I’m teaching NTTC again at the seminary and that means having guest lecturers visit to share their work. The first two videos are now up at the TCI YouTube channel. If you subscribe there, you’ll get new videos when they’re posted. Thanks to Mike and Edgar for letting me share these.
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
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this informative video!
At the end, Dr Holmes had some words that were of great interest : "..textual criticism..already/always(?) has a goal serving the Church through a translation generally..". surely, one cannot separate text and translation!
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you also for the Dr Ebojo video! One can see that a "good" scribe may be faced with a less than "good" exemplar, and also that the possible absence of a book or books is just that - and not evidence that such book or books did not exist / did not matter/ etc.!
Thanks for these Peter. Interesting comments from Michael Holmes regarding emendation, esp. in light of his micro/macro paradigm.
ReplyDeleteFor those curious, the SBLGNT XML apparatus notes only three of these: Acts 16:12 ("NA"), 1Cor 6:5 ("Holmes"; mentioned in the video), and 2Pet 3:10 ("ECM").
Thanks for posting these, Peter. Good information.
ReplyDeleteI watched both videos while working on other things, so I may have missed some things. I am curious, however, in connection with Dr. Ebojo's presentation and his work in P46, is there a reason why we would rule out the possibility of their being "front matter" (to use a modern term) that appeared before Romans that would have required more pages in the front, consequently resulting in more pages in the back?
Do any manuscripts contain such "front matter"? If so, are these pages usually counted when the codex is paginated?
We know some manuscripts included what would basically be the equivalent of a Table of Contents (ToC), though I don't have any specific manuscripts in mind. I also realize that some of these ToCs sometimes appear in the back of the codex, if memory serves me correctly.
And, if memory serves correctly, are there not some manuscripts / codices with letters or descriptions of either the purpose, funding, or some other items related to what prompted the creation of the manuscript / codex? I'm thinking something similar to Eusebius's explanatory preface to his canon list.
I am a newbie in TC and manuscripts, so some of my thinking could be off. However, the possibility of there being pages before Romans seems plausible to me. I would greatly appreciate the input of Dr. Ebojo or other experts in manuscripts / codices that are on this blog.
I'm sorry for introducing a comment not related to the post. But I just wanted to make a suggestion so that one of the contributors to this blog may take it and publish a review of a recent book that I'm sure you are aware of. I've just received (via Amazon) this book and I am enjoying reading it a lot. I'm talking about Edmon Gallagher's Translation of the Seventy. I hope somebody here takes my suggestion.
ReplyDelete