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

Re: [textualcriticism] lectionary mss relation to majority text

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.