Wednesday, October 15, 2008

New article in TC Journal

TC, which has been somewhat out of commission for a while, appears to be back up-and-running, with a new article which some may find interesting:

Peter Head, The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations

This was my paper from last year's SBL, as briefly noted here. By the way, I'm sorry about the lack of an "M." in my name (I shall see if I can do anything about that before my mum notices). This paper is not so much an argument, as a series of observations about the way Mark is (re-)presented in Codex Sinaiticus. The main issues of interest as I see them, none of which are particularly earth-shattering, are:
  • the presentation of Mark in terms of 'openings' (rather than pages)
  • the appearance and setting of Mark within a four-gospel collection
  • the inexplicable variation in paragraphing practices
  • the flexibility with which abbreviations (including, but not limited to nomina sacra) are deployed
  • the number of singular readings which harmonise to Matthew
  • the lack of observable theological-scribal Tendenz

If you are not bothered about the data, then the conclusions are on pp. 23-24.

13 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Peter,

I would be interested to know why you date P45 in the 3rd cent.?

It far too much resembles Alexandrinus and Washingtonensis to suit me.

Malcolm

Peter M. Head said...

Ah, that is an interesting question. In this case I am not directly addressing the date of P45, it is just a mention in the introduction and I simply adopt the general consensus view of the date.

I wouldn't however, have thought that either Alex. or Wash. were particularly close palaeographically to P45.

Peter M. Head said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter M. Head said...

Sorry, I don't know how that came out twice, and unlike Tommy I don't know how to edit comments away.

Peter M. Head said...

Nor is it just a ploy to gather comments.

Peter M. Head said...

Well, that last one was.

Peter M. Head said...

But the others are definitely not.

Anonymous said...

Peter M. Head said...
Nor is it just a ploy to gather comments.

11:23 PM, October 15, 2008


Peter M. Head said...
Well, that last one was.

11:23 PM, October 15, 2008

Peter,

Are evangelical text critics on your side of the pond subject to a Stahlin like purge in the Anglican communion?

Malcolm

The White Man said...

I think that the original poster of a comment will see at the bottom of his comment (on his computer when logged in) a little ash bin icon (garbage can for those across the pond).
Clicking on it, and admitting that you really do mean it, should result in the disappearance of the text of your comment.
Try it; it can be fun!

Wieland Willker said...

"a little ash bin icon (garbage can"

Since this is about Codex Sinaiticus, Peter is certainly very hesitant to use a garbage bin.

Peter M. Head said...

Thanks for the tip about the bin. I never knew that. (Should have read the manual I guess.)

Peter M. Head said...

Malcolm asked: "Are evangelical text critics on your side of the pond subject to a Stahlin like purge in the Anglican communion?"

No.

Anonymous said...

Peter M. Head said...
Malcolm asked: "Are evangelical text critics on your side of the pond subject to a Stahlin like purge in the Anglican communion?"

No.

10:09 AM, October 17, 2008

Good. I guess they'll just label you guys as "superstitous" and "antiquated" as you change dioceses - shacking the dust off your feet.

Malcolm