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

Re: [textualcriticism] calling all text critics!: how to identify a lectionary ms.?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 10 , Jan 3, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 10 , Jan 4, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 10 , Jan 8, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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.