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
    ... 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 1 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 2 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.