Friday, December 24, 2010

Christmas Gift – Article on GNT MSS in Sweden / Jerusalem Colophon

Merry Christmas from me too!

And here is a little Christmas gift article about the Greek New Testament MSS in Sweden with a special excursus on the so-called Jerusalem Colophon:

Tommy Wasserman, "The Greek New Testament Manuscripts in Sweden with an Excursus on the Jerusalem Colophon," Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok75 (2010): 77-108.

Update: I have uploaded a new version since a table in the first version was in too low resolution


  1. Thanks! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

    There's some interesting data in this article.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  2. Tommy, you write that there are two Greek MSS in Lund University Library. Actually, there are five MSS. The two which are digitized and available at St. Laurentius digital manuscript library are from the middle ages. The other three MSS were written in 1696, 1689/1697 and probably in the 18th century (but none contains the NT); see the article by Rudberg in Eranos, which you refer to. See also Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs, 3 éd. Par J-M Olivier, Turnhout: Brepols 1995. Also, according to this Répertoire there are 14 MSS (not 13) in Linköping Diocese Library, and 73 (not 78) in Uppsala University Library.

    Britt Dahlman

  3. Hello Britt, nice to see you comment on this blog!

    I am sure you're right about the MSS in Lund (at your university). I was not aware of the fact that there were any Greek MS in another collection than St Laurentius! (And the librarian Birgitta Lindholm did not mention it when we had those two older MSS on display a few years ago. Yes, I should have checked the source more carefully there.)

    What are those three MSS, by the way?

    I am not equally sure about Linköping and Uppsala. I will have to check that. I wonder where Olivier got his data from and how he counts the MSS.

    In regard to Linköping I think I checked Allan Ranius' catalogue of Linköping MSS (which is more recent than Olivier). As for Uppsala, I think the discrepancy has to do with the fact that in some cases different MSS are registered under the same shelfmark as is the case with Uppsala Gr. 1 (=two different manuscripts), so the figure 78 refers to actual MSS.

    In any case, your comment highlights what I say in the introduction, that a uniform and descriptive catalogue of all the Greek MSS in our small country is desirable. Maybe you are the person to do it! (next project?) I can surely contribute when it comes to those NT MSS (which was the real focus of my article).

  4. You are probably right about the MSS in Linköping and Uppsala. The three less known MSS in Lund are:

    1) a MS written in 1696 by Laurentius Norrmannus, a professor and librarian in Uppsala, and eventually bishop of Göteborg. It contains the drafts of his never finished edition of Thomas Magister's (a 14th-century Byzantine scholar) work Ἐκλογαὶ ὀνομάτων Ἀττικῶν, a collection of selected Attic words.

    2) a MS written in 1689 with additions in 1697 by Laurentius Norrmannus. It mainly contains lexical and grammatical works and letters by Moiris, Georgios Lacapenos, Zaridas, Nicephoros Gregoras, and Maximos Planudes. The major part of the MS is copied from the MS Uppsala Gr. 28.

    3) a liturgical MS probably written in the 18th century. It contains an anastasimatarion, i.e. text and musical notes for the offices of the week of the Greek Church.

    A project on a new uniform catalogue (with digitizing!) of all the Greek MSS in Sweden is a good idea!

    Britt Dahlman

  5. "As mentioned in the introduction, the selection of 36 MSS was based on Maurice Robinson's collation data in the PA (John 7:53-8:11 plus adjacent verses 7:52 and 8:12-13a). The results of his extensive collations will be presented in a multi-volume collation and analysis of all available MSS containing the PA."
    --Tommy Wasserman in TC 7 (2002)

    What's the progress on this project, and are fascicles available anywhere at this point?

  6. "In Jude 15 [1852] reads πᾶσαν ψυχὴν, a reading otherwise attested only in p72 and Codex Sinaiticus"
    --Wasserman, SEÅ 75 p. 97

    a καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ...
    b om. 0142 1066 1563 1718
    --Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 179

    I'm trying to figure out the discrepancy here. On the one hand, you now say only 3 mss attest to this reading, which appears to be true. But your apparatus listed this as the reading of all mss but 4.

    Reading on to page 181, I see, under 14-18,
    h πᾶσαν ψυχὴν p72 01 1852

    Is this a mistake in your monograph, or am I just not reading the apparatus correctly?

  7. Daniel,

    You have found a little an earlier stage I had chosen πᾶσαν ψυχήν as my primary line reading, but after evaluation I changed my critical text. Those variation units on p. 179 do not directly concern the words in question, but actually are there to account for some few MSS which omit words altogether. These variation-units therefore overlap with those on p. 180-181 (cf. the use of the arrows to indicate overlapping). In regard to the variation of πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς / πᾶσαν ψυχήν, the information on p. 180-81 is correct.

    However, on p. 179, substitute πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς for πᾶσαν ψυχήν as the primary line reading a, under numerical addresses 6-16, 10-20 and 10-16.

    I will add this to my errata list to be corrected in the second edition, whenever it comes out. Thanks for spotting it.

    As for the question about Maurice Robinson's project, he should reply himself, but I think his data is being processed by the CNTTS in New Orleans; more information here:

  8. Glad to be of help.

    So, you decided to go against NA and ECM on this one, based on intrinsic probability and stronger manuscript support.

    You mention the possible assimilation to πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζομένου τὸ κακόν in Romans 2:9, but, given that 'all flesh' is the majority reading of extant mss of Enoch 1:9, might not the vorlage of p72 01 1852 C-s,b S-ph (note once again the convergence of p72 and the Philoxenean) have alternatively assimilated to circulating texts of Enoch, even as OT quotations were sometimes assimilated to circulating Greek mss of the OT?

    I'm going to go with a prediction here--if and when a Coptic ms of Enoch 1:9 is discovered, it's going to have the 'all flesh' reading.

  9. Daniel, I assume you have read all of my discussion in the textual commentary, p. 301-304.

    The Greek Panopolitanus has PASAN SARKA ("all flesh"). I assume you regard PASAN PSYCHN in the three witnesses in Jude as a possible assimilation to that text?

    The exact phrase PANTAS TOUS ASEBEIS is also present in Panopolitanus, so the "majority text" in Jude could be regarded as a harmonization too, and more so.

    In think, however, that other internal considerations speak in favor of PANTAS TOUS ASEBEIS, and more importantly it has stronger manuscript support.

  10. TW:
    Daniel, I assume you have read all of my discussion in the textual commentary, p. 301-304.

    Yes, but I did get a bit mixed up over all the pairs involving 'ASEB-'. There are enough overlapping variants in this verse to make my head spin! Furthermore, the vorlage πᾶσαν ψυχὴν doesn't appear to have come through in any translation until the NLT (it was just added to the NIV this year)!

    The Greek Panopolitanus has PASAN SARKA ("all flesh"). I assume you regard PASAN PSYCHN in the three witnesses in Jude as a possible assimilation to that text?

    No, but you mentioned that Kubo did.

    One suggestion for the next edition of page 302:

    In the quote of Jude 15, you underline PANTAS TOUS ASEBEIS and PASAN YUCHN as alternates; in the Codex Panopolitanus excerpt, you underline PANTAS TOUS ASEBEIS and PASAN SARKA; in the other three quotes, you only underline the translation of PASAN SARKA. This is what threw me off in equating PASAN YUCHN and PASAN SARKA in translation.

    I suggest you underline 'the impious' and 'omnes impios' in the last three quotes to match the two underlinings in the only Greek text of Enoch 1:9.

    Alas, 4Q204 is too fragmentary at this variant to know how the Aramaic read. Presumably, this was Jude's vorlage.

    I'm going to go with a prediction here--if and when a Coptic ms of Enoch 1:9 is discovered, it's going to have the 'all flesh' reading.

    While I still look forward to a Coptic version of the verse, it goes without saying that it will have 'all flesh'. My theory is that it won't have 'all the ungodly'.

  11. "All flesh" or "all the ungodly"? The human sinful nature automatically reads scriptural condemnations as applying to "others" and not myself. I like "all flesh" simply because it applies to me, and it would be human nature to want to demonize everyone but myself. Oh, those mockers, with their ungodly lusts. But wait, it may be speaking to me, with all my merely "impious desires." ALL of our desires, if it is "not having the Spirit" in that very second of time, are ungodly and godless. All our desires are by default presumed to be desperately wicked and filthy rags. It doesn't have to be a lust to be impious and unspiritual and worthless. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts."
    David Robert Palmer

  12. I meant "every soul" versus "all the ungodly."
    David Robert Palmer