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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    [206]. saec. XV, 38.3 × 27, membr (f. 1–190. 347–431; chart 191–346), foll. 431, col. 1: V. T. Evv Act Cath Apoc Paul (Phm Hebr). Olim Bessarionis
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      [206]. saec. XV, 38.3 × 27, membr (f. 1–190. 347–431; chart 191–346), foll. 431, col. 1: V. T. Evv Act Cath Apoc Paul (Phm Hebr). Olim Bessarionis “locus 1” ut Evv 205 “locus 41”. Ex antecedente codice transcriptus est, ideoque nullum numerum sibi vindicat. Birch. et Burgon. perl. Holmesii 122 in V. T. Vidi 5 Mart 1886.]

      Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003). Novum Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:510). Libronix.

      george
      gfsomsel

      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.


      - Jan Hus
      _________


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:57:11 PM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?

      Eric Rowe <e_rowe@hotmail. com> wrote:

      >I seem to recall a question like this before, and it turned out that
      >the numerical label for the codex in question had been mistaken for
      >its date. I don't know if that question was about this same Codex
      >Borococcio. But if it was, that would mean that Borococcio is actually
      >simply called codex 206 (or maybe 0206), and some Christian apologist,
      >anxious to find ammunition for his argument, misinterpreted that to
      >mean that it's from 206 A.D.

      Your recall is roughly correct.

      There is indeed a canon list in Codex Baroccianus 206, but this manuscript
      is actually dated to the end of the ninth century. An online catalog of this
      most famous collection of MSS in the Bodleian library at Oxford is here:

      http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/ barocci/barocci. html

      Stephen Carlson

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson
      Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
      Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)



      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
    • Jay Rogers
      First, I want to say that I am very impressed that someone was able to track this down. It s question that I ve asked of various people for about a year now.
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        First, I want to say that I am very impressed that someone was able to
        track this down. It's question that I've asked of various people for
        about a year now. The best answer I've had is literally, "I've never
        heard of it."

        If there is a Codex Barocci with a canonical list with every book but
        Esther and Revelation, then this must be it.

        I've also been able to track down the origin to Norman L. Geisler and
        William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody
        Press, 1986). p. 294.

        I'll have to see the page from that book to see if they cite their source.

        Someone probably read somewhere that "Codex Barocci (206)" contained
        every book in the Canon except Esther and Revelation.

        And eventually it got morphed into "Barococcio (ca. 206)"

        But why the name change?

        The Barocci Codices actually come from the mathematician Francesco
        Barozzi (Barocci) who kept the

        There is also an Italian Renaissance painter whose name is spelled
        "Frederigo Barocci or sometimes Barocccio.

        The extra syllable is probably a typo. (That "scribal error"
        explanation strikes again!)

        I too thought A.D. 206 was suspicious. "Why the odd number? Shouldn't
        it be c. 200 or 210?" Or so I thought.

        If it's ninth century it does nothing to bolster the argument for
        theearly dates for the acceptance of the canon -- except as an example
        of how some books were missing (accidently?) from later canons and
        canonical lists long after the canon was universally agreed upon.

        I did have another idea and maybe someone could help answer this.

        I noticed in looking at the MSS Barocci that many of these codices
        contain the church fathers. I am wondering if the original citation
        meant to say that a canonical list from 200 A.D. from one of the
        Barococci codices. What do you think?

        http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/online/medieval/barocci/barocci.html

        Anyway, the reason for my question is this.

        I recently produced a DVD called The Real Jesus: A Defense of the
        Historicity and Divinity of Christ --

        http://therealjesus.com

        Some clips are at: http://youtube.com/jcr4runner

        I am sorry to say I used this example in a graphic in the video with
        the Muratorian Canon, although I did not give an exact date. If I knew
        about this a month ago, I could have easily removed the example.




        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel
        <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
        >
        > [206]. saec. XV, 38.3 × 27, membr (f. 1–190. 347–431; chart
        191–346), foll. 431, col. 1: V. T. Evv Act Cath Apoc Paul (Phm Hebr).
        Olim Bessarionis "locus 1" ut Evv 205 "locus 41". Ex antecedente
        codice transcriptus est, ideoque nullum numerum sibi vindicat. Birch.
        et Burgon. perl. Holmesii 122 in V. T. Vidi 5 Mart 1886.]
        >
        > Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003). Novum
        Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:510). Libronix.
        >
        >
        >
        > george
        > gfsomsel
        >
        > … search for truth, hear truth,
        > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        > defend the truth till death.
        >
        >
        > - Jan Hus
        > _________
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
        > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:57:11 PM
        > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?
        >
        > Eric Rowe <e_rowe@hotmail. com> wrote:
        > >I seem to recall a question like this before, and it turned out that
        > >the numerical label for the codex in question had been mistaken for
        > >its date. I don't know if that question was about this same Codex
        > >Borococcio. But if it was, that would mean that Borococcio is actually
        > >simply called codex 206 (or maybe 0206), and some Christian apologist,
        > >anxious to find ammunition for his argument, misinterpreted that to
        > >mean that it's from 206 A.D.
        >
        > Your recall is roughly correct.
        >
        > There is indeed a canon list in Codex Baroccianus 206, but this
        manuscript
        > is actually dated to the end of the ninth century. An online
        catalog of this
        > most famous collection of MSS in the Bodleian library at Oxford is here:
        >
        > http://www.bodley ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/
        barocci/barocci. html
        >
        > Stephen Carlson
        >
        > --
        > Stephen C. Carlson
        > Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
        > Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
        (Baylor, 2005)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
        > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
        http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
        >
      • George F Somsel
        I happen to have that book in electronic format since it came with a collection of other works. Up to today I had never used it. It would appear that your
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 5, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I happen to have that book in electronic format since it came with a collection of other works.  Up to today I had never used it.  It would appear that your tracking this down to p. 294 of that work is incorrect.  I find no mention of Borococcio or any variant of the name on that page.  On p. 294 I find a table listing various persons, canons, translations and councils of the first 4 cent. with their contents.  The items listed are

          INDIVIDUALS

          Pseudo-Barnabas
          Clement of Rome
          Ignatius
          Polycarp
          Hermas
          Didache
          Papias
          Irenaeus
          Diognetus
          Justin Martyr
          Clement of Alexandria
          Tertullian
          Origen
          Cyril of Jerusalem
          Eusebius
          Jerome
          Augustine


          CANONS

          Marcion
          Muratorian
          Apostolic
          Cheltenham
          Athanasius

          TRANSLATIONS

          Tatian Diatessaron
          Old Latin
          Old Syriac

          COUNCILS

          Nicea
          Hippo
          Carthage (397)
          Carthage (419)

           
          george
          gfsomsel

          … search for truth, hear truth,
          learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          defend the truth till death.


          - Jan Hus
          _________


          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Jay Rogers <jrogers@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:44:01 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?

          First, I want to say that I am very impressed that someone was able to
          track this down. It's question that I've asked of various people for
          about a year now. The best answer I've had is literally, "I've never
          heard of it."

          If there is a Codex Barocci with a canonical list with every book but
          Esther and Revelation, then this must be it.

          I've also been able to track down the origin to Norman L. Geisler and
          William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody
          Press, 1986). p. 294.

          I'll have to see the page from that book to see if they cite their source.

          Someone probably read somewhere that "Codex Barocci (206)" contained
          every book in the Canon except Esther and Revelation.

          And eventually it got morphed into "Barococcio (ca. 206)"

          But why the name change?

          The Barocci Codices actually come from the mathematician Francesco
          Barozzi (Barocci) who kept the

          There is also an Italian Renaissance painter whose name is spelled
          "Frederigo Barocci or sometimes Barocccio.

          The extra syllable is probably a typo. (That "scribal error"
          explanation strikes again!)

          I too thought A.D. 206 was suspicious. "Why the odd number? Shouldn't
          it be c. 200 or 210?" Or so I thought.

          If it's ninth century it does nothing to bolster the argument for
          theearly dates for the acceptance of the canon -- except as an example
          of how some books were missing (accidently? ) from later canons and
          canonical lists long after the canon was universally agreed upon.

          I did have another idea and maybe someone could help answer this.

          I noticed in looking at the MSS Barocci that many of these codices
          contain the church fathers. I am wondering if the original citation
          meant to say that a canonical list from 200 A.D. from one of the
          Barococci codices. What do you think?

          http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/ barocci/barocci. html

          Anyway, the reason for my question is this.

          I recently produced a DVD called The Real Jesus: A Defense of the
          Historicity and Divinity of Christ --

          http://therealjesus .com

          Some clips are at: http://youtube. com/jcr4runner

          I am sorry to say I used this example in a graphic in the video with
          the Muratorian Canon, although I did not give an exact date. If I knew
          about this a month ago, I could have easily removed the example.

          --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, George F Somsel
          <gfsomsel@.. .> wrote:

          >
          > [206]. saec. XV, 38.3 × 27, membr (f. 1–190. 347–431; chart
          191–346), foll. 431, col. 1: V. T. Evv Act Cath Apoc Paul (Phm Hebr).
          Olim Bessarionis "locus 1" ut Evv 205 "locus 41". Ex antecedente
          codice transcriptus est, ideoque nullum numerum sibi vindicat. Birch.
          et Burgon. perl. Holmesii 122 in V. T. Vidi 5 Mart 1886.]
          >
          > Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003). Novum
          Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:510). Libronix.
          >
          >
          >
          > george
          > gfsomsel
          >
          > … search for truth, hear truth,
          > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          > defend the truth till death.
          >
          >
          > - Jan Hus
          > _________
          >
          > ----- Original Message ----
          > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@.. .>
          > To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
          > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:57:11 PM
          > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?
          >
          > Eric Rowe <e_rowe@hotmail. com> wrote:
          > >I seem to recall a question like this before, and it turned out that
          > >the numerical label for the codex in question had been mistaken for
          > >its date. I don't know if that question was about this same Codex
          > >Borococcio. But if it was, that would mean that Borococcio is actually
          > >simply called codex 206 (or maybe 0206), and some Christian apologist,
          > >anxious to find ammunition for his argument, misinterpreted that to
          > >mean that it's from 206 A.D.
          >
          > Your recall is roughly correct.
          >
          > There is indeed a canon list in Codex Baroccianus 206, but this
          manuscript
          > is actually dated to the end of the ninth century. An online
          catalog of this
          > most famous collection of MSS in the Bodleian library at Oxford is here:
          >
          > http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/
          barocci/barocci. html
          >
          > Stephen Carlson
          >
          > --
          > Stephen C. Carlson
          > Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
          > Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
          (Baylor, 2005)



          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
        • Kevin W. Woodruff
          Jay: Actually the Codices Barocciani are named after Giacomo Barocci (Barozzi) whose library was purchased by William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke who donated
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 5, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Jay:
             
            Actually the Codices Barocciani are named after Giacomo Barocci (Barozzi) whose library was purchased by William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke who donated them to the Bodleian in 1629, not his more famous grandfather Francesco.
             
            I also beleive that Geisler and Nix's source was Westcott's book in whose appenix the canon is actually reproduced
             
            Kevin

            Jay Rogers <jrogers@...> wrote:
            First, I want to say that I am very impressed that someone was able to
            track this down. It's question that I've asked of various people for
            about a year now. The best answer I've had is literally, "I've never
            heard of it."

            If there is a Codex Barocci with a canonical list with every book but
            Esther and Revelation, then this must be it.

            I've also been able to track down the origin to Norman L. Geisler and
            William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody
            Press, 1986). p. 294.

            I'll have to see the page from that book to see if they cite their source.

            Someone probably read somewhere that "Codex Barocci (206)" contained
            every book in the Canon except Esther and Revelation.

