Skip to content

“Texts and Artefacts”: Paperback Edition

April 26, 2019

The collection of some of my essays on NT textual criticism and early manuscripts, Texts and Artefacts, published in hardback in Autumn 2017 is now forthcoming in paperback, and so at a much cheaper price.  It’s due out in May and can be pre-ordered now at £26.09 here.   (See my earlier announcement of the volume here.)

Table of contents

Part 1: Text-Critical and Text-Historical Studies
1. The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon
2. The Early New Testament Papyri: A Survey of Their Significance
3. New Testament Scholarship and the Dating of New Testament Papyri
4. God or Jesus? Textual Ambiguity and Textual Variants in Acts of the Apostles
Part 2: Manuscripts as Artefacts
5. The ‘Meta-Data’ of Earliest Christian Manuscripts
6. Manuscripts and the Sociology of Early Christian Reading
7. The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal
8. The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus
9. A Fresh Analysis of P.Oxyrhynchus 1228 (P22) as Artefact
10. The Greek Fragments of the Gospel of Thomas as Artefacts: Papyrological Observations on Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654 and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 655
11. Who Read Early Christian Apocrypha?
12. P45 as Early Christian Artefact: What it Reflects about Early Christianity

From → Uncategorized

  1. John Mitrosky permalink

    Hi Larry. I was just wondering if you have any comments to make on possible interplay between chapter 4 and chapter 10 listed in your above posting. Plus I would also like to add to this list James 1:27a for your consideration:

    “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this:…”

    Just as you note the variant “God or Jesus?” in Acts, James also seems to have ambiguity about God and Father being the same being, or two separate beings? Thomas, also, I assume, contains a similar ambiguity to that of James where the Father is not called God. I am also thinking here of the Church Fathers’ critic of Marcion, that Marcion conceived of God and Jesus’ Father as two separate beings. Any comments here to add, in regard to textual variants?

    • There’s no connection between the two essays, John, just because there is no connection in the texts. As for your second question, the syntax of the Greek of James 1:27 makes “God and Father” one and the same. No ambiguity. The definite article makes this clear (and the omission of it in some MSS is readily accounted for as resulting from a visual leap of copyists). Marcion is irrelevant, as is GThomas, et alia.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: