|ETC blog dinner 2015.|
Also, this is a good time to say thanks to all who joined us for the annual dinner in which we celebrated the blog’s 10th anniversary. It was good to see some faces I hadn’t seen before. Hopefully all had a good time. A very special thanks to Christian Askeland for organizing the whole thing for us again!
“Discoveries and Contributions to the Text of the New Testament Found at the National Library of Greece” by Roberto MarcelloCSNTM’s Athens digitization project—their largest ever. He noted that, since its founding, CSNTM has digitized about 80 manuscripts previously uncatalogued by INTF and that several more were digitized on this summer’s trip. There were lots of other interesting finds as well but, unfortunately, my notes are sparse. I did manage to catch that GA 498 was found to have Ambrosiaster’s order of the Gospels: Matt, Luke, Mark, John (if I wrote it down correctly). I'm hoping the paper will be published somewhere but, until then, next month or two, you should be able to buy the audio.
“The Earliest Evidence for the Longer Ending of Mark” by J. D. Atkins
“Vaticanus Distigme-Obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, including 1 Corinthians 14:34–35” by Philip B. Payne
|The front of Payne’s handout |
showing the eight cases.
The whole presentation was given with energy and verve, but I can’t say I was convinced by much of it. Payne’s obeli are surely just typical paragraphoi (hence the gaps in the text) that occur next to dots. Payne’s measurements may be accurate, but if one has to measure them to make the distinction, then they aren’t very effective in conveying their meaning. During the Q&A I asked Payne if the fact that the “added text” marked by these symbols wasn’t actually in Vaticanus in his first seven examples means that the symbols would have been completely useless to readers of Vaticanus itself. He admitted that this is true, but suggested that they would have been useful in the scriptorium when set alongside “almost any other manuscript.” Some in the room seemed convinced.
|GA 0232 (image source)|
“P. Antinoopolois 12 (0232): A Miniature Codex of 2 John” by Michael J. KrugerKruger gave a good codicological and palaeographical analysis of 0232 arguing against the early date suggested by some. If I remember, Kruger placed it in the fifth century. He also spent some time thinking through what other contents could have fit within the same codex (our single leaf is numbered). Nothing works particularly well. But you can see the full argument in NTS 58.2.
Also, see Drew Longacre’s summaries of some of the ETS TC sessions I missed.
“What Is the ‘Text’ in Textual Criticism?” by Ronald L. TroxelBreed). But he also argued against those who want to define “text” in relation to the author’s intention (e.g., Tanselle). Troxel’s own preferred definition is “a socially produced and recognized form of written discourse that enters public circulation and can become manifest in different tokens [= instantiations of the text].” From this, Troxel concluded that textual criticism should describe (1) “the most likely form(s) of the text at the earliest recoverable stage of its development” and (2) the course of the text’s life attested by the surviving witnesses.” It strikes me that these are the same two goals that many NT text critics are advocating for today which means that perhaps OT and NT TC are closer than I thought in terms of their goals. Still, Troxel’s definition of “text” as “socially produced” left me pondering the old philosophical conundrum: if a text is written and no one is there to read it, is there still a text?
“Silencing Women, Raising the Dead: The Curious Origins of a Controversial Conjectural Emendation” by Karin B. NeutelFull abstract here.]
“Real or Perceived Scribal Habits? Assessing the ‘Singular Readings Method’ with Codex Sinopensis (O 023)” by Elijah Hixson
Word on the street is that James Royse and Juan Hernández were stalking Elijah after the session looking to silence the young challenger to their method. I think Elijah made it out alive though. In all seriousness, Royse made some very gracious comments in the Q&A. It was a real model of how to respond to criticism of your own work.
Apologies if I missed your paper. If you know of other people’s summaries on blogs and such, do leave them in the comments.