            And eventually it got morphed into "Barococcio (ca. 206)"

            But why the name change?

            The Barocci Codices actually come from the mathematician Francesco
            Barozzi (Barocci) who kept the

            There is also an Italian Renaissance painter whose name is spelled
            "Frederigo Barocci or sometimes Barocccio.

            The extra syllable is probably a typo. (That "scribal error"
            explanation strikes again!)

            I too thought A.D. 206 was suspicious. "Why the odd number? Shouldn't
            it be c. 200 or 210?" Or so I thought.

            If it's ninth century it does nothing to bolster the argument for
            theearly dates for the acceptance of the canon -- except as an example
            of how some books were missing (accidently? ) from later canons and
            canonical lists long after the canon was universally agreed upon.

            I did have another idea and maybe someone could help answer this.

            I noticed in looking at the MSS Barocci that many of these codices
            contain the church fathers. I am wondering if the original citation
            meant to say that a canonical list from 200 A.D. from one of the
            Barococci codices. What do you think?

            http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/ barocci/barocci. html

            Anyway, the reason for my question is this.

            I recently produced a DVD called The Real Jesus: A Defense of the
            Historicity and Divinity of Christ --

            http://therealjesus .com

            Some clips are at: http://youtube. com/jcr4runner

            I am sorry to say I used this example in a graphic in the video with
            the Muratorian Canon, although I did not give an exact date. If I knew
            about this a month ago, I could have easily removed the example.

            --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, George F Somsel
            <gfsomsel@.. .> wrote:
            >
            > [206]. saec. XV, 38.3 × 27, membr (f. 1–190. 347–431; chart
            191–346), foll. 431, col. 1: V. T. Evv Act Cath Apoc Paul (Phm Hebr).
            Olim Bessarionis "locus 1" ut Evv 205 "locus 41". Ex antecedente
            codice transcriptus est, ideoque nullum numerum sibi vindicat. Birch.
            et Burgon. perl. Holmesii 122 in V. T. Vidi 5 Mart 1886.]
            >
            > Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003). Novum
            Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:510). Libronix.
            >
            >
            >
            > george
            > gfsomsel
            >
            > … search for truth, hear truth,
            > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
            > defend the truth till death.
            >
            >
            > - Jan Hus
            > _________
            >
            > ----- Original Message ----
            > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@.. .>
            > To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
            > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:57:11 PM
            > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?
            >
            > Eric Rowe <e_rowe@hotmail. com> wrote:
            > >I seem to recall a question like this before, and it turned out that
            > >the numerical label for the codex in question had been mistaken for
            > >its date. I don't know if that question was about this same Codex
            > >Borococcio. But if it was, that would mean that Borococcio is actually
            > >simply called codex 206 (or maybe 0206), and some Christian apologist,
            > >anxious to find ammunition for his argument, misinterpreted that to
            > >mean that it's from 206 A.D.
            >
            > Your recall is roughly correct.
            >
            > There is indeed a canon list in Codex Baroccianus 206, but this
            manuscript
            > is actually dated to the end of the ninth century. An online
            catalog of this
            > most famous collection of MSS in the Bodleian library at Oxford is here:
            >
            > http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/
            barocci/barocci. html
            >
            > Stephen Carlson
            >
            > --
            > Stephen C. Carlson
            > Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
            > Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
            (Baylor, 2005)
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
            > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
            > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
            http://tools. search.yahoo. com/newsearch/ category. php?category= shopping
            >




            Prof. Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div., M.S.I.S.
            Library Director/Reference Librarian, Assistant Professor of Bible, Greek, Theological Bibliography and Research
            Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary, 1815 Union Ave.
            Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404, United States of America
            423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
            Cierpke@... http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm
          • Dirk Jongkind
            I can see now how the mistake may have occurred quite easily. In Appendix D The Chief catalogues of the books of the Bible during the first eight centuries
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 5, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I can see now how the mistake may have occurred quite easily.
              In Appendix D 'The Chief catalogues of the books of the Bible during the first eight centuries' of Westcott's book he gives quite a number of canon lists and almost without exception gives the source followed by a date. The list of 'The sixty books' is item xvii. For each source the name and (often) the date is given in the margin, e.g.

              Concilium
              Carthagi-
              niense III.
              397 A.D.

              Exceptions (no date), occurring before item xvii, are iii, iv, xii
              In all cases the date is given on the last line with A.D. added, except for item xiv which runs (the + sign stands for the dagger indicating 'died in'):

              Athana-
              sius,
              Ep. Alex.
              326.
              +373.

              For item xvii, the list of the sixty books, Westcott gives

              Bibl. Bodl.

              Codd.
              Baroc.
              206.


              If you expect a year as the last line of the source indication, it is easy to take 206 as the year.

              Cheers,
              Dirk




              Kevin W. Woodruff wrote:
              Jay:
               
              Actually the Codices Barocciani are named after Giacomo Barocci (Barozzi) whose library was purchased by William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke who donated them to the Bodleian in 1629, not his more famous grandfather Francesco.
               
              I also beleive that Geisler and Nix's source was Westcott's book in whose appenix the canon is actually reproduced
               
              Kevin

            • Kevin W. Woodruff
              Jay; I ve checked Geisler and Nix and they do not refer to Codices Barocciani, Codex Borococcio or any such thing. Kevin Kevin W. Woodruff
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 5, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Jay;
                 
                I've checked Geisler and Nix and they do not refer to Codices Barocciani, Codex Borococcio or any such thing.
                Kevin

                "Kevin W. Woodruff" <cierpke@...> wrote:
                Jay:
                 
                Actually the Codices Barocciani are named after Giacomo Barocci (Barozzi) whose library was purchased by William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke who donated them to the Bodleian in 1629, not his more famous grandfather Francesco.
                 
                I also beleive that Geisler and Nix's source was Westcott's book in whose appenix the canon is actually reproduced
                 
                Kevin
              • Daniel Buck
                Dirk Jongkind wrote: Bibl.
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 6, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dirk Jongkind wrote:
                  <I can see now how the mistake may have occurred quite easily.
                  For item xvii, the list of the sixty books, Westcott gives
                  <snip>
                  Bibl. Bodl.
                  Codd.
                  Baroc.
                  206.

                  If you expect a year as the last line of the source indication, it is
                  easy to take 206 as the year.<

                  I would propose that this was the vorlage of the error. The
                  abbreviations were understandably (I hope my Latin is right)
                  expanded to:
                  Bibliotheca Bodelia Codex Barococcio, 206 A.D.

                  And the Internet took it from there.

                  But what of the SIXTY books? I thought we were talking sixty-FOUR.

                  Daniel Buck
                • Byron Silvera
                  To alert you, I’ve looked through the Revised ed. Of Geisler etal, without finding any mention of Codex Barococcio. Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 7, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment

                    To alert you, I’ve looked through the Revised ed. Of Geisler etal, without finding any mention of Codex Barococcio. Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago : Moody Press, 1996.

                    So, if Geisler and Nix (1986) were the origin of this puzzle, then they have removed it in their latest edition.

                     

                    Regards,

                     

                    Byron Silvera


                    From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rogers
                    Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:44 PM
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?

                     

                    First, I want to say that I am very impressed that someone was able to
                    track this down. It's question that I've asked of various people for
                    about a year now. The best answer I've had is literally, "I've never
                    heard of it."

                    If there is a Codex Barocci with a canonical list with every book but
                    Esther and Revelation, then this must be it.

                    I've also been able to track down the origin to Norman L. Geisler and
                    William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago : Moody
                    Press, 1986). p. 294.

                    I'll have to see the page from that book to see if they cite their source.

                    Someone probably read somewhere that "Codex Barocci (206)" contained
                    every book in the Canon except Esther and Revelation.

                    And eventually it got morphed into "Barococcio (ca. 206)"

                    But why the name change?

                    The Barocci Codices actually come from the mathematician Francesco
                    Barozzi (Barocci) who kept the

                    There is also an Italian Renaissance painter whose name is spelled
                    "Frederigo Barocci or sometimes Barocccio.

                    The extra syllable is probably a typo. (That "scribal error"
                    explanation strikes again!)

                    I too thought A.D. 206 was suspicious. "Why the odd number? Shouldn't
                    it be c. 200 or 210?" Or so I thought.

                    If it's ninth century it does nothing to bolster the argument for
                    theearly dates for the acceptance of the canon -- except as an example
                    of how some books were missing (accidently? ) from later canons and
                    canonical lists long after the canon was universally agreed upon.

                    I did have another idea and maybe someone could help answer this.

                    I noticed in looking at the MSS Barocci that many of these codices
                    contain the church fathers. I am wondering if the original citation
                    meant to say that a canonical list from 200 A.D. from one of the
                    Barococci codices. What do you think?

                    http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/ barocci/barocci. html

                    Anyway, the reason for my question is this.

                    I recently produced a DVD called The Real Jesus: A Defense of the
                    Historicity and Divinity of Christ --

                    http://therealjesus .com

                    Some clips are at: http://youtube. com/jcr4runner

                    I am sorry to say I used this example in a graphic in the video with
                    the Muratorian Canon, although I did not give an exact date. If I knew
                    about this a month ago, I could have easily removed the example.

                    --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, George F Somsel
                    <gfsomsel@.. .> wrote:

                    >
                    > [206]. saec. XV, 38.3 × 27, membr (f. 1–190. 347–431; chart
                    191–346), foll. 431, col. 1: V. T. Evv Act Cath Apoc Paul (Phm Hebr).
                    Olim Bessarionis "locus 1" ut Evv 205 "locus 41". Ex antecedente
                    codice transcriptus est, ideoque nullum numerum sibi vindicat. Birch.
                    et Burgon. perl. Holmesii 122 in V. T. Vidi 5 Mart 1886.]
                    >
                    > Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003). Novum
                    Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:510). Libronix.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > george
                    > gfsomsel
                    >
                    > … search for truth, hear truth,
                    > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                    > defend the truth till death.
                    >
                    >
                    > - Jan Hus
                    > _________
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message ----
                    > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@.. .>
                    > To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                    > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:57:11 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?
                    >
                    > Eric Rowe <e_rowe@hotmail. com> wrote:
                    > >I seem to recall a question like this before, and it turned out that
                    > >the numerical label for the codex in question had been mistaken for
                    > >its date. I don't know if that question was about this same Codex
                    > >Borococcio. But if it was, that would mean that Borococcio is actually
                    > >simply called codex 206 (or maybe 0206), and some Christian apologist,
                    > >anxious to find ammunition for his argument, misinterpreted that to
                    > >mean that it's from 206 A.D.
                    >
                    > Your recall is roughly correct.
                    >
                    > There is indeed a canon list in Codex Baroccianus 206, but this
                    manuscript
                    > is actually dated to the end of the ninth century. An online
                    catalog of this
                    > most famous collection of MSS in the Bodleian library at
                    w:st="on">Oxford is here:
                    >
                    > http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/
                    wmss/online/ medieval/
                    barocci/barocci. html
                    >
                    > Stephen Carlson
                    >
                    > --
                    > Stephen C. Carlson
                    > Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke
                    University
                    > Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
                    (Baylor, 2005)
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                    > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                    > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                    http://tools. search.yahoo. com/newsearch/ category. php?category= shopping
                    >

                  • Jay Rogers
                    Here s yet another reference to the Codex Barococcio: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/thebes/4610/biblio/canon.html Codex Barococcio (206). Another supporting
                    Message 9 of 19 , Mar 10, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Here's yet another reference to the Codex Barococcio:

                      http://www.geocities.com/Athens/thebes/4610/biblio/canon.html

                      "Codex Barococcio (206). Another supporting testimony to the early
                      canon of the NT comes from a codex entitled 'The Sixty Books.' Upon
                      careful examination these 60 books actually include 64 of the
                      familiar 66 canonical books of the Bible. Only Esther is omitted from
                      the OT, and Revelation from the New. The canonicity of Revelation is
                      well attested elsewhere, being supported by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
                      Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muratorian list."

