Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1450Re: [lxx] copies of Codex A's Exodus

Expand Messages
  • Robert Kraft
    Nov 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Quick response:

      > I'm wondering what is the relation of extant manuscripts of Exodus to
      > Codex A's text of Exodus--whether the former be parts of a larger Bible or
      > independently-circulating Exodus manuscripts. Specifically I would be
      > interested to know whether any Exodus manuscripts are thought to have been
      > copied from A.

      I don't think so, but if you examine Wevers' Goettingen edition of Exodus, with
      special attention to the MSS most closely aligned with A, you will be able to judge
      for yourself.

      > Obviously the question applies primarily to post-5th
      > century manuscripts. I've not read anything that draws such direct links
      > between manuscripts, asserting that one or some was/were copied from
      > another.

      Occasionally this is possible, often with very late MSS (14-16th centuries) where
      something was copied in a monastic scriptorium, etc.

      > If there is any such resource that I may have overlooked, please
      > point it out. If such direct connections between extant manuscripts can't
      > be made, then can't the status of the text critical endeavor in LXX
      > studies be said to be at the stage of trying to group manuscripts together
      > according to shared characteristics?

      This has pretty much been done, at least for the Goettingen critical editions. The
      "shared characteristics" tend to be textcritical in nature (shared errors, etc.)
      rather than codicological (format features, scribal habits, etc.), since the goal
      is to move behind the extant texts to their textual ancestors.

      > And that the aim of doing this would
      > be to determine the character of a conjectured common ancestor for each
      > group?


      > The supposition in earlier times was that these groups would
      > resolve eventually into the 3 varieties mentioned by Jerome, if I
      > understand correctly, but doesn't the manuscript evidence thus far
      > collated make this supposition look untenable?

      Current evidence often gives us glimpses into the situation prior to the 4th-5th
      century watershed, which problematizes the older "threefold" division approach. A
      reasonable textcritical goal is the earliest recoverable text, judged passage by
      passage rather than in terms of whole books or manuscripts.


      > Thanks, James
      > Yahoo! Groups Links

      Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
      227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic