We have come at last to the final part of the book review session (SBL 24-32) of David Parker's An Introduction to the NT MSS and Their Texts (CUP), featuring David Parker's response. Again, this is a recapitulation from my notes and memory.
Part 5
David Parker’s response
Parker began by expressing his gratitude for the kind things that have been said about his book. [Rather humurous in light of the serious critique that had just been raised.] He now wanted to share some of his experiences writing the book, and this also answered some of the critique. On the one hand, he did not make the new order of this introduction up. On the other hand, he did not use the "proto-type model" of Scrivener’s introduction. Parker thinks this old way is not the best way to go about today. Instead, he wanted to create a story in a narrative framework. The ordering of the book simply represents the story Parker wanted to tell. He decided to tell two stories. The first is the “knowledge of documents”-story. It locates the book in a philological tradition. Part one is about the documents. Part two describes how the documents have been studied, why the text changed, and how to edit the text. Part three shows how this applies to the sections of the New Testament.
Parker did not expect to write this book when he did. But he felt there was a gap between those that apply textual criticism, and those who are editing the NT. The former did not know about the major recent changes that are taking place. This is not the fault of the discipline at large. The concept of editing needed explanation. The books that were out there were completely out of date in this regard. The second part of the book, “textual criticism and editions,” in particular offers a “what is happening today-perspective.”
Finally, concerning the third part of the book, “the sections of the New Testament,” it is usual to provide a section termed something like “practice.” Parker had found these parts boring in other books; they want the reader to imitate. If these rules are so useful why does none agree on their application? Housman said “every textual problem is potentially unique." In his response, as in the book, Parker continued to show his disinterest for the canons of criticism. He does discuss thoroughoing ecclecticism, conjectural emendation, and the like, but such is admittedly woven into the overall framework of the book.
Then some words about indexing and navigating: Here Parker largely blamed the publisher (Cambridge University Press), since he himself wanted to put everything in there. The publisher did not. They wanted a “target”-perspective (focused on those issues that get a paragraph). Parker will discuss this again with the press for future editions.
The issue of readership is important. The book is intended to share contemporary scholarship within the guild. There is no point in writing an introduction for anybody. The discussion has to take place. Already Parker’s earlier monograph, The Living Text of the Gospels, was a kind of introduction for a more general audience. All four of the panelists are North-American males over 50 years. Parker says the book is also aimed at the new generation. We need more voices.
About the choice to put the images on a website, it is because they come out too badly in the printed book. All you see is an outline of a manuscript. You see so more on the website. There is only this way to go. You can always access the internet on you mobile phone but the display may be a bit small [laughter].
Parker then responsed to some of Ehrman’s critique. He had suggested that Parker is someone who knows everything about manuscripts but not texts. Ehrman kept using the phrase “idiosyncratic” about the book, e.g., about the use of terms. Parker was not problematizing the terms but tried to make them clear. The issues are tendentious. Ehrman had complained that Parker did not discuss Royse’s work on scribal habits, but he does and he is even mentioned in the index. Many of Ehrman’s examples neglect a different part of the book. For example, palaeography is indeed discussed on five pages; there is a discussion of Latin and of Coptic palaeography in the book. What Ehrman is revealing in his critique is his own views on various matters. For example, Parker emphasized that the quantitative analysis is past. [Here I should point out to Parker’s defense that various versions and developments of quantitative analysis, including Ehrman’s Comprehensive Profile Method, is indeed treated in the book, albeit briefly but with ample bibliography (pp. 163-65). Parker’s conclusion (p. 165) is that one common problem with these methods is the definition of group relationships of the basis of the whole text as it stands in a MS, and on the basis of a pre-determined sample. But in recent years a different technique has been developed – the ECM implied – which “has been applied with worthwhile results.” In this part of the book, the quantitative methods actually get more coverage than the CBGM!]
Then Parker proceeded with Epp’s defense of text-types, i.e., Epp’s objection against Parker’s rejection of the concept: Parker said he accepted everything in Epp’s response [Did I misunderstand this!?] But then he took a hyphothetical example of 50 copied MSS. The bottom-line of the example was that the concept of text-types is very static. Parker wants to know how the forms developed, a family tree, how the text changed. The division into text-types does not tell you that, and the contamination between text-types is a hinder. The CBGM gets around the problem with contamination. It is now possible to build a family tree of the textual flow. Text-types are no longer particularly important, we are now able to move beyond them.
