The latest issue of Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft contains an article I wrote on two papyrus folia from Oxyrhynchus. Here is the abstract:
P.Oxy. 7.1008 and 7.1009 (P15 and P16 in the INTF’s Kurzgefasste Liste) preserve portions of 1 Cor 7–8 and Phil 3–4. Since the time of their publication, these two fragmentary papyrus folia have had an ambiguous relationship. They are often considered parts of the same codex, but the INTF treats them as distinct manuscripts. A reconsideration of the published scholarship on the folia combined with access to improved digital images allows for a more compelling argument that these two folia were once part of the same codex and should be considered a single manuscript rather than two separate manuscripts.
The history of scholarship turned out to be quite interesting. These two folia received two different P.Oxy. numbers when Arthur S. Hunt published them in 1910. Hunt had stated that the two folia “probably…belonged to the same codex,” but assigned them separate numbers and pointed out that the script of 1009 was “rather smaller” and written in brown ink, while 1008 was written in black ink. But when Caspar René Gregory updated his running list of New Testament manuscripts in 1912, he incorporated these folia together under a single number, P15.
After Ernst von Dobschütz took over responsibility for the list, he assigned the pieces two different numbers, P15 and P16, in 1923 (the former P16 became P31, which it remains today). Just a year later, though, von Dobschütz referred to two pieces as a single manuscript again, P15 16. Later in the twentieth century, Kurt Aland came to consider the two pieces as coming from different manuscripts with different dates. This ambiguous treatment of these pieces has persisted for over a century.
My article revisits the question, provides a codicological analysis of the folia, and demonstrates that neither of Hunt’s observations should prevent us from identifying these pieces as two folia from the same codex: The writing on both pieces is actually the same size, and we have many examples of a single manuscript being copied using both black and brown ink. I quote from the article’s conclusion:
P.Oxy. 7.1008 and 7.1009 are two folia containing different parts of a collection known to circulate in the same codex (the Pauline letters); they are copied in the same script; they show compatible codicological features (letter size, line spacing, size of text block); and they were excavated at the same time in the same spot. The simplest explanation would be that we have two folia from a single codex. Hunt’s perception of differently sized letters proved to be unfounded. His concern about the different colors of ink on the two folia loses its force in the light of other papyrus codices which show the use of multiple kinds of inks. When all the available evidence is taken into consideration, these two folia should be recognized as part of a single manuscript and not as separate items.
In a way, this article forms a pair with a piece I published two years ago in Novum Testamentum that tried to make as thorough a case as possible that PSI XIV 1373 (P65) and P.Yale I 2 + II 86 (P49) are two folia from the same codex of the Pauline epistles.
If you don’t have institutional access to these articles, let me know, and I’m happy to share pdf files.
Variant Readings 
Excellent article as always, Prof. Nongbri. I do note that though mentioning what stylistic class/graphic style P15/16 possibly is (severe style, sloping pointed etc.), you don’t provide your own opinion on the handwriting, other than agreeing with the less specific observation quoted in your article; could I slightly nudge you to give your opinion here? 🙂
To my eye, the script looks a lot more like the sloping pointed majuscule as opposed to the severe style; I also note that the Orsini/Clarysse article give no comparisons for the P15/16 handwriting, and only mentions that they are/it is of the severe style, and give the combined codex a date of 300-399. This is interesting, as there’s no dated manuscript of the severe style after 295 CE (P. Oxy. 1 23 and BKT II 53-54 both have TAQ of 295 CE due to docs on verso, no ms has TPQ after). Hence if P15/16 are indeed severe style manuscripts, they would in fact possibly be evidence of the script being in use in the 4th century, depending on how long one thinks P15/16 were copied and survived before being discarded sometime after 392 CE. Are they therefore evidence of a Pauline collection from before the 4th century still being in use up to the end of the 4th/early 5th, or did they have a much shorter shelf-life?
Final thought: also interesting that though P15/16 are near certainly of the same codex and decreases the overall number of Pauline ms, it is just further evidence that from the earliest times, the Pauline letters appear to have been distributed as a collection, as opposed to separate letters in separate codices; whereas the Gospels etc., do appear to have been both copied separately and together. Fascinating stuff. 🙂