We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 March 2012
P. Antinoopolis 12 (Aland 0232), a miniature codex containing remnants of 2 John, was considered by C. H. Roberts to be our earliest copy of this short epistle (third century) and also evidence of an early Johannine corpus. However, upon closer examination, both of these claims appear to be problematic. This article will argue that P.Ant. 12 is most likely a fifth-century codex (not third) and that it was far too small to have carried the entire Johannine corpus. Although there is no combination of books that fits perfectly into this codex, the most plausible suggestion seems to be that P.Ant. 12 originally held the book of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles.
1 Roberts, C. H., The Antinoopolis Papyri, Part I (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1950) 24–6Google Scholar. A more recent (but very brief) treatment can be found in Comfort, Philip Wesley and Barrett, David P., The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 648–9Google Scholar.
2 For an overview of the Antinoopolis excavations, see Johnson, J. de M., ‘Antinoë and its Papyri’, JEA 1 (1914) 168–81Google Scholar.
3 Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 24.
4 Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 24–5.
5 Apart from P.Ant. 12, the earliest copies of 2 John would be found in the fourth-century Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B).
6 For an analysis of the possibility of such a corpus, see Hill, C. E., The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University, 2004) 449–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hill also notes that Codex Bezae (D) is a Johannine corpus of sorts if one assumes that the missing pages would have included Revelation and 1–2 John. Further discussion of Bezae's contents can be found in Parker, D. C., Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Chapman, J., ‘The Original Contents of Codex Bezae’, The Expositor 12 (1905) 46–53Google Scholar.
7 van Haelst, J., Catalogue des Papyrus Littéraires Juifs et Chrétiens (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976) 195 (#555)Google Scholar.
8 Aland, Kurt et al., Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2nd ed. 1994) 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While Aland offers a fifth-century date in the Liste, he offers a fifth/sixth-century date in Aland, K. and Aland, B., The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 126Google Scholar. While Aland and Aland offer no basis for the date they give, a fifth-century date is offered on the basis of palaeographical observations by Cavallo, G. and Maehler, H., Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period, A.D. 300–800 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987) 22Google Scholar.
9 This is the reconstructed size suggested by Aland et al., Liste, 38.
10 Barker, Don, ‘How Long and How Old is the Codex of which P.Oxy. 1353 is a Leaf?’, Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (ed. Evans, Craig A. and Zacharias, H. Daniel; London: T&T Clark International, 2009) 198Google Scholar, argues for an early date for P.Ant. 12 on the basis that small size was ‘a common format in early codices’. However, he is drawing on a statement from Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 24, where Roberts does not indicate what he means by ‘early’.
11 Turner, E. G., The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1977) 14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hurtado, L. W., The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 162–3Google Scholar.
12 A helpful analysis of P45 can be found in Skeat, T. C., ‘A Codicological Analysis of the Chester Beatty Papyrus Codex of the Gospels and Acts (P45)’, Hermathena 155 (1993) 27–43Google Scholar.
13 Dimensions will list breadth first and then height in accordance with Turner's methodology.
14 Although P52 is a tiny fragment its overall dimensions can be estimated with a fair degree of accuracy. For fuller discussion of this fragment, see Roberts, C. H., ‘An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library’, BJRL 20 (1936) 45–55Google Scholar. In regard to the varying views about the date of this fragment, see Nongbri, Brent, ‘The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel’, HTR 98 (2005) 23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 C.H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: British Academy, 1979) 10-11. For more on miniature codices, see Kruger, M. J., ‘P.Oxy. 840: Amulet or Miniature Codex?’, JTS 53 (2002) 81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kraus, T. J., ‘P.Oxy. V 840—Amulett oder Miniaturkodex? Grundsätzliche und ergänzende Anmerkungen zu zwei Termini’, ZAC 8 (2004) 485–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ET in Kraus, Thomas J., Ad fontes: Original Manuscripts and their Significance for Studying Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 The Mani Codex is the smallest known miniature codex and is about the size of a matchbox (3.5 × 4.5 cm), yet still contains 192 pages. For more discussion see Henrichs, A. and Koenen, L., ‘Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P.Colon. inv. nr. 4780)’, ZPE 5 (1970) 97–216Google Scholar. Other miniature codices also contained an impressive number of pages. The Acts of Peter, P.Oxy. 849 (early fourth century), contains the page numbers 167 and 168 in the top margin.
17 Roberts, Manuscript, 11.
18 9 × 13 cm.
19 8.5 × 12 cm.
20 7 × 12 cm.
21 7.7 × 9.3 cm.
22 6 × 7.5 cm.
23 P.Oxy. 1783 (V.H. 659), 9.3 × 12 cm. The abbreviation ‘V.H.’ refers to the catalog of van Haelst mentioned above.
24 P.Oxy. 849 (V.H. 603), 9 × 9 cm.
25 P.Ant. 1.13 (V.H. 610), 7.2 × 9 cm; and P.Oxy. 1.6 (V.H. 609), 6.7 × 7.3 cm.
26 P.Oxy. 840 (V.H. 585), 7.2 × 8.6 cm. For more on this manuscript, see Kruger, M. J., The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P.Oxy. 840 and its Place in the Gospel Traditions of Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2005)Google Scholar.
27 P.Grenf. 1.8 (V.H. 601), 6.5 × 9.5 cm.
28 P.Oxy. 1782 (V.H. 642), 5 × 5.8 cm. See also Connolly, R. H., ‘New Fragments of the Didache’, JTS 25 (1924) 151–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 V.H. 619, 5.3 × 7.8 cm. See also Prümm, K., ‘De genuino Apocalypsis Petri textu’, Bib 10 (1929) 62–80Google Scholar; James, M. R., ‘The Rainer Fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter’, JTS 32 (1931) 270–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kraus, Thomas J., ‘P.Vindob.G 39756 + Bodl. MS Gr. th. f. 4 [P]: Fragmente eines Codex der griechischen Petrus-Apokalypse’, BASP 40 (2003) 45–61Google Scholar.
30 P.Colon. inv. 4780 (V.H. 1072), 3.5 × 4.5 cm.
31 Bodl. gr. bib. d2 (V.H. 323, 1083, palimpsest), ? × 12.6 cm.
32 P.Ryl. 3.463 (V.H. 1065), 8.9 × 9.9 cm.
33 P.Oxy. 1010 (V.H. 574), 5.6 × 8.4 cm.
34 P.Oxy. 1594 (V.H. 82), 8.5 × 8.5 cm.
35 Roberts, C. H. and Skeat, T. C., The Birth of the Codex (London: Oxford University, 1987) 27Google Scholar.
36 Roberts, Manuscript, 12. Gamble, H. Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University, 1995)Google Scholar, takes a more moderate approach, ‘The miniature format was, if not a uniquely Christian phenomenon, one heavily favored by Christians’ (236). Roberts's original hypothesis is rejected by Kraus, Thomas J., ‘Die Welt der Miniaturbücher in der Antike und Spätantike. Prolegomena und erste methodische Annäherungen für eine Datensammlung’, SNTU 35 (2010) 79–110Google Scholar.
37 Kraus, ‘Die Welt der Miniaturbücher’, 79–110. Kraus's overall list includes 91 items, but 8 of these are rolls. The same general statistics are evident if one looks at the older list of Turner, Typology, 22, 29–30. Of all the 55 miniature codices listed by Turner (Christian and non-Christian), 49 are fourth century or later, leaving only six as potentially third century (and two of these are labeled third/fourth century).
