Latest news from CSNTM tells us of a new feature of the website — “TC Notes.” In this section textual scholars are offered some more specific data on manuscripts. The first TC note is about a manuscript presumed to be missing from the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge, Greg.-Aland 1281. It has now been located again during the CSNTM-team's recent visit to Cambridge.
Update: The original TC Note on Greg.-Aland 1281 has been corrected as the result of some corrections in the comment section on this blog, e.g., the MS in question was never presumed to be lost, but there was incertainty about the shelf number (TW).
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
It is surely a contribution to scholarship to have removed two brackets from such a reference book.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing is that we now know the physical MS is there. The next thing is that CSNTM takes photos of it. Many of such bracketed items in the "reference book" (Kurzgefasste Liste) are not available on microfilm in Münster (I don't know about this particular one). So, there is really more to be grateful about than the removal of two brackets...
ReplyDeleteApparently MS 1281 is available on microfilm at Münster, since I collated the PA marginal from it.
ReplyDeleteActually there are no brackets in my copy of the Liste (1994 2nd).
ReplyDeleteI mean as relates to 1281.
ReplyDeleteI never checked my Liste to verify what it said about Greg.-Aland 1281, I have not found it since the burglary. Anyway, the TC-note mentions two Greg.-Aland numbers: "Gregory-Aland codex 1281 (= GA 767)."
ReplyDeleteI thought this was because of some old double registration. Since I haven't got my Liste I cannot check if it was an error in the note.
Yes,
ReplyDeleteAt 767 we have:
[767] = 1281
At 1281 we have:
1281 [=767] e X Pg 259 1 19 26.3x19 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Mus., McClean Collection?
Thanks Pete, so if not brackets there was at least a question mark in the entry for 1281.
ReplyDeleteYes. If it was me I think I would have interpreted this as indicating some doubt as to whether this ms belonged in the McClean collection, not a general doubt as to the whereabouts of the ms.
ReplyDeleteThere is a kind of predictable Tendenz in CSNTM announcements isn't there?
Wallace just gave some history to the TC community about a manuscript in an important collection, and it seems that there is a lot of höhnisch grinsend. If you jumped your butt on a plane, and found some history about a manuscript, you'd write about it too.
ReplyDeleteanonymous: "If you jumped your butt on a plane ..."
ReplyDeleteIn this case, PMH could have walked :-)
Keeping track of Greek NT mss is a tedious task. Currently, we know of more than 5500 items in more than 470 holding institutions. Therefore, every piece of information that either confirms or clarifies details about mss should be welcomed by any student of that tradition.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of GA 1281 (former GA 767) a couple of background details might be appropriate, since Dan Wallace's helpful report on it created some discussion on this blog.
Indeed, there are no brackets in the Kurzgefasste Liste (1st and 2nd ed.) related to 1281.
The 1st ed. of the Liste (1963) has as 1281's location: "(früher: London, Antiqu[ariat] Quaritch) jetzt: London, F. Wormald". Hence Junack and Welte were perfectly aware of the fact, that this ms was never part of the "original" MacLean Collection donated in 1905.
In addition the film of 1281 in the possession of the INTF, the one that Maurice consulted, has "Wormald" as reference to the holding institution.
Strangely enough, the "Handexemplar" of the 1 ed. of the Liste, handed down by Junack and Welte, contains a handwritten note in the margin saying with reference to 1281: "Cambridge, Univ. Libr. s(?) 87-1972"
From the correspondence generated in preparation of the 2nd ed. of the Liste it is evident that the INTF must have received prior information about the (new ?) location "Fitzwilliam Mus.". Unfortunately, they inferred or had information that it belonged to the MacLean Collection of that institution. Hence, two letters (as of 10. Dec 1992 and 29. Oct. 1993) asked about verifying the item in relation to the MacLean collection. In both cases the keeper Paul Woudhuysen replied by asking for the specific "Macllean [sic] ms. number", since he could not find an item in the MacLean Collection without a number.
They kind of were at cross-purposes so it seems to me. In any case, even the signature "87-1972" must have been around in the INTF at some point as evidenced by the hand written note in the 1st ed. It's hard to know what exactly caused the confusion. But it's easy enough to understand why it could have happened.
BTW- it is even unclear to me, whether the question mark in the 2nd ed. of the Liste after "MacClean [sic] Collection" indicates that 1281 has been "presumed missing from Fitzwilliam Museum" - and not just from said collection.
As stated above, it is tedious to keep track of the lot of Greek NT mss, especially when they were auctioned and in private possession. It is good to have this one case of GA 1281 closed.
Ulrich Schmid
Thank you Ulrich for the additional information! It is very interesting to hear about the "compositional history" of the Kurzgefasste Liste.
ReplyDeleteFriends, I apologize for the sloppy work. I wrote about the brackets from memory--something I tell my students never to do. Worse, I made incorrect statements about the MS having been presumably lost. All that was lost was the shelf number, but that is nevertheless an important fact. The essay has been revised to reflect this. To be sure, this is less important than what we originally posted, but it still is important for those who visit libraries to look at MSS. There is a need to know which shelf number matches up with which Gregory-Aland number. Without this information, the ability to do research on the MS has to be put on hold. Thanks for all who made corrections, even if some of the corrections added unnecessary comments about motives and such.
ReplyDelete