Friday, October 09, 2009

David Parker at Cambridge NT Seminar

Next Tuesday (13th October 2009), David Parker is giving the first presentation of this academic year in the Cambridge Senior NT Seminar, on the topic "Editing the Greek New Testament: what do we think we are doing?" It will be great to have David back in Cambridge (even briefly).
All are welcome: 2:30pm in the Runcie Room, Faculty of Divinity

26 Comments:

Tommy Wasserman said...

Pete, don't forget to blog about it! We want some nice pictures too.

Wieland Willker said...

Is Parker editing a GNT?

Peter M. Head said...

He is editing John for the ECM.

Peter M. Head said...

I'll see if I can draw some pictures for you Tommy.

Wieland Willker said...

Really?
Muenster leaves this to Parker?

Tommy Wasserman said...

Wieland, INTF and ITSEE has co-operated for many years now in the Principio project (under the auspices of the IGNTP). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
message/2948

Tommy Wasserman said...

Yes Pete, maybe you can draw a stemma of the textual transmission of John for me, based on David's presentation.

Wieland Willker said...

No doubt there is some cooperation. Yes, but that's quite different from "editing John for the ECM".

maurice a robinson said...

If Dr Head's transmissional stemma should be drawn as precisely as his self-portrait, we should all learn something....

Tommy Wasserman said...

WW: "No doubt there is some cooperation. Yes, but that's quite different from 'editing John for the ECM'."

?

The ECM of John is the first project (Principio), but the cooperation will continue beyond John.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
2007/11/sbl-in-san-diego-vi-igntp-presentation.html

INTF will do Acts (scheduled for 2013), Mark (2018), Matthew (2024) and Luke (2030),

IGNTP (represented by ITSEE) will do John (2013), Pauline Epistles (2026) and Revelation (2030).

Wieland Willker said...

That's interesting!
I didn't know that.
This would mean that they agreed on the same principles and methods. Parker has expressed some idiosyncratic views in the past. I am wondering how this jars with Muenster. Will the CBGM be applied?
I must admit that I feel a bit uncomfortable with this info. Parker so far has shown no interest in the "original" text and in reconstructing it. I am wondering what the result will be. But I assume that Muenster remains superintendence and will have the last word here.
In my view it would have been better to leave all Gospels in one place.
But ok, we will see …

Peter M. Head said...

Maurice,
thanks for that, but it is not a self-portrait. If you click on the picture you'll see that it was drawn by my daughter (when she was six).
Unfortunately she has to be at school next Tuesday so won't be available for drawing (also she is now at High School so takes things a bit more seriously than me).

Anonymous said...

Wieland, there is a paper "Collaboration with the International Greek New Testament Project on the Editio Critica Maior of the Gospel of John" by D.C. Parker und Klaus Wachtel, read at the 2005 annual meeting of the SNTS at Halle. Cf. http://www.uni-muenster.de/INTF/. Clicking on "Partners" you can find a link to the pdf of the paper (under Editio Critica Maior/ David Parker).

Gerd Mink

Tommy Wasserman said...

WW: "Will the CBGM be applied?"

Yes. Parker embraces the CBGM. You will find more on his views in his new introduction.

WW: "Whereas I must admit that I feel a bit uncomfortable with this info. Parker so far has shown no interest in the 'original' text and in reconstructing it."

You should read my summaries from the Münster colloquium on this blog, where Parker presented his views, very different from those expressed by Struthwolf. Parker is still interested in reconstructing (with the CBGM), the development of the text.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
2008/08/mnster-colloquium-on-textual-history-of.html

and

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
2008/08/mnster-colloquium-on-textual-history-of_05.html

I agree that Parker's views are idiosyncratic. For example, it is difficult to apply intrinsic evidence if the reconstruction does not approximate the author's text.

It will be interesting to read the collected volume from the Münster colloqium where the parties can develop their views.

I present some criticism in a forthcoming pubication Mark and Matthew: Text and Contexts (eds. Runesson and Becker; WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).

Dirk Jongkind said...

WW "This would mean that they agreed on the same principles and methods. Parker has expressed some idiosyncratic views in the past. I am wondering how this jars with Muenster. Will the CBGM be applied?"

TW "Yes. Parker embraces the CBGM."

Which leaves the question of principles still open. CBGM should be nothing more than making the implied genealogy of the whole text clear that is a result from all the individual choices made in deciding between individual variant readings. The principles employed in these individual decisions are not part of the CBGM itself (right?!)

Wieland Willker said...

Thank you Gerd and Tommy for the reminder. I think I have read that sometime, but must have forgotten about it.
Dirk is right; the question of principles is still open. The Cambridge seminar will be a good opportunity to ask probing questions. I could imagine that the IGNTP is creating a base text, which is then discussed variant by variant with Muenster. But this takes a lot of time.

The White Man said...

Ah, we have here a scholarly dispute over an illuminated manuscript which we will call the Frigidaire Fragment.

I side with Dr. Head on authorship. Even without the colophon, I would date the scribal composition to about the second or third year of scribal training.

But there's a lot to be examined in this fragment, as the hand is unsteady and there are several corrections to the text.

A preliminary e.p. would yield something like:

Peter Head (alternate: Dad)
by Lizzy Head 6.
3.7.05 (corr: 05)
Peter's age (corr1: ful a) (cor2:ful name):
Peter Macaulay Head

The inscription on the jersey reads:
University of Wollongong

Four years later she's at high school? I'm afraid there's going to be some dispute over this date.

Peter M. Head said...

too much information

James E. Snapp, Jr. said...

Will someone, if the opportunity arises, please tell Dr. Parker that the earliest form of the Ammonian Sections are the work of Eusebius, not Ammonius?

He seems to have thought otherwise when he wrote "Living Text of the Gospels."

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Peter M. Head said...

I would have thought that the earliest form of the Ammonian sections might be safely attributed to Ammonius (as Eusebius does). In the form in which they appear in the manuscripts it is Eusebius' ingenious adaptation of Ammonius' layout, but this would be a secondary form derived from the primary form. No?

Peter M. Head said...

Anyway, it didn't come up.

I did draw a picture though.

Wieland Willker said...

And?
Do you think he is prepared to do the ECM of John for us?
Once again, I predict that he just leaves the primary line blank. Ho ho ho ...

Anonymous said...

It was a good talk. Entertaining. There wasn't a bullet-point answer to the question posed: "Editing the Greek New Testament: what do we think we are doing?"

Tommy Wasserman said...

I hope that Peter or someone else who was there can give us a brief report. What questions came up, what if any answers...

James E. Snapp, Jr. said...

Peter,

This is what I mean: The earliest *extant form* -- what you call "the form in which they appear in the manuscripts," as opposed to some non-extant form -- of the Ammonian Sections is the work of Eusebius.

PMH: "In the form in which they appear in the manuscripts it is Eusebius' ingenious adaptation of Ammonius' layout, but this would be a secondary form derived from the primary form. No?"

No. The differences between the work that Eusebius describes and attributes to Ammonius, and the Sections developed by Eusebius, are two very different things. Up to a point one might get away with saying that we are looking at a secondary form based on a primary form, but saying that the Ammonian Canons are the work of Ammonius (which Parker states plainly, as if he watched Ammonius work!) is sort of like saying that Lew Wallace (author of the book Ben Hur) directed the movie Ben Hur.

Burgon provides all the ugly details in an Appendix in "Last 12 Verses of Mark."

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Peter M. Head said...

Thanks James,
I take it that you really are agreeing with me.