There is a a score of interesting articles and reviews related to manuscript studies and textual criticism in the current issue of Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 64/2 (October) 2013:Articles
Chris Keith, "On the Pericope Adulterae: A Response to J. Keith Elliott" (pp. 432-38).
Chris Jordan, "The Rediscovery of the Sherborne Lectionary" (pp. 482-97).
Reviews
Søren Holst, Review of Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman (pp. 633-35).
J. K. Elliott, Review of Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior. Edited by Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung/The Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Vol. 4: Die katholischen Briefe/Catholic Letters. Edited by Barbara Aland, †Kurt Aland, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, and Klaus Wachtel (pp. 636-42).
David Parker, Review of The Early Texts [sic] of the New Testament. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger (pp. 642-45).
J. Lionel North, Review of The Story of the Bodmer Papyri: From the First Monastery’s Library in Upper Egypt to Geneva and Dublin. By James M. Robinson (pp. 645-46).
In a subsequent blogpost I will return in more detail to David Parker's review of The Early Text of the New Testament, because it contains some unfair criticism (and, of course, because I am one of the contributors to that volume).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think some of Parker's criticisms are justified, especially with regard to the fluctuation of 3-4th century MSS in the Part 2 and the apparent lack of the discussion of the 3rd century Christian writers. I would add, though, that the MSS of Revelation can't be studied with the TuT volumes, as there are none—to my knowledge, anyway—that deal with the text of Revelation.
ReplyDeleteThanks Peter. I agree about the lack of discussion of 3d cent. writers, especially Origen. As for fluctuation of MSS, that is a more complex matter. In any case, I will explain in my blogpost what I reacted against.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to your blogspot. As for myself, I don't mind inclusion of the 4th century witnesses, but it should have been done more consistently throughout or, at least, with some sort of explicit clarification (as, e.g., in Nicklas's essay).
ReplyDelete*blogpost. (Blogcomments—especially mine—would make for a great corpus for the study of typographical errors.)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tommy and Peter, for your comments about ETNT. Of course we would have liked to include more authors in part 3 but we were severely constrained by the word limit placed on us by OUP. The same goes for the inclusion of more 4th c mss in part 2, though a good deal of liberty was given to each contributor, according to the particularities of the book/corpus they dealt with. I hope to respond to some of Parker's misunderstandings of the book's aim and scope elsewhere.
ReplyDelete