Friday, July 25, 2014

Why It Is Helpful to Include Accents in Transcripts

A real summer topic (with an apparatus error in NA28 thrown in for good measure). When transcribing a New Testament Greek manuscript for exercise, I encourage my students to include accentuation and breathing marks. Of course this slows things down considerably, and accents occur only occasionally in the earliest manuscripts. But they are a source of information and consequently help us in our understanding of scribal behaviour. Let me give you three reasons, each with an actual example.

1) Accents and breathings help us see how the scribe understood the text. Take for example P104 (P.Oxy. 4404), 2nd century.

Twice in Mt 21:35 a relative pronoun is provided with a spiritus asper, and I recall having seen a number of these in Sinaiticus (I think it was in John's gospel). It may be that relative pronouns such as ον were marked out to avoid confusing it with a word-final syllable. There is no doubt that P104 wanted to make things crystal clear.

2) It can help us avoid collation errors. A good example is Ψ(044) in Mk 10:12. The manuscript is cited by NA27/28 in support of the reading αυτη. And indeed these four letters do appear before απολυσασα:

But look at the accents, αὐτῆ ἀπολύσασα, which is not quite like the text αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα. A second look at the manuscript reveals why. It is not the nominative but the dative we have here, ἠ ταύτην καὶ ἐν αὐτῆ ἀπολύσασα. (iota subscript not in manuscript; we would write αὐτῇ).

The reading itself is not completely clear to me, but certainly it is incorrect to cite Ψ(044) as direct support for the reading 'αὐτὴ'.

3) Accents can help us to think about the prehistory of certain corrected passages. Here is an example from X(033), Jn 1:32. The text in its corrected form gives καταβαίνoν.

The transcript of the IGNTP John project gives the nonsense form καταβαινυν as the original version. One could question this on space considerations alone. But attention to accents steer us in the right direction. Why καταβαίνον instead of the correct καταβαῖνον? I think this is because the scribe of X(033) originally wrote the masculine participle καταβαίνων (which fits the spacing much better), and correctly accented. The -ω- was later corrected to an -ο-, yet the accent remained untouched (Tregelles transcribed the manuscript here correct back in 1850).

These are only a few real-world examples; I am sure there are many more out there which have escaped notice. I don't think there is any excuse not to include accents and breathings by the first hand in transcriptions when these occur only sporadically (such as P104). Admittedly, there are practical considerations in favour of ignoring such signs, given where we are in transcribing the corpus of NT manuscripts. However, tools that we use for transcribing should at the very least have the option to include these accents and breathings.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

On-line Lecture "Variants of Evil in the NT"

Chris Keith (Historical Jesus blog) has uploaded my lecture  "Variants of Evil in the New Testament" from the conference on Evil in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Thanks Chris for organizing this conference!

For my previous report on the conference, see here.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

A Beautiful Error in Aland's Synopsis Quattor Evangeliorum

In Kurt Aland's Synopsis [I am using the 4. korrigierter Druck 2005] a gorgeous error appears. In Mark 8:25 the text as printed reads και ενεβλεπεν τηλαυγως απαντα, 'and he saw everything clearly'. There are variants: παντα (not interesting now) and απαντας, 'and he saw everyone clearly'.
However, in the apparatus of the Synopsis this last variant is not given as απαντας (see e.g. in Alexandrinus), but incorrectly as αναστας, leading to a text that says something like 'and he saw clearly after he arose'.

Is the non-existing variant in the Synopsis an error of reading, influence from the wider context, or is this theologically motivated? Can we talk about its intention, its effect, and its reception history? Or is this an example of that most useful and most neglected of text-critical categories, namely 'errors just happen, get over it'?

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Birmingham Colloquium

Hugh Houghton writes:

This is advance notice to colleagues and attendees of former colloquia that the Ninth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament will be held in Birmingham on 2nd-6th March 2015.

The theme will be The History and Text of New Testament Commentaries. 

