[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #761
b-greek-digest Friday, 23 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 761
In this issue:
Oddest NT Study/Mack's _Lost Gospel_
Phil. 2:6 Article as Demonstrative?
TOUTO TO KALOUMENON "hARPAX"
"Whosoever," Mt 5:28, 31
Re: Text types in Luke (fwd)
Mack's Myth Again
Scribes & Textual Transmission
Re: GTh and the Canonical Gospels
re: text types in Luke
Re: Text types in Luke
re: text types in Luke
Re: TOUTO TO KALOUMENON "hARPAX"
Adrian Howard's email address
GThomas
Re: re: text types in Luke
Re: GTh and the Canonical Gos...
Re: Text types in Luke (fwd)
Re: Scribes & Textual Transmi...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 06:35:05 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Oddest NT Study/Mack's _Lost Gospel_
I have not yet read Mack's _Lost Gospel_ as yet, although it lies on my
desk in my office. I have, however, read his _A Myth of Innocence_, which
purports to give an account of the Gospel of Mark. For my money it will
account as the oddest serious discussion of the NT I have ever read. He is
already setting forth there the account of Q that he apparently sets forth
more fully in the more recent book which was discussed here yesterday. The
thesis is ostensibly plausible but there is no real evidence offered, and
the fabric of the entire book (I refer to _Myth of Innocence_) is a curious
tissue of unsupported hypotheses woven together to achieve a fantastic
super-hypothesis of Christian origins.
I am less skeptical than Larry Hurtado of Kloppenborg's work on Q, but I
think he characterizes it rightly as an attempt to discern earlier and
later strata in the Q texts rather than to write an account of Christian
origins. I more recent work of the same nature that I think is worth
reading is Arland Jacobson's, the title of which escapes me. I think that
Kloppenborg and Jacobson are well aware that, however serious they are,
their conclusions can only be tentative, although I don't know that either
would characterize his work as did Raymond Brown in _Community of the
Beloved Disciple_, with words to the effect, more or less, "I should be
happy if 60% of what I have written may turn out to be true."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 06:37:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Phil. 2:6 Article as Demonstrative?
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995 Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
"Is it possible that the article TO in Phil. 2:6 is functioning as a
demonstrative (translate it "this"), thus equating EN MORFH QEOU hUPARCWN
"being in the form of God" with TO EINAI ISA QEWi "to be equal with God"?
"who, being in the form of God, considered this equality with God not
[to be] robbery/a prize, but emptied himself . . ."
In principle, Bruce, I think you are right, but only in terms of an
obsolete feature of Greek grammatical history. In Homer hO, hH, TO is a
weak demonstrative = "he, she, it." It has been argued (see Bruno Snell,
_Discovery of the Mind_) that Heraclitus invented the article by using this
demonstrative to pinpoint any grammatical part-of-speech so as to turn it
into a substantive that can be manipulated in discourse. I don't think this
can be proven, but it does seem to be in 6th c. prose that the article as
such is first evident.
In Hellenistic usage I think Greg Jordan is absolutely right: had Paul (if
it was, in fact, Paul who composed the hymn) intended "this equality with
God," he would have written TOUTO TO EINAI ISA QEWi.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 06:39:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: TOUTO TO KALOUMENON "hARPAX"
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995 Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> cited me and wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>Bruce, is there, in fact, a single instance of hARPAGMON other than
>in our text? I was under the impression that it really was a hapax.
>I have no tools with me here in the mountains (other than a GNT,
>that is) to check.
Carl--
Did you say that this word was a hARPAX? :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist.
The word is a h.l. as far as the Bible is concerned; however, BAG
lists the following as examples from NT background and foreground
material:
1) robbery--Plut., Mor. 12A; Vett. Val. 122,1; Phryn., Appar. Soph.:
Anecd. Gr. I 36
2) prize, booty--(Xian foreground only) Euseb., In Luc. 6 (AMai, Nova
Patr. Bibl. IV 165); Cyrill. Alex., De Ador. 1, 25 (Migne, Ser. Gr.
LXVIII 172C)
3) a piece of good fortune, windfall--Heliodor. 7,11,7; 7,20,2; 8,7,1;
Plut., Mor. 330D; Diod. S. 3,61,6; Nageli 43f
Bruce, I defer to you, as I do not have BAGD with me. However, I did
consult it in my office before I left StL and I thought that these
citations were in fact for hARPAGMA which was being deemed an equivalent to
hARPAGMA.
