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

calling all text critics!: how to identify a lectionary ms.?

Expand Messages
  • James Miller
    I recently began a thread raising the question of the relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority Text. As frequently happens, I ve discovered that, for that
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 27, 2007
      I recently began a thread raising the question of the
      relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority Text. As
      frequently happens, I've discovered that, for that
      discussion to proceed, some preliminary questions have
      to be resolved. Chief among those questions is the
      following: what, exactly, for text critics, identifies
      a ms. as a lectionary ms.?

      Within this thread, I would like to ask in particular
      whether mss. are classed as lectionaries purely on the
      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 modern
      bookshelves--the order in which, incidentally, it
      seems likely the NT authors originally composed these
      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 ms.
      is a lectionary ms., such as the presence of seemingly
      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 mss.

      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 public
      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 ms.
      as a lectionary?

      To put the question conversely. There do seem to be
      mss. that have the text of the Gospels or Epistles in
      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 there
      any such mss. included by text critics who have
      assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with the
      italicized letter "l" (abbreviation for "lectionary")
      preceding the ms. number? Or do all those with the "l"
      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:
      http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html
      . In that article, it is stated that: "Copying a
      lectionary from a continuous text is difficult. One is
      forced to constantly skip around in the document. This
      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 occasionally
      compared with continuous-text manuscripts."

      The presumption in this quotation regarding form seems
      to be that lectionary mss. are identified by the form
      or ordering of their text. The author contrasts the
      lectionaries in a sort of generic way with
      continuous-text witnesses. Has this author accurately
      represented the views of text critics in implying that
      lectionary mss. are identified by the ordering of the
      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! :)

      Thanks,
      James


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    • Daniel Buck
      ... I came across this interesting statement in a laymen s guide to TC (Which I can t recommend to laymen) by Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, Third
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 31, 2007
        James Miller <jamtata@...> wrote:
        >what, exactly, for text critics, identifies a ms. as a lectionary ms.?<


        I came across this interesting statement in a laymen's guide to TC
        (Which I can't recommend to laymen) by Neil R. Lightfoot, "How We Got
        the Bible," Third Ed, p. 63:

        Studies have shown* that lectionaries, being intended especially for
        public worship, were copied a little more carefully than ordinary
        manuscripts. But much more work needs to be done on the lectionary
        texts. More than 2,200 lectionaries have been enumerated.

        *He cites Colwell and Riddle, Jon Reumann and Carroll D. Osburn.

        Daniel
      • James Miller
        Several 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
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 2, 2008
          Several 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
          else?

          Thank you,
          James

          --- James Miller <jamtata@...> wrote:

          > I recently began a thread raising the question of
          > the
          > relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority Text. As
          > frequently happens, I've discovered that, for that
          > discussion to proceed, some preliminary questions
          > have
          > to be resolved. Chief among those questions is the
          > following: what, exactly, for text critics,
          > identifies
          > a ms. as a lectionary ms.?
          >
          > Within this thread, I would like to ask in
          > particular
          > whether mss. are classed as lectionaries purely on
          > the
          > 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
          > modern
          > bookshelves--the order in which, incidentally, it
          > seems likely the NT authors originally composed
          > these
          > 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
          > ms.
          > is a lectionary ms., such as the presence of
          > seemingly
          > 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
          > mss.
          >
          > 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
          > public
          > 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
          > ms.
          > as a lectionary?
          >
          > To put the question conversely. There do seem to be
          > mss. that have the text of the Gospels or Epistles
          > in
          > 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
          > there
          > any such mss. included by text critics who have
          > assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with the
          > italicized letter "l" (abbreviation for
          > "lectionary")
          > preceding the ms. number? Or do all those with the
          > "l"
          > 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:
          >
          http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html
          > . In that article, it is stated that: "Copying a
          > lectionary from a continuous text is difficult. One
          > is
          > forced to constantly skip around in the document.
          > This
          > 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
          > occasionally
          > compared with continuous-text manuscripts."
          >
          > The presumption in this quotation regarding form
          > seems
          > to be that lectionary mss. are identified by the
          > form
          > or ordering of their text. The author contrasts the
          > lectionaries in a sort of generic way with
          > continuous-text witnesses. Has this author
          > accurately
          > represented the views of text critics in implying
          > that
          > lectionary mss. are identified by the ordering of
          > the
          > 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! :)
          >
          > Thanks,
          > James
          >
          >
          >
          >
          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          > Be a better friend, newshound, and
          > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
          >
          http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
          >
          >
          >



          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Looking for last minute shopping deals?
          Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
        • Peter M. Head
          I think the basic answer is yes . If you want something to read I would suggest the essay on lectionaries in Ehrman & Holmes, The Text of the NT in
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
            I think the basic answer is 'yes'. If you want something to read I
            would suggest the essay on lectionaries in Ehrman & Holmes, The Text
            of the NT in Contemporary Research.

            Cheers

            Peter

            At 15:36 02/01/2008, you wrote:
            >Several 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
            >else?
            >
            >Thank you,
            >James
            >
            >--- James Miller <jamtata@...> wrote:
            >
            > > I recently began a thread raising the question of
            > > the
            > > relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority Text. As
            > > frequently happens, I've discovered that, for that
            > > discussion to proceed, some preliminary questions
            > > have
            > > to be resolved. Chief among those questions is the
            > > following: what, exactly, for text critics,
            > > identifies
            > > a ms. as a lectionary ms.?
            > >
            > > Within this thread, I would like to ask in
            > > particular
            > > whether mss. are classed as lectionaries purely on
            > > the
            > > 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
            > > modern
            > > bookshelves--the order in which, incidentally, it
            > > seems likely the NT authors originally composed
            > > these
            > > 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
            > > ms.
            > > is a lectionary ms., such as the presence of
            > > seemingly
            > > 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
            > > mss.
            > >
            > > 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
            > > public
            > > 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
            > > ms.
            > > as a lectionary?
            > >
            > > To put the question conversely. There do seem to be
            > > mss. that have the text of the Gospels or Epistles
            > > in
            > > 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
            > > there
            > > any such mss. included by text critics who have
            > > assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with the
            > > italicized letter "l" (abbreviation for
            > > "lectionary")
            > > preceding the ms. number? Or do all those with the
            > > "l"
            > > 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:
            > >
            >http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html
            > > . In that article, it is stated that: "Copying a
            > > lectionary from a continuous text is difficult. One
            > > is
            > > forced to constantly skip around in the document.
            > > This
            > > 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
            > > occasionally
            > > compared with continuous-text manuscripts."
            > >
            > > The presumption in this quotation regarding form
            > > seems
            > > to be that lectionary mss. are identified by the
            > > form
            > > or ordering of their text. The author contrasts the
            > > lectionaries in a sort of generic way with
            > > continuous-text witnesses. Has this author
            > > accurately
            > > represented the views of text critics in implying
            > > that
            > > lectionary mss. are identified by the ordering of
            > > the
            > > 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! :)
            > >
            > > Thanks,
            > > James
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >____________________________________________________________________________________
            > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
            > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
            > >
            >http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >____________________________________________________________________________________
            >Looking for last minute shopping deals?
            >Find them fast with Yahoo!
            >Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >

            Peter M. Head, PhD
            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens
            Cambridge CB3 9BA
            01223 566601
          • William Warren
            James, here are a few thoughts on the matter. As for classifying a ms as a lectionary, those so classified have the text re-arranged for public reading,
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
              James, here are a few thoughts on the matter.  As for classifying a ms as a lectionary, those so classified have the text re-arranged for public reading, normally following the lectionary cycles (i.e. synaxarion, menelogion, or another such scheme) rather than simply presenting the running text of NT books.  Continuous text Greek mss of the NT are classified as papyri, uncials, and minuscules (theoretically at least, for there have been a few mistakes in which a lectionary ms was wrongly classified as one of these three types, but not too many actually).  As far as I know, that is the primary criterion for classifying a ms as a lectionary.  


              As for lectionary equipment in the continuous text mss, that is quite common and obviously indicates that the mss were being used or were at least prepared to be used in a worship context.  Many of our continuous text mss have markings (ARCH, TELOS) for the beginnings and endings of readings, and some such as Bezae have sense lines that seem to reflect attention to the use of the ms for an oral reading of the text.  


              For more info on the lectionaries, see some of Bruce Metzger's earlier writings when he was working on the Chicago Project that dealt with lectionaries as well as others who wrote based on that project such as Colwell.  Also, Carroll Osburne has done extensive work on lectionaries and written about his studies.  Bill Elliott (associated with the work at the Univ. of Birmingham) has also worked on lectionaries.  Earl Kellett, a former student of mine, recently (graduated in 2007) wrote a solid dissertation that hopefully will be published on the relationship between lectionaries and continuous text mss, focusing especially on the influence from lectionaries toward the continuous text mss.  


              Most of our Greek lectionaries are from the 7th c. and forward and generally have a Byzantine form of text, although some earlier ones show other textual streams in their background.  But the earlier ones (4th c. forward) are few and not extensive.  As for the origin of the lectionary cycles, that is still somewhat of an open question.  While some try to date them as early as the second century, most of those that I've read see the beginnings in the 4th c., with the synaxarion cycle perhaps a bit later than that (6th c?) and the menelogion cycle even later.  


              paz, 


              Bill Warren

              Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies

              Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek

              New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



              On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:36 AM, James Miller wrote:

              Several 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
              else?

              Thank you,
              James

              --- James Miller <jamtata@yahoo. com> wrote:

              > I recently began a thread raising the question of
              > the
              > relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority Text. As
              > frequently happens, I've discovered that, for that
              > discussion to proceed, some preliminary questions
              > have
              > to be resolved. Chief among those questions is the
              > following: what, exactly, for text critics,
              > identifies
              > a ms. as a lectionary ms.?
              > 
              > Within this thread, I would like to ask in
              > particular
              > whether mss. are classed as lectionaries purely on
              > the
              > 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
              > modern
              > bookshelves- -the order in which, incidentally, it
              > seems likely the NT authors originally composed
              > these
              > 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
              > ms.
              > is a lectionary ms., such as the presence of
              > seemingly
              > 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
              > mss.
              > 
              > 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
              > public
              > 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
              > ms.
              > as a lectionary? 
              > 
              > To put the question conversely. There do seem to be
              > mss. that have the text of the Gospels or Epistles
              > in
              > 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
              > there
              > any such mss. included by text critics who have
              > assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with the
              > italicized letter "l" (abbreviation for
              > "lectionary" )
              > preceding the ms. number? Or do all those with the
              > "l"
              > 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:
              >
              http://www.skypoint .com/members/ waltzmn/Lectiona ry.html
              > . In that article, it is stated that: "Copying a
              > lectionary from a continuous text is difficult. One
              > is
              > forced to constantly skip around in the document.
              > This
              > 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
              > occasionally
              > compared with continuous-text manuscripts. "
              > 
              > The presumption in this quotation regarding form
              > seems
              > to be that lectionary mss. are identified by the
              > form
              > or ordering of their text. The author contrasts the
              > lectionaries in a sort of generic way with
              > continuous-text witnesses. Has this author
              > accurately
              > represented the views of text critics in implying
              > that
              > lectionary mss. are identified by the ordering of
              > the
              > 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! :)
              > 
              > Thanks,
              > James
              > 
              > 
              > 
              >
              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
              > Be a better friend, newshound, and 
              > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 
              >
              http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
              > 
              > 
              > 

              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
              Looking for last minute shopping deals? 
              Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools. search.yahoo. com/newsearch/ category. php?category= shopping


              =
            • James Miller
              Thank you for your response, Peter. By basically yes I m assuming you mean that, basically yes, mss. are classified by text critics as lectionaries solely on
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
                Thank you for your response, Peter. By "basically yes"
                I'm assuming you mean that, basically yes, mss. are
                classified by text critics as lectionaries solely on
                the basis of the form of the their text (which is
                arranged according to the way the text was to be read
                at public worship during the course of the liturgical
                year as opposed to the order in which the text was
                originally composed). This would make the answer to
                the converse question basically no. That is to say,
                continuous-text mss., regardless of whether they
                contain indications that the ms. was used as a
                lectionary (e.g., they may contain extraneous text
                like incipits/excipits, hymns, or liturgical
                directives), are not classed as lectionaries by text
                critics. Members of the first group would have the
                letter "l" (for "lectionary") prepended to their
                classification numbers while the latter group would
                not have the "l" prepended. Have I understood
                correctly?

                I'll be having a look at the article you mention.
                Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

                Sincerely,
                James

                --- "Peter M. Head" <pmh15@...> wrote:

                > I think the basic answer is 'yes'. If you want
                > something to read I
                > would suggest the essay on lectionaries in Ehrman &
                > Holmes, The Text
                > of the NT in Contemporary Research.
                >
                > Cheers
                >
                > Peter
                >
                > At 15:36 02/01/2008, you wrote:
                > >Several 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
                > >else?
                > >
                > >Thank you,
                > >James
                > >
                > >--- James Miller <jamtata@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > > I recently began a thread raising the question
                > of
                > > > the
                > > > relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority
                > Text. As
                > > > frequently happens, I've discovered that, for
                > that
                > > > discussion to proceed, some preliminary
                > questions
                > > > have
                > > > to be resolved. Chief among those questions is
                > the
                > > > following: what, exactly, for text critics,
                > > > identifies
                > > > a ms. as a lectionary ms.?
                > > >
                > > > Within this thread, I would like to ask in
                > > > particular
                > > > whether mss. are classed as lectionaries purely
                > on
                > > > the
                > > > 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
                > > > modern
                > > > bookshelves--the order in which, incidentally,
                > it
                > > > seems likely the NT authors originally composed
                > > > these
                > > > 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
                > > > ms.
                > > > is a lectionary ms., such as the presence of
                > > > seemingly
                > > > 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
                > > > mss.
                > > >
                > > > 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
                > > > public
                > > > 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
                > > > ms.
                > > > as a lectionary?
                > > >
                > > > To put the question conversely. There do seem to
                > be
                > > > mss. that have the text of the Gospels or
                > Epistles
                > > > in
                > > > 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
                > > > there
                > > > any such mss. included by text critics who have
                > > > assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with
                > the
                > > > italicized letter "l" (abbreviation for
                > > > "lectionary")
                > > > preceding the ms. number? Or do all those with
                > the
                > > > "l"
                > > > 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:
                > > >
                >
                >http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html
                > > > . In that article, it is stated that: "Copying a
                > > > lectionary from a continuous text is difficult.
                > One
                > > > is
                > > > forced to constantly skip around in the
                > document.
                > > > This
                > > > 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
                > > > occasionally
                > > > compared with continuous-text manuscripts."
                > > >
                > > > The presumption in this quotation regarding form
                > > > seems
                > > > to be that lectionary mss. are identified by the
                > > > form
                > > > or ordering of their text. The author contrasts
                > the
                > > > lectionaries in a sort of generic way with
                > > > continuous-text witnesses. Has this author
                > > > accurately
                > > > represented the views of text critics in
                > implying
                > > > that
                > > > lectionary mss. are identified by the ordering
                > of
                > > > the
                > > > 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! :)
                > > >
                > > > Thanks,
                > > > James
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                >
                >____________________________________________________________________________________
                > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
                > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                > > >
                >
                >http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >____________________________________________________________________________________
                > >Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                > >Find them fast with Yahoo!
                > >Search.
                >
                http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                > Peter M. Head, PhD
                > Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                > Tyndale House
                > 36 Selwyn Gardens
                > Cambridge CB3 9BA
                > 01223 566601
                >
                >



                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Be a better friend, newshound, and
                know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
              • James Snapp, Jr.
                Dear James Miller: We have run out of eggnog, so I ll take a minute or two and reply to your questions about lectionaries. JM: What, exactly, for text
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
                  Dear James Miller:

                  We have run out of eggnog, so I'll take a minute or two and reply to
                  your questions about lectionaries.

                  JM: "What, exactly, for text critics, identifies a ms. as a
                  lectionary ms.?"

                  Its arrangement of the text into lections -- readings assigned to be
                  read on a particular day, or special occasion, in the church-calendar.

                  JM: "I would like to ask in particular whether mss. are classed as
                  lectionaries purely on the basis of their form."

