The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part II

convenient arrangement of several small quires gatherings placed side by side came into fashion.

And this sheet is in fact one of the earliest fragments of a papyrus book that has been preserved. Like the Logia and St. Matthew fragments (O. P. I. i and ii), it is of the third century. The handwriting is a round upright uncial a majuscule or capital-like script of medium size, better formed than that of the St. Matthew fragment, but, like it, of an informal semi-literary type. It may be assigned with safety to the period between 200 and 300, but it would be rash to attempt to place it within narrower limits. In two cases corrections, or perhaps alternative readings, have been added above the line in a smaller hand, which, however, is to all appearances that of the original scribe. The contractions usual in theological MSS., Θ̅C̅ God, IH̅C̅ Jesus, X̅C̅ Christ, Π̅N̅A̅ Spirit, occur; as these are regularly found in the third century, they must date from a considerably earlier period¹. Points are not used; a blank space, of the width of one or two letters, commonly marks a pause occurring within the line. The rough breathing is found twice.

The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of the Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere. This agreement is unfortunately obscured by mutilation. But though in the case of slighter variants the reading of the papyrus, where defective, sometimes remains doubtful, enough remains to render it possible for the most part to reconstruct the text with considerable confidence. In the absence of positive indications, our supplements of the lacunae gaps are taken from Westcott and Hort’s text, with which the papyrus is usually in harmony. A collation with Westcott and Hort is given below.

It is commonly asserted (e. g. Kenyon’s Palaeography of Greek Papyri, p. 24) that the book form is characteristic of the close of the papyrus period, and that the use of papyrus in codices was an experiment which was soon given up in favour of the more durable vellum. But the evidence now available does not justify either of these generalizations. When the papyrus book first made its appearance in Egypt it is impossible to say; but at any rate it was in common use for theological literature in the third century. Indeed the theological fragments which can be placed in that century are almost without exception derived from papyrus codices, not from rolls. This fact can scarcely be due to accident; and it points to a prevalence of the book form at that early date much greater than is frequently supposed. Moreover, papyrus in the book form did not run so insignificant a course. It may fairly claim to have

¹ We notice that Mr. Kenyon (Palaeography, p. 32) states that these compendia shortened forms/contractions are confined to two ‘well-written literary papyri.’ Our first Oxyrhynchus volume would alone have supplied four more instances. Mr. Kenyon’s remark (ibid. p. 154) that they are found ‘in late theological papyri’ is therefore somewhat misleading.