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

3470Re: [textualcriticism] lectionary mss relation to majority text

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    Dec 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, lectionaries are characterized by their form rather than their content, but where do you suppose the lectionaries arose if not from the pulpit bible?  Since in an age when MSS were copied by hand there would be differences from one parish to another in the pulpit bible, there would also be differences in the lectionaries.
       
      george
      gfsomsel
       
      Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.
       
      - Jan Hus
      _________


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: James Miller <jamtata@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:52:47 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] lectionary mss relation to majority text

      Some questions about the relation of the majority text
      (Maj. T. hereafter) to lectionary mss. My reading in
      Metzger and Aland leads me to believe that the
      lectionaries are considered to contain a text very
      close in character to the Maj. T. Have I understood
      correctly what these authors have written and what is
      the consensus among NT text critics regarding the Maj.
      T. text-type and its relation to the lectionaries? If
      so, I have a few questions in this connection.

      First, an assertion: lectionaries are defined by their
      form as opposed to their text type. They are
      contrasted to continuous-text witnesses because their
      content shows a different ordering with respect to the
      form of continuous-text witnesses. I.e, the
      lectionaries have their text arranged according to the
      annual reading cycle of Byzantine Christianity, while
      continuous-text witnesses have the text in the order
      in which it is found in most modernly-published NT's
      and in which each NT author originally composed his
      work. Do I have this correct?

      Additional reading in Metzger and Aland reveals that
      not all mss. that were used as lectionaries
      necessarily conform to the textual ordering of the
      lectionaries as defined above. Metzger and Aland
      mention, for example, continuous-reading witnesses
      that have the beginning and ending of lections noted
      in their margins (by, e.g., insertion of incipit and
      excipit or words like arxh). One question I have in
      this regard is as follows: what percentage of the
      non-lectionary mss. contain such lection indicators?

      I will save further questions for subsequent entries
      in this thread, in case it provokes some discussion.

      Thanks,
      James

      .




      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic