3498Re: [textualcriticism] calling all text critics!: how to identify a lectionary ms.?
- Jan 2, 2008Several days have passed since I made this query
regarding a matter very fundamental to modern NT text
criticism. After all, aren't something like 50% of all
extant NT mss. classified as lectionaries? Surely
someone on this list can provide some response--at the
least something like "you really need to address
authorityX regarding this question." I see, for
example, that Peter Head, who subscribes to this list,
has a web page on lectionaries. Can you offer any sort
of information in response to my query, Peter? Anyone
--- James Miller <jamtata@...> wrote:
> I recently began a thread raising the question ofhttp://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html
> relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority Text. As
> frequently happens, I've discovered that, for that
> discussion to proceed, some preliminary questions
> to be resolved. Chief among those questions is the
> following: what, exactly, for text critics,
> a ms. as a lectionary ms.?
> Within this thread, I would like to ask in
> whether mss. are classed as lectionaries purely on
> basis of their form. In other words, some mss.
> containing the text of the NT do not have their text
> arranged in the order of the NT's found on most
> bookshelves--the order in which, incidentally, it
> seems likely the NT authors originally composed
> works. Rather, in the mss. in question, the text is
> ordered according to the way the text is to be read
> out at public worship services during the course of
> the liturgical year.
> There might be additional indications that a given
> is a lectionary ms., such as the presence of
> extraneous text; incipits and/or excipits for each
> lesson, liturgical directives or verses from other
> parts of the Bible that were sung as hymns in
> connection with the reading. But for now I want to
> disregard those indicators and focus exclusively on
> the form or ordering of the text contained in the
> It seems clear that the mss. with this non-original
> ordering were lectionaries, i.e., they were books
> produced to aid in reading the biblical text at
> worship services. My question regards the role the
> ordering of the text plays in text critics's
> classification of these mss. as lectionaries.
> Clearly this ordering plays a role in the
> classification of a ms. as a lectionary. I doubt any
> text critic, coming across such a ms., would be
> disinclined to consider it a lectionary and to group
> it among other mss. having the same form. But my
> question is whether the ordering of the text is the
> sole criterion upon which text critics classify a
> as a lectionary?
> To put the question conversely. There do seem to be
> mss. that have the text of the Gospels or Epistles
> the order found in most modern Bibles, but that, at
> the same time, were clearly read from at public
> worship services (e.g., as indicated by the presence
> of incipits and excipits written in the margins).
> Could such a ms., despite the order of its text, be
> classed by text critics as a lectionary ms.? Are
> any such mss. included by text critics who have
> assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with the
> italicized letter "l" (abbreviation for
> preceding the ms. number? Or do all those with the
> prepended have their text arranged according to the
> progression of an annual liturgical cycle?
> To provide some basis for any discussion that may
> arise from this thread, I provide the following link
> that contains information about the lectionaries:
> . In that article, it is stated that: "Copying a____________________________________________________________________________________
> lectionary from a continuous text is difficult. One
> forced to constantly skip around in the document.
> does not mean that lectionaries are never copied in
> this way; the existence of the Ferrar Lectionary
> (l547), which has a text associated with f13,
> demonstrates this point. But it is reasonable to
> assume that the large majority of lectionaries were
> copied from other lectionaries, and only
> compared with continuous-text manuscripts."
> The presumption in this quotation regarding form
> to be that lectionary mss. are identified by the
> or ordering of their text. The author contrasts the
> lectionaries in a sort of generic way with
> continuous-text witnesses. Has this author
> represented the views of text critics in implying
> lectionary mss. are identified by the ordering of
> text they contain, which contrasts with the ordering
> of continuous-text witnesses, or not?
> C'mon text critics. Get over your holiday hangovers
> and offer some input here! :)
> Be a better friend, newshound, andhttp://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>