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

Re: [textualcriticism] lectionary mss relation to majority text

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.