Monday, February 02, 2009

Three New TC-Articles in New Testament Studies

In the recent issue of New Testament Studies 55.1 there are three new articles in the area of manuscript studies:

"A Text-Critical Study of John 1.34" by Tze-Ming Quek (pp. 22-34)


"Scholars continue to divide over whether John the Baptist acclaims Jesus as ‘the Son of God’ or ‘the Chosen One of God’ at John 1.34. This article argues that transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, supported by the testimony of a few early manuscripts, favour the latter reading. However, in adopting this reading, the claims that (a) the variation took place in the course of a battle against adoptionism and (b) ‘the Chosen One of God’ supplies corroboration that the original tradition underlying the Synoptic baptismal accounts was based solely on Isa 42.1, are found to be unnecessary and methodologically problematic respectively."

"ΒΑΛΑΑΚ in the ��72 Text of Jude 11: A Proposal" by Thomas Scott Caulley (pp. 73-82)


"This article proposes that the variant Βαλαxs1F71κ in the xs1D51372 text of Jude 11 be read in light of theological tendency in the Bodmer codex, especially as evidenced in the christological variants of xs1D51372. Initially, scholarly opinion dismissed the ‘Balaak’ reading as nothing more than an inexperienced copyist's careless mistake. Though recognizing the older view to be unsatisfactory, recent explanations are also inadequate. Given neutral or positive traditions about Balaam in Judaism, and in the context of the early Christian belief that the Spirit of Christ inspired the OT Prophets (including Balaam), the article makes a case for reevaluation of the variant."

[I will come back to this one in a separate post.]

"The Sinful Woman in the Gospel of Peter: Reconstructing the Other Side of P.Oxy. 4009" by Matti Myllykoski (pp. 104-115)

"In 1993, Dieter Lührmann published a reconstruction of the more intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009. He demonstrated that this side, which he called the recto, consists of passages parallel to Matt 10.16 par., Luke 10.3 and 2 Clem. 5.2–4. He also argued that the passage stems from the Gospel of Peter. However, Lührmann considered it impossible (‘ausgeschlossen’) to reconstruct the other side of the fragment. The aim of the present article is to demonstrate that a full reconstruction of this less intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009, lines 1–13, is possible and that it enriches our knowledge of the Gospel of Peter with a new pericope which is an interesting parallel of Luke 7.36–50. The reconstruction also demonstrates that the side reconstructed by Lührmann is actually the verso, and that both sides together point towards the well-known anti-Jewish redactional tendencies of the author of the Gospel of Peter."

[The author is a nice Finnish chap. I remember his presentation at the SBL in San Diego, and the highly critical objections in the discussion, including a devastating critique by Pete Williams. I don't know at this point how his article responds to that critique]


  1. Well, Tze-Ming Quek seems to have missed my article on Filologia Neotestamentaria 18 (2005) 85-109 on the same topic :)

    But thx, I need to incorporate his argumentations to my dissertation now. Luckily, I have enough time to do it.

  2. Thanks Timo, and many apologies for overlooking your article. The embarrassment is all mine. I've managed to access your article online and am looking through it now.

    Here's the link for anyone else following the discussion: