The first installment of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism vol. 25 (2020) is complete with two articles and eight reviews. More articles will be uploaded in a second installment, hopefully later this year.
Volume 25 (2020)
Articles
- Florenc Mene, “Scribal Harmonization in Codex Alexandrinus? The Pentateuchal Quotations in the Corpus Paulinum” (pp. 1–35)
Abstract: This study examines the phenomenon of scribal harmonization in Codex Alexandrinus. It does so by analyzing all the Pentateuchal quotations in the Corpus Paulinum of A(02) to detect the presence of harmonization as a result of the LXX’s influence on the New Testament quotations (or vice-versa). It demonstrates that A(02) exhibits few signs of influence of LXX on Corpus Paulinum quotations (or vice-versa). It also reveals some characteristics of A(02)’s scribes. Finally, it shows that the influence of LXX on the New Testament quotations in biblical manuscripts, even as late as the fifth century, may not necessarily be as pervasive as is often assumed.
- Ryan Kristopher Giffin, “Paul Not Yet Justified? The Text of Philippians 3:12 in P46” (pp. 37–47)
Abstract: The text of Phil 3:12 in P46 contains a reading in which Paul claims he has not yet been “justified” or “found righteous.” This reading, which appears in a few other witnesses (e.g., 06, 010, 012, Irenaus [Latin translation], Ambrosiaster), has been referred to as “the justification clause.” Scholars have labeled the reading “intriguing,” “very interesting,” “striking,” and “astounding.” However, scholars have devoted very little attention to this reading. This article fills that gap by highlighting the text of Phil 3:12 in P46. The author identifies four noteworthy features of the justification clause within this manuscript and proposes that the reading need not be considered “un-Pauline” (as many have understood it) but is wholly coherent with Pauline references to final justification at the last judgment. The author concludes that an early unconscious alteration due to homoioarcton or homoioteleuton best explains the absence of the reading among the majority of textual witnesses and that the justification clause should be considered authentic.
Reviews
- Elijah Hixson, Scribal Habits in Sixth-Century Greek Purple Codices (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 49–52)
- Hugh A. G. Houghton, Christina M. Kreinecker, Rosalind F. MacLachlan, and Catherine J. Smith, The Principal Pauline Epistles: A Collation of Old Latin Witnesses (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 53–55)
- Didier Lafleur, with the assistance of Luc Brogly, Greek New Testament Manuscripts from Albania (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 57–60)
- Markus Mülke, Aristobulos in Alexandria. Jüdische Bibelexegese zwischen Griechen und Ägyptern unter Ptolemaios VI Philometor (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 61–64)
- Justin J. Soderquist and Thomas A. Wayment, A New Edition of Codex I (016): The Washington Pauline Manuscript (Dustin M. Rigsby, reviewer) (pp. 65–67)
- Paolo Trovato, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Lachmann’s Method: A Non-standard Handbook of Genealogical Textual Criticism in the Age of Post-Structuralism, Cladistics, and Copy-Text, 2nd ed. (Ven. Gyalten Jigdrel, reviewer) (pp. 69–76)
- Mogens Müller and Heike Omerzu, eds., Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis (Judith König, reviewer)(pp. 77–79)
- Timothy C. F. Stunt, The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles: A Forgotten Scholar (An-Ting Yi, reviewer)(pp. 81–83)
Thanks Dr. Wasserman,
ReplyDeleteR. Griffin writes:
"My position is that an early unconscious alteration due to homoioarcton or homoioteleu-
ton best explains the absence of the reading among the mass of the textual tradition. As noted earlier, several scholars have recognized a parablepsis omission as a possibility here. I know of no scholar who has marshalled a direct argument against this explanation. Evidence of these types of accidental eye-skips certainly abounds in ancient manuscripts."
Well...there are possibilities for, "a parablepsis omission" on literally every single page of the Greek NT. And the reason we see that: "Evidence of these types of accidental eye-skips certainly abounds in ancient manuscripts."--is primarily because there's an abundance of opportunity for such errors. (The amount of HT and HA features present in the Greek NT is basically innumerable.) In other words, there's thousands of places (i.e. variant units) that have HA/HT features, and yet the *shorter reading* is undoubtedly correct.
So why not here? Perhaps I'm told it's because Royse "found" that P46 usually omits: or because P46 is the oldest Greek MS of Phil. 3:12 extant. But are these sufficient reasons to reject the nearly unanimous testimony of antiquity?
I understand Mr. Griffin's line of thinking here, but it seems most unreasonable when all the evidence is taken into consideration.