                  Then I will act as if you asked! Yes; they are, if by "form" you
                  mean the arrangement of the lections. And you did.

                  JM: "My question regards the role the ordering of the text plays in
                  text critics's classification of these mss. as lectionaries."

                  A very important, definitive role.

                  JM: "But my question is whether the ordering of the text is the sole
                  criterion upon which text critics classify a ms. as a lectionary?"

                  No. Suppose we encounter a fragment which contains only a few
                  verses, all from a single pericope. We might initially assume that
                  it is from a continuous-text MS. But there might be some feature in
                  the text, or some graphic on the page, that cries, "I am from a
                  lectionary!".

                  JM: "To put the question conversely. There do seem to be mss. that
                  have the text of the Gospels or Epistles in 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.?"

                  No, ordinarily. But suppose someone made an unusual lectionary -- a
                  lectionary for just one or two particular days of the week. And
                  suppose that such a lectionary was then mutilated, so that only part
                  of it survived. Portions of such a lectionary (say, a chunk of Luke
                  or Acts) might not look very different from a continuous-text MS of
                  the same portion of text.

                  JM: "Are there any such mss. included by text critics who have
                  assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with the italicized
                  letter "l" (abbreviation for "lectionary") preceding the ms. number?

                  None come to mind.

                  JM: "Do all those with the "l" prepended have their text arranged
                  according to the progression of an annual liturgical cycle?"

                  Yes -- though not necessarily the same liturgical cycle, and not
                  necessarily a complete liturgical cycle.

                  JM: . . . "Has this author accurately represented the views of text
                  critics in implying that lectionary mss. are identified by the
                  ordering of the text they contain, which contrasts with the ordering
                  of continuous-text witnesses, or not?"

                  Yes; he has. But theoretically, a few pages from a Weekend-
                  Lectionary, free of ornamentation and rubrics, might look like a few
                  pages from a continuous-text MS.

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                  Curtisville Christian Church
                  Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                  www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
                • James Snapp, Jr.
                  JM, I just remembered an exception: a Latin witness, Liber Comicus, is a lectionary; nevertheless it was assigned the letter t (the same way that Codex
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
                    JM,

                    I just remembered an exception: a Latin witness, "Liber Comicus," is a
                    lectionary; nevertheless it was assigned the letter "t" (the same way
                    that Codex Vercellensis = "a" and Bobbiensis = "k"). Briefly looking
                    over the "Codices Graeci et Latini" list in NA-27, it looks like Old
                    Latin "r" and maybe some others fit this description also.

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Curtisville Christian Church
                    Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
                  • Peter M. Head
                    ... Basically yes. ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament Tyndale House 36 Selwyn Gardens Cambridge CB3 9BA 01223 566601
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 4, 2008
                      At 21:50 03/01/2008, you wrote:
                      >Thank you for your response, Peter. By "basically yes"
                      >I'm assuming you mean that, basically yes, mss. are
                      >classified by text critics as lectionaries solely on
                      >the basis of the form of the their text (which is
                      >arranged according to the way the text was to be read
                      >at public worship during the course of the liturgical
                      >year as opposed to the order in which the text was
                      >originally composed). This would make the answer to
                      >the converse question basically no. That is to say,
                      >continuous-text mss., regardless of whether they
                      >contain indications that the ms. was used as a
                      >lectionary (e.g., they may contain extraneous text
                      >like incipits/excipits, hymns, or liturgical
                      >directives), are not classed as lectionaries by text
                      >critics. Members of the first group would have the
                      >letter "l" (for "lectionary") prepended to their
                      >classification numbers while the latter group would
                      >not have the "l" prepended. Have I understood
                      >correctly?

                      Basically yes.


