Two new reviews appear in the latest Novum Testamentum:
Roger Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt by me (Peter Rodgers) and
Roger Bagnall (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology by J Keith Elliott
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Dove in Spiritual Form? P4 in Luke 3:22
The substitution of πνεύματι (πνι) for σωματικῷ in Luke 3:22 in P4 is interpreted by Bart Ehrman as a case of “orthodox corruption.” The text of P4 reads:
και καταβηναι το πνα το αγιον πνι ειδει ως περιστεραν επ αυτον
When “the Spirit is said to descend upon Jesus in ‘spiritual’ (πνεύματι εἴδει) rather than ‘bodily’ form,” Ehrman says, it “undercuts a potentially Gnostic construal of the text because there is now no ‘real’ or ‘bodily’ descent of a divine being upon Jesus” (Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 143.
However, shouldn't we rather expect the adjective πνευματικῷ (“spiritual”), as more natural here being the opposite of σωματικῷ (“bodily”), rather than the noun πνεύματι (πνι).
In 1 Cor 15:46-47 various forms of πνευματικός are written with nomina sacra (πνκος/ πνκον) in P46 (curiously not in 1 Cor 15:44). Similarly, the adjective is written with nomina sacra in 1 Pet 2:5 (πνατικος/ πνατικας) in P72.
Is there any other way of translating the passage in P4?
The first editor of the complete text, Jean Merrell, suggested πνι was a dittography (πνα πνι). That explanation is difficult because of the intervening το αγιον and the two distinct forms πνα πνι.
On the other hand, this scribe created at least one nonsense dittography elsewhere, in Luke 3:27 the scribe substituted τοῦ οὐ Ῥησαῦ for τοῦ Ῥησά.
What do you think about this passage?
και καταβηναι το πνα το αγιον πνι ειδει ως περιστεραν επ αυτον
When “the Spirit is said to descend upon Jesus in ‘spiritual’ (πνεύματι εἴδει) rather than ‘bodily’ form,” Ehrman says, it “undercuts a potentially Gnostic construal of the text because there is now no ‘real’ or ‘bodily’ descent of a divine being upon Jesus” (Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 143.
However, shouldn't we rather expect the adjective πνευματικῷ (“spiritual”), as more natural here being the opposite of σωματικῷ (“bodily”), rather than the noun πνεύματι (πνι).
In 1 Cor 15:46-47 various forms of πνευματικός are written with nomina sacra (πνκος/ πνκον) in P46 (curiously not in 1 Cor 15:44). Similarly, the adjective is written with nomina sacra in 1 Pet 2:5 (πνατικος/ πνατικας) in P72.
Is there any other way of translating the passage in P4?
The first editor of the complete text, Jean Merrell, suggested πνι was a dittography (πνα πνι). That explanation is difficult because of the intervening το αγιον and the two distinct forms πνα πνι.
On the other hand, this scribe created at least one nonsense dittography elsewhere, in Luke 3:27 the scribe substituted τοῦ οὐ Ῥησαῦ for τοῦ Ῥησά.
What do you think about this passage?
Exhibition at the National Library of France: Qumrân. Le secret des manuscrits de la mer Morte
There is an exhibition now to the 11 July at the National Library in Paris, "Qumrân. Le secret des manuscrits de la mer Morte."
There is some pedagogical material with nice images in French here (background to the Qumran site) and here (about the textual history of the Bible, esp. the Hebrew Bible and LXX), and here (about the role of the Qumran community in the 1st century C.E.). And here is a quiz especially for young visitors with answers on the last page.
There is some pedagogical material with nice images in French here (background to the Qumran site) and here (about the textual history of the Bible, esp. the Hebrew Bible and LXX), and here (about the role of the Qumran community in the 1st century C.E.). And here is a quiz especially for young visitors with answers on the last page.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
'if Jesus had given them rest' Heb 4.8 in P46
The use of the nomen sacrum IHS at Heb 4.8 suggests that P46 might be interpreting this verse in terms of "Jesus" rather than "Joshua" (an option discussed in the commentaries, e.g. Ellingworth). It seems that readers of P46 would have taken it this way (cf. earlier in Hebrews 2.9; 3.1; but also present as a three letter nomen sacrum throughout Romans, which immediately precedes Hebrews in P46), by way of contrast "Moses" is never contracted in P46. This view has the advantage of not needing to introduce a new subject for 4.8b.
I suppose the alternative is to think that the scribe of P46 was well acquainted with LXX MSS which already use nomina sacra for rendering IHSOUS = Joshua in OT texts. I'm not sure that can be documented for the period of P46.