38 For more on the distinction between miniature codices and amulets, see Kruger, ‘P.Oxy. 840: Amulet or Miniature Codex?’ 81–94; and de Bruyn, T., ‘Papyri, Parchments, Ostraca, and Tablets Written with Biblical Texts in Greek and Used as Amulets: A Preliminary List’, Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach (ed. Kraus, T. J. and Nicklas, T.; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 145–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kraus, T. J., ‘Manuscripts with the Lord's Prayer—They are More than Simply Witnesses to that Text Itself’, New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and their World (ed. Kraus, T. J. and Nicklas, T.; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 227–66Google Scholar, argues that P.Ant. 54 is a writing exercise (and offers other alternatives besides an amulet).
39 The other is P.Oxy. 4500 (Revelation) which is listed as second–fourth century. However, a date in the second century seems much too early given that the material is parchment (this would make P.Oxy. 4500 one of our earliest NT parchment texts), and the hand is clearly on its way to biblical uncial (though it does have the smaller omicron and sigma typical of the third century).
40 If we include miniature codices of OT texts, the statistics are very much the same. Of the 30 OT miniature codices listed by Kraus, only three are dated to the third century or earlier and all are on papyrus. There is also one codex dated third/fourth century and it is on parchment. See Kraus, ‘Die Welt der Miniaturbücher’, 97–8. It is unclear how many of these OT texts are Christian, but the earliest of these, P.Ant. 7 (second century), has the nomina sacra. Thus, it may be the earliest example of a ‘Christian’ miniature codex. Not surprisingly, it is on papyrus.
41 Turner's list of miniature codices showed 45 of 55 were on parchment.
42 In terms of just NT manuscripts, no parchment MSS are found from the second century, only one from the second/third century (0189), two from the third century (0212, 0220), and two from the third/fourth century (0162, 0171). In the fourth century, the situation begins to change rapidly and we find fourteen papyrus MSS and fourteen parchment MSS. The fifth century reveals 36 parchment MSS and two papyrus MSS. See Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 76. This overall trend is confirmed by a key fourth-century reference to parchment codices by Eusebius (c. 331) in his Life of Constantine where he records the request of Constantine to have fifty copies of the scriptures made ‘on fine parchment’ (Vit. Const. 4.36). For more discussion see Lake, Kirsopp, ‘The Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts and the Copies Sent by Eusebius to Constantinople’, HTR 11 (1918) 32–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 26–7. Roberts bases the date of P.Ant. 13 on comparisons to PSI 1164, a miniature codex of Jonah dated to the fourth/fifth century. For more on this latter text, see Youtie, H. C., ‘A Codex of Jonah: Berl. Sept. 18 + P.S.I. X, 1164’, HTR 38 (1945) 195–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 24. The analysis of the scribal hand comes from new high-resolution digital photographic images made by the Sackler Library at Oxford University (special thanks to Dirk Obbink for his assistance in producing these images).
45 The term ‘biblical majuscule’ is derived from Cavallo, G., Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica (Florence: Le Monnier, 1967)Google Scholar. A detailed discussion is found in Cavallo, G. and Maehler, H., Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period, A.D. 300–800 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987) 34Google Scholar. I will consider this synonymous with the term ‘biblical uncial’ which was coined by Grenfell and Hunt; discussion in Turner, E. G., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987) 21–2Google Scholar; and Roberts, C. H., Greek Literary Hands (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) 16Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of different terms for different hands, see Gallo, I., Greek and Latin Papyrology (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1986) 82–9Google Scholar; Barbour, Ruth, Greek Literary Hands: A.D. 400–1600 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) xvi–xxxGoogle Scholar; and Cavallo, G. and Maehler, H., Hellenistic Bookhands (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2009) 9–17Google Scholar.
46 For more on this bookhand, see Irigoin, J., ‘L'onciale grecque de type copte’, JÖB 8 (1959) 29–51Google Scholar; and Cavallo, G., “Γράμματα Ἀλϵξανδρῖνα,” JÖB 24 (1975) 23–54Google Scholar. For extensive examples of Alexandrian majuscule (as well as photographic plates), see Porter, S. E. and Porter, W. J., New Testament Greek Papyri and Parchments, New Editions: Texts (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008)Google Scholar, esp. manuscripts 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 20, and 22.
