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

Re: [textualcriticism] P. Antinopolis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Dec 13, 2007
    • 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 2 of 9 , Dec 13, 2007
      • 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 3 of 9 , Dec 14, 2007
        • 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 4 of 9 , Dec 26, 2007
          • 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 5 of 9 , Dec 26, 2007
            • 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 6 of 9 , Dec 27, 2007
              • 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.