A call for papers and further details will be posted in October, but you are welcome to contact me before then if you have any queries or suggestions.

Monday, June 30, 2014

A Greek NT Reunited (GA 699)

Interesting blog post over at the British Library on GA 699 and the separate histories of its two parts (with nice pictures).

This is a notable NT manuscript partly on the grounds that it was (unusually) a manuscript of the whole New Testament - one of only around 60 extant that ever contained what we regard as the whole New Testament.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Ancient Greek Lexica

We know that modern lexica are important for providing information on how modern scholars understand the meaning of words. And we know that ancient lexica are even more useful for providing information on how ancient scholars understood the meaning of words. So it is interesting to read through Roger Pearse's useful list and discussion:Lexicon: an introduction to the dictionaries of ancient Greek that survive from antiquity.

PS. We also know that such lexica may preserve interesting text-critical information - on one of which see Dirk Jongkind, "Some Observations on the Relevance of the 'Early Byzantine Glossary' of Paul for the Textual Criticism of the Corpus Paulinum", Novum Testamentum 53 (2011): 358-75.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Stephen Emmel on The Fake Harvard John Fragment

Building on Christian Askeland's argument that the Harvard Coptic John Fragment was textually dependent on Thompson's 1924 publication of the Qau codex (see The forgery of the Lycopolitan gospel of John) Stephen Emmel has recently done a great job on assessing "The Codicology of the New Coptic (Lycopolitan) Gospel of John Fragment"

I was interested to read it because in a comment to Christian's post I had suggested that "It may be worth trying to reconstruct the page (as a reductio ad absurdum)." Emmel has now done that in massive detail and shows how extremely implausible are the results, concluding that "No Codicological Reconstruction of H Is Entirely Credible". Emmel also agrees that if the Coptic John fragment is fake, then the Gospel of Jesus Wife fragment is also fake.

I would say that the end is nigh.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Fighting over Recto and Verso

Over the recent weeks I have been twice in a skirmish on the correct use of the terms recto and verso, and I blame the dark days of early papyrology for this (there are articles on this topic; I leave it to commentators to share that wisdom). Before the dawn of papyrology everyone knew what the recto and verso of a manuscript page were: the recto is the front, the verso the back, identified on the basis of the direction of the text. On paper the physical aspects of either side of the page are (virtually?) indistinguishable; on parchment there is a hair and flesh side, though with well prepared parchment there is not that much of a striking difference. However, on papyrus there is the writing either along the direction of the strips of papyrus or across these. But still, recto and verso are terms based on the direction of the text, not on any physical aspect of the material.

Then there were papyrologists. And they described rolls, where the primary writing is on the 'along side' (normally the inner side of the roll), and where there is possibly secondary writing on the 'across side' (normally the outer side of the roll). Or other reused sheets of papyrus, where, again, the first text is along, and the secondary text across (normally). And the terms recto and verso were used so that they became often identical with along and across the direction of the fibres.
I think that this explains the odd labelling on the actual frames of P45, where the folio number is followed by a 'r' or 'v' which indicates not the direction of the text, but the direction of the fibres. In the transcription on the INTF website the same terms are used, but there correctly. This results in regular mismatches between the labelling on the frame and on the transcription. E.g. folio 16:

Label on frame '16v'; content John 10:7-25; transcription '16r'

Label on frame '16r'; content John 10:29 - 11:10; transcription '16v'

These days papyrologists tend to avoid the terms recto and verso (and rightly so, at least in their world), but within book studies (codicology proper) the terms have a rightful place as describing the direction of the text.

Physical description Parchment: Hair - Flesh. Papyrus: Along (→) - Across (↓)
Text direction (not related to the physical description!) Parchment: Recto - Verso. Papyrus: Recto - Verso (only really useful in papyrus codices)

It is only now with electronic texts and webpages that recto and verso have lost their relevance.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Online Images of NT manuscripts in Oxford

Oxford Bodl., Barocci 3 (G-A 314):

Oxford Bodl., Barocci 28 (G-A 2101): (XIII; Gospels with Comm.; on paper)

Oxford Bodl., Barocci 29 (G-A 46):(c. 1300; Gospels)

Oxford Bodl., Barocci 31 (G-A 45): (XIII; Gospels)

Oxford Bodl., Barocci 48 (G-A 2408 = fol. 18 [XIV; Rev 5.1-5]; G-A 2015 = fol. 51-74 [XV; Apocalypse]):

[HT: Paleografia Greca]

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

I am running a promotional on my novels featuring the principles and practice of New Testament Textual Criticism this week. The Kindle edition of THE SCRIBES, Vol. 1 is free. The Kindle edition of THE SIGN OF THE DOLPHIN, Vol 2 is $0.99. Already over 700 people have taken advantage of this offer  on the first day.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Conference: From Egypt to Manchester: Unravelling the John Rylands Papyrus Collection

Roberta Mazza, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History and John Rylands Research Institute Research Fellow, is organizing a conference on 4-6 September at John Rylands Library in Manchester which looks very interesting:

 "From Egypt to Manchester: Unravelling the John Rylands Papyrus Collection"

Admittance is free, but registration (here) is necessary.

The programme for friday afternoon (5 September) will be of particular interest for readers of this blog:

5 September, Friday afternoon (venue: Historic Reading Room)

  • 2:00-2:30
    AnneMarie Luijendijk (Princeton):
    Unravelling the Oldest Septuagint Manuscript (P.Ryl. III 458)
  • 2:30-3:00
    Brent Nongbri (Sidney):
    Palaeography, Precision, and Publicity: Some Further Thoughts on P52
  • 3:00-3:30
    Coffee Break
  • 3:30-4:00
    Thomas Kraus (Neumarkt):
    Small in Size, but Fabulous Artefacts: P.Ryl. III 463, P.Ryl. I 28 and Late Antique Miniature Books
  • 4:00-4:30
    Todd Hickey (Berkeley):
    Grenfell, Kelsey, and the Dealers
  • 4:30-5:00
    Elizabeth Gow (Manchester):
    Enriqueta Rylands: Private Collector of a Public Library
  • 5.00- 5.30
  • 5.30

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Manuel de critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament (ed. Amphoux)

A new French introduction to New Testament textual criticism, edited by Christian-Bernard Amphoux, has just been published by Éditions Safran, Manuel de critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament. Introduction générale.  Contributors include C.-B. Amphoux, J.C. Haelewyck, D. Gonnet, A. Boud'Hours, G. Dorival, D. Pastorelli, J. K. Elliott, D. Lafleur and J. Reynard. 

Publisher's description:

La critique textuelle est l'étude des documents à partir desquels on établit le texte d'une œuvre transmise par des manuscrits.
Le Nouveau Testament nous est parvenu à travers de nombreux manuscrits entre lesquels il existe d'innombrables variantes. Certaines, les plus nombreuses, sont de simples fautes de copie ; mais des milliers d'autres sont les indices de l'évolution du texte des évangiles et des autres écrits du recueil. Le texte du Nouveau Testament a donc une histoire et, par cette histoire, une diversité dans sa transmission.

Le premier volume de ce manuel propose une introduction générale qui rassemble les informations principales concernant le matériau dont nous disposons (manuscrits grecs, versions anciennes et citations patristiques), la méthode de traitement de ce matériau et ce que nous savons de l'histoire du texte du Nouveau Testament, d'abord manuscrit, puis imprimé à partir du XVIe siècle.
A second volume treating textual variants is in preparation.

More details including table of contents here.

Friday, June 06, 2014

Heracleon on John: Bibliography

Heracleon wrote the earliest surviving commentary on any portion of the New Testament, and is an important witness to the state of the text of John in the second century. Here is some bibliography to get you started:

A. E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon: Newly Edited from the MSS. With an Introduction and Notes (T&S vol. 1, No. 4; Cambridge: CUP, 1891).

