tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post114083059529649324..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Two Early Editions of the Pauline Corpus?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1141048102458975802006-02-27T13:48:00.000+00:002006-02-27T13:48:00.000+00:00Ulrich wrote: 'Why not?'I agree that a secondary i...Ulrich wrote: 'Why not?'<BR/><BR/>I agree that a secondary <I>inclusio</I> is possible. If it's pastiche, it's of the very finest kind to involve the paradox that something is <I>now</I> revealed through scriptures that have all along been prophetic (i.e. revelatory). I also like the juxtaposition of 'made known to <I>all</I> the gentiles' and 'to God <I>alone</I> wise'. These are, of course, arguments as to its value, not its history. However, if this is the work of an editor, I think he's done a good job.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1141041320875931622006-02-27T11:55:00.000+00:002006-02-27T11:55:00.000+00:00Isaac:"Tertullian doesn't accuse Marcion of taking...Isaac:<BR/>"Tertullian doesn't accuse Marcion of taking scissors to the text, does he? (It's been a while since I've looked it over) I think that if T. suspected this, he would have said so."<BR/><BR/>And that's exactly, what Tertullian did! Cf. Adversus Marcionem 5,13,4: quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime epistola (i.e. ad Romanos) Marcion fecerit auferendo quae voluit, de nostri instrumenti integritate parebit. mihi sufficit, quae proinde eradenda non vidit quasi neglegentias et caecitates eius accipere. In addition to that cf. Marc. 5,14,6 and 5,14,9-10.<BR/><BR/>stephen c. carlson<BR/>"How do the various text-types of Paul relate to the two editions?"<BR/><BR/>That remains further to be studied. From a very tiny sample (28 units of variation from Ephesians) I concluded that the 10-letter-edition seems to represent an early stratum of the so-called "Western Text" (D F G + Old Latin text types D I, according to Frede). <BR/><BR/>In addition, the textual history of the letter to the Romans suggests in my analysis that apparently all of our extant mss (with the possible exception of 010 012 ?) go back to a conflated version, i.e. 10-letter-edition + 14-letter-edition. Consider the position of the doxology after 14,23 with chaps. 15-16 still to come. This, in my view, is the earliest version of the conflation, because it simply combines the different versions without reshuffling them - and it's the Majority Text version. "Early Alexandrian" witnesses (as some would call them) like P46 (doxology after 15,33 with chap 16 following) and 01 03 (doxology after 16,23) exhibit clearly secondary editorial attempts. "Later Alexandrian" witnesses as 02 33 have the doxology after 14,23 and 16,23, in itself another conflation of the early conflation (as witnessed by the reading of the Majority Text) and the "Early Alexandrian" editorial decision to move the doxology to the end of Romans.<BR/><BR/>pj williams:<BR/>"Thus if one were to hypothesise that 16:25-27 are secondary one would have to suppose that a secondary author had written them with an inclusio."<BR/><BR/>Why not? Besides, it's not just a matter of inclusio within Romans, but the doxology can be read as a pastiche/echo of various passages from Gal (1,5.16; 3,2.23) 1 Kor (7,6; 14,2) 2 Kor (8,8; 10,5) Eph (1,9; 3,3.4.9) Kol 1,26.27; 2,2). However, points like that usually cut both ways. My contention that the doxology is secondary is based on its unstable position, not on questioning the genuinness of its ideas and terminology nor on structural points.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1141038520457160082006-02-27T11:08:00.000+00:002006-02-27T11:08:00.000+00:00Both Irenaeus and Tertullian criticise Marcion's t...Both Irenaeus and Tertullian criticise Marcion's textual work: <BR/><BR/>As Irenaeus saw it, Marcion was ‘the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures’ (Adv. Haer. I.27.4). He further said: 'He mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father.'<BR/> <BR/>Tertullian is particularly strident on this point: ‘What Pontic mouse is more corrosive than the man who has gnawed away the Gospels?’ (Adv. Marc. I.1.5). <BR/><BR/><BR/>From my paper: 'The Foreign God and the Sudden Christ: Theology and Christology in Marcion's Gospel Redaction' Tyndale Bulletin 44.2(1993)307-321. On-line here: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Marcion.htmPeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1141038223998072032006-02-27T11:03:00.000+00:002006-02-27T11:03:00.000+00:00Daniel,The whole thing (apart from the opening par...Daniel,<BR/><BR/>The whole thing (apart from the opening paragraph) is Ulrich's own words.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1141031922201359472006-02-27T09:18:00.000+00:002006-02-27T09:18:00.000+00:00As I have said, it will be some while before I get...As I have said, it will be some while before I get a chance to read Ulrich's work. The one observation I would make is that there seems a pretty clear use of <I>inclusio</I> between the opening verses of Romans and 16:25-27.<BR/><BR/>E.g.<BR/>'gospel' (1:1; 16:25)<BR/><BR/>'prophets and scriptures' (1:2)<BR/>'prophetic scriptures' (16:26)<BR/><BR/>'for obedience of faith among all the gentiles' (1:5)<BR/>'for obedience of faith for all the gentiles' (16:26)<BR/><BR/>Thus if one were to hypothesise that 16:25-27 are secondary one would have to suppose that a secondary author had written them with an <I>inclusio</I>.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1141006961751038022006-02-27T02:22:00.000+00:002006-02-27T02:22:00.000+00:00How do the various text-types of Paul relate to th...How do the various text-types of Paul relate to the two editions?Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1140960066474010502006-02-26T13:21:00.000+00:002006-02-26T13:21:00.000+00:00Tertullian doesn't accuse Marcion of taking scisso...Tertullian doesn't accuse Marcion of taking scissors to the text, does he? (It's been a while since I've looked it over) I think that if T. suspected this, he would have said so.Isaac M. Aldermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10282951886480508721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1140890932051863592006-02-25T18:08:00.000+00:002006-02-25T18:08:00.000+00:00'So, now in Ulrich's own words:'Not unlike an edit...'So, now in Ulrich's own words:'<BR/><BR/>Not unlike an editor trying to punctuate John chapter 3, I can easily tell where the quotation begins--but where does it end?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com