DOCSLIB.ORG

Babelao 8, 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Babelao 8, 2019 BABELAO Electronic Journal for Ancient and Oriental Studies 8 (2019) C. LECOMPTE et A. VAN DE SANDE, Une petite tablette néo-sumérienne d'Umma de la collection Van de Sande (p. 1-4) Cl. OBSOMER, La troisième statue de Sésostris III au musée de Khartoum (p. 5-6) Cl. OBSOMER, Mersa Gaouasis sur la mer Rouge et les expéditions vers Pount au Moyen Empire (p. 7-66) E. VAN QUICKELBERGE, La mention de la ville de Ura dans les sceaux de Nerikkaili ? (p. 67-76) L. PINCHARD, The Pericope Adulterae and the Golden Calf: A Case for Intertextuality between Codex Bezae and the Jewish Scriptures (p. 77-96) C. BAY, Pseudo-Hegesippus at Antioch ? Testing a Hypothesis for the Provenance of the De Excidio Hierosolymitano (p. 97-128) N. ATAS, D. PHILLIPS, Fl. RUANI, Ḥ nanisho‘ de Beth Qoqa, Lettre : édition du texte et traduction (p. 129-139) J.-Cl. HAELEWYCK, The Old Syriac Versions of the Gospels. A Status Quaestionis (From 1842 to the Present Day) (p. 141-179) ACADÉMIE BELGE POUR L’ÉTUDE DES LANGUES ANCIENNES ET ORIENTALES (ABELAO) UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN BABELAO Electronic Journal for Ancient and Oriental Studies General Editors / Directeurs Prof. Jean-Claude Haelewyck (Louvain-la-Neuve), Prof. Claude Obsomer (Louvain-la-Neuve) Assistant Editors / Secrétaires Marianne Michel (Louvain-la-Neuve), David Phillips (Louvain-la-Neuve) Editorial Committee / Comité de rédaction Alessandro Bausi (Hamburg), Anne Boud’hors (Paris), Antoine Cavigneaux (Genève), Sabino Chialà (Bose), Bernard Coulie (Louvain-la-Neuve), Alain Delattre (Bruxelles), Johannes Den Heijer (Louvain-la-Neuve), Didier Devauchelle (Lille), Jean-Charles Ducène (Bruxelles), James Keith Elliott (Leeds), Jean-Daniel Macchi (Genève), Michael Marx (Berlin), Claude Obsomer (Louvain-la-Neuve), Agnès Ouzounian (Paris), Tamara Pataridzé (Louvain-la-Neuve), Paul-Hubert Poirier (Laval, Québec), Véronique Somers (Paris, Louvain- la-Neuve), David Taylor (Oxford), Anton Vojtenko (Moscou). ISSN: 2034-9491 BABELAO 8 (2019), p. 1-4 © ABELAO (Belgium) Une petite tablette néo-sumérienne d’Umma de la collection Van de Sande Par Camille Lecompte et Axel Van de Sande CNRS – UMR 7041, ArScAn – Nanterre ; Louvain-la-Neuve et article propose l’édition d'une tablette appartenant à la collection d’Axel Van de Sande (Louvain-la-Neuve), datant de l’époque de la Troisième Dynastie d’Ur (21e siècle av. J.-C.) et provenant d’Umma. Authentifiée en 1914 par A. Clay, elle fit C 1 partie d’une collection américaine, non identifiée . 1. Édition de la tablette Van de Sande 1 Origine : Umma Date : Šulgi 34/12/-- (vers 2058 av. J.-C. selon la chronologie moyenne) Contenu : reçu par Lu-girizal de 18 000 litres d’orge venant de Iddin-Iškur, champ Kamsalla. 1 Les abréviations se conforment à celles du site CDLI, http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/abbreviations_for_ assyriology. 2 C. LECOMPTE et A. VAN DE SANDE Face Translittération Traduction 1. 60 še gur lugal 18 000 litres d’orge au gur royal, d 2. ki I-di3- /Iškur-ta de Iddin-Iškur 3. Lu2-giri17-zal Lu-girizal 4. šu ba-ti a reçu Revers 1. a-ša3 Kam-sal4- la champ (de) Kamsalla 2. iti dDumu-zi mois 12 ki 3. mu An-ša-an/ ba-ḫul année : Anšan fut détruit Face, photographie Face, autographie Revers, photographie Revers, autographie Une petite tablette néo-sumérienne d’Umma 3 2. Commentaires Face. d 2-3. Sur la graphie I-di3- Iškur pour Iddin-Iškur, voir, entre autres, HILGERT 2002, p. 57 et 299. Sur le nom sumérien Lu2-giri17-zal, fort commun sous Ur III, voir LIMET 1968, p. 235- 236 et 478. Ces deux anthroponymes apparaissent certes fréquemment dans les textes d’époque Ur III provenant d’Umma, mais jamais, ou presque, sur un même document, situation qui ne favorise pas l’identification, sur la base d’arguments prosopographiques, 2 d’Iddin-Iškur . Quant à Lu2-giri17-zal, il peut être identifié avec un scribe, connu par son sceau apposé sur de nombreuses tablettes d’Umma, qui gérait des équipes de travailleurs et des productions agraires3. Revers. 