If I was mistaken I apologize humbly and shall hARPAX on the matter no more
hereafter.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 06:41:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: "Whosoever," Mt 5:28, 31
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Ronnie Greenhagen <ronnieg@blue.misnet.com> proposed a
distinction between two categories of generalizing prescriptions by Jesus
in the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5:28 and 5:31:
"While studying Matthew chapter 5 I've found the English word
"whosoever" translated from two different words "pas" and "hos". From my
study I've concluded the following:
" We should not consider the term "whosoever" (verse 32)to be
universal in scope. In verse 28 "whosoever" is a noun (pas) which
literally means "everyone" or "anyone", but in verse 32 [31] the relative
pronoun (hos) must take its meaning from the context. The context refers
to those who know the law; who are the salt of the earth and light of the
world; whose righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees; and are identified by Matthew specifically as the disciples of
Christ (5.1).
"Therefore, verse 28 tells us any man (believer or unbeliever) who
looks lustfully at a woman is committing adultery with her in his heart.
But verse 32 explains that only believers commit adultery by putting away
their faithful wives. Why? - being believers, they live by a higher
standard, and they know better.
"Would you consider this to be an acceptable conclusion based on
the meaning of the two words translated 'whosoever'?
This proposal, in my judgment, is based upon a misunderstanding of the
semantic (NOT "dynamic") equivalence of the two constructions, (1) PAS hO +
present participle, and (2) hOS AN + subjunctive. Both constructions are
universal in scope and both are rightly translated "whosoever" or
"whoever," although it would certainly be legitimate to translate (1) as
"anyone who" or "everyone who." Throughout the passage, as I understand it,
Jesus is interpreting the "higher righteousness" of the Law as it applies
to all who are subject to it, i.e., to all "disciples." When Jesus in the
gospel of Matthew draws a distinction between believers and unbelievers, he
refers to the latter clearly as "Gentiles" (EQNIKOI, 5.47) or even "the
Gentile and the tax-collector" (hO EQNIKOS KAI hO TELWNHS, 18.17).
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 09:40:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Text types in Luke (fwd)
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Vincent Broman wrote:
> When I first read that Colwell article, it made sense to me as an
> explanation of the Neutrals/Alexandrians. But explaining textual
> affinities in terms of processes and proclivities only makes sense
> if we remember that certain proclivities could produce text types,
> others not.
I would disagree. There are simply various scribal/textual processes
that produce varying text-types. There are careful scribes, who copy
their exemplars with concern for accuracy and preservation of wording
(whether they like it or not), and there are scribes that feel free to
introduce additional/expansive material, scribes who seek to produce a
relatively inoffensive/easy-to-read "edifying" text, and scribes who seek
to harmonize different readings, etc.
None of the NT Greek witnesses I know of are free of probable or
demonstrable "corruptions" (both accidental and deliberate). But some
seem to be relatively more characterized by scribal care (in the judgment
of most this = the "Neutral/Alexandrian" mss.).
>
> I read an article that suggested that the scribe of Vaticanus worked
> in a disciplined fashion under the control of rules, including
> at least these two rules:
> 1. Make sense always.
> 2. Compare multiple exemplars and choose the shorter reading.
> If scribal practice in an area like Alexandria, say, held to similar rules,
> then even if the imported Bibles were dissimilar, copying would smooth
> out many differences. Those are centripetal, similarity-inducing rules
> (contracting maps, we analysts call them). A text type could be the result.
You don't cite the article in question, and I can't think of what it is
you're referring to. But it sounds initially a bit simplistic and even
erroneous. Check out, e.g., my book on Codex W in Mark, where I discuss
in considerable detail the *kinds* and *quality* of readings shared with
the Byzantines, the "Westerns" and the Alexandrians, and even the
readings apparently peculiar to W. Also, there are more recent studies
by Royse on scribal habits ((e.g., his article on scribal habits in the
recent volume edited by B.D. Ehrman, M. W. Holmes, _The Text of the NT in
Contemp. Research_ Eerdmans, 1995).
> On the other hand, if you start with a single exemplar, and let it be copied
> by teams of scribes like those responsible for p45 or W or D's ancestor,
> you don't end up with a text type, you end up with chaos. Their products
> would resemble each other only in being free/paraphrastic, but would not
> resemble each other in readings.
