tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post405457217333763949..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: “Daniel” in Select CodicesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-555302243714946972017-09-30T06:06:07.095+01:002017-09-30T06:06:07.095+01:00i am noted it also and it is very useful for me
h...i am noted it also and it is very useful for me<br /><br />http://taxiappdeveloper.com/uber-like-app-development-company.html<br />Taxi App Developershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019734084362249916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56652959679893633802017-09-21T20:55:22.142+01:002017-09-21T20:55:22.142+01:00Eric, right about Vaticanus, which shows that it w...Eric, right about Vaticanus, which shows that it was perceived to be one, single, undivided book under the one title "Daniel."John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2995771276512748232017-09-21T20:37:50.748+01:002017-09-21T20:37:50.748+01:00Yes, that makes sense. I see that according to The...Yes, that makes sense. I see that according to The Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, by Ulrich, 4QXIIb and 4QXIIg also have blank lines the separate prophets of the Twelve. So those are all examples of the individual works of the Twelve being distinguished by breaks in the text. But if I understood correctly what you said about Vaticanus, at least in that case, there are no such breaks, but just what appears to be a single undivided book.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20755095124426652832017-09-21T17:56:08.578+01:002017-09-21T17:56:08.578+01:00Thanks for these questions, Eric. My opening remar...Thanks for these questions, Eric. My opening remark about the codex wasn't intended to make some special point about this format over the scroll. It's all we have for this particular problem. Sorry for the confusion. <br /><br />I'm not sure how far back the evidence of this format goes. Chuck Hill has already mentioned the evidence of P967, and its unfortunate lacunae at the seems of Daniel and Daniel+. So we don't have any earlier evidence than codex B. I'm thinking more about the evidence of Syh and its possible sources. Though the MS is 8C, it's Vorlage may go back quite a ways earlier. I need to think more on it.<br /><br />Regarding your point about Isaiah. I would say that a better example is the scroll XIIMur, where the 12 Prophets are included on one scroll but there is a system of three blank lines that separate the individual oracles of the 12. This system appears to recognize that these works were indeed distinct at one point and then brought together to make one scroll at a later date. Does this make sense? So yes, it is tantalizing to ponder whether the Jews ever separated Daniel from Daniel+ with spaces on one scroll in either Hebrew or Greek.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79568629396839262872017-09-21T03:14:42.275+01:002017-09-21T03:14:42.275+01:00The other reason I brought up scrolls and wanted t...The other reason I brought up scrolls and wanted to see how important you see the codex format being was something that I thought I'd wait to see your answer before mentioning. But it's this.<br /><br />The writing of Daniel + additions without separations seems to me to parallel the way most Hebrew Bible scholars seem to conceive of canonical Isaiah as a combination of an original Isaiah with the later books they call 2nd and 3rd Isaiah added to it. I think the fact that is uniformly preserved as a single book without distinguishing those parts is a point against that. But the parallel case of Greek Daniel that you describe seems to show a similar process of copying an early work along with later additions to it as a single unit. Of course with Isaiah, it has to be posited that such a process would have to have happened with the Hebrew text on scrolls centuries earlier than what you're talking about here.<br /><br />This is a rabbit trail, and I don't expect you to want to go down it. Just something you got me thinking about.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88575426348918126362017-09-21T03:02:59.278+01:002017-09-21T03:02:59.278+01:00I agree. But it's highly likely that Daniel in...I agree. But it's highly likely that Daniel in the Old Greek did circulate on scrolls before codices. Is it not? I asked because the way you worded the opening sentence of your blog post suggested to me that you thought the phenomena you described were somehow related to the codex format.<br /><br />In this reply, when you say " most, if not all Christians, envisioned a Daniel+ to the shorter Daniel of the later Jewish codices," are you just referring to most Christians of a certain time period that doesn't go back to the first century? Origen and Africanus are quite a bit earlier than the great uncials. If one were to extrapolate what you said about most Christians back to the first century, I would have a hard time seeing that just from the evidence you give.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57496106761616926472017-09-20T20:50:38.346+01:002017-09-20T20:50:38.346+01:00Indeed, as I also noted above. The Twelve are simi...Indeed, as I also noted above. The Twelve are similar, but it seems most recognized this 12 in 1 matter from an earlier time. The extent of Jeremiah and Daniel appears to have posed more of a mystery well into late antiquity. Thanks for noting this matter.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38598625648627574782017-09-20T20:38:53.335+01:002017-09-20T20:38:53.335+01:00Thanks for this fascinating look the internal divi...Thanks for this fascinating look the internal divisions of the Greek Daniel material.<br />"Jeremiah" offers a similar phenomenon in Late Antique and medieval manuscripts. Not only Jeremiah as printed in modern Bibles, but also Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, and (in Syriac) the Epistle of Baruch could be included together within the running heads and colophons of "Jeremiah", with various degrees of makred separation between the textual units.<br />In a sense, of course, the Twelve are also a similar book-in-multiple parts for most manuscript traditions.Jeremiah Cooganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565680596693047997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-31586201062662013632017-09-20T18:53:42.964+01:002017-09-20T18:53:42.964+01:00It took me some time to find this, so I thought it...It took me some time to find this, so I thought it might be helpful to share: Images this portion of Ra 967 can be found at http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/NRWakademie/papyrologie/PTheol2.html.Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23084416256218295842017-09-20T18:47:07.939+01:002017-09-20T18:47:07.939+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12271333831670763232017-09-20T18:03:22.987+01:002017-09-20T18:03:22.987+01:00Joey, thanks for drawing our attention to Ra 88. T...Joey, thanks for drawing our attention to Ra 88. The colophon to the first version of Daniel is on image 180 and basically says this version of Daniel is from the Tetrapla (hence its similarity to the Syro-hexapla and also the signs and marginal readings within it). The second version is that of "Theodotion" Daniel. The latter nearly replaced the former entirely in early Christian circles, but Ra 88 is one of the rare witnessed to it. It preserved both versions of the book as you pointed out. Thanks again.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44205836953484113602017-09-20T16:35:31.014+01:002017-09-20T16:35:31.014+01:00(Disclaimer: I'm not very well acquainted on t...(Disclaimer: I'm not very well acquainted on this subject, so please pardon any naivete on my part, and feel free to correct anything I get wrong.)<br /><br />If we're permitted to fast-forward a few centuries, could we glean something from the tenth-century minuscule Rahlfs 88 (Vatican Library, Chis. R. VII 45, http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Chig.R.VII.45)? This manuscript appears to contain two versions of Daniel: The first (starting on image 148) has the inscription δανιηλ κατα τους ο ("Daniel according to the seventy," similar to the Syro-hexapla), and the second (starting on image 202) has the inscription το ειρων αγρυπνον δανιηλ. If I'm not missing something and these are two different versions of Daniel, then it would seem that other scribes were aware of a difference even as late as the tenth century.<br /><br />I haven't looked in detail at the texts in this manuscript, but there appear to be a good number of markings in the text and marginal notes that might be worth looking at more closely.Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76232199281243382072017-09-20T13:32:36.976+01:002017-09-20T13:32:36.976+01:00Eric, do we have evidence in scroll format? I don&...Eric, do we have evidence in scroll format? I don't think we do. So all we have is the codex and hypotheses, correct? These codices provide some window into how early Christians conceived of the title "Daniel." There is some flux in the ordering of the material, the matter is not entirely stable in terms of order. However, it seems that most, if not all Christians, envisioned a Daniel+ to the shorter Daniel of the later Jewish codices. The question I now have is how many Christians perceived the distinction between Daniel and Daniel+? Origen-Africanus and Jerome, but were there other scribes that did so as well?<br /><br />Thanks for your question.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-66307493193076070882017-09-20T02:49:28.823+01:002017-09-20T02:49:28.823+01:00How important do you really think the Codex format...How important do you really think the Codex format is here, aside from the fact that the examples you use happen to be codices? It seems to me that scrolls on which Daniel and the additions to Daniel were copied would have been susceptible to the same variation between either distinguishing or not distinguishing them from Daniel.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17913294083205550532017-09-19T18:22:31.416+01:002017-09-19T18:22:31.416+01:00This is great information. I'm not sure what t...This is great information. I'm not sure what to make of it yet. Seems like S and B+D could be less integrated with Daniel than the later MSS. Thank you for sharing. John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16926795508352085212017-09-19T17:49:59.292+01:002017-09-19T17:49:59.292+01:00P967 (usually dated to late 2nd or early 3rd c. CE...P967 (usually dated to late 2nd or early 3rd c. CE) is one of the few mss of Daniel that carries the LXX, instead of Theodotion as in B, A, and Q. It has breaks between the chapters (or visions) consisting of several blank lines with only a chapter number in the blank (ch. 1 is missing the no.). Kurt Treu, probably correctly, surmised that the numbers mark the ends of chapters, not the beginnings. In P967 Daniel comes first, then B&D, then Susanna, but the transitions between each are lost. We do have the end of Susanna, though, and there is no number, just a final subscription "Daniel." Since the chapter numbers apparently mark the ends of the chapters, the lack of a number at the end of Susanna could suggest that it (and perhaps B&D) were not given numbers in P967 - but of course, we can't say for sure. chillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03113694982790110597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48497330658684112262017-09-19T13:27:01.433+01:002017-09-19T13:27:01.433+01:00Thanks for your comment, Matthew. Variants are alw...Thanks for your comment, Matthew. Variants are always significant, but I can't remember the status of these papyri. Are the works represented as an integrative whole or were there features such as titles and spaces between them that demarcated them? I guess we need to check the sources again to see.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40803211702835162472017-09-19T12:04:14.492+01:002017-09-19T12:04:14.492+01:00"taking the form of Susanna-Daniel-Bel and th..."taking the form of Susanna-Daniel-Bel and the Dragon in most of the early MSS"<br /><br />John,<br /><br />if my memory serves me right (don't have my notes with me to check this) Rahlfs 967-968 lacks the critical parts of the leaves where each of the books end and the next begins, so we don't know if the MSS has titles for each book, but the sequence of the leaves in the 2nd-3rd century codex is Daniel - Bel - Susanna.<br /><br />Is the sequence that differs from the later uncials significant to your views?Matthew Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02382402785261355659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50590130127316644112017-09-19T11:06:52.809+01:002017-09-19T11:06:52.809+01:00Interesting. I live in a protestant tradition that...Interesting. I live in a protestant tradition that holds Daniel for canonical, but Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, not so much. But clearly, there are good reasons why Roman Catholics (and most other non protestant denominations) would consider these books as part of their canon. As a layman, I never realised that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com