Good morning from St Paul, where we finally got some rain on our parched gardens,
I am re-writing a textbook for beginners on TC of the Bible. The OT part was pretty good, but the NT part needed to be re-done. I’m now in the section that introduces some of the important MSS. We only introduce the most commonly discussed ones and otherwise suggest to the reader to go to the other established resources like Metzger & Ehrman, Parker, Aland & Aland, and the GNTs.
Originally the book had charts, one each for the papyri, majuscules, and minuscules.
Here are the first lines of the papyrus chart:
There are about 30 total papyri listed.
When I hit the papyrus chart I wrote the following to the editor:
“Table 4.1: Important New Testament Papyri. I find myself wondering if this ought to be included. The main reason for it would be to provide the textual tendency of many of the papyri, but most textual critics are now frowning on the over-simplicity of assigning each MS to a text type. If we don’t list the textual tendencies, I don’t really see a reason for the chart at all. We can refer the reader to the more extensive list of NT MSS in the back of the NA28. This would lead to a similar decision about the other charts for the majuscules, etc.”
He wrote back the following:
“I know tables and charts tend to oversimplify, and I want our text to address the text type categorization issue directly. However, there may still be heuristic value in identifying what text type those MSS have been traditionally associated with. That is, we are indicating the classification solely as a help for the reader who might come across those categorizations if they read previous scholarship on NT TC. Our text will prepare them for the reality that those are now not as widely accepted, but knowing of them may help them evaluate future work that appears stuck in the past methodologically.
“I think some of the charts are helpful but perhaps too long to include in the chapters themselves, so I was considering moving them to appendices. They could also be edited to not be presenting as “important papyri” but maybe more as “representative papyri.” That is, giving students a quick reference for well-known MSS.”
My request from you my colleagues is to hear not only your opinion on whether papyri ought to be categorized. I am going to try to talk him out of that. (Though his point about students encountering previous scholarship is valid.) But also whether such a chart is helpful in a book for beginners. Please stay in the beginners mindset when you evaluate this.
Responses much appreciated. Amy
I am re-writing a textbook for beginners on TC of the Bible. The OT part was pretty good, but the NT part needed to be re-done. I’m now in the section that introduces some of the important MSS. We only introduce the most commonly discussed ones and otherwise suggest to the reader to go to the other established resources like Metzger & Ehrman, Parker, Aland & Aland, and the GNTs.
Originally the book had charts, one each for the papyri, majuscules, and minuscules.
Here are the first lines of the papyrus chart:
| Table 4.1: Important New Testament Papyri | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Date | Textual Tendencies | Contains | Name/Collection |
| 𝔓1 | 3rd century | Alexandrian | Matt 1:1–9, 12, 14–20 | P. Oxy. 2, Univ. of Penn. |
| 𝔓4, 64, 67 | Early 3rd century | Alexandrian | Portions of Luke and Matthew | P. Oxy. 208, British Lib., Oxford |
| 𝔓13 | Early 3rd century | Alexandrian | Portions of Heb 2; 10–12 | P. Oxy. 657 |
| 𝔓20 | Early 3rd century | Alexandrian | Jas 2:19–3:9 | P. Oxy. 1171 |
| 𝔓22 | 3rd century | Independent | John 15:25–16:2, 21–32 | P. Oxy. 1228 |
| 𝔓23 | ca. 200 | Alexandrian | Jas 1:10–12, 15–18 | P. Oxy. 1229 |
| 𝔓24 | 3rd century | Alexandrian | Rev 5:5–8; 6:5–8 | P. Oxy. 1230 |
| 𝔓27 | Early 3rd century | Alexandrian | Portions of Rom 8–9 | P. Oxy. 1355 |
| 𝔓29 | Early 3rd century | Possibly Western | Acts 26:7–8, 20 | P. Oxy. 1597 |
There are about 30 total papyri listed.
When I hit the papyrus chart I wrote the following to the editor:
“Table 4.1: Important New Testament Papyri. I find myself wondering if this ought to be included. The main reason for it would be to provide the textual tendency of many of the papyri, but most textual critics are now frowning on the over-simplicity of assigning each MS to a text type. If we don’t list the textual tendencies, I don’t really see a reason for the chart at all. We can refer the reader to the more extensive list of NT MSS in the back of the NA28. This would lead to a similar decision about the other charts for the majuscules, etc.”
He wrote back the following:
“I know tables and charts tend to oversimplify, and I want our text to address the text type categorization issue directly. However, there may still be heuristic value in identifying what text type those MSS have been traditionally associated with. That is, we are indicating the classification solely as a help for the reader who might come across those categorizations if they read previous scholarship on NT TC. Our text will prepare them for the reality that those are now not as widely accepted, but knowing of them may help them evaluate future work that appears stuck in the past methodologically.
“I think some of the charts are helpful but perhaps too long to include in the chapters themselves, so I was considering moving them to appendices. They could also be edited to not be presenting as “important papyri” but maybe more as “representative papyri.” That is, giving students a quick reference for well-known MSS.”
My request from you my colleagues is to hear not only your opinion on whether papyri ought to be categorized. I am going to try to talk him out of that. (Though his point about students encountering previous scholarship is valid.) But also whether such a chart is helpful in a book for beginners. Please stay in the beginners mindset when you evaluate this.
Responses much appreciated. Amy