                      >I'll be having a look at the article you mention.
                      >Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
                      >
                      >Sincerely,
                      >James
                      >
                      >--- "Peter M. Head" <pmh15@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > I think the basic answer is 'yes'. If you want
                      > > something to read I
                      > > would suggest the essay on lectionaries in Ehrman &
                      > > Holmes, The Text
                      > > of the NT in Contemporary Research.
                      > >
                      > > Cheers
                      > >
                      > > Peter
                      > >
                      > > At 15:36 02/01/2008, you wrote:
                      > > >Several 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
                      > > >else?
                      > > >
                      > > >Thank you,
                      > > >James
                      > > >
                      > > >--- James Miller <jamtata@...> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > I recently began a thread raising the question
                      > > of
                      > > > > the
                      > > > > relation of lectionary mss. to the Majority
                      > > Text. As
                      > > > > frequently happens, I've discovered that, for
                      > > that
                      > > > > discussion to proceed, some preliminary
                      > > questions
                      > > > > have
                      > > > > to be resolved. Chief among those questions is
                      > > the
                      > > > > following: what, exactly, for text critics,
                      > > > > identifies
                      > > > > a ms. as a lectionary ms.?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Within this thread, I would like to ask in
                      > > > > particular
                      > > > > whether mss. are classed as lectionaries purely
                      > > on
                      > > > > the
                      > > > > 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
                      > > > > modern
                      > > > > bookshelves--the order in which, incidentally,
                      > > it
                      > > > > seems likely the NT authors originally composed
                      > > > > these
                      > > > > 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
                      > > > > ms.
                      > > > > is a lectionary ms., such as the presence of
                      > > > > seemingly
                      > > > > 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
                      > > > > mss.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > 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
                      > > > > public
                      > > > > 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
                      > > > > ms.
                      > > > > as a lectionary?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > To put the question conversely. There do seem to
                      > > be
                      > > > > mss. that have the text of the Gospels or
                      > > Epistles
                      > > > > in
                      > > > > 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
                      > > > > there
                      > > > > any such mss. included by text critics who have
                      > > > > assigned sigla to NT mss., among the group with
                      > > the
                      > > > > italicized letter "l" (abbreviation for
                      > > > > "lectionary")
                      > > > > preceding the ms. number? Or do all those with
                      > > the
                      > > > > "l"
                      > > > > 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:
                      > > > >
                      > >
                      > >http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html
                      > > > > . In that article, it is stated that: "Copying a
                      > > > > lectionary from a continuous text is difficult.
                      > > One
                      > > > > is
                      > > > > forced to constantly skip around in the
                      > > document.
                      > > > > This
                      > > > > 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
                      > > > > occasionally
                      > > > > compared with continuous-text manuscripts."
                      > > > >
                      > > > > The presumption in this quotation regarding form
                      > > > > seems
                      > > > > to be that lectionary mss. are identified by the
                      > > > > form
                      > > > > or ordering of their text. The author contrasts
                      > > the
                      > > > > lectionaries in a sort of generic way with
                      > > > > continuous-text witnesses. Has this author
                      > > > > accurately
                      > > > > represented the views of text critics in
                      > > implying
                      > > > > that
                      > > > > lectionary mss. are identified by the ordering
                      > > of
                      > > > > the
                      > > > > 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! :)
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Thanks,
                      > > > > James
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > >
                      > >___________________________________________________________________
                      > _________________
                      > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
                      > > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                      > > > >
                      > >
                      > >http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >___________________________________________________________________
                      > _________________
                      > > >Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                      > > >Find them fast with Yahoo!
                      > > >Search.
                      > >
                      >http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Peter M. Head, PhD
                      > > Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                      > > Tyndale House
                      > > 36 Selwyn Gardens
                      > > Cambridge CB3 9BA
                      > > 01223 566601
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >____________________________________________________________________________________
                      >Be a better friend, newshound, and
                      >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
                      >now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      Peter M. Head, PhD
                      Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                      Tyndale House
                      36 Selwyn Gardens
                      Cambridge CB3 9BA
                      01223 566601
                    • Daniel Buck
                      ... beginnings and endings of readings
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jan 8, 2008
                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, William Warren <WFWarren@...>
                        wrote:
                        > Many of our continuous text mss have markings (ARCH, TELOS) for the
                        beginnings and endings of readings<

                        This discussion brings up another interesting question relating to the
                        transmission of the NT text:

                        What is the chronological textual evidence for the incorporation of
                        gospel- and epistle-ending 'amens' into continuous-text mss, and what
                        is the correlation, if any, to their presence in lectionaries?

                        Daniel
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.