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

Re: The Byzantine Text of the Gospels: Recension or Process?

Expand Messages
  • idou747
    ... I m not sure I understand your point, I hope I m not being thick. If I m some influential person, and I grab a random manuscript and say right, we only
    Message 1 of 88 , Aug 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Hmm. If I take some random manuscript, and make lots of copies of
      > > it such that it becomes regarded as a "text type" and its distinctive
      > > readings are spread far and wide
      >
      >
      > But you must take a manuscript that has most of all the *major Byzantine
      > variants* in it.

      I'm not sure I understand your point, I hope I'm not being thick. If I'm some influential person, and I grab a random manuscript and say "right, we only copy this one from now on". And if in the fullness of time, that decision sticks and manuscripts in that line gain the title of "Byzantine", then obviously that original manuscript will have the Byzantine variants, and manuscripts not far removed from it (like "A") will as well, because it was close to the ultimate exemplar. But that doesn't mean that original manuscript was a recension.

      Think of the Vulgate, but ignore for a moment that it is Latin. The fact that thousands of Vulgate manuscripts have the "major Vulgate variants", is not an indication that Jerome's exemplar is a recension. Rather it is an indication that they have a common ancestor.

      But maybe I'm not understanding your point.


      > What I ask for is just to explain the existence of Codex A (gospels). How
      > did it originate? Process or recension?
      > What I mean is that this manuscript, or e.g. the Byzantine parts of W are so
      > full of major Byzantine variants that it is difficult to believe that its
      > origin is just chance or an evolutionary process.
      >
      >
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Wieland
      > <><
      > --------------------------
      > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      > mailto:wie@...
      > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      > Textcritical commentary:
      > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
      >
    • tom630965
      ... Tim the publishers have put the first chapter of Roger Bagnall s book on redating Egyptian papyri on the intenet
      Message 88 of 88 , Aug 18, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Dear Listers,
        >
        > I think that Arie's third point is worth noting.
        >
        > There has been a recent tendency to redate Christian manuscripts later. There have been some attempts to redate things earlier, but usually these are forgotten about after a little while (e.g. Kim's redating of P46).
        >
        > I'm not sure what is driving the general trend towards later dates. It could be the result of having more data at hand. One thing that may have been influential was Roger Bagnall's paper on Christian names in Egypt as derived from documentary papyri (e.g. tax records). He came to the conclusion that there were not many Christians in Egypt before about 300 AD based on the occurrence of Christian names in official records. Of course there is another explanation for the lack of Christian names which is that you would use your Egyptian name when talking to a tax official as, until 313 AD, being a Christian could be dangerous to your health if officialdom found out.
        >
        > These books are a help when considering the possible date of a manuscript:
        >
        > E. G. Turner, _Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World_, 2d rev. ed. (ed. P. J. Parsons), Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 46, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987.
        >
        > G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, _Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period A.D. 300-800_, Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 47, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987.
        >
        > There is an alternative way to date manuscripts which is seldom if ever used, which is carbon dating. There is an associated margin of error, I'm not sure what, possibly +/- a century. The test destroys the part sampled. I seem to remember hearing that the labs are getting better at dating with quite small samples. So, if we really wanted to know the date of Sinaiticus, which by the way is probably much later than the date of its text, we could cut off a piece and date it.
        >
        > The same could be done with some of our early papyri which have some blank spaces (e.g. margins) that no one would miss. If we did this with a few of them then we would have a better idea of their actual dates.
        >
        > Best,
        >
        > Tim Finney


        Tim

        the publishers have put the first chapter of Roger Bagnall's book on redating Egyptian papyri on the intenet

        http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9059.pdf

        the argument here is not based on tax records, but on the absence of any clear examples of Christian correspondence earlier than the episcopate of Demetrios (189 - 231). He then argues that the apparent survival of earlier biblical (and apocryphal) papyri appears inconsistent with the observation that there are no Christian letters.

        He suggests that the proposed early Christian papyri largely form a group of their own - that are difficult to date with reference to non-christian dated comparitors, as book-hands changed very little from the 2nd to the late 3rd century.

        With reference to P52 he says:

        "The first of these is a small bit of the Gospel of John in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, of unknown provenance.28 It is the only fragment dated by Turner to the second century without qualification. More recently, however, one scholar has argued that it should be reassigned to the early third century, on the basis of a comparison with P.Chester Beatty X.29 That may be too definitive, but an exhaustive article by Brent Nongbi (2005) has brought forward a range of palaeographical parallels that undermine confidence in an early date, even if they do not fully establish one in the late second or early third century"

        (I am not sure that Bagnall's characterisation of Nongbi's conclusions here is correct; as I recall Nongbi saying that "I have not radically revised Roberts's work", which I take to mean that Nongbi accepts that the preponderance of comparitor hands does indeed indicate that P52 "may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D.". Nongbi's expressed concerns relate to the margin of error, rather than to the central estimate of date).

        Not having the full text of Bagnall's book, I cannot offer a detailed critque of his approach - although I do note that he regards all the scriptural codices as being written in a book-hand; where Roberts specfically describes p52 as a ".. reformed documentary hand. (One advantage for the paleogapher in such hands is that with their close links to the documents they are somewhat less difficult to date than purely calligraphic hands)."

        I would be interested in the perspectives of anyone who knows Roger Bagnall's work rather better.

        regards

        Tom Hennell
        Manchester
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.