C. Blanc, Origène: Commentaire sur S. Jean: Introduction, Text Critique, Traduction et Notes (5 vols.; SC 120, 15, 222, 290, 385; Paris: Cerf, 1966–1992)

ET: W. Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts (trans. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972-1974), 1:162-83.

R.E. Heine, Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Fathers of the Church 80 & 89; Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1989, 1993).

J. A. McGuckin, ‘Structural Design and Apologetic Intent in Origen’s Commentary on John’ in Origeniana Sexta (ed. G. Dorival et al.; BETL 118; Louvain: Peeters, 1995), 441–457.

R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen's Interpretation of Scripture (Richmond VA: John Knox, 1959)

B. Aland, ‘Erwählungstheologie und Menschenklassenlehre: Die Theologie des Herakleon als Schlüssel zum Verständnis der christlichen Gnosis?’ in Gnosis and Gnosticism (ed. Martin Krause; NHS 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), 148-81.

H. W Attridge, ‘Heracleon and John: Reassessment of an Early Christian Hermeneutical Debate’ in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, Reality (ed. C. Helmer; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 57–72; reprinted in  Essays on John and Hebrews (WUNT 264; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 193-207.

H.W. Attridge, ‘Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: The Case of the Johannine Gospel in the Second Century’ Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: discursive fights over religious traditions in Antiquity (eds. J. Ulrich, A.-C. Jacobsen, D. Brakke; ECCA 11; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012), 1-17.

C.P. Bammel, ‘Herakleon’, TRE XV (1986) 54-57 = ‘Herakleon’ in Tradition and Exegesis in Early Christian Writers (Ashgate, Hampshire: Variorum, 1995), 1-8.

A. Bastit, ‘Form et méthode du Commentaire sur Jean d’Héracléon’ Adamantius 15 (2009), 150-176.

P.F. Beatrice, ‘Greek Philosophy and Gnostic Soteriology in Heracleon’s “Hypomnemata”’ Early Christianity 3 (2012), 188-214.

D. Domenico, ‘Remarques sur l’anthropologie d’Héracléon: les psychiques’ Studia Patristica XVI (ed. E.A. Livingstone; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985), 143-151.

B.D. Ehrman, ‘Heracleon and the “Western” Textual Tradition’ NTS 40 (1994), 161-179.

B.D. Ehrman, ‘Heracleon, Origen, and the Text of the Fourth Gospel’ Vig. Chr. 47 (1993), 105-118.

C. E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 207-211.

Y. Janssens, ‘Héracléon: Commentaire sur l’Évangile selon S. Jean’ Le Muséon 72 (1959), 101-151; 277-299.

Y. Janssens, ‘L’Épisode de la Samaritaine chez Héracléon’ Sacra Pagina: Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica (ed. J. Coppens; BETL 17-18; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1959) 77-85.

K. Keefer, The Branches of the Gospel of John: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (LNTS 332; London: Continuum, 2006), 32-43.

J. Mouson, ‘Jean-Baptiste dans les fragments d’ Héracléon’ ETL 30 (1954), 301-322.

E. Mühlenberg, ‘Wieviel Erlösungen kennt der Gnostiker Herakleon’ ZNW 66 (1975), 170-93.

T. Nagel, Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Aneignung und Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlich-gnostischer Literatur (ABG 2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000), 315-341.

E. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's commentary on John (SBLMS 17; Nashville, Tenn: Abingdon, 1973).

S.R. Pickering, ‘Recovering Second-Century Readings of the Gospel of John: Heracleon’s Text as Quoted by Origen’ New Testament Textual Research Update 2 (1994), 52-56.

Jean-Michel Poffet, La méthode exégétique d’Héracléon et d’Origène, Commentateurs de Jn 4: Jésus, la Samaritaine et les Samaritains (Fribourg: Universitaites Fribourge Suisse, 1985).