47 Cavallo, G., ‘Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri’, The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. Bagnall, R. S.; New York: Oxford University, 2009) 149–69Google Scholar, esp. 129–31; see also Cavallo and Maehler, Greek Bookhands, 22–3. Bagnall, R. S. and Nikolaos, G., ‘An Early Fragment of the Greek Apophthegmata Patrum’, ARG 5 (2003) 262–3Google Scholar, argue that the peak of Alexandrian majuscule was actually sixth century.
48 Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, 17; Kenyon, F. G., The Palaeography of Greek Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1899) 105Google Scholar; and Roberts, C. H., ‘An Early Papyrus of the First Gospel’, HTR 46 (1953) 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Roberts refers to the latter as a ‘flat ω’ (‘An Early Papyrus’, 235).
50 Cavallo and Maehler, Greek Bookhands, 82.
51 Cavallo and Maehler, Greek Bookhands, 112–14.
52 Even later versions of Alexandrian majuscule can be found in P.Berol. 10677 and P.Heidelberg 295.
53 Kenyon, F. G., The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible: Fasciculus VII: Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther (London: Walker, 1937)Google Scholar.
54 The smaller, raised ω is also present in P.Oxy. 656 to which Roberts also compares P.Ant. 12 (esp. ll. 2, 3, and 8 of Plate 2, fragment c of the verso).
55 The υ of the Chester Beatty Daniel has hard, straight edges in the shape of a capital ‘Y’; at one point it even looks like a ‘T’ (see ισχυι in l.3). In contrast, P.Ant. 12 has a soft, flowing upsilon with a noticeable loop in the stem and curved upper arms.
56 For further discussion of this manuscript, see Fee, G. D., Papyrus Bodmer II (p66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics (Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1968)Google Scholar. An earlier date (though unlikely) has been suggested by Hunger, H., ‘Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II (P66)’, Anzeiger der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 4 (1960) 12–33Google Scholar.
57 Cavallo, ‘Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri’, 129.
58 Cavallo and Maehler, Greek Bookhands, 22–3, places this manuscript in the fifth/sixth century, whereas Aland and Aland place this manuscript in the fourth century but with a ‘?’ after the date (The Text of the New Testament, 98). Comfort, P. W. and Barrett, David P., The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001) 138Google Scholar, are overconfident in suggesting a third-century date for this fragment.
59 PSI 1.1 closes the lower loop more consistently, whereas P.Ant. 12 often leaves the lower loop open, making the alpha and the lambda very similar in appearance.
60 Ast, Rodney, ‘Papyri editae in memoriam Wm. Brashear I’, ZPE 139 (2002) 177–86Google Scholar, esp. 178.
61 In particular, notice l. 1 of the recto, and ll. 1 and 3 of the verso.
62 Cavallo and Maehler, Greek Bookhands, 22–3. P.Amh. 192 is likely from the same manuscript as P.Amh. 191 (Exodus). See fuller discussion of both these manuscripts in Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S., The Amherst Papyri, Part II: Classical Fragments and Documents of the Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (London: Oxford University, 1901) 201–2Google Scholar.
63 P.Ant. 12 also shows substantial similarities to other sixth century manuscripts: (a) P.Berol. 13994 (BKT 8.4), Exodus; (b) P.Köln 806 (Aland 0309), John; (c) P.Oxy. 1076, Tobit; P.Oxy 4845 (Aland P124), 2 Corinthians; P.Oxy 4949, Aristides; P.Vindob. K. 8023bis (Aland 0237), Matthew.
64 Exceptions include P.Oxy. 2161 (Aeschylus Dictyulci); P.Oxy. 1373 (Aristophanes Equites); P.Oxy. 1235 (Hypotheses to Menander); P.Oxy. 1182 (Demosthenes De Falsa Legatione); P.Oxy. 473 (Honorary Decree). See Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 9, for more detailed discussion.