1. Le champ a-ša3 Kam-sal4-la, se rapportant à la localité Kamsalla, située dans l’arrière- pays d’Umma4, ne semble attesté que dans trois autres documents, MVN 21, 298, face. 3, SAT 2, 42, face 5, où il est également associé à des quantités de céréales5, ainsi que dans RA 62, p. 14 no 21 (= DAS 362), qui le mentionne avec des travailleurs. Les sources d’Umma, qui donnent davantage d’informations sur l’implantation de Kamsalla elle-même, témoignent de son activité dans le domaine du transport fluvial6, ainsi que de son importance dans la 7 maillage rural, notamment par la présence d’un entrepôt guru7 ou d’une aire de battage . 2 d I-di3- Iškur ne saurait en effet être identifié avec l’un des individus de même nom apparaissant à Umma : seul l’un d’eux, mentionné notamment sous Šulgi, reçoit des quantités de céréales, toutefois nettement infé- rieures à notre texte : voir SAT 2, 198, face 3 et revers 1 ; AAICAB 1/2, Ashm. 1971-377, revers 2-3 (les deux textes étant datés de Šulgi 38). 3 L’un des administrateurs mentionnés à Umma et portant le nom de Lu2-giri17-zal est en effet le bénéficiaire, notamment sous Šulgi, de quantités élevées de céréales chargées depuis la localité Kamsalla : ASJ 16, 107 - 10, revers 10 ; BPOA 2, 2007, revers 4 ; SANTAG 7, 158, revers 2 ; voir également USC 6770, revers 15 (tra- vailleurs agricoles chargeant de l’orge sur des bateaux depuis Kamsalla). Nous savons par plusieurs tablettes et empreintes de sceaux que Lu2-giri17-zal, d’ailleurs mentionné à de nombreuses reprises, occupait la fonction de dub-sar, scribe, et était le fils de Da-DU-mu. Voir, à propos du rôle de Lu2-giri17-zal dans la gestion de la main- d’œuvre agricole, STUDEVENT-HICKMAN 2006, volume 2, p. 388-390. 4 Voir RGTC 2, p. 90-91 ; SAUREN 1966, p. 217 et STEINKELLER 2007, p. 193. 5 Ces quantités s’y avèrent inférieures à celle de notre texte. 6 Cf. STEINKELLER 2001, p. 38 note 57, p. 38 note 64, p. 51 note 116 et p. 79. 7 Voir SAUREN 1966, p. 92, 123, 124, 155 et 168, qui mentionne également un « palais » e2-gal de cette localité. 4 C. LECOMPTE et A. VAN DE SANDE BIBLIOGRAPHIE HILGERT 2002 : M. HILGERT, Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit (IMGULA 5), Münster. e LIMET 1968 : H. LIMET, L’anthroponymie sumérienne dans les documents de la 3 dynastie d’Ur, Liège. SAUREN 1966 : H. SAUREN, Topographie der Provinz Umma nach den Urkunden der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. Teil I : Kanäle und Bewässerungsanlagen, thèse de doctorat, Heidelberg. STEINKELLER 2001 : P. STEINKELLER, « New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium », Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 91, p. 22-84. STEINKELLER 2007 : P. STEINKELLER, « City and Countryside in Third Millennium Southern Babylonia », dans E. C. STONE (éd.), Settlement and Society, Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams, Los Angeles - Chicago, p. 185-211. STUDEVENT-HICKMAN 2006 : B. STUDEVENT-HICKMAN, The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia, thèse de doctorat, Harvard. BABELAO 8 (2019), p. 5-6 © ABELAO (Belgium) La troisième statue de Sésostris III au musée de Khartoum Par Claude Obsomer Université de Namur, Université catholique de Louvain ans l'article que j'ai consacré aux stèles nubiennes de l'an 16 de Sésostris III, dans un précédent numéro du BABELAO, il fut question brièvement de trois statues de ce Droi conservées au musée de Khartoum1. Deux