M. Simonetti, ‘Eracleone e Origene’ Vetera Christianorum 3 (1966), 111-141 & 4 (1967), 23-64.

E. Thomassen, ‘Heracleon’ in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel (ed. Tuomas Rasimus; NovTSup 132; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 173-210.

J.A. Trumbower, ‘Origen’s Exegesis of John 8:19-53: The Struggle with Heracleon over the idea of Fixed Natures’ Vig. Chr. 43 (1989), 138-154.

A. Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zweiten Jahrhundert (WUNT 142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Congratulations to Maurice Robinson

Our very warm congratulations to Maurice who has been promoted to Research Professor of New Testament Studies at SEBTS (see here).

Bruce Ashford, provost of Southeastern, said, “We are happy to allow him the opportunity to increase his research and writing in upcoming years.”
 In his new role, Robinson will be producing a critical edition and textual commentary for the Byzantine text. 

Friday, May 30, 2014

An Evil Conference at St Mary's in Twickenham

Last year Chris Keith, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's University, Twickenham, invited me to present a paper at the conference "Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity: Cultural, Historical, and Textual Approaches" on 23-24 May 2014, organized by the Centre for Social-Scientific Study of the Bible, for which Chris serves as director.

At first I planned to write up something on the number of the beast (616/666), but found out, by chance, that Jeff Cate had recently been working on this topic, and made a presentation at ETS Annual Meeting in 2013 (abstract here). So, I changed my plans and decided to look at some textual variants in the Gospels which somehow may relate to the concept of evil, in broader terms: Matt 27:16-17 (Jesus Barabbas); Luke 23:32 ("two other criminals"); and John 13:26 (he took [the bread] and...).

In the first part of my paper, titled "Variants of Evil: The Disassocation of Jesus from Evil in the Textual Tradition of the New Testament" I discuss criteria used to evaluate textual variation in the NT, and in particular the lectio difficilior potior; its application and limitations. I gave one example of a seemingly "evil variant" which has been discussed along those lines by Wayne Kannaday in his Apologetic Discourse (Mark 1:34b, and they [the demons] knew him [Jesus], where several MSS add "to be the Christ" with variation). Here I think the addition in the textual tradition of Mark is not due to the difficult notion that Jesus had some personal acquintance with the evil spirits, but the easiest explanation is to see the addition as a harmonization to the parallell in Luke 4:41. The bottom line is that "every problem which presents itself to the textual critic must be regarded as possibly unique" (Alfred E. Housman), and that this sound view will exclude every mechanical application of a single criterion to a passage, including the lectio difficilior.

So, in the second part of the paper I discussed my selected examples, where I think the criterion is applicable, and in these examples I propose that scribes may have softened the text to disassociate Jesus (and the eucharistic bread) from evil (represented by Barabbas, the two criminals that were crucified with him, Judas, Satan). I will not go into details here, but the conference papers are due out in the WUNT series (Mohr Siebeck) in 2015. Other presenters:
  • Loren Stuckenbruck (keynote speaker, LMU-München) 
  • James Crossley (University of Sheffield),
  • Chris Keith (St Mary’s University),
  • Louise J. Lawrence (University of Exeter),
  • Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer (University of Aberdeen),
  • Susanne Luther (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz),
  • Lloyd Pietersen (formerly University of Gloucestershire),
  • Christopher Rollston (Tel Aviv University),
  • Dieter T. Roth (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz),
  • Christopher Skinner (Mount Olive College),
  • Chris Tilling (St Mellitus College),
  • Steve Walton (St Mary’s University/Tyndale House, Cambridge)
  • Benjamin Wold (Trinity College, Dublin).
The full programme is here.

See Steve Walton's excellent blogpost summary of most of the papers, ("An evil success! The St Mary's conference on evil").

Finally, I would like to share my final slide which I didn't get the chance to show in my presentation because I was out of time, and it did not belong to the paper proper – so I post it here instead (run presentation and click arrow).