                      It would be interesting to find out if it's possible that Roman
                      numerals could have been miswritten somewhere.

                      For instance, at a website that catalogs the extant manuscripts of
                      St. Basil of Caesarea, I found the collowing entry:

                      http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/208/2080028.htm

                      "Epist. Canon. Baroc. cxcvi. 184b (i.e. pt. l, p. 336).
                      Membranaceus, in 4to majori, ff. 313, sec. xi. anno scilicet 1043
                      exaratus."

                      Another possibility is that a catalog numer such as cxcvi could have
                      been miswritten as "ccvi" or "ca.206" as I've seen in many places.

                      But I don't think this is the manuscript, unless St. Basil had a
                      canonical list somewhere in his writings.

                      I think probably the catolog number that was originally suggested for
                      the Codex Barocciani 206 is the right answer. But still it would be
                      interesting to track down how this was originally garbled.



                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Byron Silvera"
                      <bsilvera@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > To alert you, I've looked through the Revised ed. Of Geisler etal,
                      without
                      > finding any mention of Codex Barococcio. Geisler, Norman L., and
                      William E.
                      > Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded.
                      Chicago: Moody
                      > Press, 1996.
                      >
                      > So, if Geisler and Nix (1986) were the origin of this puzzle, then
                      they have
                      > removed it in their latest edition.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Byron Silvera
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rogers
                      > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:44 PM
                      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > First, I want to say that I am very impressed that someone was able
                      to
                      > track this down. It's question that I've asked of various people for
                      > about a year now. The best answer I've had is literally, "I've never
                      > heard of it."
                      >
                      > If there is a Codex Barocci with a canonical list with every book
                      but
                      > Esther and Revelation, then this must be it.
                      >
                      > I've also been able to track down the origin to Norman L. Geisler
                      and
                      > William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody
                      > Press, 1986). p. 294.
                      >
                      > I'll have to see the page from that book to see if they cite their
                      source.
                      >
                      > Someone probably read somewhere that "Codex Barocci (206)" contained
                      > every book in the Canon except Esther and Revelation.
                      >
                      > And eventually it got morphed into "Barococcio (ca. 206)"
                      >
                      > But why the name change?
                      >
                      > The Barocci Codices actually come from the mathematician Francesco
                      > Barozzi (Barocci) who kept the
                      >
                      > There is also an Italian Renaissance painter whose name is spelled
                      > "Frederigo Barocci or sometimes Barocccio.
                      >
                      > The extra syllable is probably a typo. (That "scribal error"
                      > explanation strikes again!)
                      >
                      > I too thought A.D. 206 was suspicious. "Why the odd number?
                      Shouldn't
                      > it be c. 200 or 210?" Or so I thought.
                      >
                      > If it's ninth century it does nothing to bolster the argument for
                      > theearly dates for the acceptance of the canon -- except as an
                      example
                      > of how some books were missing (accidently?) from later canons and
                      > canonical lists long after the canon was universally agreed upon.
                      >
                      > I did have another idea and maybe someone could help answer this.
                      >
                      > I noticed in looking at the MSS Barocci that many of these codices
                      > contain the church fathers. I am wondering if the original citation
                      > meant to say that a canonical list from 200 A.D. from one of the
                      > Barococci codices. What do you think?
                      >
                      > http://www.bodley.
                      >
                      <http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/online/medieval/barocci/b
                      arocci
                      > .html>
                      ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/online/medieval/barocci/barocci.html
                      >
                      > Anyway, the reason for my question is this.
                      >
                      > I recently produced a DVD called The Real Jesus: A Defense of the
                      > Historicity and Divinity of Christ --
                      >
                      > http://therealjesus <http://therealjesus.com> .com
                      >
                      > Some clips are at: http://youtube. <http://youtube.com/jcr4runner>
                      > com/jcr4runner
                      >
                      > I am sorry to say I used this example in a graphic in the video with
                      > the Muratorian Canon, although I did not give an exact date. If I
