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

lectionary mss relation to majority text

Expand Messages
  • James Miller
    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
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 12, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    • Greg Sahlstrom
      I was wondering if anyone had any information regarding a papyrus manuscript called P. Antinopolis. Greg Sahlstrom
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 13, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I was wondering if anyone had any information regarding a papyrus
        manuscript called P. Antinopolis.

        Greg Sahlstrom
      • George F Somsel
        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?
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 13, 2007
        View Source
        • 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.
        • George F Somsel
          I find nothing listed under that name in Metzger s _Textual Commentary_, Tischendorf s _Novum Testamentum Graece: Apparatus Criticus_, or in the online
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 13, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I find nothing listed under that name in Metzger's _Textual Commentary_, Tischendorf's _Novum Testamentum Graece: Apparatus Criticus_, or in the online Oxyrhynchus Papyri (http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/).
             
            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: Greg Sahlstrom <gs@...>
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:40:59 AM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] P. Antinopolis

            I was wondering if anyone had any information regarding a papyrus
            manuscript called P. Antinopolis.

            Greg Sahlstrom

            .




            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
          • Steve Puluka
            ... Well, this is an oft stated premise. But when looking at what remains to be done in NT text criticism one of the major areas cited by Metzer is fuller
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 13, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:52 PM, James Miller wrote:

              > 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

              Well, this is an oft stated premise. But when looking at what
              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 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?

              Basically correct, that the format is what makes a lectionary. These
              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.

              Steve Puluka
              MLS Theology Duquesne University
              Cantor Holy Ghost Church
              Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
              Mckees Rocks, PA
              http://puluka.com
            • Dirk Jongkind
              Greg, Have a look in The Antinoopolis Papyri Parts 1-3 , Graeco-Roman Memoirs . London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1950 [i.e. 1951]-67. You will find your
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 14, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Greg,

                Have a look  in The Antinoopolis Papyri Parts 1-3, Graeco-Roman Memoirs. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1950 [i.e. 1951]-67. You will find your manuscript somewhere in there.

                Dirk

                George F Somsel wrote:
                I find nothing listed under that name in Metzger's _Textual Commentary_, Tischendorf' s _Novum Testamentum Graece: Apparatus Criticus_, or in the online Oxyrhynchus Papyri (http://www.papyrolo gy.ox.ac. uk/POxy/).
                 
                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: Greg Sahlstrom <gs@stormlash. net>
                To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:40:59 AM
                Subject: [textualcriticism] P. Antinopolis

                I was wondering if anyone had any information regarding a papyrus
                manuscript called P. Antinopolis.

                Greg Sahlstrom

                .




                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                -- 
                Dirk Jongkind, PhD
                Fellow and Tutor, St. Edmund's College
                John W. Laing Fellow, Tyndale House
                Tyndale House
                36 Selwyn Gardens
                Cambridge, CB3 9BA		Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
                United Kingdom			Fax:  (UK) 01223 566608
                
                
              • James Miller
                ... But then you seem to controvert this statement by ... Let s get down to some particulars. Maybe then the statements will not seem in opposition to one
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 26, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for your reply, Steve. You say:

                  --- Steve Puluka <steve@...> wrote:
                  > Basically correct, that the format is what makes a
                  > lectionary.

                  But then you seem to controvert this statement by
                  saying:

                  > Lectionaries are frequently continuous text
                  > witnesses, just with a
                  > sub-set of books.

                  Let's get down to some particulars. Maybe then the
                  statements will not seem in opposition to one another.
                  Can you point to some particular continuous-text
                  witness that is classified by text critics as a
                  lectionary? For example, take all mss. that have been
                  assigned a text-critical siglum: are there any among
                  those classed as lectionaries, i.e., among those with
                  a lower-case, italic "l" prepended to the manuscript
                  number, that are continuous-text witnesses? Or do all
                  those classed by text critics as lectionaries, i.e.,
                  with the lower-case, italic "l" prepended, have the
                  lectionary format I described in my previous post (the
                  text not following the flow of the author's original
                  composition but rather arranged according to the logic
                  of a later church's liturgical cycle)?

                  Just to be clear about my own stance on this question,
                  I certainly see some sense in calling continuous-text
                  witnesses that show clear indications of liturgical
                  use "lectionaries." But the present inquiry does not
                  aim to investigate or establish my understanding of
                  lectionaries in relation to other groups of NT mss.
                  Rather, I am attempting to understand how mainstream
                  text criticism understands lectionaries in relation to
                  other groups of NT mss.

                  Thanks,
                  James


                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                  http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                • Steve Puluka
                  ... I ll try to be more clear. The books that are designed to be read and used as lectionaries in Church can be seen by their format as prepared. They will
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 26, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Dec 26, 2007, at 7:25 AM, James Miller wrote:

                    > Thanks for your reply, Steve. You say:
                    >
                    > --- Steve Puluka <steve@...> wrote:
                    >> Basically correct, that the format is what makes a
                    >> lectionary.
                    >
                    > But then you seem to controvert this statement by
                    > saying:
                    >
                    >> Lectionaries are frequently continuous text
                    >> witnesses, just with a
                    >> sub-set of books.
                    >
                    > Let's get down to some particulars. Maybe then the
                    > statements will not seem in opposition to one another.

                    I'll try to be more clear. The books that are designed to be read
                    and used as lectionaries in Church can be seen by their format as
                    prepared. They will sometimes have supplemental material that the
                    reader would need, like the Psalms used for Antiphons, Prokeimenon
                    and Alleluia. They will be marked for readings.