Up-date: See here for a late second century papyrus codex of Joshua featuring three letter nomina sacra IHS for Joshua (right hand page, line twelve).
Monday, June 14, 2010
2 year fellowship at the K.U. Leuven
This could be of interest to some of our readers:
The Katholieke Universiteit Leuven announces a 2 year research fellowship, starting in October 2010, to work on a project entitled "The Tree of Texts: Towards an empirical model for text transmission and evolution". This project will be carried out at the Faculty of Arts, under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Caroline Macé.
Profile
The candidate has a PhD or a Master degree (with research experience) in a field of study related to computer sciences applied to the humanities. The candidate should be able to design a database, apply statistical tools, and draw mathematical models. Some experience in digital philology would be an advantage, but at least an interest in textual scholarship is required.
Description of the work
The first step in the research process will consist in creating a data base where data coming from different manuscript traditions in different languages will be gathered and structured.
The data will be analysed according to the following questions: what types of variations occur, can these types be divided into sub‐types, do all these variations occur in all types of texts / manuscripts, are some variants reversible and others irreversible, are there indisputable (objective) criteria to distinguish between "original" (or primary) readings and "derived" (or secondary) readings, etc.
Applications (CV + motivation letter) and inquiries can be sent to Caroline.Mace@arts.kuleuven.be
Should internal or external evidence come first?
It's a while since I read B.B. Warfield's Textual Criticism of the New Testament, but this week I'm looking at it again because I am interested in his definition of text. I noticed that he divides textual evidence into (a) external; (b) intrinsic (internal) evidence; (c) transcriptional (internal) evidence (p. 9). This is basically what Metzger does in his own Introduction. This set me wondering how far back this division goes. In Westcott and Hort's Introduction it appears that (b) and (c) generate an assessment of (a). Who is the first to lay (a), (b), and (c) out in that order?
Gruen on the Letter of Aristeas (LXX 2)
For general orientation to this series of posts see here (with forward links).
Erich S Gruen, 'The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint’ in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006 (ed Martin Karrer & Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 134-156.
In this article Gruen uses the Letter of Aristeas not in order to extract historical information about the LXX, but as a window upon the mentality of the Jewish diaspora resident in Ptolemaic Alexandria.
He accepts the relatively comfortable and untroubled existence of the Jews at the time as a self-governed political entity. Jewish writings available to us betray their intellectual ability and education in Greek literary modes and conventions.
In the Letter of Aristeas, Gruen notes that the story of the translation provides only a frame for the narrative, but the author's aims are deeper. The Letter, similar to the wider literary scene in Alexandria, is subtly subversive with undertones of cynicism and oblique mockery directed towards royal pretentiousness. Gruen compares the Letter with the writings of other Jewish authors, as well as pagans who worked in Egypt, and detects a similar agenda. He concludes that Jews, like their pagan counterparts in Alexandrian literary circles, had integrated enough in the Hellenistic culture and possessed the self-assurance needed to praise the king in their writings, but also tease and mock him.
Gruen's approach is a helpful reminder of the fact that the translation of the Seventy-Two is not the central concern of the Letter of Aristeas, but simply an element which helps its wider purposes. Moreover, the social standing of Alexandrian Jews at the alleged time of the translation (mid 3rd century) may not have been identical to that of the time of the composition of the Letter (2nd century). Nevertheless, this is the closest window we have into that world and Gruen's contextual reading of the Letter adds another dimension to our understanding of Alexandrian Jewish diaspora.
Myrto Theocharous
Erich S Gruen, 'The Letter of Aristeas and the Cultural Context of the Septuagint’ in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006 (ed Martin Karrer & Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 134-156.
In this article Gruen uses the Letter of Aristeas not in order to extract historical information about the LXX, but as a window upon the mentality of the Jewish diaspora resident in Ptolemaic Alexandria.
He accepts the relatively comfortable and untroubled existence of the Jews at the time as a self-governed political entity. Jewish writings available to us betray their intellectual ability and education in Greek literary modes and conventions.
In the Letter of Aristeas, Gruen notes that the story of the translation provides only a frame for the narrative, but the author's aims are deeper. The Letter, similar to the wider literary scene in Alexandria, is subtly subversive with undertones of cynicism and oblique mockery directed towards royal pretentiousness. Gruen compares the Letter with the writings of other Jewish authors, as well as pagans who worked in Egypt, and detects a similar agenda. He concludes that Jews, like their pagan counterparts in Alexandrian literary circles, had integrated enough in the Hellenistic culture and possessed the self-assurance needed to praise the king in their writings, but also tease and mock him.