[To some extent I agree with Parker here. Although I still find it difficult to talk about text-critical problems in practice without being able to generalize in the traditional way, e.g., “the Alexandrian witnesses attest to reading x” or “the Byzantine tradition is split between x and y.”]
How do we fit the versions into this? (Epp suggested that a consideration of the “Western” text-type must take the versions into account). The point Parker made is that you cannot reconstruct the Greek Vorlage of e.g., the Syriac version. In the Catholic Epistles it happens to be possible to pinpoint the Harklensis group. But often otherwise it is not possible in detail. [Hence, there are serious methodological problems with the identification of the “Western” text-type to include versional witnesses.”]
As for the definition of textual history, brought up by Holmes, textual history, said Parker, is the history of the whole text after the variants have been described. Parker then separated two issues in Holmes’ response:
1) Authorial fallacy
There is a real gap between the textual tradition and the author’s intention. Here Parker managed effectively to use the reference to his associate, Peter Robinson (to whom Holmes had referred), in detail to his own defense. In the example of Chaucer, the textual tradition of which Robinson has worked with, we can get back to just a little step from Chaucer, though there is still a gap between the “initial text” and the “authograph.” [It does not surprise me that Parker managed to use this particular objection to his own defense – he must have had opportunity to discuss these issues with Robinson over hundreds of cups of coffee/tea in that nice project room they have in Birmingham.]
2) The second-century text
Parker now brought up that they are reconstructing Paul’s collection. The goal is to edit the corpus. There is again a gap between the “initial text” and the author’(s’) text. In the question of exegesis, there will always be a gap. It is positivistic to say that NA27 is what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc., wrote. Just read what the editors of NA27 say in their introduction.
Finally, Parker emphasized, supposedly concerning what method he uses, that every place in the tradition may be potentially unique as to what factors (call them canons if you like) are applicable.
In the time for questions I wanted to bring up several issues, but my main comment was this:
What exactly is reconstructed by the CBGM, the editors of the the ECM themselves are actually not agreed on. The easiest hypothesis, says Gerd Mink [Occam and I agree], is that the “initial text” of a given book is the original text, not introducing any other explanation. Particular factors like the affect of a collection have to be addressed. But, interestingly, the results of the CBGM in the Catholic Epistles show that the individual books have their distinct transmission history, suggesting that we can reconstruct beyond the point when the books were collected. Moreover, I have already pointed to the use of intrinsic evidence to move beyong the “archetype,” and this also applies to an archetype of a collection. I am now eagerly awaiting the results for the Pauline corpus (Parker nodded his head – he is too).
What I really appreciated with Parker’s response was that he managed to keep it in a good tone, in spite of the "attacks," especially by Bart Ehrman. And, finally, the presiding Amy Anderson gave Parker the last word of the session, which he actually ended with a positive appeal to the panelist and to all present, "Times are exciting, let us move on!" This in the same enthusiastic note on which he ends his book. Let me therefore close this review by citing the conclusion of the book (p. 349):
“The curent generation is experiencing one of the most momentous periods in the transmission of biblical texts and of much in textual scholarship. It will be equally exciting to see what happens in the next few years.”
Friday, February 06, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
SBL Boston, Book Review of David Parker, An Introduction to the NT MSS and Their Texts, pt. 3-4
Okay, I know this is a bit late, but for completeness sake I now continue my "SBL sessions review marathon."
This is the third and fourth part of the book review session (SBL 24-32) of David Parker's An Introduction to the NT MSS and Their Texts (CUP), featuring Michael Holmes and Larry Hurtado.
Disclaimer: Note that this is a summary in my own words. I took notes very quickly, and there may be things that I have misunderstood, but, nevertheless, I hope to have captured the essence of the reviews.
Part 3
Michael Holmes
Holmes started with some appreciative words about the book and the good intention behind it, as expressed by Parker in the introduction. Holmes likened the book to “a fantastic map, a catalogue and an instructional manual.”
He then gave some concrete examples of its extensive treatment of subjects like corrections in MSS, editing text and editions including the challenge of electronic editing, tools for manuscript studies, collating MSS, information about subgroups of MSS, etc.
Then Holmes brought up some less satisfying issues, some of which I do not repeat (e.g., those that were brought up in Ehrman's review). For example, as a result of the organization of the book, which does not promote usability, and the incomplete index it took Holmes very long time to find the indication of how many Greek and Latin bibles that have been preserved.
He then proceeded with more substantial critique, specifically relating to Parker’s description of his method, the history of the text, and the goals of textual criticism, factors which form the overall understanding of the discipline:
1) Method
Parker does not mention the term "reasoned ecclecticism," but Parker apparently uses this method himself. He focuses on the documents, then the texts. But there is no discussion of method or criteria. The canons are woven into the discussion of examples. The method is scattered and woven in.
2) The history of the text
Parker says: “Textual history is the history of the changes in wording of a text” (p. 179). This involves collection of material and examination of the evidence "in order to relate the different forms of text chronologically” (ibid.). Parker rejects the concept of text-types (cf. Epp’s review that focused on this question), but Holmes is dissatisfied with the terminology Parker uses himself to describe the history of the text. What does he mean by “forms of text”? Presumably the text as a whole, as reflected in Parker’s definition of textual variant: “the entire text as it is present in a particular copy” (p. 4). At other times, however, Parker seems to speak about individual variation units, or the distinct textual history of individual books. In sum, Parker’s description of the concept of textual history is ambiguous and the terminology is unclear.
3) Goals and objectives
After all, Parker’s view of text-critical methodology and textual history reflects a consensus to a great extent. However, not his view of the goals and objectives. Parker has based his whole book on Hort’s dictum that knowledge of documents should precede judgments of readings, which actually forms an inclusio of the book. Whereas Hort’s goal was ultimately to reconstruct the authorial text, it has now been complemented by secondary goals and different terminology (e.g., “initial text,” etc). Parker thinks the initial text is from the end of the second century. And the gap between the initial and authorial text is a big problem.
Parker suggests that variants should be treated as early forms of commentary (not authorial). His formative vision is a move from the first traditional goal to the second goal, the reconstruction of the history of the text. Here Holmes finds himself in strong disagreement with Parker. Take the statement that contemporary editors do not claim to reconstruct the author’s text. They may have been wrong, but have they not expressed that purpose? This is still an open question. Interestingl, Holmes here refers to Peter Robinson (Parker’s close associate at the ITSEE in Birmingham), who has indeed expressed his desire to reconstruct the authorial text of works he edited!
Holmes continued to emphasize the continuity between the text at the end of the second century and the text that preceded it. He brought up some critique of William Petersen’s use of patristic evidence (e.g., Justin’s text), to which he appealed in order to prove that the text was unstable during the earliest era. Holmes concluded that the challenge of showing continuity between the text before and after the second century is not greater than of showing discontinuity. Parker is correct that we should not underestimate the challenge, but we should neither exaggerate it.
Part 4
Larry Hurtado
Hurtado was impressed by the width, and cover of languages, tools and resources, and more. Parker’s own enthusiasm is apparent. He promotes the study of manuscripts in the whole first part of the book. Hurtado felt gratitude and appreciation for very much. He was a bit surprised of Parker’s attempts to offer theological advice in the book (I assume he primarily had in mind the section 5.3.3 “Textual criticism and theology” on pp. 185-90).
Then Hurtado proceeded to mention some critical matters:
1) Who is the primary reader?
Hurtado suggested that the primary readers among students will only be a small number of post-graduate students. There are little incentives for less familiar readers to become enthusiastic themselves.
2) The lack of explicit criteria
As several other reviewers, Hurtado complained about the lack of an explanation of criteria. This is curious since the CBGM is ultimately based upon such criteria. The dicussion of textual criticism is particularly lacking.
3) The organization of the book
The order of presentation is warranted in one way (focusing on “knowledge of documents”), but the decision is a misjudgment for an introductory book, where one must particularly take into account the interest of the readers (who are primarily interested in the New Testament). Hurtado thinks the publishers must be interested in offering an attractive introduction to the field of textual criticism too, as the title suggests. The undifferentiated enthusiasm with all MSS is not effective (cf. Hurtado’s own particular interest in the earliest MSS pertaining to the early Christians). Parker seems to presume that MSS of any period of time will be interesting for the student. Moreover, Parker should have made better connections between the parts of the books (I presume Hurtado especially referred to the first and second parts, “the documents” and “textual criticism and editions”).
It was not a good decision to put the images on a web-site. The reader must have an internet connection open at the same time. There should at least have been some key samples included in the book. It will be impossible to study the book e.g., on the bus, or at the airport. [This of course is an overstatement in light of the development of “wire-less” connections.]
4) Other issues
Hurtado continued with some specific problems e.g., with some terms. The definition of reading seems to be better applied to a variation-unit (including “place”). Especially in an introduction these labels and the consistent use of them are very important. Moreover, there are also some unfortunate errors concerning MSS, e.g., P12is not a copy of Hebrews in particular, and not a roll.
Then Hurtado mentioned some words about the CBGM method, mainly suggesting that what is generated depends on the criteria used in individual units. He did not think the CBGM is an advance in terms of how we evaluate the evidence in individual passages, it just offers more transparency.
In the time for questions I brought up this last remark about the CBGM. I actually think the CBGM is an advance not only in transparency, because it offers a new and more controlled way of moving from internal to external evidence, a kind of “calibration” of the external evidence.
In the final post on this book review session I will attempt to summarize David Parker’s response.
This is the third and fourth part of the book review session (SBL 24-32) of David Parker's An Introduction to the NT MSS and Their Texts (CUP), featuring Michael Holmes and Larry Hurtado.
Disclaimer: Note that this is a summary in my own words. I took notes very quickly, and there may be things that I have misunderstood, but, nevertheless, I hope to have captured the essence of the reviews.
Part 3
Michael Holmes
Holmes started with some appreciative words about the book and the good intention behind it, as expressed by Parker in the introduction. Holmes likened the book to “a fantastic map, a catalogue and an instructional manual.”
He then gave some concrete examples of its extensive treatment of subjects like corrections in MSS, editing text and editions including the challenge of electronic editing, tools for manuscript studies, collating MSS, information about subgroups of MSS, etc.
Then Holmes brought up some less satisfying issues, some of which I do not repeat (e.g., those that were brought up in Ehrman's review). For example, as a result of the organization of the book, which does not promote usability, and the incomplete index it took Holmes very long time to find the indication of how many Greek and Latin bibles that have been preserved.
He then proceeded with more substantial critique, specifically relating to Parker’s description of his method, the history of the text, and the goals of textual criticism, factors which form the overall understanding of the discipline:
1) Method
Parker does not mention the term "reasoned ecclecticism," but Parker apparently uses this method himself. He focuses on the documents, then the texts. But there is no discussion of method or criteria. The canons are woven into the discussion of examples. The method is scattered and woven in.
2) The history of the text
Parker says: “Textual history is the history of the changes in wording of a text” (p. 179). This involves collection of material and examination of the evidence "in order to relate the different forms of text chronologically” (ibid.). Parker rejects the concept of text-types (cf. Epp’s review that focused on this question), but Holmes is dissatisfied with the terminology Parker uses himself to describe the history of the text. What does he mean by “forms of text”? Presumably the text as a whole, as reflected in Parker’s definition of textual variant: “the entire text as it is present in a particular copy” (p. 4). At other times, however, Parker seems to speak about individual variation units, or the distinct textual history of individual books. In sum, Parker’s description of the concept of textual history is ambiguous and the terminology is unclear.
3) Goals and objectives
After all, Parker’s view of text-critical methodology and textual history reflects a consensus to a great extent. However, not his view of the goals and objectives. Parker has based his whole book on Hort’s dictum that knowledge of documents should precede judgments of readings, which actually forms an inclusio of the book. Whereas Hort’s goal was ultimately to reconstruct the authorial text, it has now been complemented by secondary goals and different terminology (e.g., “initial text,” etc). Parker thinks the initial text is from the end of the second century. And the gap between the initial and authorial text is a big problem.
Parker suggests that variants should be treated as early forms of commentary (not authorial). His formative vision is a move from the first traditional goal to the second goal, the reconstruction of the history of the text. Here Holmes finds himself in strong disagreement with Parker. Take the statement that contemporary editors do not claim to reconstruct the author’s text. They may have been wrong, but have they not expressed that purpose? This is still an open question. Interestingl, Holmes here refers to Peter Robinson (Parker’s close associate at the ITSEE in Birmingham), who has indeed expressed his desire to reconstruct the authorial text of works he edited!
Holmes continued to emphasize the continuity between the text at the end of the second century and the text that preceded it. He brought up some critique of William Petersen’s use of patristic evidence (e.g., Justin’s text), to which he appealed in order to prove that the text was unstable during the earliest era. Holmes concluded that the challenge of showing continuity between the text before and after the second century is not greater than of showing discontinuity. Parker is correct that we should not underestimate the challenge, but we should neither exaggerate it.
Part 4
Larry Hurtado
Hurtado was impressed by the width, and cover of languages, tools and resources, and more. Parker’s own enthusiasm is apparent. He promotes the study of manuscripts in the whole first part of the book. Hurtado felt gratitude and appreciation for very much. He was a bit surprised of Parker’s attempts to offer theological advice in the book (I assume he primarily had in mind the section 5.3.3 “Textual criticism and theology” on pp. 185-90).
Then Hurtado proceeded to mention some critical matters:
1) Who is the primary reader?
Hurtado suggested that the primary readers among students will only be a small number of post-graduate students. There are little incentives for less familiar readers to become enthusiastic themselves.
2) The lack of explicit criteria
As several other reviewers, Hurtado complained about the lack of an explanation of criteria. This is curious since the CBGM is ultimately based upon such criteria. The dicussion of textual criticism is particularly lacking.
3) The organization of the book
The order of presentation is warranted in one way (focusing on “knowledge of documents”), but the decision is a misjudgment for an introductory book, where one must particularly take into account the interest of the readers (who are primarily interested in the New Testament). Hurtado thinks the publishers must be interested in offering an attractive introduction to the field of textual criticism too, as the title suggests. The undifferentiated enthusiasm with all MSS is not effective (cf. Hurtado’s own particular interest in the earliest MSS pertaining to the early Christians). Parker seems to presume that MSS of any period of time will be interesting for the student. Moreover, Parker should have made better connections between the parts of the books (I presume Hurtado especially referred to the first and second parts, “the documents” and “textual criticism and editions”).
It was not a good decision to put the images on a web-site. The reader must have an internet connection open at the same time. There should at least have been some key samples included in the book. It will be impossible to study the book e.g., on the bus, or at the airport. [This of course is an overstatement in light of the development of “wire-less” connections.]
4) Other issues
Hurtado continued with some specific problems e.g., with some terms. The definition of reading seems to be better applied to a variation-unit (including “place”). Especially in an introduction these labels and the consistent use of them are very important. Moreover, there are also some unfortunate errors concerning MSS, e.g., P12is not a copy of Hebrews in particular, and not a roll.
Then Hurtado mentioned some words about the CBGM method, mainly suggesting that what is generated depends on the criteria used in individual units. He did not think the CBGM is an advance in terms of how we evaluate the evidence in individual passages, it just offers more transparency.
In the time for questions I brought up this last remark about the CBGM. I actually think the CBGM is an advance not only in transparency, because it offers a new and more controlled way of moving from internal to external evidence, a kind of “calibration” of the external evidence.
In the final post on this book review session I will attempt to summarize David Parker’s response.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Tyndale Publications Blog
Tyndale House is sponsoring a new blog for scholars associated with the Tyndale House or Fellowship. Any member of Tyndale House or Fellowship can enter their publication details (but note the disclaimer!). This has just begun, but should contain summaries by the authors of quite a few TC-related articles. See here.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Earliest Use of "original text" or "autographs"?
Colleagues,
in 1999 (ten years ago already!) Eldon Epp published his now famous article on "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' in New Testament Textual Criticism" (HTR 92 [1999] 245-281). One section of the essay offers a brief and selective survey of "The Past Use of 'Original Text'" (pp. 248-254. While helpful in some respects, this section is problematic in others. This leads me to ask the following question:
What might be the first, or among the first, instances of someone specifying the restoration of either the "original text" or "the autographs" as the goal of NT textual criticism?
in 1999 (ten years ago already!) Eldon Epp published his now famous article on "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' in New Testament Textual Criticism" (HTR 92 [1999] 245-281). One section of the essay offers a brief and selective survey of "The Past Use of 'Original Text'" (pp. 248-254. While helpful in some respects, this section is problematic in others. This leads me to ask the following question:
What might be the first, or among the first, instances of someone specifying the restoration of either the "original text" or "the autographs" as the goal of NT textual criticism?