65 Roberts, Manuscript, 14–16.
66 Roberts, Manuscript, 17. It is interesting to note that enlarged letters are also found in early Jewish texts; e.g. P.Oxy. 4443 (Esther, early second century).
67 Studies on the nomina sacra include Traube, Ludwig, Nomina Sacra : Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung (Munich: Beck, 1907)Google Scholar; Paap, A. H. R. E., Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 1959)Google Scholar; O'Callaghan, Jose, Nomina Sacra in Papyris Graecis Saeculi III Neotestamentariis (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970)Google Scholar; Brown, S., ‘Concerning the Origin of the Nomina Sacra’, SPap 9 (1970) 7–19Google Scholar; Howard, G., ‘The Tetragram and the New Testament’, JBL 96 (1977) 63–83Google Scholar; Roberts, Manuscript, 26–48; Hurtado, Larry W., ‘The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal’, JBL 117 (1998) 655–73Google Scholar; Tuckett, C. M., ‘“Nomina Sacra”: Yes and No?’, The Biblical Canons (ed. Auwers, J. M. and Jonge, H. J. De; Leuven: Leuven University, 2003) 431–58Google Scholar.
68 Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 24.
69 Paap, Nomina Sacra, 103.
70 It is worth observing that the other unusual instance of the nomina sacra in P.Ant. 12 is the abbreviation of ὑιός (υυ). But, this too gives us little guidance on date because it was also very rarely (and sporadically) contracted—in 123 out of the 143 manuscripts in which it occurs it is left uncontracted (Paap, Nomina Sacra, 110).
71 Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 24–5.
72 Comfort and Barrett, The Complete Text of Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 648; Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, 39; Hill, The Johannine Corpus, 455–6. Of course, even if Roberts was mistaken about P.Ant. 12, this does not mean there were no Johannine collections in the early church. Hill argues cogently that there are other indications that these books may have been circulating together (The Johannine Corpus, 449–64).
73 Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri, 24 (emphasis mine).
74 I discovered this error in my own study of P.Ant. 12 and of Roberts's original work on the manuscript. As far as I know, the only other time this error has been observed has been Comfort, P. W., Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005) 38Google Scholar.
75 As we shall see below, even if one suggested that the Gospel of John came after the epistles, there would then be too much room for Revelation, leaving space for about 10,000 extra letters. Obviously some book would have been in that space. Thus, it would be impossible for this to be a purely Johannine corpus regardless of the order of the books.
76 The number of letters per page can vary for the following reasons: (a) the center pages of a single-quire codex can hold fewer letters than the outer pages (however, as we shall discuss below, there are no reasons to think P.Ant. 12 is single-quire); (b) the scribe may unconsciously increase the number of letters as he nears the bottom of the page; (c) the scribe may put more letters on a page if he fears that he is running out of space. E.g. in P75 the scribe wrote with progressively more lines/letters in an effort to fit all his material; in P66 the scribe did the opposite and wrote with more space as he realized he had too much room remaining. In regard to the role this issue plays in the contents of P46, see Duff, Jeremy, ‘P46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?’, NTS 44 (1998) 578–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the response by Epp, Eldon Jay, ‘Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon’, The Canon Debate (ed. McDonald, L. M. and Sanders, J. A.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002) 498–502Google Scholar.
77 Turner, Typology, 79–80.
78 A helpful look at the pitfalls of hypothetical reconstructions can be found in Epp, ‘Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon’, 485–515; and Kraus, T. J., ‘Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts—Chances and Limitations’, Early Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach (ed. Kraus, T. J. and Nicklas, T.; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 1–38Google Scholar. For more on P72, see Wasserman, Tommy, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006)Google Scholar; Haines-Eitzen, K., Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000) 96–104Google Scholar; and Nicklas, T. and Wasserman, T., ‘Theologische Linien im Codex Bodmer Miscellani?’, New Testament Manuscripts (ed. Kraus, and Nicklas, ) 161–88Google Scholar. For discussion on what might unify the various texts in P72, see Horrell, David G., ‘The Themes of 1 Peter: Insights from the Earliest Manuscripts (the Crosby-Schoyen Codex ms 193 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex Containing P72)’, NTS 55 (2009) 502–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
79 For a detailed examination of the origins of the Catholic collection, see Nienhuis, David R., Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco: Baylor University, 2007)Google Scholar.
80 Trobisch, D., The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
81 Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone, 29–98.
82 Hill, The Johannine Corpus, 459–60, argues convincingly that we have little reason to think that a tiny epistle like 2 John would have ever had a meaningful transmission history if it had circulated alone. Therefore, we have good reasons to think it was regularly transmitted along with the other Johannine letters (not to mention the broader Catholic corpus).
83 Parker, D. C., New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008) 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar, observes that this order is the most common in the manuscripts.
84 These amounts are approximate and come from my own calculations using the NA27 Greek text. However, I have cross-referenced them with calculations in other works which prove to be very similar; e.g. see Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament, 135–6 n. 37.
85 One might argue that punctuation would increase the amount of space required, but P.Ant. 12 shows very little use of punctuation. Moreover, with the nomina sacra, these books might actually take up slightly less space. In the end, these minor issues do not affect the numbers enough to make a difference in the overall hypothesis. As for suggestions that there might be space in between individual epistles, the fact that the very first line of 2 John was begun at the end of the prior page suggests that very little space was placed between books. This would be consistent with the format of a miniature codex where space was often (though not always) conserved as much as possible.
86 As noted above, Comfort recognized that Roberts's original calculations were mistaken, but then suggested that each page of P.Ant. 12 could hold 350 letters and therefore the space prior to 2 John could contain 57,000 letters, exactly enough for the Catholic Epistles (Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts, 38). But, it is unclear where Comfort gets the number 350 for each page when the only page we can actually calculate gives the number 405. Moreover, it is unclear how he concludes that the General Epistles will take up 57,000 letters (as noted above, my calculations suggest they take up much less).
87 Chapman, ‘The Original Contents of Codex Bezae’, 46–53; Parker, Codex Bezae, 9; Hill, The Johannine Corpus, 454–5.
88 Of course, one could hypothesize that Revelation stood at the beginning of this codex and was therefore not next to 1 John. The order would then be Revelation–James–John–Peter–Jude. This order is similar to that found in the so-called Gelasius decree linked to Pope Gelasius I (492–496). While not impossible, this order in the codex would certainly be unusual.
89 For further discussion of the position of Hebrews in the canon, see Hatch, W. H. P., ‘The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament’, HTR 29 (1936) 133–51Google Scholar.
90 Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994) 592Google Scholar.
91 Doctr. chr. 2.8.13.
92 Heath, D., The Text of Manuscript Gregory 048 (Vatican Greek 2061) (Upland, IN: Taylor University, 1965)Google Scholar. The place of Hebrews in 048, however, is not entirely certain; nonetheless Metzger (A Textual Commentary, 591), like Heath, also references 048 as placing Hebrews after Philemon.
93 This a reference to the order of the codex itself, not the order of the list of books found in between Philemon and Hebrews. The fact that there was a list of books separating Hebrews and the Pauline corpus may be further evidence that Hebrews was seen (at least by the compiler of this codex) as something separate from the Pauline letters.
94 Commentary on the Apostles Creed, 37.
95 Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 67, puts the upper limit at around 200 pages (100 leaves, 50 sheets).
96 Turner, Typology, 58.
97 Henrichs, A. and Koenen, L., ‘Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780)’, ZPE 5 (1970) 97–216Google Scholar; Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 129.
98 This estimate of the thickness of a codex is based on the analysis found in Skeat, ‘A Codicological Analysis of the Chester Beatty Papyrus Codex of the Gospels and Acts (P45)’. Skeat concludes that P45 would have been 224 pages and 5–6 cm thick. Thus, my suggestion that a 286-page version of P.Ant. 12 would be 5–6 cm thick would be on the very conservative side.
