The Institute für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) has published a new update of the Kurzgefasste Liste (090820).
The number of papyri is 125. Peter reported recently on the new fragment P. Oxy 4934 containing 1 Peter 1:23-2:5; 7-12. This is P125. The most recent fragment of Hebrews, P126, is not included in this update since it was registered after 20 August .
The list of uncials now reaches up to 0320.
0319 = Codex Sangermanensis (St Petersburg), a copy of Codex Claromontanus known as Dabs1
0320 = Codex Waldeccensis (Marburg), another copy of Codex Claromontanus known as Dabs2
The list of minuscules reaches 2897. Images of 2892, 2893, 2895-2897 (MSS in the Van Kampen collection in Orlando, Florida) can be viewed at the CSNTM website. Greg.-Aland 2894 is a manuscript in the Getty Museum that I sent in for registration in Münster a while ago.
The list of lectionaries reaches up to L2438.
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
I'm very pleased that the Abschriften are given their own numbers.
ReplyDeleteThis raises the question whether a minuscule such as 205abs should also be given a new number. Should such really be done?
ReplyDeleteAnd yet minuscule MSS copied from printed TR editions do have separate numbers, even though they should perhaps have been cited as something like "TR1516abs"....
I hope that in any case the Abschriften will remain clearly identified as such, and not (by default) allowed to occupy an apparent independent or even semi-authoritative status.
The same should apply as well to the notorious Abschrift 2427, also copied from a printed edition (as Mr Carlson certainly should agree).
Is there a handy list of all the TR Abschriften?
ReplyDeleteIs there a handy list of all the TR Abschriften?
ReplyDeleteWell, I see that if there is one, maybe 2895 (VK 272) should be added to it.
Does the Liste show the new 19th-century date for 2427?
Daniel, the second (and last) Liste was published in 1995 (I think), but the forgery was discovered later (incidentally by the first commenter to this post, Stephen Carlson). After 1995 there have been a number of online updates of subsequently registered MSS so we cannot see the current status of the entry for 2427. I am sure the INTF do updates in the electronic unpublished version of the Liste. In the future it will probably be released within the VMR environment. Maybe Ulrich Schmid can comment on this.
ReplyDelete(205abs did get its own number, viz. 2886.) I like this policy.
ReplyDeleteI think that all manuscripts should get their own number. Of course, if a manuscript is a copy of an extant manuscripts, then it should not be cited in an apparatus at all unless their exemplar has become unclear (eliminatio codicum descriptorum).
I think it would be very nice if the central registry of manuscripts, such as the Kurzgefasste Liste, would indicate which manuscripts are known to be Abschriften. There will be some MSS, however, whose status as an Abschrift is going to be disputed.
INTF is constantly updating the Kurzgefasste Liste, but more importantly, at least for an interim period, we are transferring the Liste into a database that will be published on-line (by the end of September, hopefully).
ReplyDeleteUsing a database format imposes all sorts of rather healthy "restrictions" on lists, one of which is that the information that goes with an item should be as unambiguous, elementary and specific as possible. 205abs is a clear violation of that rule in that it contains too much information. In our view, the information on a ms' relation to another ms should be kept apart from its identifier, i.e. the GA number.
In addition consider this, it is very likely that there are more direct ancestor/copy relations among the extant mss, that will be discovered in due time. How should these relations be tagged in the future, if we adopt the practise of the past?
The searchable electronic version of the Liste will contain fields for "exemplar of" and "copied from", so that each set of information can be searched separately.
With regard to existing GA numbers that subsequent research has identified as undeservedly issued, we have differing constellations to deal with:
(a) forgeries/copies from printed editions,
(b) GA numbered fragments that belong to other GA numbered fragments,
(c) GA numbered ms that went underground, reappeared after decades and have received a new number
There are examples for all three types. Whatever we do in such cases, we should not obscure the history of research, even if that means keeping the memory of "errors", because for some time said items travelled under a certain GA number and have left traces in the perception of researchers and their publications. Hence, it should be clear that we can never allow to reissue GA numbers and associate them with different objects.
As a consequence, the numerical value of the highest GA number will never match the exact number of (at a particular time) known mss of any class (papyri, majuscules, minuscules, lectionaries).
The good news, however, is that, if we use a database, we can devise additional fields for all the information that subsequent research brings to light. As the electronic Liste goes on-line we will provide more information to explain the rationale for the new structure behind the scene.
Ulrich Schmid
Welcome news!
ReplyDelete