Gruen's approach is a helpful reminder of the fact that the translation of the Seventy-Two is not the central concern of the Letter of Aristeas, but simply an element which helps its wider purposes. Moreover, the social standing of Alexandrian Jews at the alleged time of the translation (mid 3rd century) may not have been identical to that of the time of the composition of the Letter (2nd century). Nevertheless, this is the closest window we have into that world and Gruen's contextual reading of the Letter adds another dimension to our understanding of Alexandrian Jewish diaspora.
Myrto Theocharous
"Crucifixion in Antiquity" – The Swedish Thesis in Its Third Printing
Was the cross a cross? For less than a month ago I reported on Gunnar Samuelsson's thesis, "Crucifixion in Antiquity" including a few glimpses of the examination, an abstract and a summary of some significant points.Since then, the dissertation has caused quite a stir, at least here in Sweden, and there has been major coverage in the media. The dissertation has recently gone through a a second and even a third printing, which is soon sold out! The person handling orders at the institution is worried about her vaccation, so the author has asked me to instead refer international correspondance to him directly: gunnar[dot]samuelsson[at]telia[dot]com.
The monograph will be sent to Mohr Siebeck with the aim to be published in the WUNT Series.
"Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion"
ISSN: 1102-9773
ISBN: 978-91-88348-35-7
Update: Chrys Caragounis has written the first review that I have seen. It is not positive. Read it here.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Ten New Manuscripts – One Seventh-Century-Majuscule
As we have reported previously, a team from CSNTM led by Dan Wallace has recently come home from an expedition to Greece and Romania. In a special newsletter they report that at least ten new MSS have been discovered ("new" in the sense of not being registered in the official registry of Greek New Testament MSS, the Kurzgefasste Liste).
One of these MSS is a seventh-century majuscule, which is something quite rare!
Do not miss Dan Wallace's story, The Road Less Traveled - for a Good Reason! – about the team's adventures on a "road" in Romania, where there were more animals than vehicles filling the lanes, and with potholes as deep as six to eight inches and as wide as four or five feet. Apparently, the bumper on their rental SUV fell off at some point.
Now, the CSNTM does have a good reason for making such hard efforts on their travels in order to find and photograph both known and unknown manuscripts. To continue with this endeavour they will need our support – one way is to join the "Circle of friends."
One of these MSS is a seventh-century majuscule, which is something quite rare!
Do not miss Dan Wallace's story, The Road Less Traveled - for a Good Reason! – about the team's adventures on a "road" in Romania, where there were more animals than vehicles filling the lanes, and with potholes as deep as six to eight inches and as wide as four or five feet. Apparently, the bumper on their rental SUV fell off at some point.
Now, the CSNTM does have a good reason for making such hard efforts on their travels in order to find and photograph both known and unknown manuscripts. To continue with this endeavour they will need our support – one way is to join the "Circle of friends."
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Karrer & Kraus on the Septuagint (LXX 1)
For general orientation to this series of posts see here.
Martin Karrer & Wolfgang Kraus, ‘Umfang und Text der Septuaginta: Erwägungen nach dem Abschluss der deutschen Übersetzung’ in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006 (ed Martin Karrer & Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 8-63.
Several modern translations of the so-called "Septuagint" are underway and others have recently been completed. It was the German translation which gave rise to research projects on Septuagint related issues. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus discuss how the popularization of the "Septuagint" brings to the fore some "open questions" such as that of Christian Theology. The authors argue that Christian theology is restricted when one is dependent on the Hebrew canon alone, since NT authors did not reject the "apocrypha and pseudepigrapha" but regarded it all as Scripture. This is an erroneous position inherited from Luther's reformation of the canon, according to Nikolaus Walter, one of the initiators of the Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), the German translation. (p.10)
Hanhart assumes a Jewish canon already in the 2nd century BCE, but others like Heinz-Josef Fabry question this position (pp. 12-13). According to Fabry, the idea of text-groups, as seen in mss from the Judean desert, throws into question the concept of one authoritative canon for all groups (pp. 14-15). In the light of these, the authors suggest that the statement in Sirach's prologue (vv. 24-25) is representative of only one group. Moreover, the Letter of Aristeas seems to be defending the authority of the translation of one particular community, the Alexandrian community, as derived from the Hebrew text in Jerusalem, and equally inspired, not subservient to the Hebrew (pp. 19-20).
A discussion of the LXX collection and whether it represents an older form than the MT follows. Various LXX passages and their reception in the NT are also examined. Finally, the authors note how different canons and orders in different church traditions today leave open the question on how a published Septuagint should look like, as well as the question of how double versions for single books should be represented.
In my opinion, while the authors succeed in drawing out the implications of how modern translations of the "Septuagint" may affect the understanding of Christian Theology, no clear distinction is made between the discussion of textual variations and the discussion of canon. Often the two are treated as one and the same.
One wonders whether Christian theology would be significantly affected by the availability of apocryphal/deuterocanonical books to the public — perhaps contemporary theology, but not NT theology. A variety of literature may have been influential on the thinking of NT writers without necessarily possessing the status of Scripture in their mind. The task of the NT scholar has always involved the recognition of such influences from both Jewish and pagan writings regardless of canonical status.
Moreover, modern readers of the "Septuagint" should not be fooled into thinking that what they hold in their hands was what the NT writers had access to. The multiplicity of Greek versions available at the time, as well as Aramaic versions (oral or written), would have been just as influential in Palestine and elsewhere.
Finally, while Qumran has revealed a variety of textual readings, one should not downplay the ancient concern for accuracy and uniformity in translation and copying, reflected in Aristeas' propaganda, in Philo and increasingly in revisions of Greek mss towards a proto-Masoretic text, culminating with Aquila. The modern Septuagint reader should be aware that what they hold in their hands is a still disentangled collage of ancient Greek readings from various times and places which remains to be sorted. Sadly, knowledge of these complexities will not accompany most purchases of modern "Septuagints".
Myrto Theocharous
Martin Karrer & Wolfgang Kraus, ‘Umfang und Text der Septuaginta: Erwägungen nach dem Abschluss der deutschen Übersetzung’ in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006 (ed Martin Karrer & Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 8-63.
Several modern translations of the so-called "Septuagint" are underway and others have recently been completed. It was the German translation which gave rise to research projects on Septuagint related issues. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus discuss how the popularization of the "Septuagint" brings to the fore some "open questions" such as that of Christian Theology. The authors argue that Christian theology is restricted when one is dependent on the Hebrew canon alone, since NT authors did not reject the "apocrypha and pseudepigrapha" but regarded it all as Scripture. This is an erroneous position inherited from Luther's reformation of the canon, according to Nikolaus Walter, one of the initiators of the Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), the German translation. (p.10)
Hanhart assumes a Jewish canon already in the 2nd century BCE, but others like Heinz-Josef Fabry question this position (pp. 12-13). According to Fabry, the idea of text-groups, as seen in mss from the Judean desert, throws into question the concept of one authoritative canon for all groups (pp. 14-15). In the light of these, the authors suggest that the statement in Sirach's prologue (vv. 24-25) is representative of only one group. Moreover, the Letter of Aristeas seems to be defending the authority of the translation of one particular community, the Alexandrian community, as derived from the Hebrew text in Jerusalem, and equally inspired, not subservient to the Hebrew (pp. 19-20).
A discussion of the LXX collection and whether it represents an older form than the MT follows. Various LXX passages and their reception in the NT are also examined. Finally, the authors note how different canons and orders in different church traditions today leave open the question on how a published Septuagint should look like, as well as the question of how double versions for single books should be represented.
In my opinion, while the authors succeed in drawing out the implications of how modern translations of the "Septuagint" may affect the understanding of Christian Theology, no clear distinction is made between the discussion of textual variations and the discussion of canon. Often the two are treated as one and the same.
One wonders whether Christian theology would be significantly affected by the availability of apocryphal/deuterocanonical books to the public — perhaps contemporary theology, but not NT theology. A variety of literature may have been influential on the thinking of NT writers without necessarily possessing the status of Scripture in their mind. The task of the NT scholar has always involved the recognition of such influences from both Jewish and pagan writings regardless of canonical status.
Moreover, modern readers of the "Septuagint" should not be fooled into thinking that what they hold in their hands was what the NT writers had access to. The multiplicity of Greek versions available at the time, as well as Aramaic versions (oral or written), would have been just as influential in Palestine and elsewhere.
Finally, while Qumran has revealed a variety of textual readings, one should not downplay the ancient concern for accuracy and uniformity in translation and copying, reflected in Aristeas' propaganda, in Philo and increasingly in revisions of Greek mss towards a proto-Masoretic text, culminating with Aquila. The modern Septuagint reader should be aware that what they hold in their hands is a still disentangled collage of ancient Greek readings from various times and places which remains to be sorted. Sadly, knowledge of these complexities will not accompany most purchases of modern "Septuagints".
Myrto Theocharous
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)