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

Re: Paulinus of Nola/Burgon's collection of citations

Expand Messages
  • hughhoughton
    Burgon s collection of citations is often mentioned, and I inspected several of the volumes in the British Library manuscripts reading room in August 2009. The
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Burgon's collection of citations is often mentioned, and I inspected several of the volumes in the British Library manuscripts reading room in August 2009.

      The first point to observe is that very little if any of the work was undertaken by Burgon himself, but by a variety of collaborators whose names are recorded in Burgon's hand at the beginning of the respective volumes. For example, the volume on Tertullian, Ambrose et al. (BL MS Add. 33433) was the work of Idina Eliza and Rosina Cordelia Gane in June 1876; the Apostolic Fathers (MS Add. 33421) is the work of a Mr Wood, who, it is recorded, also recorded biblical references from the footnotes as well as the text; at the beginning of MS Add. 33435 Burgon notes: "These two volumes are entirely the word of Mrs Lille Tiddeman - & a very heavy task they must have proved. They are inventoried (?) from the Benedictine ed. of St Augustine ... Laus Deo, JWB."

      The volumes consist of coloured slips of paper glued in in sequence with a chapter and verse number handwritten on one side and a page and line reference on the other. The text of the citation is never provided, and, in most cases, there is no indication of the work (one exception I noticed was Tertullian, where the source work was usually indicated in an abbreviated form; for Eusebius, the slips were colour-coded by work, although this seems not always to have been strictly observed).

      The volumes are therefore only useful for identifying citations if you happen to have access to the same edition used by Burgon's collaborators. In many cases this is a Benedictine text from the late 17th century (as noted for Augustine above). For the Apostolic Fathers, Jacobson's fourth ed. of 1863 was used. These editions have been superseded, first by Migne's Patrologia Graeca and Patrologia Latina, and then by twentieth-century critical editions in series such as CSEL, GCS, Corpus Christianorum and Sources Chr├ętiennes. The list of scriptural quotations at the back of modern editions is as informative as Burgon's volumes, and it is difficult to see how the inventories held by the British Library could be used for further textual research.

      As noted in an earlier message to this thread, the Biblia Patristica project now being carried forward by a team based at Sources Chr├ętiennes is the most comprehensive and up-to-date general list of citations, and I understand that they are currently working on adding the text of the citation in addition to the list of references currently available in the printed volumes and at http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/

      Of course, in conjunction with this topic, it's also worth mentioning the SBL New Testament in the Greek Fathers series (SBLNTGF), in which detailed work has been done on the citations of some biblical books in certain Greek authors. I have a discussion of similar work on Latin Fathers in a forthcoming chapter: please contact me off list if you would like further details.

      Hugh Houghton


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Richard Mallett <100114.573@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > Sorry for the late reply to this thread, but I understand that the
      > British Library holds a collection of 16 volumes
      > containing 86489 Scripture quotations compiled by Dr. John Burgon.
      > There is a summary of his results in The Traditional Text of the Holy
      > Gospels, Volume 1, by Dean John William Burgon, published by the Dean
      > Burgon Society in Collingwood, NJ., and some examples are listed in
      > Forever Settled - A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible,
      > compiled by Dr. Jack Moorman, and also published by the Dean Burgon
      > Society. Do you know if the whole 16 volumes have been copied, scanned
      > or published ? Are they accessible to the general public ? This is the
      > only survey of patristic citations of the Gospels that I know about. Do
      > you know of any others that have been done ?
      >
      > I appreciate that Burgon was a defender of the TR; but that does not
      > intrinsically disqualify his work, does it ?
      >
      > --
      > Richard Mallett
      > Eaton Bray, Dunstable
      > South Beds. UK
      >
    • schmuel
      Hi Folks, Hugh Houghton ... Steven Avery Thanks Hugh for the fascinating information about the British Library volumes. Did you check and see if there are any
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Folks,

        Hugh Houghton
        >Burgon's collection of citations is often mentioned, and I inspected
        >several of the volumes in the British Library manuscripts reading
        >room in August 2009.

        Steven Avery
        Thanks Hugh for the fascinating information about the British Library
        volumes. Did you check and see if there are any notations or
        collations on the verses that Dean John Burgon spoke about with some
        nuance, especially Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses ? Verses
        which come up here and there in his writings but never have a textual
        analysis ?

        > Richard Mallett:>
        > > I appreciate that Burgon was a defender of the TR; but that does
        > not intrinsically disqualify his work, does it ?

        Steven Avery
        :)
        Even today on many verses Dean John Burgon is often the best starting
        point in correcting the many errors in the apparatuses.