                    In terms of the Biblical text itself continuous reading lectionaries
                    are the older format. I don't have direct experience with the
                    ancient examples to cite chapter and verse. But here is a printed
                    version of a continuous reading lectionary in Church Slavonic showing
                    how this continuous format works.

                    http://liturgy.ru/grafics/apostol/page.php?p=21

                    This page opens Acts of the Apostles. At the bottom of the page we
                    see the notation that this is the reading for both Easter Sunday and
                    Ascension Thursday both start at verse one and continues to the next
                    page marker in read for the end of this reading at verse nine for
                    Easter, by the two large words in the middle of the page (end of
                    Pascha (Easter)). The next red words show where the reading ends on
                    Ascension (End Ascension) which also starts from verse 1.

                    Then we skip till the middle of verse 12 where the red asterisk is
                    and start of Easter Monday's reading. So we keep going to the next
                    page verse 17 where we are told to skip verses picking up at the next
                    start marker in verse 21 and continuing to the end marker at the
                    bottom of this page.

                    Thus the Bright Monday reading (Monday after Easter) runs Acts
                    1:12-17 & 21-26 but the whole text of Acts is here.

                    From the combination of contents, organization and these markings
                    one can identify that a codex was designed to be used as a lectionary.

                    I learned in my liturgy classes that early Greek lectionaries
                    followed this same basic format of marked continuous readings. This
                    is where we Slavs learned how to assemble a lectionary. Slavs being
                    very conservative kept up this format until very recent publications
                    (i.e. the last 100 years, recent in Orthodox liturgical terms).

                    The Greeks began using the excerpted format arranged in liturgical
                    use order much earlier. But I don't know the timing of this
                    unfortunately. In this layout the section is simply headed by the
                    liturgical day of the reading and ends with the next heading.
                    Omitted verses are then not included and the books are assembled in
                    liturgical order, not in book order.

                    In the above example you see we have Acts of the Apostles from 1:1
                    on. But the reading for both Pascha and Ascension Thursday forty
                    days later are both here on the same page and simply marked not
                    separated.

                    If you look at the table of contents you can see it contains a subset
                    of biblical books needed and supplemental material that the reader
                    needs to have handy.

                    http://liturgy.ru/docs/docs_all/graphics.php?a[2]
                    =1&b=200000000000000000000#2

                    Here the books are listed but are not in "biblical" order. We start
                    with Acts of the Apostles, then all the universal epistles followed
                    by the letters attributed to Paul. Also note there are no Old
                    Testament books. This is strictly the "Apostle", the new testament
                    letters and Acts only.

                    Other material is also included, for example following the letters of
                    Paul are sections that contain the Psalms used as reading
                    introductions called Prokiemenon for the various seasons. These the
                    reader is responsible for chanting the verses.

                    http://liturgy.ru/grafics/apostol/page.php?p=511

                    Hopefully, that is a little clearer. Sorry I couldn't find on-line
                    examples in Greek.

                    > Just to be clear about my own stance on this question,
                    > I certainly see some sense in calling continuous-text
                    > witnesses that show clear indications of liturgical
                    > use "lectionaries." But the present inquiry does not
                    > aim to investigate or establish my understanding of
                    > lectionaries in relation to other groups of NT mss.
                    > Rather, I am attempting to understand how mainstream
                    > text criticism understands lectionaries in relation to
                    > other groups of NT mss.


                    My understanding is the they currently simply ignore lectionary
                    witnesses when trying to classify text types. There is a basic
                    assumption that lectionary witnesses are automatically late and the
                    copyist is not as faithful as the "normal" biblical text witnesses.
                    Metzger listed lectionary text type study and classification as one
                    of the great needs for the field.

                    Steve Puluka
                    MA, Theology Duquesne University
                    Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                    Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                    Mckees Rocks, PA
                    http://puluka.com
                  • James Miller
                    Thank you for your further remarks, Steve. I am actually pretty familiar with current Orthodox lectionary forms, both in their Slavic and Greek incarnations.
                    Message 9 of 9 , Dec 27, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thank you for your further remarks, Steve. I am
                      actually pretty familiar with current Orthodox
                      lectionary forms, both in their Slavic and Greek
                      incarnations. So much of what you've said is not
                      really new to me--though it may be to others on-list.
                      Moreover, what you've said--interesting though it may
                      be to some--doesn't get to the heart of a query I
                      raised in my previous post. Please recall that I asked
                      in that post what, in the view of text critics,
                      constitutes a lectionary.

                      I will create a new thread seeking clarity on that
                      question. Perhaps we can get back later in this thread
                      to the question posed in its subject line: the
                      relation of the Maj. T. to the lectionary mss.

                      Finally, you say:

                      > My understanding is the they currently simply ignore
                      > lectionary
                      > witnesses when trying to classify text types. There
                      > is a basic
                      > assumption that lectionary witnesses are
                      > automatically late and the
                      > copyist is not as faithful as the "normal" biblical
                      > text witnesses.
                      > Metzger listed lectionary text type study and
                      > classification as one
                      > of the great needs for the field.

                      I believe the lectionary mss. are lumped together and
                      largely disregarded on the assumption that they all
                      contain the same, late, text type. So, I believe you
                      are correct in your initial assertion above. I doubt
                      what you've said about copyists would hold true,
                      though. Rather, copyists of the lectionaries may
                      either have been good or bad copyists, the more
                      salient factor being that, in the view of text
                      critics, they were transmitting a base text that was
                      corrupt. How faithfully they transmitted that corrupt
                      text has been, I believe, not of much concern to text
                      critics. You are right, however, in pointing out that
                      more recent NT scholarship has realized a need to
                      study with greater care the text of the lectionary
                      mss.

                      Now, on to a new thread that addresses more
                      specifically the question of what, exactly, for text
                      critics, constitutes a lectionary? Look for the new
                      thread soon.

                      James


                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                      Be a better friend, newshound, and
                      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.