d'entre elles étaient bien identifiées, bien que leurs inscriptions fussent encore inédites. Mais ce qui fut écrit de la troisième est erroné, comme m'ont permis de le constater une visite personnelle du musée effectuée en février 2019 et la lecture de l'article récent que Vivian Davies a consacré à ces statues2. Son article propose pour la première fois une étude des inscriptions de celles-ci, accompagnée de photographies. La première statue (Khartoum n° 447) est visible dans le jardin du musée, dans le hangar qui abrite le temple de Touthmosis III à Semna-Ouest, dans lequel elle avait été découverte3. La deuxième (Khartoum n° 452) vient de la forteresse d'Ouronarti4 : elle est exposée dans le 1 Cl. OBSOMER, « Sésostris III et la frontière de Semna : une analyse des stèles nubiennes de l'an 16 », BABELAO, 6, 2017, p. 21-22. 2 W.V. DAVIES, « Statues of Senwosret III in the Sudan National Museum, Khartoum », dans Nathalie FAVRY et alii, Du Sinaï au Soudan, itinéraires d'une égyptologue. Mélanges offerts au professeur Dominique Valbelle, Paris, 2017, p. 75-85. 3 DAVIES, p. 77-78, fig. 6-12. « Sandstone. Height: about 123 cm; width, about 45 cm; depth, about 76 cm ». 4 DAVIES, p. 75-77, fig. 1-5. « Hard sandstone (?). Dimensions: Ht: 1.09 m; W: 43 cm; Depth: 85 cm ». 6 Cl. OBSOMER musée lui-même, au rez-de-chaussée, à droite de la stèle d'Ouronarti (Khartoum n° 451) dont j'ai proposé une nouvelle copie autographe en 20175. Ces deux statues semblent postérieures au règne de Sésostris III et ont pu être placées au Nouvel Empire dans deux forteresses où le roi était vénéré comme une divinité. Quant à la troisième statue, ce n'est pas celle qui est exposée au musée quelques mètres à droite de la précédente, car les inscriptions de celles-ci mentionnent Aménophis Ier de la XVIIIe dynastie6. La troisième statue de Sésostris III est, en réalité, un fragment de statue royale en granite rose découvert à Semna et conservé dans les réserves du musée (Khartoum n° 448) : Davies en publie des photographies qui permettent d'en découvrir les inscriptions au nom de Sésostris III7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • <I>Pericope Adulterae</I>
    Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 209-231 brill.nl/nt Th e Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition1 Chris Keith Lincoln, Illinois Abstract Th is article responds to the recent claim of Josep Rius-Camps that the Pericope Adulterae was originally composed by Mark. Rius-Camps, in making his creative proposal, has over- looked signifi cant textual and patristic evidence regarding where early Christians con- fronted the story of Jesus and the adulteress. Th is evidence suggests that, while the Pericope Adulterae is not original to the Gospel of John, its fi rst location in fourfold gospel tradition was its traditional location, John 7:53-8:11. Keywords Pericope Adulterae; textual criticism; patristics; fourfold canon; Gospel of John Now, here is a mystery, or rather, here are several mysteries! A good story, characteristic of Jesus, but with a very uncertain origin, and a varied history.2 Josep Rius-Camps has recently put forward the argument that the Pericope Adulterae (hereafter PA) was originally composed by Mark and placed in his gospel after Mark 12:12.3 Th is modifi es an earlier publication of Rius- Camps, where he claimed PA was originally penned by Luke for his gos- pel.4 In the more recent article, he states his revised hypothesis as such: 1) Th is article is a modifi ed version of a chapter from Chris Keith, Th e Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (NTTSD 38; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming 2009). 2) Frederick A. Schilling, “Th e Story of Jesus and the Adulteress,” ATh R 37 (1955) 92.