        Technically John Burgon was not exactly a TR defender. Although he
        actually attacked no major verses (the quote re: Griesbach about the
        heavenly witnesses has more of a "turnabout" feel) in the Textus
        Receptus and has a quote that no major verses are wrong, Dean Burgon
        clearly had some verses where he felt the TR could be "corrected" and
        did talk about the possibility of such a revision sometime in time and space.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
        Queens, NY
      • hughhoughton
        I did not see any textual information in the volumes, let alone a collation. Someone had clearly gone through certain passages (such as John 7:53-8:11) and
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I did not see any textual information in the volumes, let alone a collation.
          Someone had clearly gone through certain passages (such as John 7:53-8:11) and made small ink marks in the margin, which I took as an indication that the references had been checked against an edition (and were perhaps being classified in some way), but that was all I noticed.

          Hugh Houghton

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:

          >
          > Steven Avery
          > Thanks Hugh for the fascinating information about the British Library
          > volumes. Did you check and see if there are any notations or
          > collations on the verses that Dean John Burgon spoke about with some
          > nuance, especially Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses ? Verses
          > which come up here and there in his writings but never have a textual
          > analysis ?
          >
        • socius72
          ... That s correct. Burgon did not hold a blind allegiance to the Textus Receptus. He admitted that the Textus Receptus needed correction for it was by no
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            > Steven Avery
            > :)
            > Even today on many verses Dean John Burgon is often the best starting
            > point in correcting the many errors in the apparatuses.
            >
            > Technically John Burgon was not exactly a TR defender. Although he
            > actually attacked no major verses (the quote re: Griesbach about the
            > heavenly witnesses has more of a "turnabout" feel) in the Textus
            > Receptus and has a quote that no major verses are wrong, Dean Burgon
            > clearly had some verses where he felt the TR could be "corrected" and
            > did talk about the possibility of such a revision sometime in time and space.

            That's correct. Burgon did not hold a blind allegiance to the Textus Receptus. He admitted that the Textus Receptus needed correction for it was by no means perfect. However, he did state that the Textus Receptus was a better text than that of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. (J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, London: John Murray, 1883, 21 n. 2).
          • Richard Mallett
            Reply to : socius72 ... I have only just started reading this, so I haven t reached page 21 yet ... translated by Errol F. Rhodes, paperback edition, 1995, p.
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 5, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Reply to : socius72
              > That's correct. Burgon did not hold a blind allegiance to the Textus Receptus. He admitted that the Textus Receptus needed correction for it was by no means perfect. However, he did state that the Textus Receptus was a better text than that of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. (J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, London: John Murray, 1883, 21 n. 2).
              >
              I have only just started reading this, so I haven't reached page 21 yet
              :-) I was relying on Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament,
              translated by Errol F. Rhodes, paperback edition, 1995, p. 19 :-

              "Despite their clamorous rhetoric, the champions of the Textus Receptus
              (led primarily by Dean John William Burgon) were defending deserted
              ramparts."

              Going back to the question of patristic citations, how valuable are
              they, given that (if I'm not putting my foot in it again) the
              manuscripts of their writings are much later than the earliest NT
              manuscripts, and also exhibit variant readings ?

              --
              Richard Mallett
              Eaton Bray, Dunstable
              South Beds. UK
            • Tony Zbaraschuk
              ... As Lorenzo de Valla pointed out with Jerome s commentaries on the Vulgate, they have often been copied fewer times than the Biblical text, and therefore
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:54:36PM +0000, Richard Mallett wrote:
                > Going back to the question of patristic citations, how valuable are
                > they, given that (if I'm not putting my foot in it again) the
                > manuscripts of their writings are much later than the earliest NT
                > manuscripts, and also exhibit variant readings ?

                As Lorenzo de Valla pointed out with Jerome's commentaries on the
                Vulgate, they have often been copied fewer times than the Biblical
                text, and therefore have had less chance for errors to be made.

                They can be very valuable as indications for presence/absence of
                a particular verse or passage (regardless of the exact reading, if
                someone mentions a verse, or mentions its absence in their commentary,
                you have a pretty good indicator). Frequently the original text
                of the patristic author is older than any of our manuscripts.
                Mentions such as "most codexes have reading X" or "a few codexes
                have reading Y", while necessarily impressionistic, are very
                useful for probing the state of the text at particular periods.

                You are correct about the need to examine the patristic text
                carefully to see what they originally wrote and what variants
                have crept into _their_ text over the years. As far as I know
                this is still a largely incomplete process.


                Tony Z

                --
                The arithmetic average of a bimodal distribution is not a useful number.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.