Re: Canonical Criteria--very long post
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Matthew G. Hamilton"
> I agree in part with Larry on this point, but perhaps not for the
> reasons. The manuscript P.Bodmer XLV + XLVI + XXVII was not writtenas a
> manuscript, but is a composite of three manuscripts joined togetherafter
> writing. This manuscript, and composite manuscripts in general, areStudies
> discussed in A. Petrucci's Writers and Readers in Medieval Italy:
> in the History of Written Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press,parts
> 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
> 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. aare not
> collection of works related to Easter) and it also seems that most
> Greek but Coptic or Greek-Coptic, the significance of this lastpoint
> 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"