuna in our present knowledge by finding previously unknown texts such as the sermons of Origen found a few years ago or the Archimedes Palimpsest, by finding an older copy of a known text, or of correcting the work of previous scholars.

On Tuesday, Hugh Houghton gave an energetic talk on “Digital Editing and the Greek New Testament” that was meant to introduce the work being done on the Editio Critica Maior. He gave a brief overview of the CBGM and noted its role in helping establish the “earliest attainable text” (his term). He also gave us quick demos of the software currently being used at Birmingham to collate MSS and to construct variation units from those collations. If I heard correctly, the collation software is already implemented on the NT.VMR website, but this was the first I’ve seen of the additional software that they are using to demarcate variation units. One interesting feature I noted was that the software displays a warning message whenever the editor combines variants into a variation unit in such a way that it misrepresents one of the witnesses in that particular unit. It all looked quite impressive in the demo and I’m eager to know more about how it works. I was also interested to learn from Houghton that there are already plans to build a fresh version of the CBGM software at Birmingham as well. It will be worth watching to see what innovations such a project might produce; might we finally see a version that will allow others to construct their own local stemmata? Whether or not we can hope for such a development, there is clearly a very fruitful collaboration happening between text critics and computer scientists at Birmingham and we can all hope that continues. In all, I think Houghton did a great job presenting some of the developments happening in our discipline to text critics working on other texts. I left with the feeling that now is an exciting time to be working in this field.

On Thursday night, Ilse de Vos spoke to us on “Dealing with an Abundant Textual Tradition,” a talk which introduced us to her editorial work on the Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem. This collection of 137 questions and answers about Christianity is extant in some 250 witnesses in Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic, Arabic, and several other languages. What caught my attention was how helpful she has found phylogenetic methods to be especially in tracing the textual transmission of the Quaestiones. Although she hasn’t been able to root her phylogenetic tree yet, she has been able to identify a number of different manuscript groupings and even to connect some of these groups to various translations. For her this has raised the question of whether her critical edition should focus on reconstructing the original Greek text of the Quaestiones or should instead focus on the Greek text from which some of the more interesting translations were made.

A Psalter

The final lecture was given on Thursday evening by Elisabeth Jeffreys on “Editorial Problems in Byzantine Homilies.” Jeffreys is currently working on an edition of the homilies of James of Kokkinobaphos which exists in two remarkably similar copies, often agreeing with each other even at the level of punctuation. It struck me as a good example of the kind of skill Byzantine scribes could achieve.

The week gave me a much greater respect for the discipline of palaeography and a much better sense of how such work is conducted. Particularly with the Byzantine period where so many dated manuscripts are extant, I can see little reason for skepticism about the dates offered by those who specialize in this discipline. All-in-all it was a great week and I would highly recommend that those interested in textual criticism take part the next time around. Many thanks to Georgi Parpulov and the other instructors for putting on such a valuable course.

New Handbook on Greek Palaeography

A new handbook on Greek palaeography is out:

Hermann Harrauer
Handbuch der griechischen Paläographie
Textband
Band 20 der Reihe "Bibliothek des Buchwesens"
Anton Hierseman Verlag
ISBN 978-3-7772-0925-8
2010, Gebunden, XIII, 534 Seiten, 24 x 16 mm
188,00 €

For more details see publisher's website here.

HT: What's New in Papyrology

"In Search of the Lost Scribes." Lecture by Timothy Janz, Curator of Greek Manuscripts at the Vatican Library

On June 8-9 2009, Dr Timothy Janz, Curator of Greek Manuscripts at the Vatican Library will come to Stockholm to deliver the Ars Edendi Lectures (this year including a lecture and a seminar).

The titles and exact times are as follows:

8 June, 5-7 PM, William-Olssonsalen, Geovetenskapens hus, Frescati (Stockholm University):

"In Search of the Lost Scribes: A Numerical Approach to Greek Paleography"

Description: "In this lecture Dr. Janz will describe his use of statistical analysis to plot the characteristic handwriting of known scribes in order to identify 'lost' scribes"

9 June, 10:15-12:00 AM, William-Olssonsalen, Geovetenskapens hus, Frescati

"Scholia: What are they Good For? ― Reflections on a New Edition of the Sophocles Scholia"

Description: "In this seminar, which is aimed at students and scholars knowledgeable in classical Greek, Dr. Janz presents some reflections on his new edition of the Greek scholia on Sophocles.

Doctor Janz studied at Université Laval (Quebec City, Canada), the Sorbonns and Lincoln College, Oxford. He has received a phd from the Sorbonne for thesis work on the Septuagint (the Greek Bible), and another phd from Oxford for his work on the Sophoclean scholia. He is currently Curator of Greek manuscripts at the Vatican Library.

Flyer here.

An announcement (in Swedish) and image of the lecturer is available on this blog.

See also our report on the International Summer School in Greek Palaeography at Lincoln College, Oxford, where Timothy Janz was one of the tutors.

Last year there was a second International Summer School in Greek Palaeography. Here you can see a lot of photos.

The Ars Edendi Lectures are organized by the research project Ars Edendi. Last year the project brought Nigel Wilson. Lincoln College, Oxford (who was one of the other tutors at the International Summer School in Greek Palaeography.

Ars Edendi is a Research Programme funded by the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation for two four-year periods, beginning January 2008, and based at the section for Classical Languages at Stockholm University. The Programme is conceived as a laboratory of editorial philology concerned primarily with medieval Latin and Greek texts. Model editions representing various textual categories will be produced, and a final methodological study is to be published. An international, interdisciplinary network of scholars will be engaged in discussing the textual choices, development and results of the Programme.

I was not aware of this happening until today. Perhaps I will go for a ride to Stockholm next week then.