Thursday, April 05, 2007
SBL Annual Meeting: paper accepted
Yesterday my paper, "Two Verses Plucked From the Fire: Jude 22-23," was accepted for the 2007 Annual Meeting program unit New Testament Textual Criticism. I see it as a nice way to present some of my dissertation work, but more importantly to meet other scholars in the field including my fellow bloggers. I have heard that earlier one was allowed to present new dissertations on special signposts or at special booths at the SBL, but this is no longer possible. Anyway, this year's meeting will be held in San Diego, California, from 11/17/2007 to 11/20/2007. This will actually be the first time that I travel to the US, the flight from Stockholm takes over 18 hours—it will be a good therapy for my fear of flying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Hi Tommy. I've read your dissertation and I agree with you where you differ from the ECM except in Jude 5 where I read ειδοτας απαξ παντα οτι Іησους (with A 33c 81 2344 L:V Ä Cyr). I'm writing a paper on how the ECM editors and you have used the external evidence taken from the CBGM analysis. So far, you seem to be winning :)
ReplyDeleteTimo
Congratulations. If you can (eventually) make a preprint available of your presentation, that would be even nicer.
ReplyDeleteTimo: "I've read your dissertation and I agree with you where you differ from the ECM..."
ReplyDeleteNote that I differ on two occasions in v. 18. On my p. 126 I slipped. Between line 18-19 insert new line: "v. 18: TOU (ECM: omit)"
This is indicated on the erratalist, which you can dowload from www.evangelicaltextualcriticism.com
...and I am of course very interested in reading your paper, especially if I am winning :-). Verse 5 is an extremely difficult verse, and in such a close call I think the CBGM analysis cannot be decisive. And in comparison to the ECM my work actually added evidence to the IHSOUS reading when I noted a citation by Cyril of Alexandria in Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate 302 (PG 75:513) that attests to the reading of A 33C 81 2344 as you note.
As for new arguments in this debate, I also point out in my discussion that among all the witnesses to the text of 1 En. 1:9 the author of Jude alone added the subject KURIOS to the clause in the citation in vv. 14-15, where we have another instance where the author consciously uses the simple KURIOS in reference to Jesus Christ, in a judgment context.
In the end, I chose KURIOS because I find it unlikely that this early Christian author would write the simple IHSOUS if he had the pre-existent Christ in mind, especially in light of his style (he uses simple KURIOS or full formulas), and of the whole context of vv. 5-7, whereas the reading KURIOS explains all other readings.
SCC: "make a preprint available of your presentation"
ReplyDeleteGood idea. I might do that when time is approaching.
Thanks Tommy,
ReplyDeleteI have the errata list, so I knew about those two differences in v. 18. I agree with you on both counts. Both OTI and TOU should be printed. I also agree with APAFRIZONTA in v. 13. My paper is not ready yet, but I found a 1st century reference that has APAFRIZONTA outside the Bible. Check Dioscorides, De Materia Medica, 5.31.meli. (AD 60). I have not seen the text itself, so I need to double check this, but it looks like we do have one entry on 1st c.
TF "I also agree with APAFRIZONTA in v. 13. My paper is not ready yet, but I found a 1st century reference that has APAFRIZONTA outside the Bible."
ReplyDeleteDid you find this reference on the TLG online? I just searched the TLG CD-Rom and found later references but I strongly suspected that the word was current because of related verbs.
to Tommy,
ReplyDeleteno, I found the reference in E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods (London 1914), p. 204. TLG online gives nothing but then, it is a work in progress. I still need to find that actual text to check whether Sophocles is correct, though I have no reason to doubt him at this point.