Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Amy Anderson joins blog

We're very pleased that after some technical hitches Amy Anderson has joined the blog. She is author of The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew (NTTS 32; Leiden: Brill, 2004). She is a member of the North American Committee of the International Greek New Testament Project and teaches at North Central University, Minneapolis. For further details see here.

One of the things that J. Neville Birdsall wrote before his death was a review of Amy's monograph in JTS 57 (2006) pp. 235-46. He was not always lavish in his praise of the work of others but on this occasion wrote: ‘I have little but applause for what it presents’.

Amy is featured as number 6 in round 3 of our identity quiz.

11 Comments:

T said...

Welcome Amy, and thank you for saving us (this blog) from patriarchy :)

Anonymous said...

TML:
"thank you for saving this blog from patriarchy"

Is this going to somehow help us sort out the accents in Romans 16:7 better than when it was just us guys here?

Can we expect such an effusive welcome when a "non-Caucasian" textual critic joins us?

Will it somehow give us better insight into the geographical variant in Romans 16:5 to have a non-Occidental among us?

I had hoped that this forum was above playing the Gender Card.

Can we now look forward to the emergence of an Alternate ETC Blog for patriarchists, and perhaps even another for matriarchists?

P J Williams said...

Yes, this blog is interested in textual criticism and pertinent aspects of evangelical theology. All who can help with discussion of these are welcomed on the merits of the contribution they are able to make.

T said...

Anonymous, go have a drink. It was partly a joke, although I am very glad to have more diversity on the blog. And yes, I'd also welcome non-Caucasians, especially Alaskan Eskimos, Peruvian Incas, and the Taprobanese. Even still, I'd be hesitant about people from the 'Land of the Upright Men'.

P J Williams said...

But the drink should be related to textual criticism.

Feeite_Christian said...

Dr. Anderson's work is a great read.

If her thesis that ms 1582 is the best representative of family 1 is valid, then a number of corrections ought to be penciled into our copies of our critical editions.



Jim Leonard
Southwest Pennsylvania

James Snapp, Jr. said...

Welcome, Amy Anderson.

I look forward to reading your work. Meanwhile:

Would you say that 1582 is the best available representative of a non-Alexandrian Gospels-text that Origen used in Caesarea? And, do you think its text had a historical origin (no pun intended) in Caesarea, or was it in Egypt before that?

James Snapp, Jr. said...

Welcome, Amy Anderson.

I look forward to reading your work. Meanwhile:

Would you say that 1582 is the best available representative of a non-Alexandrian Gospels-text that Origen used in Caesarea? And, do you think its text had a historical origin (no pun intended) in Caesarea, or was it in Egypt before that?

Daniel R. Buck said...

"Alaskan Eskimos"
They prefer to be called Yupiks.

"Peruvian Incas"
They prefer to be called Quechuas.

"Taprobanese"
They prefer to be called Sinhalas.

"people from the 'Land of the Upright Men'"
This is actually a rather popular appelative in various forms, most recently self-applied to the inhabitants of the Upper Volta region, who coined the word "Burkinabé" by combining elements from the Western Gur Mòoré language with the Mande Jula language (two of the main trade languages of the country).

Amy Anderson said...

To James Snapp's question: Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I'm afraid I'm going to be a rather erratic participant. But thank you for your interest.

You will find much more detail of my opinion in my book, but briefly (and out of the fog of the first day of classes) I would say that 1582 is the closest available relative to (as opposed to representative of) the text of Matthew that Origen used in Caesarea.

I suspect that the origin of the Family 1 text was Caesarea. In other words, I think that Origen came to Caesarea and used the local text of Matthew (notice I am not claiming this for all four gospels). This local text was also the source for the development of the Fam 1 text.

See chapter 5 in my book for a full discussion.

Daniel Buck said...

Therefore Matthew circulated as a free-standing gospel in Origen's day--or the gospels were already block-mixed.

Except that block-mixing at the earliest stages we know of didn't seem to follow book divisions.