The Date of the New Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus P.Oxy. 87.5575

Posted on September 9, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

The publication of the latest volume of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri has been in the news. Among the newly published pieces is a small fragment of a leaf of a papyrus codex that contains a previously unknown collection of sayings of Jesus. Candida Moss has a nice summary and analysis in her recent column. I have now read the edition of the papyrus, and I offer a few first impressions. I see that I first encountered this papyrus (part of it, anyway) several years ago when it emerged from Jerry Pattengale’s pocket during a lecture in 2011.

Jerry Pattengale with a stolen Oxyrhynchus papyrus during a lecture in the “Passages” series in 2011

On that occasion, Pattengale described the papyrus as a copy of “the end of Matthew 6” that had been “dated to about 140 to 160.” Pattengale continued, elaborating on how the date was established: “It’s early. And you have in the room a couple people, um, that can do that. And then Dr. Obbink as well.” The reference is to Professor Dirk Obbink, who allegedly stole this and many other papyri from the Oxyrhynchus collection and sold them to the Green Collection and other buyers. So, these stolen papyri that were returned to the Egypt Exploration Society are now being published.

In his lecture, Pattengale stressed the quite early dating of the papyrus in order to emphasize the “reliability” of the New Testament documents:

“My friends, this is 200 years earlier than a lot of the texts that are much in the sensational news today. This is part of that list that supports the canon.”

Not exactly. Now that the papyrus has been more thoroughly studied, it turns out that it is not a copy of the Gospel according to Matthew, but rather a previously unknown collection of sayings of Jesus that has some similarities with material found in Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of Thomas. In other words, it’s a non-canonical text about Jesus, which, if the dating is correct (and that’s a significant “if”), is earlier than almost all surviving copies of anything in the New Testament. In the new publication, the editors assign the copying of the fragment more broadly to the second century.

So, there is quite a bit of excitement around the fragment. But it is challenging to assign a date to a papyrus like this. We have no criteria to judge the date except for the handwriting on the fragment, which can sometimes not be a very reliable guide, as I have discussed on many occasions. Good images of the papyrus as published are not yet available. Peter Gurry at Evangelical Textual Criticism has posted these images of the ex-Green Collection fragment (the published edition contains another small fragment that was identified in the collection at Oxford):

The ex-Green Collection portion of P.Oxy. 87.5575, horizontal fibers (→); image source: Evangelical Textual Criticism
The ex-Green Collection portion of P.Oxy. 87.5575, vertical fibers (↓); image source: Evangelical Textual Criticism

The script falls into Turner’s rather broad “informal round” classification and is “only approximately bilinear,” meaning that the letters do not always stay between upper and lower notional lines. The editors note that the letters show a slight slope to the left (\) and have “several cursive elements.” They offer four securely dated manuscripts that they regard as having a similar script. All the pieces have dates in the second half of the second century:

CPG II. 1 App. 1178 CE
P.CtYBR inv. 685157-160 CE or 180-188 CE
P.Oxy. 36.2761161-169 CE
C. Pap. Gr. II.1 63185 CE

The editors also note the very close similarity of script with another collection of the sayings of Jesus, P.Oxy. 60.4009, even suggesting the possibility that the same copyist was responsible for both manuscripts, stating that the two “may well be in the same hand.”

P.Oxy. 60.4009, horizontal fibers (→); image source: Egypt Exploration Society, University of Oxford
P.Oxy. 60.4009, vertical fibers (↓); image source: Egypt Exploration Society, University of Oxford

The scripts are quite similar. It is interesting, then, that the editors of P.Oxy. 60.4009 offered a different set of dated samples to justify their dating of 4009. These samples cluster in the first half of the second century rather than the second half:

Schubart, Pal. Abb. 8181 CE
Norsa, Scritt. Doc. XVc133-136 CE
Schubart, PGB 22b135 CE (?)
Schubart, PGB 24148 CE

If we agree to the basic assumption of palaeographic dating (similar visual appearance of scripts = similar dates of production), then the evaluation of these claims means having a close look at the suggested comparative evidence and seeing how similar the samples actually are. To facilitate that process, I gather here links to the images of the relevant dated manuscripts that have featured in the discussion so far.

CPG II. 1 App. 1, a report of an accidental death copied in 178 CE:

CPG II. 1 App. 1; image source: Egypt Exploration Society, University of Oxford

P. CtYBR inv. 685, a lease for a house copied in the period 157-160 CE or 180-188 CE

P.CtYBR inv. 685; image source: Yale University Library Digital Collections

P.Oxy. 36.2761, report of a death copied in the period 161-169 CE

P.Oxy. 36.2761; image source: Egypt Exploration Society, University of Oxford

C. Pap. Gr. II.1 63 (=P.Petaus 8=P.Köln inv. 388), a report of a death copied in 185 CE

P.Köln inv. 338; image source: Kölner Papyri

The editors of P.Oxy. 60.4009 suggested the following script samples as useful comparanda:

Schubart, Pal. Abb. 81 (=P.Lond. 1.130), horoscopes copied after 13 September 81 CE

P.Lond. 1.130; image source: The British Library

Norsa, Scritt. Doc. XVc (=PSI 5.446), an edict of Petronius Mamertinus copied during 133-136 CE

PSI 5.446; image source: PSI Online

Schubart, PGB 22b ( = BGU 1.136 = P.Berol. inv. 6855), a copy. ofthe proceedings of a trial that took place in 135 CE

P.Berol. inv. 6855; image source: Berliner Papyrus datenbank

Schubart, PGB 24 (=BGU 1.300=P.Berol. inv. 6849), a transfer of power of attorney copied in 148 CE

P.Berol. inv. 6849; image source: Berliner Papyrusdatenbank

I tend to agree with the editors about the similarity of the scripts of 5575 and 4009, but in my first look at the proposals for dated parallels (for both the pieces), I cannot say that I find any of them especially compelling. This is not to criticize the work of the editors. It is very difficult to find good, securely dated comparanda for scripts like these. A more detailed evaluation will have to wait for another occasion.

Before finishing this post, I should also point out that the editors of P.Oxy. 87.5575 state that “P. Orsini, cited by Trismegistos, has placed 4009 in the first half of the fourth century, but we have not found evidence to support such a dating for either of these papyri.” The reference is to the noted palaeographer Pasquale Orsini, whose assessment appears on the Leuven Database of Ancient Books. When this fourth century date was published on the Database several years ago, I asked Professor Orisini about the evidence for this new assessment, and he provided a list of several other undated literary papyri. So a full and convincing argument in favor a fourth century date has yet to be made.

Posted in Antiquities Market, Dirk Obbink, Green Collection, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Palaeography, Passages Speakers Series | 9 Comments

Notes on a Forger’s Methods

Posted on August 12, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

John de Monins Johnson (1882-1956) was in some ways a kind of successor to Grenfell and Hunt for a short period in the early twentieth century. Before taking up a position at Oxford University Press, he had training as a papyrologist under Hunt’s supervision. After Grenfell and Hunt stopped excavating for papyri in Egypt, Johnson led expeditions to Greek and Roman sites for the Egypt Exploration Fund for a number of years. In the winter of 1913-1914, he led excavations in Egypt at Antinoopolis, and his reports from the dig make for interesting reading. He was more meticulous about record keeping than Grenfell and Hunt, and he also made some interesting digressions in his reports. My attention was drawn especially to his account of the discovery of large amounts of blank papyrus in the rubbish mounds of Antinoopolis: “[Mound] N was remarkable throughout for what is often a feature of late mounds, the quantity of blank papyrus it provided. In this case sacks might have been filled.”

I was surprised to read Johnson’s description of what they did with all this blank papyrus and why they did it:

“This blank papyrus is carefully torn into small fragments before being given to the winds so that material shall not be added to the store of the papyrus forger. At the risk of a further digression a note may perhaps here be inserted on the methods of the latter. Most papyrologists are familiar with his work, fewer know the forger himself. Hufuta, an uneducated fellah of the Fayum, formerly of Hawara but now living and plying his trade in the Medina, is an amusing and not wholly unattractive character. In stature and appearance he resembles somewhat his notorious countertype, Islam Akhun, the forger of central Asian books, and his work, like Islam Akhun’s, has won the distinction of being published with facsimile in a serious book. His methods are roughly threefold. Blank sheets of papyrus from the mounds, cut into uniform pages and inscribed in red or black ink with a sequence of meaningless signs resembling somewhat pothooks and hangers, are sewn together and bound in thicker sheets of papyrus which are covered with mummy-cloth. The second method is similar but relies on skin in imitation of vellum as its medium, this being bound in skin with strips of mummy cloth or even with an elaborate arrangement of copper corners linked with wire and beads. By his third method, perhaps a more deceptive one, numerous tiny fragments of genuine inscribed papyrus, too small to find a sale, are glued together till they form a sheet, a strange literary mosaic in which the lines are incontinuous and Ptolemaic rubs shoulders with Byzantine, and this is then tightly rolled. The smell of the oil in which his productions are soaked before being buried is often a sufficient test for those who do not happen to be scholars.”

Items like Hufuta’s third type of forgery are pretty common in museums with Egyptological collections. Here is an example from the National Museum of Archaeology in Dublin:

A fake papyrus roll assembled from ancient materials, on display at the National Museum of Archaeology in Dublin; image source: Brent Nongbri 2022

The papyrus fragments in such rolls can be genuinely ancient, but they also sometimes contain ancient papyrus with modern writing. And the “rolls” themselves are modern productions. The World Museum in Liverpool offers another example:

A fake papyrus roll assembled from ancient materials; image source: National Museums Liverpool, World Museum

A similar-looking roll was the vehicle for the published fake that Johnson mentions in the quotation above, P.Stras. 1 39. Apologies for the quality of the scan of the edition:

One of the pieces removed from the roll, P.Stras. 1 39A, is a nice example of the gibberish symbols that characterize fake papyri that have ended up in a number of collections over the years:

For a working list of known fake papyri from Egypt, see the helpful spreadsheet of Macquarie University’s “Forging Antiquity” project: http://www.forgingantiquity.com/forgeries.

Sources:

John de Monins Johnson, “Antinoë and its Papyri: Excavation by the Graeco-Roman Branch, 1913-14,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 1914, 168-181.

Friedrich Preisigke, Griechische Papyrus der Kaiserlichen Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek zu Strassburg (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912).

Posted in Antiquities Market, Fakes and Forgeries | 6 Comments

Is “Papyrus (Roll) Maker” (chartopoios) an Ancient Word?

Posted on July 23, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

In literature about the process of papyrus production in antiquity, the word χαρτοποιός (“papyrus maker” or “papyrus roll manufacturer”) comes up with some frequency. What’s odd is that its role in the discussion is out of proportion to its attestation. The term appears in only two search results on papyri.info, and both have some problems. The first instance is P.Tebt. 1 5, a list of edicts of Euergetes II from the year 118 BCE. The relevant section is a list of different types of workers who are exempt from a requirement–textile workers (wool weavers and others), pig herders, goose keepers, makers of oil, beekeepers, and brewers. The relevant lines are here in the form they appear on papyri.info:

…καὶ τανυφά[ντας πάντ]α̣ς καὶ τοὺς ὑοφορβοὺς
καὶ χηνοβο(σκοὺς) κ[αὶ χαρτοποιοὺ]ς(*) καὶ ἐλαιουργοὺς καὶ
κικιουργοὺς καὶ με[λισσουργο]ὺς καὶ ζυτοποιοὺς…

The asterisk indicates that the reading given in this line on papyri.info differs from what the original editors (Grenfell and Hunt) proposed, which was this:

καὶ χηνοβο(σκοὺς) κ[αὶ. . . . . . . . . . ]ς καὶ ἐλαιουργοὺς καὶ

In support of the restoration of [χαρτοποιού]ς, the Berichtigungsliste gives references that lead ultimately to a single Russian work that I have been unable to track down. The reference is given in the following forms:

  • W. G. Borukhovich, Papirusnye svidetelstva ob organizacii proizvodstva i prodaje charty ν Egiptie vremeni Ptolemeev. Problemy socialno-ekonomicheskoy istorii Drevnego mira. Sbornik pamyati akademika A. I. Tiumeneva = Papyrus-testimonies concerning the organization of the production and sale of charta in Egypt in the times of the Ptolemies. The problems of the social and economic history of the Ancient World. A collection of essays in memory of the academician A. I. Tiumenev. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963, pp. 271-287.
  • D.G. Boruknovič, Papyrologische Quellen zur Organisation der Herstellung und des Handels mit Papyrus im ptolem. Ägypten, Gedächtnisschrift für A.J. Tjumenev, 1963, S. 271 ff.

(If anyone who has access to the chapter and reads Russian wants to offer a translation of the relevant bits, that would be great!)

In any event, a quick look at an image of the papyrus suggests that Grenfell and Hunt’s more conservative transcription is probably safer, as there really is just a light trace of (maybe) a final sigma and nothing else. The dotted line is where our missing word would be:

P.Tebt. 1 5, with dotted line showing the space where [χαρτοποιού]ς is suggested to fill the lacuna; image adapted from Berkeley Library Digital Collections

The second occurrence is in another papyrus from Tebtunis, P.Tebt. 1 112 (=P.Tebt. 5 1151), an account of income and expenses. We have a little more to work with here in the relevant lines:

Ἁρφαήσει μαχί(μωι) ὁμοίως τι(μῆς) χαρτῶν εἰς συ(μ)-
πλήρωσι<ν> τῶν διαγεγρ(αμμένων) τῶι χαρτ[ο]πο(ιῶι) Γω

We clearly do have a χαρτ- word here, and the context, in which expenditures for other writing materials is discussed, lends itself to a word meaning “seller of papyrus,” but not so much “maker of papyrus.” And I hate to disagree with Grenfell and Hunt, but I cannot convince myself there is a pi and an omicron in where they see it after the lacuna in χαρτ[ο]πο(ιῶι) Γω:

P.Tebt. 1 112, showing the hole and ink traces where Grenfell and Hunt read χαρτ[ο]πο(ιῶι); image adapted from Berkeley Library Digital Collections

I don’t know of any other proposed restorations here. Ulrich Wilcken (Grundzüge, 1.1.255) resolved the abbreviation differently, proposing χαρτοπό(ληι) = χαρτοπώ(ληι), “papyrus seller,” but this word is just as poorly attested (and doesn’t solve the pi–omicron problem). Another thing that bothers me here is the meaning of διαγεγρ(αμμένων) (I’m not sure why papyri.info has διαγεγρ(αμμαμένων) with an extra syllable here). In his re-edition of the papyrus, Verhoogt translates as follows:

“To Harphaesis, armed guard, ditto, as the price of rolls of papyrus for payment in full of the 3,800 paid to the papyrus-maker,

Verhoogt presumably takes διαγεγρ(αμμένων) as a synonym of διαγρ(αφή) (in this context meaning “payment”), which occurs a few lines later in reference to papyrus rolls. But is that the best way to handle this? As Verhoogt notes, the other papyrus rolls mentioned in this account are specified as ἄγρ(αφος), “blank,” “unused,” or “uninscribed.῾ It stands to reason that in such a context, διαγεγρ(αμμένων) would mean the opposite: “used” or “inscribed” (although I don’t know of any parallel usages of this word in this way). If this is the correct understanding, it would raise the question of whether we should imagine buying used papyrus rolls from a “papyrus maker” or a “papyrus seller.”

In any event, I don’t spend a lot of time reading Ptolemaic documents, so I don’t really have any insight into how that gap might be filled in an intelligible way, but given its lack of existence elsewhere in the papyrological record (so far), and the surviving ink traces here, I’m a little skeptical of χαρτοποιῶι.

In an article in ZPE from 2016, Menico Caroli added two more potential candidates for possible occurrences of χαρτοποιός, P.Wisc. 1 29 and P.Flor. 3 388. P.Wisc. 1 29 is a highly fragmentary list written on the back of another document. The relevant line is quite damaged, and the quality of the published image is not great. The transcription from papyri.info is below, along with the relevant section of the image.

κ̣δ Ἀλλοῦτι χαρ̣τ̣[ο]\π̣/[(ώλῃ)] (ἀρτάβη) α

P.Wisc. 1 29, detail of letters editor restores as χαρ̣τ̣[ο]\π̣/[(ώλῃ)] image source: P.J. Sijpesteijn, The Wisconsin Papyri I (Brill, 1967), plate X

The original editor suggested χαρτοπράτῃ as a possible alternative reading for χαρτοπώλῃ. The word χαρτοπράτης (“papyrus seller”) has the virtue of being clearly attested in unabbreviated form in two papyri, but the drawback is that both these papyri date to the seventh century CE at earliest (BGU 1 319 and P.Berol. inv. 2749). The term also appears in Latin transliteration (chartopratis) in the Justinian Code 11.18. Caroli, however, suggests that we have here another instance of χαρτοποιός, but given what we have seen of the overall insecure attestation of this word, proposing such a reading here just begs the question.

P.Flor. 3 388 is a set of private daily accounts from the late first or early second century CE. The online image of this piece is not especially good, but I supply it below with the text of the relevant lines from papyri.info:

[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩]  ̣[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩]  ̣  ̣σακκω̣(  ) αὐτῶ(ν) (δραχμαὶ) ιβ ὀβ(ολοὶ) κ ἀρ[γυρι]κ(οῦ) ἔσχο(ν) δι(ὰ) Πλουτ(ᾶτος) ὀβ(ολοὺς) ε λοιπ(  )
[⁦ -ca.?- ⁩] γ τιμ(ῆ)ς χαρτοπ(   ) δι(ὰ) Παθώ(του) 𐅵 (δραχμῆς) ε[ἰς τ]ιμὴ(ν) ἰχθύω(ν) (δραχμὴ(?)) α

P.Flor. 3 388, showing the letters read as χαρτοπ in the second line; image adapted from PSI Online

The editor left the abbreviation unresolved. Caroli suggests χαρτοποιός. But again, there is no clear reason to resolve the abbreviation in one way or the other.

The TLG doesn’t help much either, giving just one hit, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (905-959 CE), De administrando imperio 52.11, in which χαρτοποιοί are listed among other professions (sailors and murex fishers) that did not provide horses in a levy in the Peloponnese in the tenth century. There is no indication of the exact meaning of the word. “Papyrus maker” seems unlikely in such a temporal and geographic setting, but if the term refers to another writing surface (parchment or paper), surely it must have had a prehistory of some sort in which papyrus figured?

The Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität, if I understand the entry correctly, adds a reference to a particular manuscript of Theodore of Stoudios (8th-9th century): “A. Dobroklonskij, Prepodobnyj Feodor I (Odessa 1913) 413adn.1.: Theod. Stud., catech. magn. in cod. Patm. 112.” I have not had a chance to track this reference.

So, there are still some references to check, but at this point, I don’t think I’m totally convinced that we have any attestations of this word before the medieval period.

Posted in Papyrus Making | 5 Comments

Snowy White Papyrus

Posted on July 12, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

I’ve been experimenting with making my own papyrus and discovering that there are lots of variables to control in order to make good quality writing material. One thing that especially surprised me has to do with the color of papyrus.

Modern commercially available papyrus produced in Egypt is often treated with an alkaline solution and bleach during production, which gives it a yellowish color (as outlined in this video, at the 1:40 mark). Commercially available papyrus produced in Sicily, at least the samples I have seen, tends to have a more brown tint. I’m not sure if the Italians use any additional processing. In any event, the papyrus sheets that one can buy aren’t entirely helpful when thinking about the color of papyrus in antiquity.

In making my own papyrus, I expected that different plants would yield sheets that looked a little different, but I was surprised to find that two stalks from the same plant could produce sheets of quite different colors. The image below shows two small sheets that I made using two stalks from the same plant.

Papyrus sheets of different color produced from the same plant; image source: Brent Nongbri, July 2023

The two stalks were cut at the same time. The pith of each of the stalks was an identical color (white with a slight grey tinge). I cut the strips in the same way from the same central portion of each stalk. I pressed them under the same conditions. Yet the colors are very different.

I’ve wondered about passages in ancient Roman authors that describe papyrus sheets as white. When Pliny discusses different grades of papyrus, he lists several qualities by which papyrus sheets were judged: fineness, firmness, smoothness, and whiteness (candor). At least one Roman poet describes papyrus rolls as “snowy white” (Tibullus [Lygdamus], Elegiae 3.1.9: lutea sed niveum involvat membrana libellum: “But let yellow parchment wrap the snowy white little book”). It makes me wonder if there was something different about the papyrus plants that grew in Egypt in antiquity, or if there was something in the ancient processing that helped to produce uniformly white sheets (for instance, Pliny mentions that papyrus sheets were dried in the sun–could that have a bleaching effect?). It would be challenging to produce papyrus sheets on an industrial scale if you had to worry about strips from different stalks potentially having quite different colors and ending up on the same sheet. That kind of thing did happen occasionally. Notice the differently colored papyrus strips in this bifolium from the Bodmer Menander Codex:

Bifolium from the Bodmer Menander Codex, showing alternate strips of lighter papyrus; image adapted from the Bodmer Lab

You see this phenomenon from time to time (thought not usually so pronounced). For the most part, however, it seems like ancient bookmakers tried to avoid this kind of thing.

Posted in Papyrus Making, Voluminology | 2 Comments

What Do We Mean By “Codex”?

Posted on July 3, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

P.Hib. 113, the papyrus kept at Graz that has recently been proposed as being the earliest surviving remains of a codex, continues to be in the news. I made a brief post about it some days ago, and in the comments to that post, David Kelsey raised an interesting question:

“If I were to take three sheaths of paper, fold them in the middle and insert inside each other to form a quire, then stitch the sections together, as a finished product I essentially have a booklet. But is this a codex? At what point does folded sheets gathered become a codex? Could this papyrus from Graz University be the front page of a booklet only and can it is so proved to have other associated pages written on both side be an actual codex?”

This is a good observation and really boils down to this: What do we mean by the term “codex”? Is it something more than a series of leaves linked together in some fashion? I tend to think of the codex as an example of a kind of technology, so it is indeed these physical characteristics that are most interesting to me. I would answer David’s question affirmatively. What he describes, a stack of three sheets folded together and stitched through the middle, is a small, single-quire codex.

But other questions remain. What about less flexible materials like wood or ivory–can these form codices? What about, say, a diptych joined by hinges rather than threads or tackets–is that a codex?

For some bookbinding specialists, the method of binding is the key element. J.A. Szirmai, for example, has pointed to the method of joining the “leaves” as a determining factor and a firm point of separation between tablets and codices:

“Hardly any textbook in which the origin of the codex is discussed, fails to assure us that it [was] wooden tablets from which the construction of the codex was derived. Even authorities proclaim this with great certainty, so Roberts and Skeat (The Birth of the Codex, 1983, p. 1): ‘There has never been any doubt about the physical origin of the codex, namely that it was developed from the wooden writing tablet. . . ‘. The certainty with which the validity of this statement is taken for granted is in marked contrast with the lack of any substantial evidence or explanation as to the exact nature of this genetic relationship. Yet the assumption is being repeated again and again without any sign of intellectual discomfort about the weakness of the argument. . . The analogy in the geometrical shape of the composing elements or of their ability to be turned along one side is merely superficial; the primitive methods of connecting the elements of the writing tablets (using hinges, metal rings or lacing) have scarcely anything in common with the codex structure.”

Still other specialists also factor in the textual contents. In his reflections on “Les origines du codex,” Joseph van Haelst defined “codex” as follows: “The term ‘codex’ . . . designates a collection of sheets of papyrus or parchment folded in two, grouped into a quire (or quires), sewn together along the spine, and usually protected by a cover. Its content, unlike that of the so-called documentary codex, is a composition, i.e. a text designed for distribution and preservation. This may be literary (classical works) or professional-technical (biblical, legal, magical, medical, scholarly, etc.).”

I don’t really like this division between the (real) codex and “documentary codex,” but for better or worse, it is a part of the scholarly discussion. So, we really have three intertwined issues–physical form (leaves), method of joining (binding), and contents (documentary vs. literary).

Part of the reason for these overlapping categories has to do with etymology. The Latin caudex originally meant “tree trunk” or “block of wood,” and was later used to refer to bound sets of wooden tablets, which were themselves cut from blocks of wood (Greeks seem to have used the words δέλτος or πίναξ to refer to these tablets). We don’t have surviving examples of this kind of artifact from very early periods, just some iconography, such as the famous Douris School Cup of the early fifth century BCE:

A teacher with a set of writing tablets on the “Douris School Cup” produced in the early fifth century BCE; image source: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung /CC BY-SA 4.0

Surviving examples of wooden tablets from later in the Roman era, however, are plentiful. The images below show a well-preserved set of wooden tablets dating from the fourth century CE that were found in the Egyptian city of Kellis. They were excavated intact with the “binding” thread in place (left and center), and they are shown in a stack after the thread was removed (right).

The “Kellis Agricultural Account Book,” a set of wooden tablets found intact at Kellis in Egypt; image source: Roger S. Bagnall et al., The Kellis Agricultural Account Book (Oxbow, 1997), plates

We can get a glimpse into how these tablets were made by looking at another artifact found at Kellis in proximity to woodworking tools, namely a wooden block that appears to be an off-cut from a block that had been sawn into a similar set of thin slabs:

An off-cut from a wooden block that had been sawn into thin slabs for tablets, found at Kellis in Egypt; image source: Roger S. Bagnall et al., The Kellis Agricultural Account Book (Oxbow, 1997), plate

So we can see the etymological connection to the caudex as “block of wood.” But there is also the question of how the slabs are held together after they were cut from the block. We don’t have a full picture of how these tablets were usually bound. The example shown above from Kellis has a pretty simple “binding” of a thread looped through the holes that were drilled in the wood slabs and tied off. But other surviving tablets have “covers” (outer slabs) that show evidence of a somewhat more elaborate lacing of the threads, and a 2018 book by Georgios Boudalis offers some speculative but very intriguing ideas about exactly what such lacing might have looked like, and indeed how closely it might resemble the bindings of multi-quire papyrus and parchment codices.

While these bound groups of wooden slabs are sometimes described as “codices,” some scholars (most scholars?) tend to reserve the term for bound groups of leaves made of more flexible materials like parchment, papyrus, and later paper. As noted earlier, in many studies of codices, we find a kind of evolutionary narrative that is based on contents as much as physical characteristics. These wooden tablets often contained documentary writing. The tablet found at Kellis shown above, for example, contained agricultural accounts. Other tablets contained legal documents, wills, public records, writing exercises, or other sorts of “non-literary” writing. We also have papyrus and parchment books that contain similar non-literary sorts of material. But such manuscripts are often described not as codices proper, but rather as “notebooks.”

A typical example of such a “notebook” (the one used as an illustration by Roberts and Skeat in The Birth of the Codex) is a parchment bifolium in Berlin, P. 7358 + P. 7359 (SB 26 16551) that contains some notes on labor carried out and payments made. Roberts and Skeat assigned the manuscript to the second century CE, but the editor of the papyrus preferred a date in the third century (on p. 21, footnote 2 Roberts and Skeat also assign the manuscript to the third century):

The two sides of a bifolium from a parchment “notebook,” Berlin, P. 7358 + P. 7359; image source: Berliner Papyrusdatenbank

In The Birth of the Codex, Roberts and Skeat present the arrival of the “notebook” as a turning point in the story of the codex, as indicated by the chapter title “From Writing Tablet to Parchment Note-Book.” They use the terminology of a transition and name the agent: “Certainly it was the Romans who took the decisive next step, that of replacing the wooden tablet by a lighter, thinner and more pliable material” (p. 15). Now, I’m not sure at present how much I like this linear, evolutionary way of thinking about wooden tablets and papyrus and parchment codices, but if we momentarily allow this scenario, it is at this point in the narrative that the Graz papyrus might shake things up. If the Graz papyrus really is an example of a papyrus codex/notebook from the third century BCE produced by Greek-speakers in Egypt, then the Roberts-Skeat story about the Romans’ invention would require some significant revision.

Sources cited:

Roger S. Bagnall et al., The Kellis Agricultural Account Book (Oxbow, 1997).

Georgios Boudalis, The Codex and Crafts in Late Antiquity (Bard Graduate Center, 2018).

Günter Poethke, “Ein Berliner ‘Notizbuch’ aus Leder,” in C.-B. Arnst et al., Begegnungen: Antike Kulturen im Niltal (Verlag Helmar Wodtke, 2001), 399-403.

C.H. Roberts and T.C Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (Oxford University Press, 1983).

Joseph van Haelst, “Les origines du codex,” in Alain Blanchard, Les débuts du codex (Brepols 1989), 13-35.

J.A. Szirmai, “Wooden Writing Tablets and the Birth of the Codex” Gazette du livre medieval 17 (1990), 31-32.

Posted in Codices, Codicology, P.Hib. 113, Tablets | 11 Comments

The Oldest Codex?

Posted on June 22, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

News reports coming out of Graz today suggest that a papyrus in the collection of the University of Graz may be the earliest surviving specimen of a bound book with pages, possibly as early as the third century BCE. It is a papyrus that was published way back in 1906, P.Hib. 113:

The earliest codex? Graz, UBG Ms 1946; image source: University of Graz, Universitätsbibliothek

“The papyrus fragment (Graz, UBG Ms 1946), which measures only about 15 x 25 cm, has belonged to the University of Graz since 1904. Discovered during an excavation in the Egyptian necropolis of Hibeh (today El Hiba) south of Fayum (El-Fayoum), the fragment now belongs to a collection of 52 papyrus objects, some of which were used as so-called cartonnage for mummy wrappings in the Ptolemaic period (305-30 BC).”

Theresa Zammit Lupi, the head of conservation of the Special Collections of Graz University Library, noticed the presence of a thread, what appears to be a central fold, and holes along the central fold that could indicate binding. This announcement is potentially very exciting news for those of us interested in the early history of the codex, but the news release itself is a bit jumbled. The claims made about the earliest codices in the report seem somewhat confused. According to the press release,

“The earliest codices known to date with evidence of stitching in book form have been dated to 150-250 AD. Two such examples are located in the British Library (Add MS 34473) and the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin (CBL BP II).”

British Library “Add MS 34473” isn’t a designation of a single manuscript. That inventory number covers several parchment manuscripts, none of which (to the best of my knowledge) has been assigned especially early dates. The possible exception might be parchment fragments of a codex containing works of Demosthenes filed under that inventory number (P.Lond.Lit 127, TM 59549), which are sometimes assigned a date as early as the second century CE. There is, however, a parchment codex fragment in the British Library that is generally assigned an even earlier date, British Library Papyrus 745, (TM 63267), which may be as old as the second or even the first century CE. Chester Beatty BP II is, of course, the single-quire papyrus codex of Paul’s letters better known to New Testament scholars as P46 (TM 61855), which has been assigned to a wide range of dates, from the late second century CE to the late third or fourth century CE. But it is generally thought that the earliest of the Beatty Biblical Papyri is the BP VI (TM 61934), the Numbers-Deuteronomy papyrus codex, which is usually assigned to the second or third century CE.

These small details aside, I am excited to learn more about this papyrus. It was reused for cartonnage, which gives us a reasonable terminus ante quem. But as far as I can see from the online images, there is no writing visible on the “back” side of the papyrus. There is writing on the right side of the “front” of the papyrus, but it is tough to decipher. It would be nice to see the whole thing subjected to multi-spectral imaging to see what is legible on the right side of the papyrus as well as the “back” side. If there is continuous text from the back to the front, that would be a nice confirmation that we do in fact have a very early codex here. I look forward to learning more about this piece!

Posted in Codices, Codicology, P.Hib. 113 | 7 Comments

A Book of Psalms and a Missing Page Number

Posted on May 19, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

As part of the EthiCodex project, our team has been revisiting the often fragmentary remains of early codices. Thankfully, many collections have made digital images of their materials widely available. But sometimes it is also necessary to see things in person.

P.Mich. inv. 22 is a fragmentary folium from a papyrus codex that contains remains of Psalm 8:3-9 and 9:7-17 (TM 61984). It was purchased in Egypt in 1920 by Bernard Grenfell and Francis Kelsey (during the same trip that they purchased the famous Rylands fragment of John’s Gospel, P52). P.Mich. inv. 22 was published by Henry Sanders in 1936 as P.Mich. 3 133.

P.Mich. inv. 22; image source: University of Michigan Papyrology Collection

Given that the papyrus contained portions of Psalm 8 and 9, material relatively near the beginning of the Book of Psalms, Sanders offered a fairly confident estimate of the position of this folium within the codex: “Some seven pages, i.e. three and one-half leaves, preceded the beginning of this fragment in the original codex.”

I am not sure how Sanders came to this number, but it seems a little strange based on the surviving evidence.

Because the top lines of each page are preserved, we have a reasonably good idea of the number of words on the “front” page of the papyrus (everything from the words [στόμα]τος νηπίων καὶ in Psalm 8:3 to the words ἀπώλετο τὸ in Psalm 9:7, inclusive). We can then check the number of words and characters in that stretch of text in a printed edition. In this case, we count in the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition 199 words and 1237 characters (including spaces, punctuation, etc.). From the words ἐκ στόμα[τος] in Psalm 8:3 back to the beginning of Psalm 1:1, we have in the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition 1154 words and 6925 characters (again including spaces, punctuation, etc.). From here, it is just a matter of division to determine roughly how many codex pages would be needed to contain the material on the pages preceding our folium (assuming they carried about the same amount of text as the surviving papyrus folium and assuming that we are dealing with a “normal” collection of Psalms):

1154 words ÷ 199 words per page ≈ 5.799 pages

7178 characters ÷ 1237 characters per page ≈ 5.803 pages

So, we would seem to be looking not at seven pages of preceding text but rather at about 5.8 pages worth of text. But this is just if we consider words or characters. If we also take into account some extra spacing for the titles and numbering of the first eight Psalms, then we can say that probably 6 pages (3 folia) preceded the surviving folium. That means that the “front” of P.Mich. inv. 22–that is, the side with vertical fibers (↓) that contains Psalm 8:3-9:7–would be page 7 and the back–the side containing Psalm 9:7-17 written on the horizontal fibers (→)–would be page 8.

And here is where in-person examination is helpful. In fact it turns out that in the surviving part of the upper margin of the back (→) side of our folium, there is a lightly written page number: H̅, that is to say, page 8, just as the rough calculation above suggested. I noticed the faded letter while looking at the upper margin under high magnification:

P.Mich. inv. 22, detail of surviving page number

But once I knew where to look, I could see the number even in the online digital image:

P.Mich. inv. 22, position of page number indicated by a square

Sanders seems not to have been aware of the page number (in his defense, it is possible that the ink may have become more visible in the decades since he published the papyrus). I haven’t seen it mentioned in subsequent scholarship, either–though I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve overlooked something. In any event, this papyrus offers a good example of why it is worthwhile to revisit these early codex fragments, especially those pieces that were published in the early decades of papyrology.

Posted in Antiquities Market, Bernard Grenfell, Codices, Codicology, Michigan Papyri | 3 Comments

The Helgö Buddha

Posted on May 5, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

The news of the excavation of a small statue of the Buddha in Egypt is very exciting. But at least one of the claims about this statue doesn’t seem quite right. I have in mind this statement in The Smithsonian: “The artifact is the first Buddha ever found west of Afghanistan.” In the course of my teaching a few years ago, I encountered a fascinating artifact that I had somehow missed up to that point. I started a post on it at the time but got distracted. Now seems like a good moment to return to it:

Image source: Swedish History Museum

This bronze statuette of the Buddha stands about 8.4 cm tall. Specialists in Buddhist iconography suggest that it was manufactured in northwest India perhaps sometime around the 6th century CE.

Image sources: Swedish History Museum and Holmqvist et al., Excavations at Helgö I: Report for 1954-1956 (Uppsala, 1961), p. 113

What makes the item special is that it was excavated on a small island in Sweden just west of Stockholm. In the mid-1950s, excavations began on the eastern end of the island of Helgö (Lillön).

Location of Helgö in relation to Stockholm; image source: adapted from Clarke and Lamm, Helgö Revisited (Schleswig, 2017), p. 4, Fig. 1.3

The excavators found evidence for occupation from the fourth century CE to the eleventh century CE. In July of 1956, excavators uncovered the Buddha in an indistinct layer outside the remains of one of the structures on the site. The site, located on a series of terraces on a hillside, was challenging to excavate and interpret:

“Space was restricted, so the houses were built and rebuilt in almost exactly the same place from generation to generation, resulting in a bewildering array of post holes which are still very difficult to interpret. In addition, the occupation layer was thin and compressed, so that artefacts of all dates were found together, virtually unstratified.” (Clarke and Lamm, Helgö Revisited, p. 3)

Unfortunately (but understandably in these circumstances), the exact stratum to which the Buddha belongs cannot be determined, and thus, if I read the reports correctly, the Buddha cannot be confidently associated with any one of the discrete occupational phases of the site. The original excavation report says little about the context of the find. The specialist report on the Buddha gives the following information:

“The Buddha figure was found in Building Group 2, not far from the metal workshop of Building Group 3, and together with artefacts dating from before c. AD 800 […]. The bronze figurine could well have been owned by a craftsman working with metal casting, who was primarily interested in its technical qualities.” (Gyllensvärd, “The Buddha found at Helgö,” p. 17)

Two observations are in order. First, there is a photograph of the object apparently taken shortly after it was excavated, which shows loops of leather around the neck and left arm of the statuette, suggesting that it was hung either on a person or another object (wall, door, etc.). These bands would also at least possibly obscure the “technical qualities” of the object.

Helgö Buddha with remains of leather straps still attached; image source: Holmqvist et al., Excavations at Helgö I: Report for 1954-1956 (Uppsala, 1961), p. 112, Fig. 18

Second, the back of the artifact shows signs of repairs (patches on the back of the head and left elbow), suggesting that the statuette was in use for some period of time. In the absence of precise stratigraphic information, scholars have speculated about how and why the Buddha came to Sweden. The most thorough specialist study offered this possible explanation:

“As it was unearthed near a workshop for metal casting and smithing, its owner may have been particularly attracted to this finely cast bronze object with contrasting inlays of copper and silver. The figurine would undoubtedly have been of great interest to a metalworking craftsman who may have used a leather thong to hang it around his neck or on a nail.” (Gyllensvärd, “The Buddha found at Helgö,” p. 23)

This is a strange statement. If I understand the excavation report correctly, the metal workshop was a part of Building Group 3. This group of structures was quite distant from Building Group 2:

Helgö Building Groups 2 and 3; image source: adapted from Clarke and Lamm, Helgö Revisited (Schleswig, 2017), p. 5, Fig. 1.4

By “near,” then, Gyllensvärd means 150-200 meters. The metal workshop does not seem like a probable context for the Buddha. If it is to be associated with any of the structures, it would probably be one of the two sets of rectangular foundations in Building Group 2.

In any event, it is fun to wonder about the circumstances that might have brought this Buddha to rest here in Sweden, just as it will be interesting to learn more about the newly discovered Egyptian Buddha.

Photographs of the Helgö Buddha taken from a number of angles are available through the website of the Swedish History Museum here.

Further Reading:

Helen Clarke and Kristina Lamm, Helgö Revisited: A New Look at the Excavated Evidence for Helgö, Central Sweden (Schleswig: Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinische Landesmuseen Schloss Gottorf, 2017)

Bo Gyllensvärd et al., Excavations at Helgö XVI: Exotic and Sacral Finds from Helgö (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2004)

Wilhelm Holmqvist et al., Excavations at Helgö I: Report for 1954-1956 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1961)

Posted in Archaeological context, Buddha | 4 Comments

Ancient Jewish Fish Sauce?

Posted on April 3, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

When I visit museums, I always keep an eye out for ancient Jewish and Christian artifacts. I recently (may have) encountered one that I had overlooked on previous visits to the British Museum. The museum holds a coarse ware jar with a flat bottom that is said to have come from Pozzuoli in the Bay of Naples. The jar was one of many artifacts bequeathed to the museum in 1856 by Sir William Temple (1788-1856). It is assigned a date in the first or second century CE. This type of jar was used to hold garum, a fermented fish sauce that was a staple of the Roman diet.

Garum jar, British Museum 1856,1226.337; image source: Brent Nongbri, 2023

What makes this particular jar interesting is the dipinto, or inked label, which reads G̣Α̣RCAST

Garum jar, British Museum 1856,1226.337; image source: Brent Nongbri, 2023

The didactic tag at the museum states the following:

“The painted inscription says it contained garum, a popular fermented fish sauce, and a vital part of Roman cuisine. The inscription on the bottle GARCAST shows it was garum castimoniarum (kosher), for the Jewish market.”

The resolution of the abbreviation GARCAST to garum castimoniarum depends on a reference in Pliny the Elder (Natural History 31.44), but the meaning of this passage is unclear, and the manuscript evidence for this passage looks pretty messy. The Loeb edition prints the following text and translation (along with the accompanying notes below). The larger context is a discussion of garum, and the immediate context is the use of allec (or alec or allex) a sedimentary byproduct of garum that was also consumed by Romans:

aliud vero . . .2 castimoniarum superstitioni etiam sacrisque Iudaeis dicatum, quod fit e piscibus squama carentibus.But another kind <of garum>b is devoted to superstitious sex-abstinence and Jewish rites, and is made from fish without scales.
2 ad codd.: est Mayhoff: post ad lacunam indicat Detlefsen.bAs allex is feminine, and aliud neuter, it seems best to suppose that there is a lacuna here, but Pliny may be thinking of garum, to which he has just reverted.

It is clear that there is something unusual here–either about the text or about Pliny’s facts or about the Jews being described. The biggest curiosity is the notion that a particularly Jewish food would contain pisces squamis carentes–fish that lack scales. This idea seems to conflict with the rule in Leviticus 11:9-11, which expressly forbids the consumption of aquatic creatures that lack scales (in the Vulgate version: quicquid autem pinnulas et squamas non habet). So, we would seem to have a reference to a group of Jews with a different set of food rules, or an example of Pliny being confused, or a corrupt text. I suspect that it may be a textual problem. The earliest surviving evidence for this passage seems to be ninth century manuscripts. BnF Latin 6795 gives us the Loeb text (but with the ad before castimoniarum):

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Latin 6795, folio 331 recto; image source: Gallica

Ricc 488 is similar, though with some erasures and corrections, which result in the end of the passage reading quam a caren tibus:

Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 488, folio 141 verso; image source: Biblioteca Riccardiana

Though I have not seen images of them, Leiden LIP 7 (apparently not digitized) and Leiden VLF 061 (digitized but behind a steep paywall) are reported to read squamamaceretnentib, which again suggests some confusion in the text in this passage. The Budé edition is more aggressive than the Loeb in resolving the problematic text, printing squama <non> carentibus (fish not lacking scales), though this makes little sense given that in the next sentence Pliny goes on to enumerate aquatic animals without scales!

Whatever the exact meaning of Pliny’s passage may be, there are other examples of the label GARCAST vel sim. on jars from Pompeii. I see at least CIL IV 2569 (published as and said to come from the temple of Mercury–presumably the temple of Genius Augusti) and CIL IV Supp. 5662 (published as CAR CɅST / SCOMBRI/////FORTUNATI). Also possibly CIL IV Supp. 5660 (published as ///////VM CɅST) and 5661 (published as gɅR CɅST / aB VMBRICIɅ FORTUNATA). The other terms represented in these dipinti deal either with the type of fish used (scomber = mackerel) or the specific producer (Umbricia Fortunata is attested on other garum jars; hers was a family associated with fish products).

It is debatable whether these labelled jars held garum produced specifically for Jews, or even were made in a particular way that did not violate Jewish food prohibitions. There is, however, related evidence that suggests that special garum for Jews did exist in Roman antiquity, namely the presence of garum (and allec) jars at sites known to have Jewish inhabitants, namely Masada. During excavation there, a jar (apparently of the Herodian era) with a garum label was found. More telling perhaps is the discovery of a pot fragment with the remains of many small fish bones (inv. 7039-1047). The analysts of these bones reached the following conclusion:

“It seems to us significant that the residue of fish bones left at the bottom of Inv. 7039-1047 belonged to two kinds of fish only, namely herring and anchovy, both of which are kosher fish. This could be interpreted as a sign that the allec at the bottom of this jar was meant to be kosher.” (Cotton, Lernau, and Goren, p. 237)

A fish sauce made from just two species (both with scales) seems like solid evidence for the existence of garum and allec that met the dietary concerns of at least some Jews. Whether such products are to be identified with garum castum (or whatever Pliny meant by castimonia) seems to me to be an open question.

There is a decent bibliography on the questions addressed here. Some of the key sources are below:

  • Thomas H. Corcoran, “Pliny’s garum castimoniarum,” Classical Bulletin 34.6 (1958), 69.
  • Hannah Cotton, Omri Lernau and Yuval Goren, “Fish Sauces from Herodian Masada,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996), 223-238.
  • T. J. Leary, “Jews, Fish, Food Laws, and the Elder Pliny,” Acta Classica 37 (1994), 111-114.
  • Susan Weingarten, “Fish and Fish Products in Late Antique Palestine and Babylonia in their Social and Geographical Contexts: Archaeology and Talmudic Literature,” Journal of Maritime Archaeology 13 (2018), 235-245.


Posted in British Museum, Judaism | 1 Comment

Radiocarbon Analysis of Papyrus and Parchment Manuscripts: A List

Posted on February 22, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

It occurs to me that it would be useful to have (as complete as possible) a list of papyrus and parchment manuscripts that have been subjected to radiocarbon analysis. I have tried to arrange this list chronologically by the date when the analysis was carried out (which sometimes differs substantially from the date of publication). I would be grateful to be informed of omissions (especially Pharaonic-era papyri and medieval parchment manuscripts; I know that many have been analyzed, but I am not aware of the publication details). Thanks in advance. Links are provided for open access materials. [Last updated 29 May 2025.]

[Before 1972–date of analysis uncertain]. Parchment manuscripts from Renaissance-era Britain. Berger et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Parchment,” Nature 235 (1972) 160-161.

1990. 14 Dead Sea Scrolls. Georges Bonani et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls,” Radiocarbon 34 (1992) 843-849. See also R.E. Taylor and Ofer Bar-Yosef, Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective (2nd ed.; Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 2014), 38-42.

1994. 18 Dead Sea Scrolls. A.J. Timothy Jull et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert,” Radiocarbon 37 (1995), 11-19. See also R.E. Taylor and Ofer Bar-Yosef, Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective (2nd ed.; Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 2014), 38-42.

1994. The Glazier Codex. John Lawrence Sharpe, “The Earliest Bindings with Wooden Board Covers: The Coptic Contribution to Binding Construction,” pages 2.455–2.478 in Carlo Federici and Paola F. Munafò (eds.), International Conference on Conservation and Restoration of Archival and Library Materials. 2 vols. (Rome: Istituto centrale per la patologia del libro, 1999). The leather wrapping strap was analyzed (see also Nongbri, “A New Radiocarbon Calibration Curve and Early Christian Manuscripts“).

1995. The Vinland Map. D.J. Donahue, J.S. Olin, and G. Harbottle,” Determination of the Radiocarbon Age of Parchment of the Vinland Map,” Radiocarbon 44 (2002) 45-52 (see also Cummings, “Analysis Unlocks Secret of Vinland Map–It’s a Fake“).

1995. Cologne Mani Codex. Cornelia Römer, “Die Datierung des Kölner Mani-Kodex,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 220 (2021) 94-96 (see also Nongbri, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Cologne Mani Codex“).

[Before 1998–date of analysis uncertain, originally published in Hebrew]. P.Mur. 22 and P.Mur. 29. Ḥanan Eshel, Magen Broshi, and Timothy A.J. Jull, “Four Murabbaʻat papyri and the alleged capture of Jerusalem by Bar Kokhba,” in Ranon Katzoff and David Schaps (eds.), Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 45-50.

1999. So-called “Dead Sea Scroll,” XJoshua. James H. Charlesworth, “Unknown Provenance: XJoshua,” in E. Tov et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXXVIII: Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 234, note 8. See also Årstein Justnes and Josephine Munch Rasmussen, “More Dubious Dead Sea Scrolls,” Dead Sea Discoveries 28 (2021) 20-37.

2000. Samples of parchment from the Garima Gospels. No proper publication. Analysis mentioned in Mercier, “La peinture éthiopienne à l’époque axoumite et au XVIIIe siècle,” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 144e (2000) 35-71.

[Before 2001–date of analysis uncertain]. Two Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q427 and 4Q491. Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, “Radiocarbon Dating and The Messiah Before Jesus,” Revue de Qumrân 20 (2001) 311-317.

2005. Tchacos Codex (Gospel of Judas). Christian Askeland, “Carbon Dating the Tchacos Codex,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 58 (2021) 299-314.

[Before 2010–date of analysis uncertain]. 7 parchment and 3 paper manuscripts from the University of Seville, 13th to 17th centuries. F.J. Santos et al., “Radiocarbon dating of medieval manuscripts from the University of Seville,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268 (2010) 1038-1040.

[Before 2010–date of analysis uncertain]. Artemidorus Papyrus. M.E. Fedi et al., “The Artemidorus Papyrus: Solving an Ancient Puzzle with Radiocarbon and Ion Beam Analysis Measurements,” Radiocarbon 52 (2010) 356-363.

[Before 2011—date of analysis uncertain]. The Voynich Manuscript. Widely reported in news outlets, but no proper publication of data yet?

2012-2013. Manichaean codices from Medinet Madi. Jason BeDuhn and Greg Hodgins, “The Date of the Manichaean Codices from Medinet Madi, and its Significance,” pages 10-28 in S.N.C. Lieu (ed.) Manichaeism East and West (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017) (see also “A New Radiocarbon Calibration Curve and Early Christian Manuscripts“).

2012. 9 parchment Torah scrolls. Fabiana M. Oliveira et al., “Radiocarbon analysis of the Torah scrolls from the National Museum of Brazil collection”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B 361 (2015),531–534.

2012. Additional analysis of parchment from the Garima Gospels. No proper publication. Analysis mentioned in Judith S. McKenzie and Francis Watson (eds.), The Garima Gospels: Early Illuminated Gospel Books from Ethiopia (Manar al-athar, 2016), 1.

[Before 2013–date of analysis uncertain]. 6 British historical parchments, 14th to 19th centuries. Fiona Brock, “Radiocarbon Dating of Historical Parchments,” Radiocarbon 55 (2013) 353-363.

[Before 2014–date of analysis uncertain] Gospel of Jesus Wife and Associated Fragment. Gregory Hodgins, “Accelerated Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Determination of Papyrus Samples,” Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014) 166-169 and Noreen Tuross, “Accelerated Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Determination of Papyrus Samples,” Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014) 170-171. The report of Hodgins lists many other papyrus manuscripts (mostly Pharaonic) that have been subjected to radiocarbon analysis.

2013 and 2014. 6 Manuscripts at the Museum of the Bible–P.Oxy. 11.1353, P.Oxy. 12.1459, P.Oxy. 15.1780 (NT P39), P.Bodm. 24 (Greek Psalms), MOTB PAP.000379, MOTB PAP.000447 (Tchacos Exodus). Daniel Stevens, “Radiocarbon Analysis of Six Museum of the Bible Manuscripts,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 227 (2023) 153-160.

2014. Papyrus amulet with a Christian prayer. Roberta Mazza, “P.Ryl. Greek Add. 1166: Christian Prayer Amulet with a Tax Receipt on the Back,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 197 (2016) 73-84.

2014. Crosby-Schøyen Codex. Hugo Lundhaug, “The Date of MS 193 in the Schøyen Collection: New Radiocarbon Evidence,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 57 (2020) 219-234.

2014. Nag Hammadi Codex I. Hugo Lundhaug, “Dating and Contextualising the Nag Hammadi Codices and their Texts: A Multi-methodological Approach Including New Radiocarbon Evidence,” pages 117-142 in J. Verheyden, J. Schröter, T. Nicklas (eds.), Texts in Context (Leuven: Peeters, 2021).

2014. Wyman Fragment of Romans. Daniel Stevens, “The Wyman Fragment: A New Edition and Analysis with Radiocarbon Dating,” New Testament Studies 68 (2022) 431-444.

2015. 4 Early Quran Manuscripts. Michael Josef Marx and Tobias J. Jocham, “Zu den Datierungen von Koranhandschriften durch die 14C-Methode,” Frankfurter Zeitschrift für Islamisch-theologische Studien 2 (2015) 9-43.

[Before 2016–date of analysis uncertain]. Carbonized Ein Gedi Leviticus Scroll. Brent Seales et al., “From damage to discovery via virtual unwrapping: Reading the scroll from En-Gedi,” Science Advances 2 (2016).

2017. 30 Dead Sea Scrolls. Mladen Popović et al., “Dead Sea Scrolls data collection (images, labels, prediction plots) for dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis,” PLOS One (2025).

[Before 2019–date of analysis uncertain]. Dated Arabic letters in Heidelberg. Eva Mira Youssef-Grob, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Early Islamic Documents: Background and Prospects,” pages 139-187 in Andreas Kaplony and Michael Marx (eds.), Qur’ān Quotations Preserved on Papyrus Documents, 7th-10th Centuries and the Roblem of Carbon Dating Early Qur’āns (Leiden: Brill, 2019). Youssef-Grob’s paper is a great overall introduction to radiocarbon analysis as it applies to manuscripts.

2019. 7 parchment Quran manuscripts and a Syriac Bible. Ali Aghaei and Michael Josef Marx, “Carbon dating of seven parchment Qurʾān manuscripts and one Syriac bible of the National Museum of Iran,” Journal of Iran National Museum 2 (2021) 205–226.

2019. Several Arabic manuscripts. Ali Aghaei et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Manuscripts Kept in the Central Library of the University of Tehran Radiocarbon (2023); (Arabic) LiLi Kordavani, et al., “Carbon Dating Analysis of Manuscripts kept in the Central Library of The University of Tehran,” Academic Librarianship and Information Research 56 (2022) 63-80.

[Before 2020–date of analysis uncertain]. P.Köln Inv. 5941 (Hebrew text on animal hide). Elisabetta Boaretto et al., “Date, Materiality and Historical Significance of P.Köln Inv. 5941,” COMSt Bulletin 6/2 (2020).

[Before 2021–date of analysis uncertain]. 15th-17th century parchment documents and modern parchment. Tuuli M. Kasso et al., “Volumes of Worth–Delimiting the Sample Size for Radiocarbon Dating of Parchment,” Radiocarbon 63 (2021) 105-120.

2022. P.Oxy. 47 3321. Brent Nongbri,”Radiocarbon Analysis of Papyrus and Parchment: Pitfalls and Potentials,” in Jean-Luc Fournet (éd.), Actes du XXXe Congrès international de papyrologie (StudPAP 7; Paris, 2025) 553-566.

The alleged radiocarbon analysis of a papyrus containing works of Sappho is not substantiated.

Posted in Cologne Mani Codex, Crosby-Schøyen Codex, Dead Sea Scrolls, Glazier Codex, P.Sapph. Obbink, Radiocarbon analysis | 13 Comments