Subject: tc-list Re: Codex formats according to Turner

From: Wieland Willker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:26:31 +0100

My initial idea was to place Egerton 2 somewhere in these categories.
Therefore I simply choose ALL papyrus manuscripts which very roughly fit
the size of Egerton, that means a breadth of 11 - 15 cm. 
I collected all manuscripts from Turner's list without any preferences.
I just wanted to see if I could find the groups Turner had listed. What
I found was (more or less) random variation. 
Of course, you can group the manuscripts in any way you want. But there
are no REAL boundaries between these groups (= free space in my
diagram). There are too many "aberrants" inbetween. 

> One would need to run the check only on the MSS which
> Turner placed firmly within a group, to invalidate his 
> theories. 

No! Turner used artificial groups. Of course you will find these groups
if you leave out all the aberrants.

I didn't want to criticise Turner's complete book or theory. The book is
extremely interesting. 

The only thing I want to say is, that in the above range of manuscripts
there are no NATURAL groups. 

Maybe I missed something, but I've understood Turner in that way that he
had found NATURAL groups. 
Eventually I could accept a group (slight accumulation) at BxH = 14x16. 
Have a look at:
http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Codex-Formate.jpg

All other manuscripts from Turner's book lie outside (left and right) of
this diagram. 
I know that these measurements are not very exact. I have used large
dots for the points to indicate some pagesize variation. Maybe one must
allow even more variation, but this doesn't really change anything. 
Last point: I don't have his book here with me, but I can't remember a
grouping according the beta-measurement. 

Thank you for your answer!

Best wishes
    Wieland