tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post2103724527063153515..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Brent Nongbri RespondsP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20357399004726478532018-12-12T22:59:31.098+00:002018-12-12T22:59:31.098+00:00I wondered whether it really needs to be a scroll ...I wondered whether it really needs to be a scroll or codex. Is a stack of leaves not an option?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11783414652517348187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13897963724090122542018-12-12T16:38:47.109+00:002018-12-12T16:38:47.109+00:00Thanks for chipping in, Stephen. Very helpful and ...Thanks for chipping in, Stephen. Very helpful and interesting. Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-27187532373855581492018-12-12T16:33:23.756+00:002018-12-12T16:33:23.756+00:00I simply use the language of re-use because that&#...I simply use the language of re-use because that's how it's normally done (even when the recto text involved is literary and even when the roll isn't rotated, which is by no means a rarity), but I do see the potential for misunderstanding. It'd be interesting to see if the practice of rotating/lack thereof correlates in any way with the character of the text on the → side. Food for thought.Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-32061226308823919172018-12-12T15:30:21.044+00:002018-12-12T15:30:21.044+00:00But the vagueness of 'reuse' shines throug...But the vagueness of 'reuse' shines through in Nongbri's argument that normally a reused roll is turned 180 degrees. Undoubtedly correct when you write your personal literary work on the back of tax roll. <br />I know what you mean with 'reuse', but the semantics of the word don't seem to cover both 'reuse of the writing material' <i>and</i> 'continual use of the text'. You cannot have your cake etc.Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08088443923816293794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89642380769165406422018-12-12T13:55:28.081+00:002018-12-12T13:55:28.081+00:00Ha!Ha!Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73178069961778427142018-12-12T13:55:19.686+00:002018-12-12T13:55:19.686+00:00Thanks for this, Dirk. I agree that the manuscript...Thanks for this, Dirk. I agree that the manuscript now has miscellaneous contents and I also get the potentially problematical nature of the language of 're-use'. I think, though, that you're reading a bit too much into it. The re-use of a roll simply suggests that the back side, which was originally left blank, was used for some other text—contrary to the normal design of this book format. So, the re-use ipso facto meant 'adding'. Brent's counter-proposal was codicologically driven, and indeed that's where this debate primarily lies (and rightly so). I should also note that I've never suggested (nor has Hunt, the principal editor, done) that the inscription of the Rev text onto this roll did away with the possible continual use of the Exod text. Although I've found the argument for literary motivations behind this arrangement of texts dubious, I wouldn't rule out a possibility that the Exod side continued to be used. Who knows? The point of 're-use' in this case concerns the writing material. In case of rolls, this re-use could have, potentially, facilitated a continued use of the original side as half of the writing material was still available.Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00270874379279604671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70946033575198836842018-12-12T13:33:11.627+00:002018-12-12T13:33:11.627+00:00Yes, and indeed ”miscellaneous” and not ”composite...Yes, and indeed ”miscellaneous” and not ”composite”!Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43612227463914232762018-12-12T11:58:08.820+00:002018-12-12T11:58:08.820+00:00From the beginning, the major weakness of the '...From the beginning, the major weakness of the 'reused' roll theory is the term 'reuse'. It evokes the image that the original text on the recto (i.e. Exodus), was no longer useful and that the material was repurposed for the text of Revelation. Nongbri's suggestion successfully avoids the notion of discarding Exodus for the sake of Revelation by assuming that the latter was added to Exodus, thus maintaining that both texts had value to the user who added Revelation.<br />Given Exodus's status as Scripture within the early church, I cannot imagine that the Exodus roll was repurposed (in the sense described above) as a Revelation roll. It seems easier to assume that, in the style of miscellaneous volumes, Revelation was 'added to' Exodus, which still kept its value as an Exodus text. This could also explain why the roll was not turned as would be done for properly reused rolls. <br />So I suggest we should see the whole manuscript as a miscellaneous volume. If a codex, it is miscellaneous by necessity (the deliberate act of continuing to write in the same manuscript); if a roll, it is miscellaneous not because of repurposing away from the first text, but because a second, valued, text was added on the verso to the original, valued text.Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08088443923816293794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13393640533190524082018-12-12T09:53:25.938+00:002018-12-12T09:53:25.938+00:00Thanks. Allow me to comment on my perhaps unclear,...Thanks. Allow me to comment on my perhaps unclear, or amphibolous, coinage of "scroll-prominent." I intended it to refer both to the physical scrolls as well as to text references to scrolls, Ezekiel 3:3 and Rev. passim.<br />Elsewhere I wrote that the author of Revelation, whose place in the canon occasioned much comment, was Essene-influenced: DSD 1997, http://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Exclusion_of_Ephraim.pdf<br />and in Legal Texts, Legal Issues (Joseph M. Baumgarten FS) 1997 453-60 and on the text of Rev. 22:14 in NTS 1997 154-7.Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.com