    [Show full text]
  • Textus Receptus
    ENGLISH SUMMARY Chapter I. The Discovery of Family 13 XVIth–XVIIth cent.: A Settled Text, the “Textus Receptus” As the history of the printed text of the Greek New Testament starts at the beginning of the XVIth century, and as the rst mention of a Family 13 witness dates back to the end of the XVIIth century, we provide here, as an introduction, some of the high points of those two centuries. Considering the rst printed editions of the Bible, it is noteworthy to keep in mind the Alcalà Polyglot (or Complutensian), and the Antwerp, Paris and London Polyglots. It seems that none of the known Family 13 members were ever used by those editors and we could suggest a similar judgment for the editions published by Simon de Colines and Henri and Robert Estienne. The “Textus Receptus”, as printed in the Elzeviers’ 1624 edition, is rmly settled in the Greek New Testament editions of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries. 1700–1788: The First Witnesses (Minuscules 13, 69, 124) The rst Family 13 witness to be mentioned, in a printed catalogue of Greek manuscripts, was min. 124 (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbiblio- thek, Theol. gr. 188), in 1670, by Pierre Lambeck of Hamburg. The manuscript is briey described, without textual features, and remains for the next few decades in the shadow of Lambeck’s physical description. Around the same date, possibly before then, another Family 13 manuscript was well-known, studied and celebrated for its peculiar readings: min. 69 (Leicester, The Record O ce for Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland, 6 D 32/1).
    [Show full text]
  • Acts - Revelation the Aramaic Peshitta & Peshitto and Greek New Testament
    MESSIANIC ALEPH TAV INTERLINEAR SCRIPTURES (MATIS) INTERLINEAR VOLUME FIVE ACTS - REVELATION THE ARAMAIC PESHITTA & PESHITTO AND GREEK NEW TESTAMENT With New Testament Aramaic Lexical Dictionary (Compiled by William H. Sanford Copyright © 2017) Printed by BRPrinters The Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures (MATIS) FIRST EDITION Acts - Revelation Volume Five ARAMAIC - GREEK Copyright 2017 All rights reserved William H. Sanford [email protected] COPYRIGHT NOTICE The Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures (MATIS), Acts - Revelation, Volume Five, is the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta translated to English in Interlinear and is compared to the Greek translated to English in Interlinear originating from the 1987 King James Bible (KJV) which are both Public Domain. This work is a "Study Bible" and unique because it is the first true interlinear New Testament to combine both the John W. Etheridge Eastern Aramaic Peshitta in both Aramaic and Hebrew font compared to the Greek, word by word, in true interlinear form and therefore comes under copyright protection. This is the first time that the John W. Etheridge Eastern Aramaic Peshitta has ever been put in interlinear form, word by word. The John W. Etheridge Eastern Aramaic Peshitta English translation was provided by Lars Lindgren and incorporates his personal notes and also, the Hebrew pronunciation of the Aramaic is unique and was created and provided by Lars Lindgren and used with his permission…all of which is under copyright protection. This publication may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic, or audio), up to and inclusive of seventy (70) consecutive lines or verses, without express written permission of William H.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Split Text-Types for the Recovery of the Original Text of the Greek New Testament
    THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPLIT TEXT-TYPES FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT LESLIE McFALL* The significance of splits in text-types has been overlooked in Majority text (hereafter MT) studies. It will be shown in this paper that when any text-type splits, one party to the split will retain the reading of the Majority text (MT), at the place where the other party diverges from it. List 1 was the key research that led to this paper. It gives every instance in the Gospel of Matthew where the unsplit Caesarean text-type is different from the Majority text. The Caesarean text is made up of two families of manuscripts, Family 1 and Family 13. List 1 is a register of 176 differences which gives us the earliest state of the Caesarean text in Matthew before the split occurred.1 It so happens that the Egyptian text fully agrees with the Caesarean text in these 176 differences.2 Given that the Egyptian text-type (as represented by the Aleph-B text) differs from the Byzantine text (as represented by von Soden’s Koine text and Robinson-Pierpont’s text), and that the Caesarean text agrees fully with the Egyptian in List 1, it would appear from this list, taken on its own, that the Caesarean text is a strong supporter of the Egyptian text. However, this would be a misleading conclusion to draw from this one list. Elsewhere, the united Caesarean text agrees with the Byzantine text in opposition to the Egyptian text-type, 1,629 times, in the Gospel of Matthew, showing just how close the Caesarean text was, and is, to the Byzantine text.3 * Leslie McFall resides at 25 Hillfield Road, Comberton, Cambridgeshire, England CB23 7DB.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition Houghton, Hugh
