RE: [textualcriticism] Papyrus lectionaries
- In the 1986 edition, selections visible through Google Books, it clearly says "P4" on page 48.Best regards,Ross Caldwell> To: email@example.com
> From: jjcate@...
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:12:55 +0000
> Subject: [textualcriticism] Papyrus lectionaries
> I was reading the English translation of Vaganay & Amphoux (An Intro to NT TC). On p. 24, they mention, "Apart from a few papyrus fragments (P3, P4, P44), the lectionaries were written on parchment...."
> The mention of P4 seems odd. And I'm thinking it's probably an inadvertent typo (and despite all our best efforts as writers or editors, these things still happen). Or at least, I'm not aware of anyone describing P4 as a lectionary. Does anyone have the French edition (1991) or Vaganay's first edition (1934) to see if something was confused in transmission?
> --Jeff Cate,
> Riverside, CA
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> (Yahoo! ID required)
> <*> To change settings via email:
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
- Thanks for the responses. I meant to follow up on this. After reading Carroll Osburn's essay on the lectionaries in the new Ehrman & Holmes volume (The Text of the NT in Cont Res; 2d ed), I suspect that Amphoux and Vaganay meant P2, P3, and P44... at least those are also cited by the Alands as probable papyrus lectionaries. And p6, p34, p43, and p62 are also in the discussion. My initial inquiry here was because I was wondering if Amphoux & Vaganay had possibly mistyped p4 for p43 (which I've been analyzing)... but I think it's probably a typo for p2.