Thursday, June 12, 2008

SBL 2008 Sessions

I booked my plane tickets for SBL today. The program is now online.

New Testament Manuscripts (Umlauts, P66.72.75, and a P.Oxyrh. fragment)
Versions and Fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Andrew of Caesaria, Coptic, and Jesus writing on the ground)
Review (David Parker, New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts)
Review (James Royce, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri)
Int. Org. for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Ex, Cant, 3 Kgdms, Lamentations, Hexapla)
TC of Hebrew Bible (Peshitta, Samaritan Pentateuch, Isaiah, Red/Reed Sea)
TC of Hebrew Bible (Ethiopic Manuscripts in N. America)
TC of Samuel-Kings Workshop

4 Comments:

Wieland Willker said...

Regarding the dating of the umlauts I would be more cautious.
The brown ink is not confined to the first hand. The larger amount of the "old stuff" in Vaticanus looks like this. E.g. there are many marks of unknown meaning (probably pericope/reading markers). These all show the same faint, brown colour.

From what we know of 4th CE textual criticism (if this term is allowed) everything points to an understanding quite different from ours today. Even scholars like Origen had a rather naive and unsystematic handling of textual variants in the NT (see Metzger's articles).
Purely historical probability would therefore point to a later date. Either 15th CE (time of the restauration: eventually the Greek legation carried a labeled MS?) or even later Sepulveda (see Niccum).

On the other hand purely palaeographical reasons point at least for a part of the umlauts to a very early date: Some umlauts have the same colour than the unenhanced text. Thus they seem to be very old (4th to 6th CE). But: Who made them? Why? Was it for a recension? Or made shortly after a recension? How to explain the umlaut in the minuscule section?

Also consider the enormous amount of time that must have went into this umlaut project, comparing the codex with several MSS ...

Btw. in the OT quite some "triplets" appear, similar to the umlauts.
Each of the minuscule supplements contain either an umlaut or a triplet, too.


If you would force me to opt for one or the other option, I would say that the umlauts are later than the 4th CE.

PS: I cannot get the idea out of my head that perhaps the strong "fading" is in fact the result of a "washing off", a "palimpsesting" of the MS.

Peter M. Head said...

David Parker's book is not yet in print: http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521895538

Rick said...

It's also listed on Amazon for pre-order, but who knows how long it will take to be available. Do you have any idea?

Rick said...

Didn't see that it was listed as July on the cambridge.org site.