Apocryphicity

A weblog devoted to the study of the Christian Apocrypha

About Apocryphicity []

Apocryphicity (ă-pok-rif-is-iti) n. 1. a recently coined term for describing the qualities of apocryphal literature. 2. a recently created weblog (or blog) dedicated to discussion of Christian apocrypha.

Welcome to Apocryphicity. This blog has two aims. The first is to report on developments in the study of Christian Apocrypha (a.k.a. non-canonical Christian literature) in the form of media excerpts, reviews of scholarly literature, and the occasional mention of apocryphal texts and traditions in popular culture. The second is to provide a forum for those interested in the Christian Apocrypha (scholars and non-scholars) to exchange ideas and information.

Apocryphicity is maintained by Dr. Tony Chartrand-Burke who teaches Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters (a part of York University in Toronto, Canada). The opinions expressed here are his own.

Anyone interested in the topic of the Christian Apocrypha is welcome to read the posts and, if inspired, add comments. From time-to-time I offer courses on the Christian Apocrypha and Gnosticism; students of these courses are encouraged to participate also.

I would be very grateful if readers would send me links to recent developments online regarding Christian Apocrypha (ancient, medieval, or even modern) along with your own comments if you have any. These can be sent to my e-mail address (tburke@yorku.ca) or can be submitted simply as a comment to any of the blog postings.

Be sure to check out my homepage which features pages related to the CA (including links to other websites and an on-going bibliography project), as well as the web’s premier Infancy Gospel of Thomas page and material related to other research projects.


Contact Tony

Categories

Archives

Deciphering Christian Apocrypha Palimpsests

August 13th, 2007 by Tony

Recently I finished reading Reviel Netz’s and William Noel’s The Archimedes Codex: Revealing the Secrets of the World’s Greatest Palimpsest. The book details the acquisition of a thirteenth-century Christian prayer book that contains, as its underwriting, several works by the third-century BCE Greek mathematician Archimedes. One of these works, Floating Bodies, is found in no other source. But in some places the underwriting is incredibly difficult to read. The Archimedes Codex describes the pioneering scientific efforts to recover Archimedes’ works.

The book led me to thinking about palimpsests of CA texts and the possibility that advances in reading palimpsests could aid in recovering our texts. I am aware only of one such palimpsest: Vindobonensis 563, an eighth-century manuscript written over a fifth-century collection of the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and selections from the Gospel of Matthew. Constantin von Tischendorf was the first scholar to see the manuscript and was able to decipher much of it; Guy Philippart (“Fragments palimpsestes latins du Vindobonensis 563 [Ve siècle?]: Évangile selon S. Matthieu, Évangile de Nicodème, Évangile de l’enfance selon Thomas”, AnBoll 90, p. 391-411) revealed more of it in 1972.

Separating the pages of the Archimedes Codex.The manuscript is important for the study of Infancy Thomas as it is the earliest known source we have for the text; unfortunately, only a handful of pages from the original manuscript were used by the eighth-century recycler. Virtually all of this material is readable (save for a few lines on two folios). The Gospel of Nicodemus material is far more extensive, stretching over 35 folios. Philippart was able to read more of the text than Tischendorf but did not include the new readings in his article—he believed it needed an edition all its own. I am not aware of such an edition, though the AELAC team working on an edition of Nicodemus may be using it.

Are there other palimpsests of CA texts? Is it possible to use the new technology to recover their contents with greater accuracy?

Posted in Infancy Gospels, manuscripts, Gospel of Nicodemus | | Permalink

2 Responses

  1. Roger Pearse Says:

    I think that multi-spectral imaging needs to be applied to every palimpsest, and any manuscript where UV light has revealed anything at all. This is quite a large number, but it is clearly a superior technique.

    However MSI has been available for a number of years now, yet it doesn’t seem to have become widely available. It remains the special property of a tiny group. Does anyone know why?

    Surely we should all be able to use it in a manuscript library, just like we ask for a UV light?

  2. Tony Says:

    Is MSI not stinky-expensive?

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.