    University of Birmingham Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition Houghton, Hugh License: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY) Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, H 2016, Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition. Texts and Studies (Third Series), vol. 13, Gorgias Press, Piscataway NJ. <http://gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/download/Commentaries,%20Catenae%20and%20Biblical%20Tradition.pdf > Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Eligibility for repository: Checked on 10/5/2016 General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi The Latin New Testament A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts H.A.G. HOUGHTON 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2017, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © H.A.G. Houghton 2016 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2016 Impression: 1 Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and unless otherwise stated distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution –Non Commercial –No Derivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015946703 ISBN 978–0–19–874473–3 Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
    [Show full text]
  • A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
    The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license Title: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. Author: Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener Release Date: June 28, 2011 [Ebook 36548] Language: English ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, VOL. I.*** A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament For the Use of Biblical Students By The Late Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Prebendary of Exeter, Vicar of Hendon Fourth Edition, Edited by The Rev. Edward Miller, M.A. Formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford Vol. I. George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden Londo, New York, and Cambridge 1894 Contents Preface To Fourth Edition. .5 Description Of The Contents Of The Lithographed Plates. .9 Addenda Et Corrigenda. 30 Chapter I. Preliminary Considerations. 31 Chapter II. General Character Of The Greek Manuscripts Of The New Testament. 54 Chapter III. Divisions Of The Text, And Other Particulars. 98 Appendix To Chapter III. Synaxarion And Eclogadion Of The Gospels And Apostolic Writings Daily Throughout The Year. 127 Chapter IV. The Larger Uncial Manuscripts Of The Greek Testament.
    [Show full text]
  • The Textual Criticism of Luke 24:53 and Its Implications
    Inhalt PREFACE 7 A MODEST EXPLANATION FOR THE LAYMAN OF IDEAS RELATED TO DETERMING THE TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 8 Abstract 8 Introduction: on paper, ink and writing styles 8 What New Testament manuscript groups exist today 11 Why there are differences between manuscripts 11 The two main texttypes 13 The eclectic approach to recovering the original text 14 The basics of Byzantine priority 16 How we evaluate internal evidence 17 How we evaluate external evidence 20 Some objections to the theory of Byzantine priority addressed 23 Summary and conclusion 25 Glossary 26 Bibliography 29 SCRIBAL HABITS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 30 Studies into Scribal Habits 30 Objections 37 The History of the Transcriptional Canons 41 Scribal Habits and the History of the Text 44 Corrections and the History of the Text 46 Scribal Habits and the Praxis of Textual Criticism 49 Prospect 50 20140318 Festschrift.indb 1 18.03.2014 21:25:57 A TRANSLATOR TAKES A LINGUISTIC LOOK AT MARK’S GOSPEL 52 Introduction 52 Discourse Analysis 52 Using Discourse Analysis in the Textual Criticism of the Gospel of Mark 54 Conclusion 59 Works Cited 59 EARLY TEXTUAL RECENSION IN ALEXANDRIA 62 Introduction 62 Summary of Fee’s arguments 63 Evaluation 65 References 66 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE VATICANUS UMLAUTS TO FAMILY 1 68 The Make-up and Textual History of Family 1 71 The Date of Family 1 and its Ancestors 73 An Evaluation of the Data 75 Establishing a Connection between Vaticanus and Family 1 79 Conclusion 86 VARIETIES OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 87 Introduction 87 The Hand Copying
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Western Non-Interpolations: a Case for Luke Re-Editing His Gospel
    Rethinking the Western Non-interpolations: A Case For Luke Re-editing His Gospel by Giuseppe Capuana BA (Mus), GradDipEd, BTheol (Hons) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy University of Divinity 2018 Abstract This thesis presents a new paradigm for understanding the Western non-interpolations. It argues that when Luke originally wrote his Gospel it did not contain 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. However, at a later time, around the time Luke wrote Acts, he returned to his Gospel creating a second edition which contained these readings. My thesis makes the case that the paradigm of scribal interpolation is problematic. Working under this paradigm the results of external and internal evidence appear conflicting and scholars are generally forced to give greater preference to one set of evidence over the other. However, a balanced weighting of the external and internal evidence points us towards the notion that Luke was responsible for both the absence and the inclusion of 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. Chapter one introduces the Western non-interpolations. It also makes the case that the quest for the original text of Luke’s Gospel should not be abandoned. Chapter two is on the history, theory and methodology of the Western non-interpolations. It begins with an overview of the text-critical scholarship emerging during the nineteenth century, particularly the influence of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. It also covers the period after Westcott and Hort to the present.
    [Show full text]
  • The Text of the New Testament 2Nd Edit
    THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration BY BRUCE M. METZGER Professor of Mew Testament Language and Literature Princeton Theological Seminary SECOND EDITION OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS Preface to the Second Edition During the four years that have elapsed since the initial publication of this book in 1964, a great amount of textual research has continued to come from the presses in both Europe and America. References to some of these publications were included in the German translation of the volume issued in 1966 under the title Der Text des Neuen Test- aments; Einftihrung in die neutestamentliche Textkritik (Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart) . The second printing of the English edition provides opportunity to introduce a variety of small alterations throughout the volume as well as to include references to more than one hundred and fifty books and articles dealing with Greek manuscripts, early versions, and textual studies of recently discovered witnesses to the text of the New Testament. In order not to disturb the pagination, most of the new material has been placed at the close of the book (pp. 261-73), to which the reader's attention is directed by appropriate cross references. BRUCE M. METZGER February ig68 Preface The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances : (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascer- tain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original.
    [Show full text]
  • The So-Called Mixed Text: an Examination of the Non-Alexandrian and Non-Byzantine Text-Type in the Catholic Epistles
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2007 The So-Called Mixed Text: an Examination of the Non-Alexandrian and Non-Byzantine Text-Type in the Catholic Epistles Clinton S. Baldwin Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Catholic Studies Commons Recommended Citation Baldwin, Clinton S., "The So-Called Mixed Text: an Examination of the Non-Alexandrian and Non-Byzantine Text-Type in the Catholic Epistles" (2007). Dissertations. 14. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/14 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE SO-CALLED MIXED TEXT: AN EXAMINATION OF THE NON-ALEXANDRIAN AND NON-BYZANTINE TEXT-TYPE IN THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES by Clinton Baldwin Co-Advisers: William Warren Robert Johnston Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE SO-CALLED MIXED TEXT: AN EXAMINATION OF THE NON- ALEXANDRIAN AND NON-BYZANTINE TEXT-TYPE IN THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES Name of researcher: Clinton Baldwin Name and degree of faculty co-advisers: William Warren, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery: an Inspired Text Inserted Into an Inspired Text?
    JETS 61/2 (2018): 321–37 THE PERICOPE OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY: AN INSPIRED TEXT INSERTED INTO AN INSPIRED TEXT? SCOTT J. KACZOROWSKI* Abstract: The textual evidence concerning the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adul- tery is examined. The conclusion is reached that it is not original to John's gospel. The historic- ity and canonicity of the account is then examined with the suggestion offered that the account may be historical and may even be an example of an inspired text inserted into an inspired text. If this conclusion is true, it opens the door to the account being used in the devotional, doc- trinal, and doxological life of the church. Key words: John 7:53–8:11, Pericope adulterae (canonicity of, textual history of), canonici- ty, textual criticism, Gospel of John, woman taken in adultery, textual criticism of Gospel of John Awkwardly nestled into the narrative context of the Gospel of John, the read- er of many modern Bible Versions comes across a story about Jesus and a woman who was caught in adultery. This particular story presents interesting textual ques- tions (such as what its origin is and how it ended up in John’s Gospel1). But it also represents significant pastoral challenges because, although it almost certainly does not belong in John’s Gospel,2 it still remains especially precious to many in the church today. Some would even say, “This is my favorite story about Jesus.”3 This paper will explore the textual eVidence surrounding the pericope, address the ques- tion of the historicity and authenticity of the story, and examine the question of the canonicity of the passage.
    [Show full text]