3472Re: [textualcriticism] lectionary mss relation to majority text
- Dec 13, 2007On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:52 PM, James Miller wrote:
> Some questions about the relation of the majority textWell, this is an oft stated premise. But when looking at what
> (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
remains to be done in NT text criticism one of the major areas cited
by Metzer is fuller research into how the lectionaries relate to
other texts. See the final paper in:
Metzger, Bruce Manning, Eldon Jay Epp, and Gordon D. Fee. New
Testament textual criticism : its significance for exegesis : essays
in honour of Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
> First, an assertion: lectionaries are defined by theirBasically correct, that the format is what makes a lectionary. These
> 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?
were designed to be used liturgically and read from. This can
usually be determined by the layout and markings of the book that
this was the intention.
Lectionaries are frequently continuous text witnesses, just with a
sub-set of books. The Slavs still keep this as the basic format.
But the Greeks moved from a continuous text format to the pericope
based format over time. In the continuous format the start and end
of the readings are marked in the text. There are also occasional
drops marked where during a reading you skip a section of text. The
margin will also have codings indicating when the reading is taken
(feast name or number of weeks after Pentecost and day of the week).
The introductory phrase is less necessary as they are a standard
formula depending on the book being introduced. But some
lectionaries will use the abbreviation of the standard introduction
as the start marker for a reading (Brethren for most letters, Timothy
my Son letters to Timothy, Thus says the Lord for Prophets).
In terms of collections there are basically three. Gospels, New
Testament letters (called the Apostol) and Old Testament collections
(called prophetologion). The Gospels are usually larger and more
ornate as these are keep on the Altar and used in processions. These
are chanted by the deacon from the front of the church. The letters
are taken by the reader from the middle of the church during the
Eucharistic liturgy. The Old Testament is taken chiefly at vespers
also by reader from the midst of the church.
MLS Theology Duquesne University
Cantor Holy Ghost Church
Mckees Rocks, PA
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>