Evangelical Textual Criticism

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Currents in Biblical Research: New Articles

The latest issue of Currents in Biblical Research has some interesting articles, especially:  

Kristin De Troyer, 'The Seventy-two and their Many Grandchildren: A Review of Septuagint Studies from 1997 Onward' CBR 11 (2012), 8-64.
 In this article, a summary will be offered of tools published in the field of Septuagint studies, such as editions, concordances, lexica, bibliographies, and translations. Then we will cover the origins of the Old Greek translations, as well as the forms of Greek used in the Septuagint. This article will also treat the debate about whether variants go back to a different Hebrew Vorlage, or to the interpretation of a translator. Contributions to the field of the early Jewish Greek revisions will also be summarized. Finally, in this survey of Septuagint studies, special attention will be given to the contents of Introductions to the Septuagint, and scholarly Proceedings and Festschriften on the Septuagint.
and
  
Timo S. Paananen, 'From Stalemate to Deadlock: Clement’s Letter to Theodore in Recent Scholarship' CBR 11 (2012), 87-125. 

This article reviews the literature pertaining to the recent debate over the question of  authenticity of Clement’s Letter to Theodore (including the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark) and argues that the academy has tied itself into a secure deadlock. The current ‘trench warfare’ situation is due to various scholarly malpractices, which include the practice of non-engagement with other scholars, abusive language towards them and mischaracterization of their position. In order to remedy the situation and move the discussion forwards a number of correcting acts are suggested.

1 comment:

  1. Timo Paananen's paper makes several good observations, but it seems occasionally self-contradictory. (Palaeographer Agamemnon Tselikas' publication is absent from the bibliography; presumably it appeared after the article was submitted.) For example, he distinguishes qualified scholars from other commenters, but on page 113 writes of "scholars on both side [sic]" and cites Watson, but then Shanks. He writes of the Smith-Scholem correspondence that "scholarly reactions are yet to come out *in print.* [my emphasis] I foresee that Strousma's interpretation...will be challenged..."(p.112) It does not take much foreseeing, since I and others already from quoted that correspondence online to argue that Smith's letters actually increase suspicion that he was involved in fabrication of the ms. He sometimes declares the discussion deadlocked (e.g., p. 113 of "desire to proclaim the case prematurely close [sic]"), but at other times cites progress. (I consider some of the results of Pantuck's research in the Smith Archive progress.) After recommending civility, he makes (p. 119) unfortunate comparisons of some work of Carlson and Watson to that of "fringe scholars." It is one thing to reject or question the Madiotes conjecture or the relevance of the 1940 Mystery of Mar Saba novel, and quite another to invoke "fringe scholars." As for myself, provisionally, though it is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I expect further progress is possible, I think Smith was likely involved in the fabrication--and keeping "score."

    ReplyDelete