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

678Re: Canonical Criteria--very long post

Expand Messages
  • Larry J. Swain
    Aug 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew G. Hamilton"
      <matthew.hamilton@m...> wrote:
      >>
      > I agree in part with Larry on this point, but perhaps not for the
      same
      > reasons. The manuscript P.Bodmer XLV + XLVI + XXVII was not written
      as a
      > manuscript, but is a composite of three manuscripts joined together
      after
      > writing. This manuscript, and composite manuscripts in general, are
      > discussed in A. Petrucci's Writers and Readers in Medieval Italy:
      Studies
      > in the History of Written Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press,
      > 1995), see p.1-19, esp. p.7.
      >
      > Almost all composite and non-composite MSS containing canonical and
      > non-canonical texts in the same MSS or texts from widely different
      parts
      > of the canonical Bible, are late (late 3rd century AD or later),
      seem to
      > serve a purpose other than a collection of canonical texts (eg. a
      > collection of works related to Easter) and it also seems that most
      are not
      > Greek but Coptic or Greek-Coptic, the significance of this last
      point
      > doesn't seem to be yet understood.

      Matthew,

      Thanks for the input. I thought that the "composite" manuscript was
      later---that is, that the origin of the 3 parts was 3-4 century, but
      they were not put together into a single volume until the 7th?

      In any case, this is one example. I could also point to the Bible
      Moralisee which contains Peter Comestor's _Historia Scholastica_
      alongside the VUlgate text, same script, same decoration, nothing
      differentiates it from the Vulgate text itself except a column
      division--(there are four columns, the first seems to contain the
      Glossa Ordinaria, the middle two the Vulgate, the last Comestor--but
      there is no heading, no description, no change in format or script
      etc to tell the reader what he is reading in the text, to
      tell "Scripture" from "commentary.") So if we take James' suggestion
      seriously, and to a lesser extent Bob's, we must conclude that 13th
      century Paris considered Comestor part of the canon of "holy writing"

      Larry Swain
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic