# Wednesday, May 09, 2012
 

I’ve been working through fragmentary texts and agrapha for my Greek Apocryphal Gospels project. As such, I’ve been referencing Ehrman and Pleše’s The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (amazon.com) (henceforth EP) heavily, as well as Andrew Bernhard’s Other Early Christian Gospels (amazon.com). Both are invaluable.

I’ve found a few things that can probably be classed as “errata” in EP. None are really a big deal, but I thought I’d record them here. I would like to give EP a hearty “Thanks!” for the wide margins, it makes adding notes (and line numbers used by different editions for easy reference) much easier. These notes are largely for my own purposes, to keep them all in one place; but I figure they might be helpful for others as well.

I should say again: I’m very happy with EP’s edition. It is wonderful in that it gives the original language and a modern translation of everything included, and as a result, I’d say, is required for anyone interested in the history of the early Christianity and its development. Whether you like him or not, Ehrman is an excellent writer and his skill shows through on the translations in this volume.

P.Berol. 11710 EP pp 238-239

EP and Bernhard have the text in the same order but disagree on terminology. That is, EP have:

  • Fragment a recto
  • Fragment a verso
  • Fragment b recto
  • Fragment b verso

Whereas Bernhard has:

  • Fragment a verso
  • Fragment a recto
  • Fragment b verso
  • Fragment b recto

“Recto” and “verso” are terms that have to do with the orientation of fibers of the papyrus; Bernhard actually uses arrows instead of the term as terminology is in flux and lacks specificity. Some use “recto” and “verso” as synonyms for “front” and “back”, respectively, regardless of the fibers of the papyrus (recto = horizontal fibers, verso = vertical fibers). I’d chalk EP’s difference up to that, however, there are other places where EP have papyri ordered verso-recto. Also, EP are using Bernhard’s transcription, so the difference is even more confusing.

Again, there is no functional difference in the transcription or EP’s translation; the lines fall in the same order. It is just the description of recto/verso.

P.Egerton 2 EP pp. 252

EP have have the recto/verso (and content) of fragment 3 swapped. These are fragments with little recognizable content. Anyway, Bell & Skeat (and Bernhard) go frag 3 verso, then frag 3 recto. EP go recto, then verso. This is a little confusing because EP note (p. 246) that they’ve followed Bell & Skeat’s sequence of the fragments.

P. Merton 51 EP pp. 257

Note 1 on the bottom of the page has “Mark 9:7”, it should be “Mark 7:9” (cf. Rees, p. 3).

Gospel of Thomas Greek Fragments, P.Oxy. 655 p. 344

In EP, Saying 36 purports to be in col 1 lines 1-17, but actually floats onto the 18th line. On the next transcription page (p. 346), it notes the next fragment starting on line 17, and that is the line based on the numbers given on that page.

In Bernhard, the lines given are 0-17. EP 1/Bernhard 0 is completely reconstructed. My guess is that EP should be numbered like Bernhard.

Gospel of Mary, Greek Fragments pp. 589

EP note they are using the edition of Pasquier, “We have taken the text from the edition of A. Pasquier” but doesn’t note if that is for the Coptic only, or for Coptic + Greek. My guess is that the Greek comes from Lührmann, but that is simply because most other fragmentary Greek comes from Lührmann. Also, I think the either the image of P.Ryl.463 “page 2” on the Rylands library site have recto/verso misstated (or are using to mean front/back instead of fiber direction, or the ‘V’ on the image here doesn’t mean what I think it means).

Post Author: rico
Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:39:32 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]