Thursday, May 05, 2011

Here and There around the internets

A couple of things worth noting:

a) The British Library online catalogue of illuminated Hebrew manuscripts is almost finished (as noted here, with a couple of images);

b) Claremont have posted images of (most of) the Nag Hammadi codices (and pretty good images at that, although so far I haven't found any of the whole codices and bindings yet) (HT: April DeConick);

c) Roger Pearse posts an interesting disussion of Persian Christian Manuscripts (including a link to a Russian PhD bu A. Pritula which has an English summary and an index of manuscripts) and another one here;

d) Rob Bradshaw posts a pdf of George I. Mavrodes on 'The Inspiration of the Autographs' EvQ 1969 (which is an interesting and critical discussion of this idea);

e) The recent conference of the Secret Gospel of Mark does not seem to have had a lot of blogging about it (but check out Timo Paananen's up-date and see Tony Burke's promise);

f) The programme for the International SBL in London is on-line here (lots of interesting papers; I haven't excerpted all the TC, perhaps someone else already has).

g) Papers have been accepted for SBL in San Francisco so perhaps we could compile some TC papers in the comments (don't be shy now).

h) Drew Longacre has collected a load of links to Hebrew biblical manuscripts with images online (brilliant: see the first comment below).


  1. A little shameless self-promotion here, but I've been trying to gather as many digitized Hebrew manuscripts and editions available online as I can find. It is a work in progress, but the links are posted on the list on my blog:

    It is amazing how many of the classic resources for Old Testament textual criticism have been digitized and are publicly accessible. Textual critics can do much of their work anywhere they have internet access now.

  2. I attended the secret mark conference, and can give a summary if anyone is interested.

  3. Thank you. Ryan, we will run a guest post if you send me the summary. You have my e-mailadress.

  4. You got it tommy. just don't let peter see it! cause then it wouldn't be, you know, a secret.

  5. George Mavrodes wrote:
    "If some Biblical books have no autographs, however. It will follow rigorously that those Biblical books are not inspired!"
    "Once we realize that it requires the inspiration of amanuenses, it is hard to avoid the conviction that the first-written sense is restricted in an apparently arbitrary way for which it will be difficult to find a justification. That is, we can hardly avoid asking why it is only the first copy produced by an amanuensis which these theologians count as an autograph, and hence as inspired, rather than, say, the first two copies."

    Very thought provoking!

  6. Paul Goodfellow5/09/2011 4:28 pm


    Is it "apparently arbitrary" to say that the work of the first amanuensis was probably reviewed by the "apostolic" author and therefore under his control? Some subsequent copies may have been also under his control, but most copies clearly would not have been.

    Being under the control of the author may also remove the requirement for the "inspiration of amanuenses".

  7. >Papers have been accepted for SBL
    > in San Francisco so perhaps we
    > could compile some TC papers in
    > the comments (don't be shy now).

    I'm giving a paper on the scribal habits of 9th Century Latin Scribes. Based on Dp Dpabs1 Dpabs2 Gp and Fp.

    There has to be someone else out here giving a paper at SBL;)...

  8. I've read the opening sections of the article on inspiration. My immediate reaction is that it feels like Machen (who I don't have access to) is being quoted out of context, and dissected on a subject that he most likely was not addressing. Any article based on one sentence is always at risk of this, and the article has that smell of strawman hanging around it.

    Surely the point that Machen was making was that Christians do not claim that every copyist error is inspired? His reference to the "autographs" does not seem to be a discussion of the process whereby the NT texts came into existence in antiquity, but rather a discussion of the merits (or otherwise) of the copies made by hand or print in the subsequent centuries?

    I could be wrong, of course, having no access to the relevant material. But long experience of such things makes me very wary.