Monday, February 02, 2009
Dead Sea Scrolls for Sale
Jim Davila on PaleoJudaica reports that two Dead Sea Scrolls fragments are for sale by Michael R. Thompson, Booksellers, at the 42nd California International Antiquarian Book Fair later this month at their display. This is the description from Thompson's catalogue (see his blog):
29. [DEAD SEA SCROLLS]. Original fragment from Daniel, Chapter 5, Verse 13-16. Found at Qumran, on the Dead Sea, in Cave 4, some time between 1952 and 1956. The fragment itself dates between 50 BC - AD 68 (the Roman destruction of Qumran). 32 mm. x 30 mm., written in Hebrew on brown animal hide. Preserved between glass, and enclosed in cloth chemise, in full black morocco clamshell slipcase. $275,000
Includes the verse translated in English as: "Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captiuity of Iudah..."
30. [DEAD SEA SCROLLS]. Original fragment from Exodus, Chapter 18, Verse 6-8. Found at Qumran, on the Dead Sea, in Cave 4, some time between 1952 and 1956. The fragment itself dates between 150 BC - AD 68 (the Roman destruction of Qumran). 11 x 34 mm. written in Hebrew on brown animal hide. Preserved between glass, and enclosed in cloth chemise, in full black morocco clamshell slipcase. $145,000
Includes the verse translated in English as: "Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharoah and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had befallen them on the journey, and how the Lord had delivered them.”
Davila concludes:
"I don't know if these are genuine or not, but if they are, it is unfortunate to find them like this in the public marketplace, although I suppose it's better than their being lost entirely. If you should happen to be in the position to buy these, I hope you will consider donating them (or at least be willing to sell them) to a museum, preferably one in Israel. If you must keep them, please, please be willing to make them available for specialists to study. It will do no harm to the value of the fragments and it will insure that the contribution they can make to history is not lost."
29. [DEAD SEA SCROLLS]. Original fragment from Daniel, Chapter 5, Verse 13-16. Found at Qumran, on the Dead Sea, in Cave 4, some time between 1952 and 1956. The fragment itself dates between 50 BC - AD 68 (the Roman destruction of Qumran). 32 mm. x 30 mm., written in Hebrew on brown animal hide. Preserved between glass, and enclosed in cloth chemise, in full black morocco clamshell slipcase. $275,000
Includes the verse translated in English as: "Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captiuity of Iudah..."
30. [DEAD SEA SCROLLS]. Original fragment from Exodus, Chapter 18, Verse 6-8. Found at Qumran, on the Dead Sea, in Cave 4, some time between 1952 and 1956. The fragment itself dates between 150 BC - AD 68 (the Roman destruction of Qumran). 11 x 34 mm. written in Hebrew on brown animal hide. Preserved between glass, and enclosed in cloth chemise, in full black morocco clamshell slipcase. $145,000
Includes the verse translated in English as: "Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharoah and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had befallen them on the journey, and how the Lord had delivered them.”
Davila concludes:
"I don't know if these are genuine or not, but if they are, it is unfortunate to find them like this in the public marketplace, although I suppose it's better than their being lost entirely. If you should happen to be in the position to buy these, I hope you will consider donating them (or at least be willing to sell them) to a museum, preferably one in Israel. If you must keep them, please, please be willing to make them available for specialists to study. It will do no harm to the value of the fragments and it will insure that the contribution they can make to history is not lost."
Three New TC-Articles in New Testament Studies
In the recent issue of New Testament Studies 55.1 there are three new articles in the area of manuscript studies:
"A Text-Critical Study of John 1.34" by Tze-Ming Quek (pp. 22-34)
Abstract:
"Scholars continue to divide over whether John the Baptist acclaims Jesus as ‘the Son of God’ or ‘the Chosen One of God’ at John 1.34. This article argues that transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, supported by the testimony of a few early manuscripts, favour the latter reading. However, in adopting this reading, the claims that (a) the variation took place in the course of a battle against adoptionism and (b) ‘the Chosen One of God’ supplies corroboration that the original tradition underlying the Synoptic baptismal accounts was based solely on Isa 42.1, are found to be unnecessary and methodologically problematic respectively."
"ΒΑΛΑΑΚ in the 𝔓72 Text of Jude 11: A Proposal" by Thomas Scott Caulley (pp. 73-82)
Abstract:
"This article proposes that the variant Βαλαxs1F71κ in the xs1D51372 text of Jude 11 be read in light of theological tendency in the Bodmer codex, especially as evidenced in the christological variants of xs1D51372. Initially, scholarly opinion dismissed the ‘Balaak’ reading as nothing more than an inexperienced copyist's careless mistake. Though recognizing the older view to be unsatisfactory, recent explanations are also inadequate. Given neutral or positive traditions about Balaam in Judaism, and in the context of the early Christian belief that the Spirit of Christ inspired the OT Prophets (including Balaam), the article makes a case for reevaluation of the variant."
[I will come back to this one in a separate post.]
"The Sinful Woman in the Gospel of Peter: Reconstructing the Other Side of P.Oxy. 4009" by Matti Myllykoski (pp. 104-115)
Abstract:
"In 1993, Dieter Lührmann published a reconstruction of the more intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009. He demonstrated that this side, which he called the recto, consists of passages parallel to Matt 10.16 par., Luke 10.3 and 2 Clem. 5.2–4. He also argued that the passage stems from the Gospel of Peter. However, Lührmann considered it impossible (‘ausgeschlossen’) to reconstruct the other side of the fragment. The aim of the present article is to demonstrate that a full reconstruction of this less intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009, lines 1–13, is possible and that it enriches our knowledge of the Gospel of Peter with a new pericope which is an interesting parallel of Luke 7.36–50. The reconstruction also demonstrates that the side reconstructed by Lührmann is actually the verso, and that both sides together point towards the well-known anti-Jewish redactional tendencies of the author of the Gospel of Peter."
[The author is a nice Finnish chap. I remember his presentation at the SBL in San Diego, and the highly critical objections in the discussion, including a devastating critique by Pete Williams. I don't know at this point how his article responds to that critique]
"A Text-Critical Study of John 1.34" by Tze-Ming Quek (pp. 22-34)
Abstract:
"Scholars continue to divide over whether John the Baptist acclaims Jesus as ‘the Son of God’ or ‘the Chosen One of God’ at John 1.34. This article argues that transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, supported by the testimony of a few early manuscripts, favour the latter reading. However, in adopting this reading, the claims that (a) the variation took place in the course of a battle against adoptionism and (b) ‘the Chosen One of God’ supplies corroboration that the original tradition underlying the Synoptic baptismal accounts was based solely on Isa 42.1, are found to be unnecessary and methodologically problematic respectively."
"ΒΑΛΑΑΚ in the 𝔓72 Text of Jude 11: A Proposal" by Thomas Scott Caulley (pp. 73-82)
Abstract:
"This article proposes that the variant Βαλαxs1F71κ in the xs1D51372 text of Jude 11 be read in light of theological tendency in the Bodmer codex, especially as evidenced in the christological variants of xs1D51372. Initially, scholarly opinion dismissed the ‘Balaak’ reading as nothing more than an inexperienced copyist's careless mistake. Though recognizing the older view to be unsatisfactory, recent explanations are also inadequate. Given neutral or positive traditions about Balaam in Judaism, and in the context of the early Christian belief that the Spirit of Christ inspired the OT Prophets (including Balaam), the article makes a case for reevaluation of the variant."
[I will come back to this one in a separate post.]
"The Sinful Woman in the Gospel of Peter: Reconstructing the Other Side of P.Oxy. 4009" by Matti Myllykoski (pp. 104-115)
Abstract:
"In 1993, Dieter Lührmann published a reconstruction of the more intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009. He demonstrated that this side, which he called the recto, consists of passages parallel to Matt 10.16 par., Luke 10.3 and 2 Clem. 5.2–4. He also argued that the passage stems from the Gospel of Peter. However, Lührmann considered it impossible (‘ausgeschlossen’) to reconstruct the other side of the fragment. The aim of the present article is to demonstrate that a full reconstruction of this less intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009, lines 1–13, is possible and that it enriches our knowledge of the Gospel of Peter with a new pericope which is an interesting parallel of Luke 7.36–50. The reconstruction also demonstrates that the side reconstructed by Lührmann is actually the verso, and that both sides together point towards the well-known anti-Jewish redactional tendencies of the author of the Gospel of Peter."
[The author is a nice Finnish chap. I remember his presentation at the SBL in San Diego, and the highly critical objections in the discussion, including a devastating critique by Pete Williams. I don't know at this point how his article responds to that critique]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)