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

Sahidic MS P. Palau Rib. Inv. Nr. 182: How Old and Why?

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    The existence of Sahidic MS P.Palau Rib. Inv. Nr. 182 became public knowledge back in 1972, but as far as I can tell, not much has been written about it in
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      The existence of Sahidic MS P.Palau Rib. Inv. Nr. 182 became public knowledge back in 1972, but as far as I can tell, not much has been written about it in English. So far, I think, the main study of it is by Hans Quecke: "Das Markusevangelium Sahidisch. Text der Handschrift P. Palau Rib. Inv. Nr. 182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569." (Which must include a collation with Pierpont Morgan Library MS 569.)

      This Sahidic MS has been assigned a production-date of c. 425. It strongly supports the Alexandrian Text. Its text of Mark ends at 16:8. There's a picture of its last page of Mark in Aland & Aland's TotNT.

      In Tommy Wasserman's recent JTS article on Mark 1:1, he mentions P. Palau Rib. Inv. Nr. 182 (can we just call it Marvin or something?!) --
      "It should be noted that the reputation of sa1 [that includes Marvin, + P. Palau Rib. Inv. Nr. 181 and 183] as the earliest Sahidic gospel witness (Mark, Luke, John) may need to be revised, as recent research suggests that this manuscript and its text are not as ancient as previously believed."

      And in a footnote:

      "According to Copticist Christian Askeland (private communication), the early dating of sa1 [that's Marvin] is problematic for codicological, paleographic, dialectal, and textual reasons. See Christian Askeland, 'The Greek and Coptic Traditions of John's Gospel' (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, forthcoming 2011). For a recent analysis of sa1, which, however, recognizes the manuscript as a uniquely ancient Sahidic witness, see Karlheinz Schussler, 'Some Peculiarities of the Coptic (Sahidic) Translations of the Gospel of John', Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008), pp. 41-62. (Schlussler's siglum sa561.)"

      Sooooo . . . is the assigned date of c. 425 correct, or has this MS been given too early a production-date by its first editor? If someone were to say, "P. Palau Rib. Inv. Nr. 182 is from the 600's," how would you go about proving him wrong?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.