Over at the (Amsterdam NT Blog) Jan Krans has posted some interesting and helpful reflections on several TC sessions at the SBL, supplementing some of our own (and with more to come):
UBSGNT 5
Mark Session One
IGNTP Session
This one has the details about proposed future editions on NA which Tommy referred to here.
Have we covered all the SBL sessions yet? Or are there more to be done?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
SBL in San Diego VII: Gospel of Mark Session Two
The second session of the Mark group met under the general heading of Textual Beginnings and Endings in Mark to consider three papers:
a) Dean B. Deppe (of Calvin Theological Seminary) on Markan Christology and the Omission of yiou theou in Mark 1:1. I was interested in this paper because it argued for the inclusion of 'Son of God' into the first verse of Mark and included a lot of arguments against my article (NTS 1991) which argued the opposite. I had got to know Dean when he visited Tyndale House on sabbatical and he had kindly sent me an advance copy of his paper. Broadly speaking his argument was that 'Son of God' is so fundamental a concept in Markan Christology, and 'Christ' is such a nuanced one, that to begin with 'the gospel of Jesus Christ' would be a rather misleading summary of Markan Christology. On this basis 'Son of God' practically demands to be original, and the omission can be explained on accidental grounds. Dean's argument was both broadly based and detailed on the textual arguments about 1.1. I wouldn't say that I was persuaded to jettison my early argument, but I thought it was a good discussion.
One specific point he raised concerned the nature of the A corrections to Sinaiticus and whether their inhouse nature supported the idea that they were corrections against the exemplar, which would suggest that the absence of 'Son of God' form Sinaiticus was merely the result of a scribal slip. I pointed out that Milne and Skeat suggest there may be grounds for thinking that the A corrector had access to a different textual tradition (or even one with marginal variants noted). Some more research would be good on this question. Perhaps the Sinaiticus project will address this point.
b) The second paper was by Clinton Wahlen (of Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies and well known to me from his time in Cambridge doing his PhD) on The Freer Logion and Early Eschatological Reflection. This was a detailed discussion of the Freer Logion and an attempt to understand it as a piece of eschatological reflection. There was a useful discussion here too, and some suggestions made about the details of his paper.
c) The third paper was by Marie Noonan Sabin (of Bristol, ME) on A New Ending for Mark? This was not really about a new ending, more of a plea for taking the existing ending at 16.8 in a positive sense: the women were amazed by divine revelation and in awe. She made an impassioned presentation, but I snuck out before the questions so I'm not sure how the group in general received this one.
a) Dean B. Deppe (of Calvin Theological Seminary) on Markan Christology and the Omission of yiou theou in Mark 1:1. I was interested in this paper because it argued for the inclusion of 'Son of God' into the first verse of Mark and included a lot of arguments against my article (NTS 1991) which argued the opposite. I had got to know Dean when he visited Tyndale House on sabbatical and he had kindly sent me an advance copy of his paper. Broadly speaking his argument was that 'Son of God' is so fundamental a concept in Markan Christology, and 'Christ' is such a nuanced one, that to begin with 'the gospel of Jesus Christ' would be a rather misleading summary of Markan Christology. On this basis 'Son of God' practically demands to be original, and the omission can be explained on accidental grounds. Dean's argument was both broadly based and detailed on the textual arguments about 1.1. I wouldn't say that I was persuaded to jettison my early argument, but I thought it was a good discussion.
One specific point he raised concerned the nature of the A corrections to Sinaiticus and whether their inhouse nature supported the idea that they were corrections against the exemplar, which would suggest that the absence of 'Son of God' form Sinaiticus was merely the result of a scribal slip. I pointed out that Milne and Skeat suggest there may be grounds for thinking that the A corrector had access to a different textual tradition (or even one with marginal variants noted). Some more research would be good on this question. Perhaps the Sinaiticus project will address this point.
b) The second paper was by Clinton Wahlen (of Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies and well known to me from his time in Cambridge doing his PhD) on The Freer Logion and Early Eschatological Reflection. This was a detailed discussion of the Freer Logion and an attempt to understand it as a piece of eschatological reflection. There was a useful discussion here too, and some suggestions made about the details of his paper.
c) The third paper was by Marie Noonan Sabin (of Bristol, ME) on A New Ending for Mark? This was not really about a new ending, more of a plea for taking the existing ending at 16.8 in a positive sense: the women were amazed by divine revelation and in awe. She made an impassioned presentation, but I snuck out before the questions so I'm not sure how the group in general received this one.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Lost in Transmission, by Nick Perrin
Nick Perrin's new book is called Lost in Transmission? What we can know about the words of Jesus? (due for release in January 2008 with Thomas Nelson). The blurb reads: "Bart Ehrman, in his New York Times bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, claims that the New Testament cannot wholly be trusted. Cutting and probing with the tools of text criticism, Ehrman suggests that many of its episodes are nothing but legend, fabricated by those who copied or collated its pages in the intervening centuries. The result is confusion and doubt. Can we truly trust what the New Testament says? Now, Wheaton College scholar Nicholas Perrin takes on Ehrman and others who claim that the text of the New Testament has been corrupted beyond recognition. Perrin, in an approachable, compelling style, gives us a layman's guide to textual criticism so that readers can understand the subtleties of Ehrman's critiques, and provides firm evidence to suggest that the New Testament can, indeed, be trusted." Should prove interesting to say the least.Monday, November 26, 2007
SBL in San Diego VI: IGNTP Presentation
My next report is from the IGNTP project presentation, led by David Parker. The most significant change in the IGNTP in recent times is of course the collaboration with the INTF in Münster. This collaboration started with the so-called Principio project focused on the Gospel of John (some of the publications are already out/on-line, as reported on this blog). Now this fruitful collaboration will continue in other parts of the New Testament as well and within the framework of the Editio Critica Maior. In addition to volunteering collators in the US and UK there are currently 25 co-workers (not counting the committee). All this also means that the IGNTP is no longer an exclusively American/British undertaking, but international, better reflecting the name.
Klaus Wachtel from the INTF in Münster announced some very good news in the session. Looking back, he stated that it took the INTF 10 years merely to edit the Catholic Letters. Now, however, given the co-operation with IGNTP and funding for 23 years (sic) by a grant from Academy of Sciences in Germany, the plan is to get the whole work done in these 23 years!
Naturally, the work will proceed through several stages:
Stage 1: INTF+IGNTP, Gospel of John (to 2013);
Stage 2: INTF+IGNTP, Pauline (to 2026);
Unfortunately, the presentation went so fast that I did not have time to note stage 3, but it included Revelation (2031). (I know that Jan Krans took a picture of the slide so he can fill in [PMH: see now here]). During this time the INTF will also complete the ECM for the rest of the Gospels and Acts (the latter I believe is another collaborational project). Wachtel also took the opportunity to announce that there will be a colloquium in Münster after the SNTS, 2008 (which, BTW is in Lund, Sweden). The colloquium will focu on the CBGNT, and other notions such as the "initial text", Ausgangstext, etc. The editors of the ECM are very aware that the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), that plays a vital role in the new edition needs to be explained and evaluated by other text-critics and scholars, hence the colloquium. Wachtel also mentioned a few words about the NT transcripts on-line. The number of transcriptions on-line is constantly growing, and the website will eventually include both Greek MSS, versions and patristic evidence.
Then David Parker presented "The virtual manuscript room" which will provide an environment for working with manuscripts (far wider than just the NT, it will contain MSS of any text in any language), i.e. images, digitized microfilm, transcriptons, fully searchable databases with bibliography (something like a virtual Kurzgefasste Liste), paleographical and codicological data, textual data and analyses, discussions, etc. It will be possible to go directly from the eletronic edition (like the NT transcript prototype) into the virtual manuscript room.
Anyone can participate! It is a collaborative concept (cf. Wikipedia) where areas of manuscript research will be "colonized". But some areas will need some kind of ackreditation. The initial structures of the "colony" are being created in Birmingham and Münster. The INTF has funding for two posts for two years to develop the GNT manuscript content.
Thus, primary resources will become available everywhere in the world. This will give opportunity to develop collaborative projects which will catalogue large populations of MSS, e.g. the Latin Vulgate, MSS of John Chrysostom. It will provide a common forum for full-time manuscript scholars.
Then presentations followed from a number of scholars working with various areas of the IGNTP of John. I will just list them shortly below:
Ulrich Schmid: the majuscule book and website
Jon Balserak: Vetus Latina Iohannes (=the Verbum project).
Christina M. Kreinecker (an associate of Karl-Heinz Schüssler at the University of Salzburg: Transcription of some 20 Coptic MSS containing the Gospel of John
Peter Williams: Old Syriac; Andreas Juckel: Peshitta, Harclean with retroversion
Further research on the Greek material
Alison Welsby: Family 1 in the Gospel of John
Jac Perrin: Family 13 in the Gospel of John
Chris Jordan: the lectionaries in the Gospel of John (focus on 8-11th century)
Rod Mullen: Greek Patristic Evidence
Bruce Morrill: methodological questions like comparison of the Claremont Profile Method, with the Teststellen-method.
Klaus Wachtel from the INTF in Münster announced some very good news in the session. Looking back, he stated that it took the INTF 10 years merely to edit the Catholic Letters. Now, however, given the co-operation with IGNTP and funding for 23 years (sic) by a grant from Academy of Sciences in Germany, the plan is to get the whole work done in these 23 years!
Naturally, the work will proceed through several stages:
Stage 1: INTF+IGNTP, Gospel of John (to 2013);
Stage 2: INTF+IGNTP, Pauline (to 2026);
Unfortunately, the presentation went so fast that I did not have time to note stage 3, but it included Revelation (2031). (I know that Jan Krans took a picture of the slide so he can fill in [PMH: see now here]). During this time the INTF will also complete the ECM for the rest of the Gospels and Acts (the latter I believe is another collaborational project). Wachtel also took the opportunity to announce that there will be a colloquium in Münster after the SNTS, 2008 (which, BTW is in Lund, Sweden). The colloquium will focu on the CBGNT, and other notions such as the "initial text", Ausgangstext, etc. The editors of the ECM are very aware that the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), that plays a vital role in the new edition needs to be explained and evaluated by other text-critics and scholars, hence the colloquium. Wachtel also mentioned a few words about the NT transcripts on-line. The number of transcriptions on-line is constantly growing, and the website will eventually include both Greek MSS, versions and patristic evidence.
Then David Parker presented "The virtual manuscript room" which will provide an environment for working with manuscripts (far wider than just the NT, it will contain MSS of any text in any language), i.e. images, digitized microfilm, transcriptons, fully searchable databases with bibliography (something like a virtual Kurzgefasste Liste), paleographical and codicological data, textual data and analyses, discussions, etc. It will be possible to go directly from the eletronic edition (like the NT transcript prototype) into the virtual manuscript room.
Anyone can participate! It is a collaborative concept (cf. Wikipedia) where areas of manuscript research will be "colonized". But some areas will need some kind of ackreditation. The initial structures of the "colony" are being created in Birmingham and Münster. The INTF has funding for two posts for two years to develop the GNT manuscript content.
Thus, primary resources will become available everywhere in the world. This will give opportunity to develop collaborative projects which will catalogue large populations of MSS, e.g. the Latin Vulgate, MSS of John Chrysostom. It will provide a common forum for full-time manuscript scholars.
Then presentations followed from a number of scholars working with various areas of the IGNTP of John. I will just list them shortly below:
Ulrich Schmid: the majuscule book and website
Jon Balserak: Vetus Latina Iohannes (=the Verbum project).
Christina M. Kreinecker (an associate of Karl-Heinz Schüssler at the University of Salzburg: Transcription of some 20 Coptic MSS containing the Gospel of John
Peter Williams: Old Syriac; Andreas Juckel: Peshitta, Harclean with retroversion
Further research on the Greek material
Alison Welsby: Family 1 in the Gospel of John
Jac Perrin: Family 13 in the Gospel of John
Chris Jordan: the lectionaries in the Gospel of John (focus on 8-11th century)
Rod Mullen: Greek Patristic Evidence
Bruce Morrill: methodological questions like comparison of the Claremont Profile Method, with the Teststellen-method.
SBL in San Diego V: Gospel of Mark Session One
This year the Mark Group had two sessions which focussed on issues of textual criticism. In this group all the papers are distributed beforehand and the members of the group sit in an inner square of tables while attenders can sit on chairs around the outside. I'm not too sure I like the exclusion of the attenders, but it is nice to have a table to spread the papers out on in front of you. (The huge ballroom was rated as safe for up to 506 people; I guess there may have been fifty people present).
On the Monday morning, under the general title of Individual Variants and the Broad Picture in Mark, we had four papers:
Me (Peter Head) on The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus, which included a power-point presentation of features of the way in which Mark is presented in Codex Sinaiticus.
Nick Perrin (now of Wheaton College), “Angered” or “Moved”? Mark 1:41 in Light of Mark’s Exodus Motif and Vicki Cass Philips (of West Virginia Wesleyan College), Jesus, Anger, and Impurity: Investigating Mark 1:40-45 gave constrasting perspectives of how different readings of Mark 1.41 might fit within Mark's broader thematic concerns. Perrin argued that 'moved with compassion' was the best reading for Mark 1.41; on the basis of Mark's concern to portray Jesus as the compassionate one in line with Isaiah 49.9-11. Vicki Cass Philips offered a reading of Mark incorporating 'anger' at 1.41 (somehow I didn't receive a copy of her paper beforehand, so don't have much detail in my notes).
Then Leroy Andrew Huizenga (also of Wheaton College) gave a paper entitled “I Am”: Mark 14:62 in Light of Markan Narrative Dynamics. In this paper he argued that narrative criticism can have a role in textual criticism. He argued that 'the contrast between Jesus’ bold and direct confession before the high priest and Peter’s denial in this Markan intercalation functions best with the shorter reading'.
All of these three papers attempted to connect arguments about individual variants to bigger-picture discussions about Markan purposes and narrative dynamics. They were interesting from that perspective, but not particularly decisive.
On the Monday morning, under the general title of Individual Variants and the Broad Picture in Mark, we had four papers:
Me (Peter Head) on The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus, which included a power-point presentation of features of the way in which Mark is presented in Codex Sinaiticus.
Nick Perrin (now of Wheaton College), “Angered” or “Moved”? Mark 1:41 in Light of Mark’s Exodus Motif and Vicki Cass Philips (of West Virginia Wesleyan College), Jesus, Anger, and Impurity: Investigating Mark 1:40-45 gave constrasting perspectives of how different readings of Mark 1.41 might fit within Mark's broader thematic concerns. Perrin argued that 'moved with compassion' was the best reading for Mark 1.41; on the basis of Mark's concern to portray Jesus as the compassionate one in line with Isaiah 49.9-11. Vicki Cass Philips offered a reading of Mark incorporating 'anger' at 1.41 (somehow I didn't receive a copy of her paper beforehand, so don't have much detail in my notes).
Then Leroy Andrew Huizenga (also of Wheaton College) gave a paper entitled “I Am”: Mark 14:62 in Light of Markan Narrative Dynamics. In this paper he argued that narrative criticism can have a role in textual criticism. He argued that 'the contrast between Jesus’ bold and direct confession before the high priest and Peter’s denial in this Markan intercalation functions best with the shorter reading'.
All of these three papers attempted to connect arguments about individual variants to bigger-picture discussions about Markan purposes and narrative dynamics. They were interesting from that perspective, but not particularly decisive.
Erasmus' 4th edition?
Does anyone know of any electronic versions of the various editions of Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum, esp. the 4th edition?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)