Fri Feb 14 21:25:18 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Feb 14 21:25:18 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA26199; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 21:25:18 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:24:18 -0700
To: "Ronald L. Minton" 
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus
Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1210

On  Fri, 14 Feb 1997, "Ronald L. Minton"  wrote,
in part:

>> p13 (the most important papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer collections)
>> is an opisthograph (I hope I spelled that right -- in any case, it is
>> written on the *back* of a previously used scroll), and 0212 is a
>> diatessaron fragment. Thus, neither represents a "normal" Biblical
>> manuscript.
>
>Also, see Aland, TEXT OF NT, p. 102.
>Is the combination of age and non-fragmentary length the primary reason for 
>your evaluation of the importance of P13?

Actually, there are three factors: Age, length, and the fact that
p13 seems to go with p46 and B. Since there are only three Greek
manuscripts of this type (Zuntz would add 1739, but I think it
stands apart), and since p46 and B are both defective for parts of
Hebrews, p13 takes on great significance.

Says I. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back