Miller, "Some Observations" (2003) [TC article in JSNT]
J. Edward Miller, "Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35," JSNT 26 (2003): 217-236.
In the latest issue of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, there is an article about a notation used in the famous 4th century manuscript of the Bible, Codex Vaticanus (B). The notation consists of two horizontal dots that is placed next to a line of text in B, and has been labeled an "umlaut" on account of its graphic similarity to the two dots of that name found above certain German vowel letters (ä ö ü).
Beginning with Philip B. Payne, "Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor. 14.34-5," NTS 41 (1995): 240-262, the Vaticanus umlauts have just recently been understood as a text-critical symbol to indicate that there is a variant reading on that line. Of particular note, Miller favorably cites Wieland Willker's website on the Vaticanus umlauts, and credits Willker for an argument that the umlauts are as old as the original scribe older than the 9th century:
See also Willker, http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/squeezed.html, who points out a small sigma squeezed between an umlaut and the original text at the beginning of a line containing part of Eph. 6.20. Should the reinforcer have been responsible for adding this umlaut himself, he would have left plenty of space between the umlaut and original text for a letter of normal size. This demonstrates the likelihood that the umlaut was employed by the original hand, and not by a later reinforcer.Miller, "Some Observations," 219 n.7. (The "reinforcer" is a 9th or 10th century scribe who traced over the letters of the manuscript because they had gotten very faint.)
Now, Payne first noticed the umlaut near 1 Cor. 14:34-35 where the two dot were almost next to a bar, and originally attributed a text-critical function to the bar-umlaut combination. However, Payne by looking at non-bar umlauts (completely alone or separated from a bar by one line) also began to include non-bar umlauts as performing a text-critical function. What Miller does in the article, however, is to argue that the bar even in apparent conjunction with the umlaut performs a function independent of the umlaut and consistent with other non-umlaut bars in B. Specifically, Miller argues that the bar (or paragraphus) is a section divider, and the umlaut is a text-critical indicator; thus, the presence of a so-called "bar-umlaut" merely means that the line both starts a section and contains a textual variant.
Miller's other main purpose is to revisit Payne's conclusion that a bar-umlaut on the line before 1 Cor. 14:34 means that the scribe of Vaticanus is aware of another manuscript (now lost) in which 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was missing, thereby providing manuscript evidence that the passage is a post-Pauline interpretation. (This passage is of particular importance today since it is commonly understood to mean that women should be silent in church.) Miller, however, points out that the bar means the start of a section, and the umlaut consistently refers to a textual variant on the indicated line. Since the umlaut is not found on the line where 1 Cor. 14:34 begins, it probably was meant to indicate a textual variant in 1 Cor. 14:33. One such textual variant in mostly Western witnesses does exist at 1 Cor. 14:33, the addition of "I teach" after "churches of the saints." Thus, Miller concludes that Vaticanus does not constitute evidence that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation.
The Tale of a Discovery
I enjoy stories of how lost works from antiquity are discovered. Many of such discoveries come from painstaking research though dozens of old catalogs, persistence, and a bit of luck. One recent discovery of a missing section of one of John Chrysostom's works is related by scholar Wendy Pradels in "Lesbos Cod. Gr. 27: The Tale of a Discovery," ZAC 6 (2002): 81-89. Here is the lead paragraph from the PDF article:
It is impossible to describe the exhilaration that one feels upon reading a manuscript that has been actively sought by scholars for more than two centuries. First, upon taking the manuscript in hand, there builds a mounting sense of expectation and feverish impatience, mingled with anxiety, for in the back of one’s mind the question remains, "Isn't there a slight chance that the text might turn out to be nothing more than a 'filler' concocted by a later scribe?" After rapidly turning the pages containing the familiar part of the text, then, more slowly, tracing with a finger the lines of the manuscript up the point in the text where all published editions and translations suddenly break off in the middle of a sentence. Upon reading that last word before the editions end in a bracket, and then the first word of the missing text, the tension suddenly gives way to relief, triumph and intense curiosity. Such joy is, I presume, the same for all who make a discovery or attain a summit in their chosen field of activity.
The Legend of Hilaria
Another announcement on ecchst-l by Roger Pearse is that he has uploaded more material for his "Early Christian Fathers -- Additional Texts" site:
I've scanned the English translation of the various versions of 'Legends of Eastern Saints: the Legend of Hilaria' (1913):Again, thanks, Roger, for the good work.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Hilaria
As usual, this is all public domain, including any notes by me, so I'd be honoured if anyone takes copies, sells them, places them on their website, or whatever.
New Material on "Early Christian Fathers -- Additional Texts"
Roger Pearse has announced on ecchst-l (Ecclesiastical History mailing list; low volume) that he has uploaded more material for his "Early Christian Fathers -- Additional Texts" site:
W. Wright's English translation from the Syriac of various 4th century fictional 'acts of the apostles' is now online at:Thanks, Roger, and keep up the good work!
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers#Apocryphal_Acts
Unfortunately very few of the copious footnotes were transcribed, but with luck the text itself will be useful.
Biblical Studies Supersite Debate
There's a bit of a debate going on now in the blogs between Mark Goodacre, Torrey Sealand, and Jim Davila (with occasional third-party input) about the future of Biblical Studies supersites, such as Goodacre's New Testament Gateway and Sealand's, Resource Pages for Biblical Studies, which provide links to the very best scholarship available on the web. Basically, the issue is that Sealand wonders what's going to happen if the work in maintaining the supersites becomes too much for the current volunteer efforts.
Due to increasing size of the web, there may well come a point where maintaining a comprehensive listing of top-quality pages at a certain scope may well become too much for the volunteer efforts. (If quantity rather quality is the goal, then you know where to find a good search engine.) Until someone figures out a way to make serious money from it, keeping these sites up-to-date will likely continue to be a volunteer-only operation. In my view, the best value of these supersites is the editorial judgment of their builders in choosing which sites are sufficiently academic to list. Like it or not, their names stand behind their pages and function in many ways like trademarks in the commercial world, where their names brand their products. However, once a second editor is brought into help select and annotate links for the supersite, there has to be coordination between the editors, or the current editor's reputation will suffer, or the supersite has to be rebranded. (Hence the talk of doing it under the aegis of SBL or the like.)
Perhaps a better way is to respond to the increasing size of the web is by further specialization and trying to avoid duplicating someone else's area if still active and high-quality. If there is a scholar passionate about a particular segment of Biblical Studies and has built a first rate gateway for that segment, then the supersite editor need only to link to that specialized gateway plus a few other good quality links. In fact, I think this is the way it is already happening, as Goodacre explained:
One final comment on how something like this is actually evolving already. On many occasions I simply point to a place where you can go to get the best gateway on a given subject. I have a little section of Judaica, for example, which just points to some of the major places to go for extra information -- it would be madness even to try to be comprehensive there. Likewise the Gospel of Thomas. Even though that is one of my research interests, there is no point my trying to provide a comprehensive set of links because one already has Steve Davies's Gospel of Thomas homepage, so I point to that and one or two other leading resources. My guess is that this is the way that things will continue to develop, so unofficially bringing about something like what Wieland is suggesting but on a more organic, evolutionary model.The way I see it, there are still plenty of opportunities to carve out a niche for yourself specializing in a segment you feel most passionate about (that passion will sustain your motivation during the tedious parts like keeping links up-to date). It could be anything, such as "Anything you wanted to know about Philemon but were afraid to ask" as long as you have the passion and the editorial work is good. If the specialized site is good enough, some of the burden undertaken by the megasite maintainers can be eased.