                      knew
                      > about this a month ago, I could have easily removed the example.
                      >
                      > --- In textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel
                      > <gfsomsel@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > [206]. saec. XV, 38.3 × 27, membr (f. 1–190. 347–431; chart
                      > 191–346), foll. 431, col. 1: V. T. Evv Act Cath Apoc Paul (Phm
                      Hebr).
                      > Olim Bessarionis "locus 1" ut Evv 205 "locus 41". Ex antecedente
                      > codice transcriptus est, ideoque nullum numerum sibi vindicat.
                      Birch.
                      > et Burgon. perl. Holmesii 122 in V. T. Vidi 5 Mart 1886.]
                      > >
                      > > Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003).
                      Novum
                      > Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:510). Libronix.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > george
                      > > gfsomsel
                      > >
                      > > … search for truth, hear truth,
                      > > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                      > > defend the truth till death.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > - Jan Hus
                      > > _________
                      > >
                      > > ----- Original Message ----
                      > > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@>
                      > > To: textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > yahoogroups.com
                      > > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:57:11 PM
                      > > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: What is the Codex Barococcio?
                      > >
                      > > Eric Rowe <e_rowe@hotmail. com> wrote:
                      > > >I seem to recall a question like this before, and it turned out
                      that
                      > > >the numerical label for the codex in question had been mistaken
                      for
                      > > >its date. I don't know if that question was about this same Codex
                      > > >Borococcio. But if it was, that would mean that Borococcio is
                      actually
                      > > >simply called codex 206 (or maybe 0206), and some Christian
                      apologist,
                      > > >anxious to find ammunition for his argument, misinterpreted that
                      to
                      > > >mean that it's from 206 A.D.
                      > >
                      > > Your recall is roughly correct.
                      > >
                      > > There is indeed a canon list in Codex Baroccianus 206, but this
                      > manuscript
                      > > is actually dated to the end of the ninth century. An online
                      > catalog of this
                      > > most famous collection of MSS in the Bodleian library at Oxford
                      is here:
                      > >
                      > > http://www.bodley. ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/ wmss/online/ medieval/
                      > barocci/barocci. html
                      > >
                      > > Stephen Carlson
                      > >
                      > > --
                      > > Stephen C. Carlson
                      > > Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
                      > > Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
                      > (Baylor, 2005)
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > __________________________________________________________
                      > > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                      > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                      > http://tools.
                      > <http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?
                      category=shopping>
                      > search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                      > >
                      >
                    • John McChesney-Young
                      At 7:15 PM +0000 3/10/08, Jay Rogers wrote in part: ... I thought Dirk Jongkind s explanation posted on March 5th made the origin clear, but you can see for
                      Message 10 of 19 , Mar 10, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 7:15 PM +0000 3/10/08, Jay Rogers wrote in part:
                        ...
                        >I think probably the catolog number that was originally suggested for
                        >the Codex Barocciani 206 is the right answer. But still it would be
                        >interesting to track down how this was originally garbled...

                        I thought Dirk Jongkind's explanation posted on March 5th made the
                        origin clear, but you can see for yourself if you visit:

                        http://books.google.com/books?id=sjYRAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&ei=o-_VR5_dOoeSswPsuMT3Aw#PPA567,M1
                        or

                        http://tinyurl.com/25hwzd

                        This URL will take you to the Google Book Search image of page 567 of
                        Westcott's canon book; if you page backwards and forwards you'll see
                        that the "A.D." is usual but not inevitable (it's lacking in the date
                        of death of Athanasius on p. 563, for example). A careless reader or
                        one simply unaware of the scheme of abbreviations Westcott used could
                        easily mistake the MS number for a date.

                        John
                        --


                        *** John McChesney-Young ** panis~at~pacbell.net ** Berkeley,
                        California, U.S.A. ***
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.