Monday, June 21, 2010

Two New Articles in Novum Testamentum

by at 2
Peter Rodgers recently mentioned two new reviews in the current issue of Novum Testamentum, Volume 52, Number 3, 2010.

There are also two articles in the area of New Testament textual criticism:

Roy E. Clampa, "A Note on Problems with the Representation of 1 John 1:7 in Codex Alexandrinus," pp. 267-271

J. K. Elliott, "Supplement III to J.K. Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts," pp. 272-297

The latter update to Elliott's bibliography contains lots of information and leads to uncatalogued Greek New Testament MSS. There is so much to discover out there!

I should also mention that this blog is now included in Elliott's ample bibliography:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com contains items of news and opinion on aspects of textual criticism including manuscripts.
, , ,

2 comments

  1. Wieland Willker6/22/2010 8:07 am

    Roy E. Clampa, "A Note on Problems with the Representation of 1 John 1:7 in Codex Alexandrinus," pp. 267-271

    It is very unfortunate that no images are provided with this article.
    Without images it helps little. One has to do the work again oneself.

    Here are two images:

    Original

    Reconstruction

    ALLHLWN is quite improbable, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Roy Ciampa7/07/2010 6:19 am

    Thanks for making it easy for folks to check the MS. Your reconstruction is helpful too, although rather than drawing a line down an imaginary margin as you do, I think it would be more helpful to draw a vertical line going down from where the MS is cut off on the first line (as I did when I was preparing the article). That way the viewer can easily calculate how many letters go past that point for each of the other lines on that page. Comparison with the range one finds on other nearby columns could also be included. But, as I mentioned on Ben Reynold's blog, I did figure that those whose interest was piqued by the article would do what you have done and check out the MS for themselves and I decided that my verbal description would be sufficient to make my point.
    Sorry you were inconvenienced by the need to confirm my conclusion, but glad to see that you did in fact come to the same conclusion! It seems my goal was reached with at least one reader (even if it is an unsatisfied reader)!
    All the best,
    Roy Ciampa

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )