Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: CTENTM - Earliest Greek Module

  1. #1

    Default CTENTM - Earliest Greek Module

    Anyone had a chance to look this one over yet? I saw it on the Logos site and was glad to see that BibleWorks also offers it.

    Pro's and Con's anyone anyone...

  2. #2

    Default Pros and Cons

    Instead of me listing the pros and cons. Here is a sample of this module. I have it my Libronix collection.

    After the information below the Greek text follows.

    P46 (P. Chester Beatty II
    + P. Mich. Inv. 6238)


    Contents most of Paul’s epistles, excluding the Pastorals. The order is as follows: Rom. 5:17–6:3, 5–14; 8:15–25, 27–35; 8:37–9:32; 10:1–11:22, 24–33; 11:35–15:10; 15:11–16:27; Heb. 1:1–9:16; 9:18–10:20, 22–30; 10:32–13:25; 1 Cor. 1:1–9:2; 9:4–14:14; 14:16–15:15; 15:17–16:22; 2 Cor. 1:1–11:10, 12–21; 11:23–13:13; Eph. 1:1–2:7; 2:10–5:6; 5:8–6:6, 8–18, 20–24; Gal. 1:1–8; 1:10–2:9, 12–21; 3:2–29; 4:2–18; 4:20–5:17; 5:20–6:8, 10–18; Phil. 1:1, 5–15, 17–28; 1:30–2:12, 14–27; 2:29–3:8, 10–21; 4:2–12, 14–23; Col. 1:1–2, 5–13, 16–24; 1:27–2:19; 2:23–3:11, 13–24; 4:3–12, 16–18; 1 Thess. 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5–9, 23–28. New reconstructions appear in Rom. 11:2; 15:10; Heb. 7:28; 1 Cor. 1:13–14; 4:10; 5:7–8; 14:15; 15:50; 16:23; 2 Cor. 4:12; 6:2; 11:21–22; Eph. 5:6; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; 3:8. (Each is noted in the text.)
    Date middle second century; see discussion below.
    Provenance the Fayum, Egypt, or perhaps in the ruins of a church or monastery near Atfih (ancient Aphroditopolis)
    Housing location Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Special Collections Library (P. Mich. inv. 6238; thirty leaves, containing Rom. 11:35–14:8; Rom. 15:11–Heb. 8:8; Heb. 9:10–26; 1 Cor. 2:3–3:5; 2 Cor. 9:7–13:14; Ephesians; Gal. 1:1–6:10); Dublin, Ireland: Chester Beatty Collection (P. Chester Beatty II; fifty-six leaves, containing Rom. 5:17–6:14; 8:15–11:35; 14:19–15:11; Heb. 8:9–9:10; Heb. 9:26-1 Cor. 2:3; 1 Cor. 3:6-2 Cor. 9:7; Gal. 6:10–18; Philippians; Colossians; 1 Thess. 1:1–2:3; 5:5–28).
    Bibliography *Frederic G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, fasc. 3.1, Pauline Epistles and Revelation, Text (London: Emery Walker, 1934); fasc. 3, supp. 3.1, Pauline Epistles, Text (London: Emery Walker, 1936); fasc. 3, supp. 3.2, Pauline Epistles, Plates (London: Emery Walker, 1937).
    Henry A. Sanders, A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1935).
    Young Kyu Kim, “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Biblica 69 (1988): 248–57.
    Ulrich Wilcken, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 11 (1935): 112–14.
    Physical features originally had 52 folios (= 104 leaves; 208 pages); 9 folios are missing; 15 cm x 27 cm; 25–31 lines per page; pagination from 1 to 199; written by a professional scribe.
    Textual character proto-Alexandrian (see discussion below)
    Date
    Kenyon dated this codex to the first half of the third century. Kenyon’s dating was largely influenced by the handwriting of the stichometrical notes at the end of several of the epistles, which he dated to the early part of the third century. Ulrich Wilcken, who was director of the Vienna library and founder ofArchiv für Papyrusforschung, thought it belonged to the second century and said it could be dated safely to around a.d. 200. Wilcken suggested this date on the basis of seeing only one leaf. Hans Gerstinger also thought it belonged to the second century.
    Young Kyu Kim proposed a date in the reign of Domitian (a.d. 81–96) based on six criteria:
    1. All literary papyri similar to the exact style of P46 have been assigned dates between the first century b.c. and the early second century a.d. His primary examples are P. Oxy. 1790, P. Oxy. 2337, P. Oxy. 3695, P. Mil. Vogl. 1181, P. Mich. 6789, P. Alex. 443, P. Med. 70.01 verso, and P. Rylands III 550. His secondary examples are P. Mon. Gr. 216, P. Berol. 6926/P. Gen. 100, P. Gr. Berol. 19c, P. Gr. Berol. 29b, P. Oxy. 8, P. Hamb. III 193, and P. Oxy. 3721.
    2. Comparable documentary papyri are dated early: P. Oxy. 211, 270, 318, 320, and 3051.
    3. The handwriting of P46 is an upright, informal uncial of the early type. It is a bookhand, manifesting at times a running hand, giving way here and there to ligatures, while still trying to keep the upper line. Such a style is very rare after the first century.
    4. The finals at the feet of the letters are seen in other manuscripts dated from the last quarter of the third century b.c. to the third quarter of the first century a.d.
    5. The εγ-form (before compounds with β, δ, and λ) is very early, as compared with the εκ-form.
    6. The hand of a certain corrector (no. 11, writing και) appears in manuscripts from the second century b.c. to the early second century a.d.
    My observation is that most of the manuscripts from the first century that Kim sees as displaying a hand comparable to P46 show some similarities in individual letters but not in overall appearance and therefore do not belong to the same time period as P46. Kim himself admits that several of these manuscripts display an early form of what we see later in P46, especially with respect to the serifs at the bottom and tops of letters.
    Let us take, for example, several of the papyri dated to the first century that Kim cites as illustrating the kind of hand manifested in P46. My observation is that the following manuscripts are too early to be parallel examples of P46:
    P. Med. 70.01 verso (a.d. 55)—several similarities, but earlier than P46
    P. Oxy. 270 (a.d. 94)—some similarities, but not many
    P. Oxy. 2987 (a.d. 78–79)—nascent similarities
    P. Oxy. 3051 (a.d. 89)—a few similarities
    P. Oxy. 3695 (first century a.d.)—many similarities, but not completely identical
    P. Gr. Berol. 6845 (ca. a.d. 100)—a few similarities
    P. Berol. 6926 + P. Gen. 100 (second half of first century a.d.)—a few similarities in small serifs, but not completely identical
    These manuscripts may have, here and there, a few letters like P46, but their overall appearance is earlier.
    Far more similarities are seen in the following manuscripts:
    P. Oxy. 8 (assigned late first or early second century)—very similar morphologically
    P. Oxy. 841 (the second hand, which cannot be dated later than a.d. 125–150 [see plate and discussion in C. H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, no. 14])— the handwriting is similar to that found in P46
    P. Oxy. 1622 (dated with confidence to pre–a.d. 148, probably during the reign of Hadrian [117–138], because of the documentary text on the verso)—this early–dated specimen shares many similar features with P46
    P. Oxy. 2337 (assigned to the late first century)—very similar but probably earlier than P46
    P. Oxy. 3721 (assigned to the second half of the second century, but Kim would date it earlier)—the most comparable of all the manuscripts I have personally seen
    P. Rylands III 550 (assigned to the second century)—a remarkable likeness to P46
    P. Berol. 9810 (early second century)—quite similar (see plate and discussion in Schubart, Palaeographie,Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1.4.1 [Munich: C. H. Beck, 1925], 29b.)
    Another reasonable way to date P46 (P. Chester Beatty II) is to compare it with the other manuscripts with which it was discovered. The earliest manuscript in this collection is unquestionably P. Chester Beatty VI (Numbers–Deuteronomy). This manuscript, displaying a good example of a Roman type of hand, is very comparable to the great Hyperides manuscript, P. London 132 (early second century a.d.); the Herodas manuscript, P. Egerton 1 (ca. a.d. 100); and P. Oxy. 270 (a documentary text dated a.d. 94). Thus, Beatty VI should be dated around a.d. 125. P46 (P. Chester Beatty II) is probably not as early as Beatty VI; indeed, it seemed to Kenyon that P46 had “lost a little of the simplicity of the best of the Roman hands.”  In the final analysis,P46 belongs to the second century and probably belongs to the middle part of that century, when we consider its undeniable comparability with P. Oxy. 1622 (ca. a.d. 117–138), P. Oxy. 3721 (second half of second century), P. Rylands III 550 (second century), P. Berol 9810 (early second century), and P. Oxy. 841 (second hand; 125–150). Thus, it is my opinion that P46 belongs to an era after a.d. 81–96 (the era posited by Kim)—perhaps the middle of the second century.
    Dating P46 to this era allows time for the formation of the Pauline corpus to have occurred and for an archetypal collection to have been produced and to circulate in Egypt. Zuntz figured that an archetypal Pauline corpus was formed by a.d. 100 in Alexandria. Thus, an Alexandrian copy such asP46 could have been produced shortly thereafter and been used by Egyptian Christians in Alexandria and other nearby towns such as Aphroditopolis (see the discussion of the provenance of the related manuscript P45).
    Provenance
    P46 was discovered (along with P45 and P47) somewhere in the Fayum of Egypt or perhaps in the ruins of a church or monastery near Atfih, ancient Aphroditopolis (see comments on P45). A dealer from Cairo sold the manuscript in different batches to two different parties, Chester Beatty and the University of Michigan. Chester Beatty purchased ten leaves of the manuscript in 1930–31, and the University of Michigan purchased six leaves in the same period. The University of Michigan acquired twenty-four more leaves in the winter of 1932–33. The ten leaves in the Beatty collection were first published in 1936 in fascicle 3 of The Chester Beatty Papyri. The thirty leaves in the Michigan collection were published in 1935 by H. A. Sanders in A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul. Soon after this publication, Chester Beatty announced that he had obtained forty-six more leaves of the same manuscript. Through collaboration, the entire manuscript was published in 1936 (see bibliography).
    Textual Character
    The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent exemplar. He was a professional scribe, because there are stichoi notations at the end of several books (see the conclusion of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians). The stichoi were used by professionals to note how many lines had been copied for commensurate pay. Most likely, an employee of the scriptorium (perhaps connected with a church library) paginated the codex and indicated the stichoi. The scribe himself made some corrections as he went, and then several other readers made corrections here and there. Kim noted at least sixteen different hands.7 Thus, the manuscript was very well used, probably by various members of the church or monastery. One reader had marked almost all of Romans and Hebrews with lectoral marks in preparation for oral reading. But these marks do not continue thereafter, except in 1 Corinthians 14–15 (worthy chapters for oral reading). All in all, the manuscript was very well used and somewhat corrected, but not in a thoroughgoing manner. In this volume we have indicated the corrections of the original scribe as c1, those of the paginator (who made corrections in bold, broad strokes) as c2, and those of a corrector who made corrections in cursive (probably in the third century) as c3. This accords generally with Zuntz’s observations.
    The text of P46 shows a strong affinity with B (especially in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews), with the tenth-century Alexandrian manuscript 1739, and then with א. In Hebrews, P46 and P13 display a very similar text, exhibiting 80 percent agreement with respect to textual variants. The copyists of P13 and P46 made similar use of double points for punctuation, and the pagination of both documents indicates that Romans preceded Hebrews in P13 as well as in P46. Textual critics have observed that when P46 agrees with B and with D, F, and G the reading is usually “Western.” (A reading with the combination of B, D, F, G was usually rejected by Westcott and Hort.) However, a number of readings supported by P46 and B by themselves or with manuscripts of all text types show themselves to be most likely Pauline. Aside from the several scribal blunders in P46, Zuntz said that P46 was a representative of “a text of the superior, early-Alexandrian type."

  3. #3

    Default

    I seem to recall that Logos was not granted permission to include the pictures. "Due to licensing restrictions, the Logos edition does not include the sample photographs of papyri that appear in the print edition."

    BW does include the photographs of each papyrus (at least, they were present in the Beta.)

    I'm not a NT guy, so I haven't messed with it much.
    Ben

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    955

    Default

    Since this and other works are sometimes known by the author's name and sometimes by acronymns, I think you're referring to Comfort and Barrett, The Text of the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts.
    I gave it a fairly thorough workout in beta testing. If you're interested in NT text criticism, it's a useful tool. You no longer just have to take the NA-27 editors' word for a reading. In addition to giving all the information a previous post lists about the papyri which are contained in this book (which is by no means all 100+ of them that are listed in NA-27), Comfort & Barrett contains the text of each papyrus (including colored dots under doubtful letters) with grayed out text to show missing parts of lines that are represented.
    In BW7 Comfort and Barrett is listed on the "Resource Summary" tab, so that when your browse window is at a certain verse, you can just scroll through the list of resources to see if that verse is included in one of the papyri in Comfort & Barrett. If so, just click on the reference, and the book will open to the page, so that you can see which words and/or letters of that verse are actually in the manuscripts.
    Most of the manuscripts also include a current photo of a portion of the papyrus (from a fragment or two up to an entire page), so you can get an idea what the handwriting looked like, and how easily it can be figured out. There are a few papyri for which permission was not given to include a photo.
    This work is not complete (I hope it can be updated in the future, with representation from more papyri), but none of this information is in Tischendorf. So if you have been using the Tischendorf module for text criticism, this will not duplicate a thing. But if the apparatus in the printed NA-27 is sufficient for you, you don't need to buy this add-on. Though it's nice to see these transcriptions of the primary texts, rather than just a summary.
    If you want to do text criticism on the fly, I'd prefer to use this module in BW7 rather than in brand X. But then, I'm biased.
    In Christ,
    Mark Eddy

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,107

    Default don't forget about real books...

    If you're near a major seminary or university library, see if you can hunt up the real book. If you like what you see in the book, you'd probably value the module since it has what the book has but obviously integrates it into BW for usability (is that a word?). But anyway, sometimes I find it more helpful to see what the real book is like before deciding whether it'd be something I'd want to add. After all, the BW philosophy on most of these modules is get the books because the books won't ever be out of fashion or stop working when the electricity goes out. If you really like the book and use it a lot, then maybe picking up the module wouldn't be a bad idea.

    But as far as I'm concerned the Comfort Barrett module is really really cool!
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  6. #6

    Default

    Well I'm not a cover to cover type of person. I research topics that interest me and may find uses for the other parts down the road.

    If the earth gets a massive EMP Wave and we have no computers then a book would be real nice. I like the speed of digital and the powerful word searches compared to flipping through a book to find what you want and dog earing every page lol.

    To each their own. I purchased this module yesterday and have it running now and so far so good.

  7. #7

    Default Comfort & Barrett, Text of Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts or Chester Beatty



    I'm using BW9.

    I'm sorry, I don't see either Comfort and Barrett, Text of the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts or Chester Beatty listed in the resource pane while browsing. Should I?

    And while we're at it, I keep bumping into Daniel B. Wallace's work over at

    http://www.csntm.org

    They're saying there that CSNTM is continually digitizing more NT witnesses (and Pseudopigraphs) from Chester Beatty's collection. Is BW bringing those in, as they become digitized?

    Glenn

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    955

    Default

    You have to pay extra for CTENTM. Once you purchase the unlock code you can install it from your BW9 installation disks.
    I know that the original plan was to have updates available in BW. The files in BW9 are dated Feb. 2011 and Sept. 2013. The files in BW10 are dated Feb. 2011 and Nov. 2014. So something has been updated. I haven't compared them enough to know how much.
    Mark Eddy
    Last edited by Mark Eddy; 04-28-2015 at 12:08 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    406

    Default

    There is a (now possibly outdated) review of Comfort and Barrett from 2001 here: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/CB2001rev.html. The reviewer is Maurice A. Robinson. He is quite critical at a number of points, but his bottom line is, "buy Comfort and Barrett. At least in this volume everyone can have access to a "reasonably accurate" presentation of the basic data, most of which is not readily available elsewhere. Even while allowing that certain aspects of presentation, introduction and format could stand a good deal of improvement, the volume remains unique and should become part of the repertoire of all text-critical students and scholars." My recollection is that I read through this review with growing doubt whether I should get the module in BW9--but in the end, I took his advice!
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidR View Post
    There is a (now possibly outdated) review of Comfort and Barrett from 2001 here: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/CB2001rev.html. The reviewer is Maurice A. Robinson. He is quite critical at a number of points, but his bottom line is, "buy Comfort and Barrett. At least in this volume everyone can have access to a "reasonably accurate" presentation of the basic data, most of which is not readily available elsewhere. Even while allowing that certain aspects of presentation, introduction and format could stand a good deal of improvement, the volume remains unique and should become part of the repertoire of all text-critical students and scholars." My recollection is that I read through this review with growing doubt whether I should get the module in BW9--but in the end, I took his advice!
    It should be pointed out that part of the criticism of Robinson's review stems from the fact that Robinson is a protagonist of the Byzantine text, whereas Comfort and Barrett clearly are not. The vast majority of the criticisms he formulates touch, not on the text of the manuscript reproductions themselves, but on the introductions, at least partially because of this difference in approach. I remember reading this review several years ago, with some dismay, after buying the module, before realizing Robinson's point of view. Not to take sides on that question--this isn't the place for it--but someone who is staunchly in favor of the Byzantine text will tend to be more reserved towards value of the papyri, simply because they don't really confirm that particular approach. Comfort and Barrett consider them much more important and trustworthy for establishing the primitive text, and that comes out clearly in their remarks.

    As Robinson points out, the second edition replaces the first, apparently disastrous, publication.

    I've used the paper edition on occasion as well as the Logos version. I now have it in BW10. I do wish it were possible to copy contents into a word processor as unicode (that's a perennial problem with CHM files), but one thing I really appreciate in the BW version is that, unlike the other two, the missing (hypothetical) text sections are grayed out and the unintelligible letters are in red. They are thus clearly distinguished from the text of the manuscripts themselves. This makes it much easier to get a clear idea of what really is in the manuscripts than what one can gather by looking rapidly at the print or Logos version (I hope this is clear! If not, I could perhaps make a screen shot to show what I mean).

    The practical outworking of this is that I tend to consult Comfort and Barrett now, much more than in the past. So yes, I would say it's worth having it in BW, especially since it supplements nicely the growing collection of NT manuscripts that are part of the base package.

    Regards,

    Donald Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence, France

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •