1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Friday, June 16, 2006
Round 3
And now, after 20 male textual critics (and a further 10 on Stephen Carlson's blog) I can present you with 10 who are female. All of these deal or dealt with text-critical matters, though one of the images shows what I believe to be someone not generally judged competent in such issues. One of the pictures is of a Classical textual critic.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
#4 is Gail Riplinger, exposer of those pesky new age Bible versions.
ReplyDeleteWell done, anon. I thought that she would be the last one to be recognised—being the only one who would not generally be considered to have expertise in textual criticism.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but then again, those who make the most noise sometimes get the most recognition, whether they deserve it or not.
ReplyDeleteWell done Pete.
ReplyDeleteSome general comments. Firstly, the contemporary ladies seem a very happy lot. More smile than the men that is for sure.
Secondly, three have been photographed against shelves of books - an obvious sign of insecurity - obviously based on trying to make it in a man's world.
Thirdly, only 3/10 need spectacles. This may be a vanity issue I suppose, but contrasts with the men in the previous collection (6/10 had glasses, 1/10 obviously should have had).
Fourthly, number two is too alluring to be a biblical text critic.
#5 Kim Haines-Eitzen
ReplyDelete#9 Barbara Aland
#10 Beate Köster
"one of the images shows what I believe to be someone not generally judged competent in such issues".
ReplyDeleteReally? ........... Only one?
In some kind of post-modern feminist trickery is the size of the photo in a quasi-inverse proportion to their standing in the field?
ReplyDelete# Amy Anderson
ReplyDelete2: Barbara Ehlers
ReplyDeleteNo. 6 is Amy Anderson ( The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew, Brill, 2004)
ReplyDeleteThat's one of my favorite TC books.
What is a 'pesky new age Bible version'? ESV? NIVI? NKJV?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteStephen,
ReplyDeleteyes, I was too fast on the button and forgot to indicate the number. Here is an interesting read about her dissertation and another image of her (and the dissertation):
http://www.northcentral.edu/magazine
/summer04/anderson.php
Since #1 and #7 look alike I suggest they are Margaret Dunlop Gibson with her twin sister Agnes Lewis Smith, but I don't know which is which.
No. 7 is an imposter. Just dressing up to look the same as the more famous No. 1.
ReplyDeleteThis blog scores highly on the ETCGII* scale. Unfortunately we cannot say the same about all the comments.
ReplyDelete*Evangelical Textual Criticism Gender Inclusivity Index (as agreed by the ETCGIC* in Jan 2006).
*Evangelical Textual Criticism Gender Inclusivity Committee (as constituted by the PCRCETC* in Dec 2005).
*Political Correctness Review Committee of the ETC (formed to enact the recommendations of the ETCDPC* in Nov 2005).
Evangelical Textual Criticism Doctrinal Purity Committee.
Peter Head said: "What is a pesky new age Bible version?"
ReplyDeleteAccording to Riplinger, it's any modern Bible translation that is either based on the UBS/NA text, or which makes sympathetic footnote references to it. Bottom line: only the version used by the Apostle Paul is acceptable- you know, the KJV.
Isn't #3 Jenny Read-Heimerdinger?
ReplyDeleteWhere's Silva New?
ReplyDeleteYes, and again, the Amy Anderson book is a great read.
Riplinger was the only one I could identify. But that was just on a hunch (something about her made me think this one looked more like a home economics profesor than a text-critic--which I had read was true of Gail Riplinger). I had to do a google image search to verify it.
ReplyDeleteKaren Jobes and Tessa Rejak are not on the list. But, I suppose, niether of them are known especially for textual criticism proper so much as LXX studies in general.
What is a 'pesky new age Bible version'? ESV? NIVI? NKJV?
ReplyDeleteThere's really only one safe answer: any Bible that doesn't read "corrupt the word of God" in 2 Corinthians 2:7, does.
And footnotes that even admit the existence of alternate readings are just as pesky.
Unless they were inserted before 1770.
Marginal note in 1611 KJV to 2 Corinthians 2:17:
ReplyDeleteFor wee are not as many which [deale deceitfully with] the word of God
Of course I've had to omit many: Caroline Hammond Bammel, Karen Jobes, Tessa Rajak, Silva New, etc.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to be having most problem with #8 (the Classicist) and #2, who corresponded about TC with a church father.
Is #2 Hebidia, then?
ReplyDelete#2: corresponded with a Church father about TC.
ReplyDeleteMarcella? (corresponded with Jerome about various matters incl tc) [I thought she was a widow]
Could be other candidates among Jerome's female correspondents.
Good photo from that long ago.
Ah. Paula:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/10522/10522-h/Illus0370.jpg
But which of Jerome's letters to Paula discuss textual criticism?
#8 may be a classicist, but she has published on biblical manuscripts, on Tischendord, and on Erasmus.
ReplyDeleteNow, how shall we tell these two sisters apart?
ReplyDeleteIf the photos were taken at the same time then it would seem to me that #1 is older. Does anyone agree with that?
Well done, Peter. Of course Paula was not a textual critic at the time this image depicts (she weareth not the garb of a textual critic). However, subsequently upon her move to Palestine she founded monasteries, and I therefore presume that she oversaw copying of texts. At least her nuns used to have to learn the Psalms and Paula so mastered Hebrew as to be able to read the Psalms in Hebrew without trace of a Latin accent. Most of the details are in Jerome's Ad Eustochium, i.e. Ep. 108.
ReplyDeleteOK, I was wrong, these sisters were twins, so let's scrap trying to identify them by age.
ReplyDeleteHow about:
#1: Dr. Agnes Smith Lewis (PhD., LL.D., D.D., Litt.D.)
#7: Dr. Margaret Dunlop Gibson (LL.D., D.D., Litt.D.)
http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/lewis-and-gibson.html the images of the portraits here seem better than the ones posted, and make the dear women seem a bit less severe.
This page notes that 'Although they lived in Cambridge and contributed energetically to the academic debate, their scholarship did not receive any official recognition by the University of Cambridge.' The same could not, I think, be said of #8.
Notice their link to Rendel Harris!
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll relieve the suspense. # 8 is Pat Easterling. Formerly Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. Taught palaeography of Greek manuscripts (which is where I met her; possibly PJW may have had lectures from her in his classics days). As I said, published on Erasmus' knowledge of palaeography (he didn't know anything); and on Tischendorf's manuscripts (which were purchased and reside in the University Library).
ReplyDeleteAgnes was the elder of the Smith twins, and Margaret always lived in her shadow. 'How very inconsiderate of Maggie' was Agnes' reaction when her younger sister died first, leaving her alone for the first time in 78 years. They had even shared a bed except during their brief marriages, and each accompanied the other on their honeymoon.
ReplyDelete