Columns and Page Arrangement
It is often stated that, with the exceptions of
and B,
all continuous-text New Testament manuscripts are written in
one or two columns. This is not quite true (048 and 053 are also
in three columns, as is the minuscule 1957 and, of necessity, the
trilingual minuscule 460 -- and of course there are many commentary
manuscripts which use irregular page formats), but not far from
the mark. The following table shows, by century, the number of
manuscripts with one, two, three, and four columns. (Note: Manuscripts
must be substantial enough for the determination to be certain.)
For the first five centuries, the manuscripts themselves are listed. The
percentage of manuscripts in each category is also listed. The data is as
given in the first edition of the Kurzgefasste Liste (note that
paleographic estimates in the Liste are not always reliable, and
this list is only approximate).
| Century | Number of Columns
|
| ---1--- | ---2--- | ---3--- | ---4--- | Scroll
|
| I/II | P46 P66 | | | |
|
| III | P45 P47 P72 P75 0212 0220 0232
| | | | P13
|
| IV | 0162 0169 0176 0181 0189 0206 0228
| 057 058 0171 0185 0207 0214 0221 0230 0231
| B
| |
|
| V | C I W 059 061 069 0163 0172 0173 0174 0175 0182 0217 0244
| A Q T 062 068 0160 0165 0166 0201 0216 0218 0219 0226 0227 0236 0239 0242
| 048 | |
|
| VI | 13 (24%) | 42 (76%)
|
| VII | 7 (28%) | 18 (72%)
|
| VIII | 9 (39%) | 13 (61%)
|
| IX | unc | 17 (38%) | 27 (60%) | [053] (2%)
|
| min | 9 (75%) | 3 (25%)
|
| X | unc | 8 (53%) | 7 (47%)
|
| min | 89 (85%) | 16 (15%)
|
| XI | unc | 1
|
| min | 283 (81%) | 68 (19%)
|
| XII | 461 (87%) | 69 (13%)
|
| XIII | 458 (89%) | 59 (11%) | [460]
|
| XIV | 454 (91%) | 45 (9%)
|
| XV | 193 (90%) | 21 (10%) | [1957]
|
| after XV | 145 (88%) | 19 (12%)
|
It is sometimes stated that the reason
is written in four columns is that this gives the appearance of a scroll.
It should be noted, however, that the papyri are usually in one column,
so Christians had clearly already abandoned the "scroll look"
before was written.
It seems more likely that ,
which is one of the largest uncials known (indeed, based on the data in the
first edition of the Kurzgefasste Liste, it is as presently bound
the largest uncial known), was written in four columns to keep the width of
each column close to the standard.
It is also worth noting that 2-columns format was standard for uncials (57% of
uncials are in two columns), and also very common for lectionaries, but
while obviously acceptable, certainly not normal for minuscules (only
13% of minuscules have more than one column, and many of those are diglots).
One may speculate that this has to do with readability. Uncials, particularly
early uncials which lacked punctuation, word spacing, and breathings, were
difficult to read. To reduce the stress of reading, scribes may have resorted
to narrower columns. When the more readable minuscules became standard,
scribes turned to the easier-to-copy-but-harder-to-read one-column format.
(It is now known that there is an optimal column width for reading; a column
which is requires the reader's eyes to move more than five or six times makes
reading more difficult. Ancient scribes could not have known this, but they
could well have sensed that narrower columns were easier to read than wide.)