My article entitled 'Five New Testament Manuscripts: Recently Discovered Fragments In A Private Collection In Cambridge' (i.e. 0311, 0312, 0313, 0314, 0315) which is to appear in the next print issue of The Journal of Theological Studies has now been published on-line in a pre-publication final form (but without pagination).
Anyway, if anyone is interested the article can be seen (I hope without sign in or subscription) here.
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
There is another text critical article in the next issue too (with a much more interesting title): Bodner Keith, 'Mouse Trap: A Text-Critical Problem with Rodents in the Ark Narrative' (http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fln044v1)
ReplyDeletePeter, Just to confirm – I was able to download perfectly via supplied link without login. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteOne puzzle relating to Dr Head's article: why cite Robinson-Pierpont from the preliminary edition of 1991 when the more precise 2005 edition has been available for the past two and a half years?
ReplyDeleteThanks Maurice.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of aspects to the "puzzle". The first is that there is a five year range from initial discovery to final publication. I would need to check the timing, but at a guess I would say that the numbers from RP1991 were checked before you kindly gave me a copy of the 2005 edition late in 2006 (since if these dates are correct the article was already submitted by then).
So the second aspect is why the reference was not up-dated in the proof/correction stage? There was no conscious decision about it. The point is relatively incidental, and I doubt that the numbers are different in the 2005 edition, although an up-date may have looked neater I guess. A possible contributing factor is that the 2005 edition currently lives at home in the study with a couple of other editions for 'at home' use, while the proofing stage for the article took place at work in my office. A further factor could be that Tyndale House Library (I now discover) does not have a copy of the 2005 edition.
Anyway, I hope that explains your "puzzle". I hope that is the biggest problem in the article!