Friday, March 22, 2013

Bits and Pieces


Brice Jones has a new web-site with a blog and papyrological resources. On his blog he reviews the recent book The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (although he mostly comments on only two chapters); he also discusses P. Oxy. 1151 and the text of the NT (it cites John 1.1 and 3).

Steve Caruso posts a picture of an interesting transcription

James McGrath offers a helpful visual showing how useful the KJV is compared with the original autographs (he seems to think it is silly, but I agree with every point).

Josh Mann has an interesting discussion about pagination (which links to my long awaited paper on 'Turning the Page and its impact on the NT textual tradition').

Michael Kruger begins a review/interaction (possibly involving critique) with the very interesting A New New Testament (sic)

Michael Patton posts a list of the top selling Bibles in America in 2012.

Ryan Wettlaufer's 2010 PhD has been published as No Longer Written: The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, the Epistle of James as a Case Study


  1. Thanks for linking to my post! I probably would not have balked at the term "more useful" the way I did at "better." I would trade the KJV for an original manuscript in a heartbeat! :)

  2. Thanks for the bump! The new brill edition is a fairly substantial revision of the original dissertation, and several people here had a real influence in that revision, for which I'm very appreciative.

  3. Ryan,
    I think if I had actually had a close look, rather than merely glimpsed it on the new book shelf, it probably would have warranted a whole post.

  4. Thanks a lot for the shout out!

  5. I'm not sure I'd agree with James McGrath's last point, although having an original 1611 KJV is quite an advantage at Luke 10:22--which, by the way, in Byz is an h.t. with v.23--how many mss are missing the whole verse, I wonder?

  6. I meant h.a.

  7. Daniel,

    In response to your comment. We see no MSS which omit the entire verse at Lk 10:22. TuT shows 1287 MSS in support of the clause with 200 on slight variation with 160 MSS showing omission.

    We would not agree with your h.a. assessment on the omission link with v. 23 though. The KJV/TR pt. omitted here due to likely f1 influence not Byzantine and though Πa, M27, 1424 and 1216 do omit here I am afraid they followed an early scribal error in omission.

    It is interesting to us how when a Byzantine variant is up for question how h.a., h.t. or conflation is argued but with critical variations which effect shortening variations with the papyri, Alex./ Western uncials they are cleared of charges by their advocates through Bengel's lectio brevior praeferenda. We could not disagree more. Also, lectio difficilior has been rather selective too. Both of these arguments appear in the end to be based on the oldest is best rule. As Wisse, said this is risky and tentative at best in TC.

    Paul Anderson

  8. OK this is strange. I mentioned in the thread below attending the local display of the Green Collection's roaming exhibit. Advertised was a late 2nd/early 3rd century papyrus fragment of 1 Corinthians 8:10; 9:3 that was extracted from mummy cartonnage. Of course we were not allowed to photograph it, so I transcribed as many letters as possible. But when I checked the passage today, I could see right away that this fragment was not at all from the passage they said it was. None of the words fit at all, and 1 Cor. 9:3 is far too short of a verse for the number of lines on the fragment (8). So I decided to go back to the exhibit today, and this time took longer and did a much cleaner transcription of the fragment, even outlining the border of the fragment. Then I did some computer searches of the GNT and finally discovered that this is actually a fragment of 1 Corinthians 10:1-6. I would presume the reverse side of the fragment contains text near this reference.

    But I wonder why the Green Collection would display the wrong reference. Anyway, now I am going to work on determining the length of lines, etc, and check to see if there are any possible texutal variants.

  9. Peter, could you share a bit more about your paper? (i.e., is it 'in the works', plans to present it, etc.?)23

  10. I have spent some time on Brice C. Jones' webpage, it is excellent! Lots of resources!

  11. I finished checking this new Green Collection papyrus fragment of 1 Corinthians 10:1-6 and found no textual variants of interest. Of course I have no idea about the reverse side. If anyone is interested in seeing what I have on this fragment, please let me know your e-mail address and I would be happy to send it to you.

  12. Joshua: more or less only notes, I didn't mean it was actually in production. Although I think it is interesting.

  13. Hi,

    And I think it is critical that the heavenly witnesses are included under:

    "preserved in early translations and church fathers."

    Only in the last decades has it become very obvious that the heavenly witnesses discussion did not end with the Richard Porson sneer or the Bruce Metzger word-parsing. And that the evidences in early Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts, extensive early church writers, and powerful internal evidences still says loud and strong -- that the key verse in the battle of the Bible is 1 John 5:7.

    If your version hides this from you, chuck the version and go back to the originals!

    And if you can't find the originals, use the AV.

    Yours in Jesus,
    Steven Avery
    Bayside, NY