Again, too simplistic and erroneous. Codex D (in Mark at least) is *not*
the same sort of text as P45 or W. Moreover, they are not simply
"free/paraphrastic"; check my study. Also, in fact scribes with somewhat
similar proclivities *would* produce similar results, which could in fact
constitute a "text-type", if their results were similar enough,
frequently enough.
> I don't see any recension involved there til the 6th or maybe 8th century.
> But some important processes involved are _local_processes_,
> e.g. obtaining scriptures for new churches from nearby mother
> churches, mixture of texts from multiple bibles read in one area, loss
> of texts in one area due to persecutions, preferential copying from
> respected exemplars, etc. Such local processes could explain why early
> Byzantines were similar but not siblings, and they gradually became
> more unified.
There may well have been "local processes" as part of the mix of factors,
but all evidence suggests that "text-types" travelled quite widely and
quickly, and cannot be tied to specific locations very easily. (See
Epp's article on papyri in the Ehrman/Holmes volume cited above, and his
other studies of the data cited in the notes.) "Block mixture" of mss.
is more frequent than many realize, and is prime evidence of text-types
"travelling" about. The papyri from Egypt show various textual/scribal
tendencies and emerging "types" all in the same geog. area and in approx.
similar time-frame.
The progressively greater cohesion of the Byzantine text-type is probably
the result of formal/ecclesiastical efforts to standardize the Greek NT
in the post-Constantine period when it was possible to do so (e.g., state
power & funds behind them!). But in the early third cent. and earlier
(viz. P75), we have evidence of a careful, relatively disciplined copying
of the NT that is manifested more extensively in Codex B (from the 4th
cent.). The Alexandrians seem to be the result of scribal care. The
Byzantines (when they appear, that is, in the 5th cent. and later) on the
other hand seem to be the product of ecclesiastical concern for
harmonistic and edifying NT readings.
Cheers.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 10:14 CDT
Subject: Mack's Myth Again
There's a concise but incisive review of *The Lost Gospel*
in *Christian Scholar's Review* 24 (1994), 93-95. Reviewer
Mark Fairchild relates Mack's speculations to Kloppenberg's
work on Q, noting that on K's scenario, "the earliest
form of Q paralleled Cynic chriae collections ... (and)
presented Jesus in non-apocalyptic terms and without
miracles as a simple sapiential preacher." It is, of
course, sheer guesswork (if buttressed by crass parallel-
omania) that Cynic writings influenced the Gospel traditions.
Fairchild adds: "A point over which Mack glosses is the question
of how Q has incorporated two miracle stories (QS 15 and QS28)
into the text. If such a mythic conception of Jesus was
foreign to the Q community, how can one account for the
appearance of these pericopae? ... Far too many of (Mack's)
texts have been stamped with images which they can scarcely
bear. The overall theory rests upon implausible moorings
and Mack's filling of the gaps is too speculative."
In *Studying the Historical Jesus*, eds. Chilton & Evans
(Brill, 1994), Barry Blackburn comments: "In the halls of
NT scholarship unanimity is a rare commodity. Nevertheless,
that Jesus acted as an exorcist and healer can easily be
described as the consensus of the modern period. In light
of the breadth and depth of the arguments that buttress it,
one finds it difficult to entertain seriously the possibility,
recently championed by B. Mack, that not a single shred of
the gospel miracle tradition has a basis in Jesus' life"
(p. 362; followed by a long note on the speculative nature of
Mack's reconstruction). (Blackburn is author of *Theios
Aner and the Markan Miracle Tradition*, Tuebingen: Mohr,
1991). On the evidence for the consensus that Jesus
healed and exorcised (note the "o"), see C.A. Evans,
"Life of Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,"
*Theological Studies* 54 (1993), 22-27. On the wishful
view, endorsed e.g. by Crossan, Koester, Robinson & Co.,
that the Gospel of Thomas is not dependent on the
Gospel tradition, see K.R. Snodgrass, "The Gospel of
Thomas: A Secondary Gospel", *The Second Century* 7
(1989-90), 19-38.--Paul Moser, Loyola University of
Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 10:40 CDT
Subject: Scribes & Textual Transmission
Peter Head recently published a useful article, "Christology
and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the
Synoptic Gospels," *Novum Testamentum* 35 (1993), 105-29.
He concludes: "It is noteworthy that in the scribal tradition
(of the NT examined by Head's article) this (textual)
"adaptation" is much more conservative than in the production
of apocryphal gospels. The (NT) scribes were interested in
"transmission" of texts, rather than in the creation of
new texts. Nevertheless the transmission of gospel texts
should not be seen as neutral activity. The scribe of the
NT was a participant in the life and faith of the church,
and this life and faith clearly influenced the process of
transmission.... It is to their (early scribes') credit
that, with some exceptions, most of them withstood the
temptation to "improve" the Gospel texts. The "improvements"
examined here have not affected the general reliability of
the transmission of the texts in any significant manner;
they do, however, point to the scribe's involvement
in his work understood as an act of devotion to the
divine Christ" (pp. 128-29). In a *Biblica* (1990)
essay, Head had supported Colwell's finding that in
various early Gospel papyri, the scribal habit of
"omission is more common than addition" (p. 246). Might
this have remote echoes for the revived dispute about
the status of the western non-interpolations?--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: "Todd J. B. Blayone" <CXFW@musica.mcgill.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:45:16 EDT
Subject: Re: GTh and the Canonical Gospels
>On the wishful
>view, endorsed e.g. by Crossan, Koester, Robinson & Co.,
>that the Gospel of Thomas is not dependent on the
>Gospel tradition, see K.R. Snodgrass, "The Gospel of
>Thomas: A Secondary Gospel", *The Second Century* 7
>(1989-90), 19-38.--Paul Moser, Loyola University of
>Chicago.
Having written an M.A. thesis on GTh (John Kloppenborg was
one of my advisors) and having studied for several years
at McGill under Wisse (a positivist who rejects many of
Kloppenborg's hypotheses), I've become convinced that the
"real" issue with questions like these relates to the
broader paradigm with which scholars approach "the evidence."
Anyway, since I am currently preoccupied with writing a
dissertation on another subject, I will merely offer the
following observations:
Stephen Patterson (_Q Thomas Reader_, 1990) notes regarding
this "wishful hypothesis": "It is this view that has come to
to prevail particularly among American NT scholars."
Patterson's Ph.D. dissertation, which should be appearing soon
in book form (if it hasn't appeared already) provides a lengthy
analysis of this issue.
Oh, btw, my own view is that the textual/redactional evidence is
entirely inconclusive. Moreover, a scholar's _assumption_ regarding
the nature of the transmission of the "Jesus traditions" will largely
determine his/her case. For example, does one assume a _simple_,
linear transmission of the tradition, or a _complex_, multilinear
(Koester and Robinson like to talk about "trajectories")
transmission. I favour the latter-- which may be one reason I'm
writing a dissertation on hypertext. ;-)
Best,
Todd
______________________________________________________________
Todd J. B. Blayone McGill University
Project Coordinator, Chorus Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Chorus related e-mail: chorus@.peinet.pe.ca
General e-mail: cxfw@musica.mcgill.ca
My home page URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus
/People/Todd_B/toddhome.html
Chorus URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/home.html
______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:01:29 -0400
Subject: re: text types in Luke
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Vince Broman said....
>1. The 4th-5th century Byzantine witnesses are substantially less
>united than the text type becomes later; they do not have a single >point of
origin.
It may suggest different "points of origin", but it also could suggest
different degrees of quality control. As time went on, the Byzantine
publishing houses developed better controls in producing their polished
Imperial text.
Later, as time went on, tho, the Byz tradition developed 2 main recensions.
[I think Maurice Robinson ("Mr. Byzantine") has detected up to 7 divisions
in the Byz text tradition.]
>2. They share an interesting number of isolated readings with some
>early papyri and citations.
Either the early scribal errors were [genealogically] passed on to the the
Byzantine family, or as happens in the manuscript tradition, common errors
were reproduced. Likely, both happened.
But I wouldn't say that since certain early variants were passed onto and
incorporated into later text-types that these text-types can be validated the
text-type arising earlier than they actually did.
>3. The quality of their common text in the 4th-5th century is >comparable,
perhaps mildly superior, to the 4th-5th century >Alexandrian text type, as
assessed by internal evidence of groups, >in Luke.
I trust your evaluation the internal evidence in the variants you cited,
but I am still wondering which variants you picked. Usually I go by the
textual appartus in the NA27, but this still omits some variants that may not
be important to determining the text-- variants that show the characteristics
of certain mss/text types.
For example, when reading Byz mss, one finds many numerous scribal
additions (KAI, DE, DWDEKA added to MAQHTHS, etc, etc) throughout the text.
When one takes all these additions into account, it effects how one looks at
the text type.
Include all the little variants, as well as the ones important to
determining the text, and I think the Byzantine text-type may still shine,
but, IMHO, not as much.
>4. They are not explainable as a mixture of Western and >Alexandrian
sources, plus a little editorial polish.
Right. No one suggests this that I know of. I think one can just say that
the Byzantine text evolved on its own, that is to say, these variants
peculiar to the Byz text type arose within the Byz tradition. And see my
response to #2 above.
>Any theories to suggest that account for all this?
Aland has a theory that the Byzantine text type was partially built upon a
Koine (or, Lucian) text type that came from Caesarea. (Aland/Aland, _The Text
of the NT_, p 64f, section II.9 "The Age of Constantine").
I am not completely convinced by this theory, tho, since it is more history
than mss evidence. In the Textual Criticism tradition, most of the theories
based on history were later blown apart (ie, von Soden's Jerusalem text
theory; also, WH's early "western" text theory).
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:01:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Text types in Luke
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
> "they do not have a single point of origin"....
>...meaning no single fourth century point of origin (e.g. Lucian).
>What their ancestors were like in the second century would be hard >to say.
When you refer to the Byz text type having 2nd c. ancestors, I think you
may be putting to much stress on the geneological method in this case. See
Colwell: "Geneological Method: Its Acheivements and its Limitations"
I would say that the Byz mss tradition developed many of its own readings
(isn't that what is at the heart of the meaning of text-type?).
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:01:25 -0400
Subject: re: text types in Luke
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
vincent broman said....
>Please remember that almost all the early papyri come from one >place,
Egypt.
Although this doesn't mean they are all of the "Alexandrian" text type.
There are certainly several different textual affinities to be found
in Egypt. This ought to make the whole line of argument about "survival" of
mss types less an issue, I would think.
Actually, in some ways, its a misnomer to classify early papyri into
text-types, since by definition text types came into existence as the centers
of Christianity began mass producing the Scriptures in their publishing
houses.
I think it is a mistake to try to trace a text-type into the pre-text-type
era. For sure there are some scribal errors that were passed on to later
text-types. But I think its premature to classify an early papyrus (except
possibly for p75) into a specific text type catagory.
I lean toward Aland's analysis of papyri based upon scribal habits rather
than on the text-type theory.
How do you come down on analyzing the papyri, Vincent? I'd be interested
in knowing.
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:19:41 CST
Subject: Re: TOUTO TO KALOUMENON "hARPAX"
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Carl Conrad wrote regarding the citations of hARPAGMOS
from BAG:
>Bruce, I defer to you, as I do not have BAGD with me. However, I did
>consult it in my office before I left StL and I thought that these
>citations were in fact for hARPAGMA which was being deemed an equivalent to
>hARPAGMA.
Carl--
If I'm reading BAG correctly, these really are cases where hARPAGMOS is found.
The first two (Plut., Mor. 12A; Vett. Val. 122,1) are also found in LSJM.
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:39:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Adrian Howard's email address
I sent the following note to the greek-grammar list earlier today. I
apologize to those of you who will receive it twice. I would be grateful
to anyone who could help me locate a paper copy of Howard's doctoral
dissertation.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Do any of you know if Adrian Howard has an email address? He wrote a
dissertation at the University of Pretoria in 1982 entitled "Cohesion in
New Testament Greek." We do not have it here at UNC, so I requested it
through InterLibrary Loan. The only format that I have been able to get
is microfilm (which is a real problem to use since I can't use it at my
computer). I would like to contact the author to see if there is a way to
get a paper copy.
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 12:42 CDT
Subject: GThomas
I know of no statistical evidence to support the suggestion
that the Crossan/Koester/Robinson view of the relations of
GThomas to the canonical Gospels prevails among American
NT scholars. On the contrary, I'd bet my house that
their view doesn't prevail, so long as we don't let the
Fellows and Friends of the Jesus Seminar determine
who's an American NT scholar. Actually, it's of no
real significance which view is statistically prevalent;
the key issue is which view enjoys preponderant support
from relevant historical evidence. (I know of no sound
argument to suppose that relevant historical evidence is
fully determined by one's antecedent perspective, even
if the latter view is trendy in certain quarters.) In
*Studying the Historical Jesus* (Brill, 1994), Charlesworth
and Evans note: "All we know is that the view that
*Thomas* is early and independent has been a consensus
for some time at Claremont and Harvard. Outside of these
two schools there are many American Gospels scholars (such
as Blomberg, Brown, Carlston, Chilton, Evans, Fitzmyer,
Meier and Snodgrass) who have grave reservations about
such claims. Many European scholars (such as Hengel)
have as well. Nevertheless, the Claremont-Harvard axis
... is working hard to convince the scholarly community
that its views really do form the basis of an emerging
consensus" (p. 497 n.41; see pp. 497-503 for evidence that
*Thomas* is not independent). Perhaps Crossan and his
cohorts are so obsessed with matters of "consensus"
because they frequently lack support from historical
evidence. Obviously, scholarly consensus need have no
basis in preponderant evidence, as agreements (yes, even
among honored scholars) can arise from non-evidential
considerations. The latter is, I trust, so obvious that
it needs no further comment.--Paul Moser, Loyola University
of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 10:38:59 PDT
Subject: Re: re: text types in Luke
timster132@aol.com asked about:
> I trust your evaluation the internal evidence in the variants you cited,
> but I am still wondering which variants you picked.
I evaluated _all_ of the variants where the voting manuscripts could
muster majorities (3-1 or 4-0). The NA26 apparatus passes over many of
these variants in silence, as data in my paper show.
>> 4. They are not explainable as a mixture of Western and
>> Alexandrian sources, plus a little editorial polish.
> Right. No one suggests this that I know of.
Perhaps few nowadays, but this was precisely the position of Westcott&Hort.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:24:42 -0400
Subject: Re: GTh and the Canonical Gos...
Todd J. B. Blayone, CXFW@musica.mcgill.ca, said...
>Moreover, a scholar's _assumption_ regarding the nature of the >transmission
of the "Jesus traditions" will largely determine
>his/her case. For example, does one assume a _simple_,
>linear transmission of the tradition, or a _complex_, multilinear
(Koester and Robinson like to talk about "trajectories")
I am afraid that the transmission process would be even _more_ complex than
"multilinear". There are layers of developmental aspects to consider as
well. This would include the interpretative element, too. The process was
no doubt multi-dynamic.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:24:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Text types in Luke (fwd)
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Larry, hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca, said...
>"Block mixture" of mss. is more frequent than many realize,
>and is prime evidence of text-types "travelling" about. The
>papyri from Egypt show various textual/scribal tendencies
>and emerging "types" all in the same geog. area and in
>approx. similar time-frame.
Yup. Block mixture is very prevelant. Mss are judged to belong to a
text-type family based upon the percentage of times they agree with that text
type when collated against it. And no two mss are identical, for sure. Not
even B and p75, although they are pretty darn close.
I would agree that the early papyri show various scribal tendencies,
although I wouldn't readily identify these early "types" with the later text
families.
One of frustrations of TC is trying to pin a text-type down to either a
certain geographical area or to a specific church father. We know that texts
were used by churches in certain localities, and that church fathers would
often refer to mss to cite a text (if they didn't do it from memory). But it
seems next to impossible to make a correlation of mss to locale/person. If
only every scribe would have written a colophon on each mss stating when and
where he copied it and from which exemplar, TC would be a lot easier---
maybe.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:21:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Scribes & Textual Transmi...
Paul Moser, PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu, commented....
> In a *Biblica* (1990) essay, Head had supported Colwell's
>finding that in various early Gospel papyri, the scribal habit of
>"omission is more common than addition" (p. 246). Might
>this have remote echoes for the revived dispute about
>the status of the western non-interpolations?-
Curiously enough, the pro-Byz folks have cited Colwell's description of
scribal habits of the early papyri era ("omission is more common than
deletion") and have misapplied this to support their belief into Byz
superiority, saying that the Imperial text isn't smoothed, but rather retains
the many words that were "dropped" from the scribes of the Alex text types.
They fail to take into account the differences in the situations of those
early scribes of the NT and that of the Byzantine era.
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #761
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu