epigraphy - the tip of the reed was not under angular inclination of the writing surface. (Sigalas, 1974: 181-183) - Tatiana Marza - Kevin McGrane

[Steven Avery]

From Tatiana Marza page

epigraphy
compare with Bringhurst and Bulgarian
Δείγμα αυτής της γραφής αποτελεί ο Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας (Codes Sinaiticus) που χρονολογείται στα μέσα του 4ου αιώνα μ.Χ. (εικόνα 15). Το κείμενο είναι γραμμένο σε κεφαλαιογράμ- ματη τετραγωνισμένη ελληνική γραφή, δεν περιέχει σημεία στίξης και κενά μεταξύ των λέξεων (Codex Sinaiticus). Το φάρδος των γραμμάτων είναι σχεδόν όσο και το ύψος τους και υπάρχει έντονη αντίθεση ανάμεσα στις κάθετες και τις οριζόντιες γραμμές - γεγονός που αποδεικνύει ότι η μύτη του καλαμιού δεν ήταν υπό γωνιακή κλίση στην επιφάνεια γραφής. (Σιγάλας, 1974: 181-183)

An example of this writing is the Sinaitic Codex (Codes Sinaiticus) dating to the mid-4th century A.D. (figure 15). The text is written in capitals. squared Greek writing, does not contain punctuation marks and spaces between words (Codex Sinaiticus). The width of the letters is almost as high as their height and exists strong contrast between vertical and horizontal lines - which proves that the tip of the reed was not under angular inclination of the writing surface. (Sigalas, 1974: 181-183)

Let's find those pages!

The Elements of Typographic Style - Robert Bringhurst - Robin Phillips "almost miraculously" - Michael Langlois - Antonios Sigalas

This is an unusual small section from p. 174-175 (mentioned in Wikipedia.) http://seas3.elte.hu/typo/Bringhurst.pdf Also less sophisticated https://readings.design/PDF/the_elements_of_typographic_style.pdf Also https://smallpressblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/bringhurstelementsselections1.pdf

www.purebibleforum.com

 

[Steven Avery]

From Kevin McGrane
https://protestanttruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Forging-of-Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf

61 Although he has not seen it reported elsewhere, the present reviewer considers that the clearest indicator of different scribes is on the formation of the letter M. Scribe D in Sinaiticus forms this letter with four strokes (the motion of the pen stops three times, though not lifted). The Vaticanus scribe forms the letter with three strokes (the motion of the pen stops twice), so that there is a radius at the centre, there being a change of direction while the pen is in motion. This is elementary graphology. There are many other clear differences, such that Tischendorf was gravely mistaken and misled a whole generation of scholars who relied on him. We encourage readers of Cooper's book to take their magnifying glasses and compare the formation of the letter M in both codices. They will see that it is very plain that they are not the work of the same scribe.

This observation may also lend some strength to the argument that the manuscript is later than mid- fourth century. We note that Scribe D is a far more competent than scribe than A, and both are better than B. Scribe D, who makes far fewer mistakes in copying has the more 'canonical' Biblical majuscule script: he has learned not only to spell but how to form his letters perfectly, including the form of mu.

Orsini and Clarysse note among

'The constituent elements of this canon'
the formation 'mu in four strokes'.

Scribe D observes this, but Scribes A and B do not - at least, not consistently. Other scripts around from earlier to later than the fourth century had the middle stroke of the mu turned into a single curve. However, it should be investigated whether Scribe A, when required to use the Biblical majuscule style, incorporated elements of a later 'decline' from canonical form: 'The fourth century is an important moment in the history of this script.. .[FJrom the end of this century a long decline sets in, which continues until the ninth-tenth centuries. The graphic rules of the start of the period gradually become less rigidly observed.'

Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography,
in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovamensis 88/4 (2012), pp.451-2.