tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1309725891809535692..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Note on a Conjecture (Philemon 23)P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83758423917079866512015-04-14T13:58:33.473+01:002015-04-14T13:58:33.473+01:00Even if I did think that way about Colossians (whi...Even if I did think that way about Colossians (which I don't), I can't see the creation of a Jesus Justus out of a straightforward 'in Christ Jesus' as a very plausible compositional event.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62399801180016031582015-04-14T13:55:05.778+01:002015-04-14T13:55:05.778+01:00I agree that there doesn't seem to be any part...I agree that there doesn't seem to be any particularly good reason for introducing "Jesus [not Christos]" first in the list. It is the sort of thing which would have been an obvious problem revealed in drafting (or just implicitly in composition). Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57105390423558754392015-04-14T13:51:10.881+01:002015-04-14T13:51:10.881+01:00I think one of the reasons that Amling's emend...I think one of the reasons that Amling's emendation has been fairly widely accepted is precisely that it relates to only a single letter. That probably works on two levels: scholars see that it is a simple error for a scribe to make; and scholars don't feel they are "messing" with the text very much. <br />I think that a KAI would have left an obvious potential confusion - and so is less likely. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15730611091830396472015-04-10T13:40:01.954+01:002015-04-10T13:40:01.954+01:00Of course, I'm also compelled by the evidence ...Of course, I'm also compelled by the evidence I have to believe that Colossians is post-Pauline, and that its author and community have an early version of the circulating Pauline canon. Philemon serves as a point of attachment to the canon, a way to write a letter with personal realia that will resonate with an audience similarly familiar with the canon. So I don't see the statement in Col 4:10-11 that Aristarchus and Marcus are Judeans (or circumcised converts) as a reflection of historical reality.<br /><br />That said, from such a perspective it is possible that the composition of an individual called "Jesus Justus" is itself a conjecture on the basis of this line in Philemon, well predating Amling!Matthew Frosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232613079168523464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2405393168260823162015-04-10T13:21:23.640+01:002015-04-10T13:21:23.640+01:00Also, the Hellenized spelling of Joshua is the onl...Also, the Hellenized spelling of Joshua is the only Judean name in this list, in an appeal to an otherwise entirely Gentile context, which makes the conjecture doubly unlikely.Matthew Frosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232613079168523464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17515623191545584192015-04-10T13:13:50.234+01:002015-04-10T13:13:50.234+01:00While Joshua is likely a common name, one would th...While Joshua is likely a common name, one would think that someone whose name is spelled that way would be used to being disambiguated in these circles. I find it highly doubtful that Paul would have placed such a Joshua's name in such proximity to en Christō that it could be confused for the name of the messiah. If this is a greeting from people on whose reference Paul relies for his hearing in the remote setting, it does not seem likely that he would risk eliding such an important contemporary Joshua by confusion with Jesus. The name would be shuffled later in the list, or if he was indeed so important as to be first in line, the syntax would be reordered to avoid this infelicity. The conjecture relies on someone being bad at their job in the first place, basically, whether Paul or the professional scribe who wrote this composition for him.Matthew Frosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232613079168523464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10520480876444493352015-04-10T00:09:12.850+01:002015-04-10T00:09:12.850+01:00Amling’s single-letter emendation is too short. Th...Amling’s single-letter emendation is too short. The original Philem 23, 24 was « Ἀσπάζεταί (¹) σε Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου ἐν Χριστῷ καὶ Ἰησοῦς, Μᾶρκος, Ἀρίσταρχος, Δημᾶς, Λουκᾶς, οἱ συνεργοί μου. ». Confused by this name – Ἰησοῦς – not nicknamed Ἰοῦστος, our copyist, aware of another Ἰησοῦς, ho legomenos Nazarhnos or Cristos, dropped the καὶ and emended one letter, -ς.<br /><br /><br />1. vel Ἀσπάζονταί.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14798526337261793543noreply@blogger.com