Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Unity of Lukek-Acts

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic [resent from 23 July 2011; from new computer] On: Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts From: Bruce It seems to me that before the Luke-Acts question
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 25 5:26 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic [resent from 23 July 2011; from new computer]

      On: Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts

      From: Bruce



      It seems to me that before the Luke-Acts question can be approached, there
      are two prior questions: (1) the unity of Luke, and (2) the unity of Acts. I
      have the impression that both texts fail the unity test.



      LUKE



      Lk 1-2 (the Birth Narrative) are in a Semitically-influenced Greek. Whether
      translated from Hebrew or written in an intentionally Biblical style, does
      not directly appear, but the difference has often been noted. Lk 3-end are
      in a more normal, and even capable, Greek.



      Lk 3:1 begins with an elaborate synchronism, which would be appropriate as
      the opening of a historical work. The literary adequacy of this beginning
      suggests that at one time it WAS the beginning of the text, and that Lk 1-2
      are a later addition (whether by the same or another author does not
      directly appear).



      Facts asserted in Lk 1-2, such as the cousinship of John the B and Jesus,
      are ignored in Lk 3-end. This is curious if Lk originally began with Lk 1-2,
      but intelligible if it originally began with Lk 3:1, and if Lk 1-2 were a
      later addition.



      The indicated solution is that Luke was composed in (at least) two stages,
      with Lk 1-2 representing the second stage. This tends to undermine the
      assumption that Lk was written on a single occasion.



      ACTS



      Ac 1:1-11 has an Ascension scene in which, after 40 days with his disciples,
      Jesus ascends to Heaven into a cloud, with two men in white robes appearing
      on earth to explain things to the disciples. As has often been pointed out,
      this account is at odds with the ending of Lk (Lk 24:28-51), where the
      Ascension of Jesus is not a separate event from the Appearance of Jesus.
      Only in Ac 1:1-11 is the separate Ascension either portrayed, or mentioned,
      or implied. Then the join of Ac 1 to Lk 24 is faulty, and Ac 1 must
      represent a compositional stage separate from, and in all reasonable
      probability later than, Lk 24.



      In Ac 15:32-33, Judas and Silas return from Antioch to Jerusalem. In Ac
      15:40, Paul departs from Antioch, taking with him Silas. So severe a
      narrative discontinuity is this that some manuscripts (not the best ones,
      but C and several miniscules; see Swanson p270) add a verse 15:34, which
      overrides 15:33 by stating that Silas after all elected to remain in
      Antioch. This sets up 15:40 as narratively unproblematic, albeit by creating
      a narrative problem between 15:33 and 15:34. No critical text admits 15:34,
      and we must take the text of Acts as lacking 15:34, and hence as narratively
      discontinuous at 15:35/36.



      Ac 1-15 have often been noted as Semitically-influenced (so Charles Torrey,
      and more recently Randall Buth). Whether this means that they were a
      translation from Aramaic or an intentional Biblical stylisticism on the part
      of the original author, need not be decided here. But the difference exists,
      and the transition to non-Semitically influenced Greek occurs at essentially
      the place above noted: 15:35/36. This reinforces the weight of the
      discontinuity there observed.



      It cannot be said that this break in narrative continuity and style
      coincides with the transition from Peter-centered to Paul-centered parts of
      Acts (that transition is at Ac 12/13). It also cannot be said that it marks
      the end of the motif of supernatural guidance of the early Church, since
      that motif persists well past Ac 15. Whatever the reason for it, the
      implication is that the writer of Ac not only made a stylistic break, but a
      narrative break, at Ac 15:35/36. Given the incompatibility between the two
      sides of that break, the likeliest interpretation is that Acts originally
      ended at Ac 15:35, and was later resumed (with a different scenario in mind)
      at Ac 15:36. What this means for authorship inferences does not immediately
      appear. But the fact of the discontinuity seems manifest, and should be
      considered in reading Acts.



      LUKE-ACTS



      The above seem to suggest three stages in the formation of Luke-Acts. (1)
      Only Luke existed, and it began with Lk 3:1. (2) Lk 1-2 (in a heavily
      Semiticized Greek) was added to Lk, creating narrative discontinuities with
      the earlier Lk, and Ac 1-15:35 (in a heavily Semiticized Greek) was written
      and joined to Lk, in the process creating narrative discontinuities with the
      earlier Lk 3-24. (3) Acts 15:36-end was written, in a non-Semiticized Greek,
      in the process creating narrative discontinuities with the earlier Ac
      1-15:35.



      There is other evidence for these divisions, which I have been presenting at
      SBL (national and local) since 2006, and will not repeat here. The above,
      however, seem sufficient to suggest doubt about the adequacy of the integral
      Acts assumption, and the integral Luke assumption.



      It seems to me, accordingly, that these difficulties should be followed up
      before the larger question of Luke-Acts is investigated. One way of doing so
      would be to run a stylistic test on Lk 1-2 versus Ac 1-15:35, to see how far
      these two acknowledged patches of Semiticized (or translation) Greek
      resemble each other. If anyone has undertaken this task, I would be
      interested to hear the result.



      E Bruce Brooks

      University of Massachusetts at Amherst





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Mealand
      This issue arises in a number of places not only in Luke & Acts but also in the very blatant discontinuities in the Fourth Gospel. These are often discussed in
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 26 4:33 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        This issue arises in a number of places
        not only in Luke & Acts but also in the
        very blatant discontinuities in the Fourth
        Gospel.

        These are often discussed in their NT context
        and those discussing them tend to bring assumptions
        about what might or might not have caused them.

        Has anyone seen an empirical study of discontinuities
        in modern texts and whether they are due to
        a) the author rewriting their own material or b) the author
        incompletely absorbing source material or c) another
        author unevenly adapting an earlier author's work?

        I can remember a very blatant example of b many years
        ago when I had set items of very different viewpoints
        as reading for a seminar. One student contribution dutifully
        read out plagiarized sentences from A followed by a sentence
        from B without apparently noting that B contradicted A.
        (I hasten to add that this did not happen in Edinburgh.)
        So I can offer limited first hand evidence for b. I also
        think that I have first hand evidence for discontinuities
        becoming evident at proof stage in at least one item of mine
        that I had heavily revised myself before releasing. We also, of
        course, know of discontinuities which arise simply from
        errors in copying a manuscript from an exemplar.

        But if someone knows of a study of causes of discontinuity
        it might throw more light on the phenomenon.

        David M.




        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: David Mealand On: Discontinuities in Texts From: Bruce DAVID: Has anyone seen an empirical study of discontinuities in
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 26 7:53 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          Cc: WSW
          In Response To: David Mealand
          On: Discontinuities in Texts
          From: Bruce

          DAVID: Has anyone seen an empirical study of discontinuities in modern texts
          and whether they are due to a) the author rewriting their own material or b)
          the author incompletely absorbing source material or c) another author
          unevenly adapting an earlier author's work?

          BRUCE: I know of no general study of modern texts from this viewpoint;
          perhaps others will be able to contribute titles. I know of a few famous
          instances of "rewriting," mostly centering on editors' drastic reworking of
          authors' manuscripts (Thomas Wolfe, Stephen Crane). There are also composers
          revisiting their early compositions and redoing them (the Brahms B Major
          Piano Trio is a key example, because we happen to possess both versions).
          Both Beethoven and Mozart substituted easier movements for wide audiences of
          their string quartets or flute concertos (respectively), and Mozart would as
          necessary rewrite his operas in performance, sometimes substituting arias if
          the original singer was not available. In all these cases, we have both
          versions, and can judge the results for ourselves. Hoel's introduction to
          statistics exists in four versions, the latest not necessarily easier to
          understand than the earliest. Louis Bromfield reworked his story "My Ninety
          Acres" several times (and the Readers Digest condensers also had a go at
          it). Emily Dickinson has been studied this way (her holographs are
          preserved, and show overwritings and multiple versions, seemingly internally
          rather than externally motivated). Schumann, it is said, rewrote many of his
          early works, supposedly to rid them of what he felt were traces of insanity.
          Bach regularly recycled his secular music into his church cantatas, not
          always with admirable results. Rachmaninoff simplified several of his works
          (the Second Symphony, the piano sonata) to make them easier (chiefly,
          shorter) for audiences and performers. Going the other way, the addition of
          the soprano movement (Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit) to the Brahms Requiem,
          following the death of his mother, more or less messed up the work,
          theologically as well as musically, but obviously it meant much to him to do
          it. I would call this a self-induced discontinuity, and would leave out that
          movement if I were conducting the piece. For situations arising from various
          species of text growth and adaptation, ancient and modern, I have collected
          some specimens that I think are still online, at

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/philology/typology/index.html

          Perhaps suggestive.

          The most extended analysis of this kind that I know of, for any ancient
          text, is my own work, The Original Analects, which shows a text (the
          Analects of Confucius) growing by adapting to changing conditions over about
          two and a half centuries: every Analects word, and every passage, and when
          relevant, the motive for its addition or interpolation, are addressed in the
          commentary. There is, in the Analects (the house text of the successor
          Confucius movement) no incorporation of material from outside sources, but
          there is awareness of outside ideas, and some inclusion (usually with
          reinterpretation) of sentences from the works of rival schools of thought
          (eg, the heavy statecraft Legalists, in chapters 12-13, or the
          entrepreneurial Micians, also in chapter 13, the Micians being in their
          stance and in some of their doctrines at times uncannily like the early
          Christians). Sometimes a late Analects passage will revisit, and in effect
          redo, an earlier passage, sometimes to upgrade the image of Confucius (at
          first poor, later symbolically rich) but chiefly to update doctrine, or
          respond to outside challenges to doctrine - a little like the post-Pauline
          literature, which at points is trying to do for Paul what the later layers
          of the Analects are doing for the earlier Analects, while leaving the
          earlier work itself intact. Similarly, if we separated out the last 5
          chapters of the Analects (as was done by a Chinese scholar several centuries
          ago; our book is dedicated to him), we would have a sort of trito-Analects.
          (The previous 6 chapters are the ritualist deutero-Analects).

          Seemingly the best field for investigation of rewriting and updating, in the
          classical Chinese area, is the understudied and indeed despised writings of
          the Micians, the ethical parts of which are available in several
          translations (Mei, and recently Johnston; the latter currently on sale at
          Columbia [use the discount code CUST], as for that matter, so is The
          Original Analects, Columbia 1998). The analysis of the difference between,
          say, the three successive Mician essays opposing war, which both retain and
          replace earlier Mician material, is currently being carried out by members
          of our international study group, and some results are being published in
          our journal. Sample articles from v1 are available at:

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html

          Those samples do not happen to include the Mician studies, but I could
          probably arrange advance access for anyone terribly interested. The volume,
          now overdue and still delayed in press, should despite all difficulties be
          out later this year, for the casually as well as the terribly interested.
          Notify your librarian. Meanwhile, the TOC at the above URL will give an idea
          of the scope of the effort. It will be noticed that NT subjects are also
          considered to be within our range - the journal will be included in New
          Testament Abstracts - along with occasional doses of classical Greece and
          India, in order to illustrate the universality of basic philological method,
          and also by way of learning from our neighbors.

          My term of choice for this category of analysis might be "inconcinnities,"
          or for wide-audiences situations, "inconsistencies;" things (whether of
          content or of continuity) that don't work well on the assumption that the
          same author, or the same guiding intelligence, is in charge at both places.
          My sense of basic methodology is that analysis of a text begins with
          alertness for inconsistencies of both kinds, and then, when found, proceeds
          with study of how they might have come about. One must of course allow for
          author ingenuity, and even intentional author angularity: the purposeful
          juxtaposition of discordant or irreconcilable items. This, it seems to me,
          is more a problem with modern art than with ancient texts, though it would
          probably be possible to find an ancient-text example or two; I am currently
          dealing with some in the Shr (the Chinese equivalent of the Psalms), where
          juxtaposition and flashback come to be standard authorial devices, making it
          that much harder to detect real interpolations. The Shr give examples of
          texts using source texts, though in small bits: one long poem may draw as
          many as 16 whole lines from earlier poems in the corpus, the result often
          involving some degree of thematic discontinuity in the borrowing poem.

          One modern wrinkle is what might be called retrospective discontinuity. The
          acts of my state legislature in any given year read pretty well,
          individually and to an extent collectively. But no lawyer works from the
          legislative record: what counts is what we call the Massachusetts General
          Code Annotated, which shows which sections of which laws have been struck
          down, or interpretationally modified, by subsequent judicial decisions. The
          result has a Swiss Cheese aspect, which sometimes dramatically fails to
          imply a single authorial (or political) impulse; it typically represents the
          collision of several such impulses. Nearly all growth processes work by
          extension or interpolation; here is one of the few that demonstrably works
          by subtraction. (See also an expurgated Shakespeare or Kipling). The outside
          "source" for the subtraction is the work of the courts, which aims at
          consistency, but has no one locus of consistency, or indeed of origination.
          We might then observe the gaps in continuity in a piece of interpreted
          legislation (or the no longer applicable Amendments to the US Constitution),
          but given only the reduced text, we would be unable to suggest very
          precisely the source of the damage, or to reconstruct the missing pieces
          (unless we had access to local court records, where the lost clauses might
          have been cited in argument). I mention this only as a reassurance that the
          problems of added text, though sometimes requiring delicate handling, are
          nowhere near as bad as the problems of subtracted text, where *detection*
          may be possible (as in the Lukan discontinuity at both ends of his so-called
          Great Omission), but *solution,* in the absence of the source text, or a
          better copy of the source text (fortunately available in the Lukan case) is
          likely to remain elusive.

          David's type (c) is hard to find, but works based on or cannibalizing
          earlier works by other authors might include H G Wells (Outline of History)
          and more diffusely J K Rowling (Harry Potter). Wells's work also underwent
          revisions by himself and later by his son and others; for Rowling, I suppose
          there are the book versions and the movie versions. Maugham rewrote (or
          suffered to be rewritten) the texts of seven of his short stories for the
          movies Trio and Quartet; the scripts were also published in book form. They
          do not make edifying reading, but I suppose they are analytically relevant.
          Within movies, we have Seven Samurai > Magnificent Seven, where each detail
          of the adaptation or reconceptualization is a loss in economic and social
          coherence (Kurosawa was nice about it, though). Could any viewer of the
          latter but unaware of the former detect a Japanese prior state, not quite a
          Vorlage but a precedent, behind it? Myself, I don't think so. The parts that
          don't work on their own terms aren't enough, at least to my eye, to suggest
          such an antecedent condition of things. In antiquity, we have the Han Feidz
          late in the 02c taking over and adapting a whole chapter of the earlier and
          respected Shang-jywn Shu (SJS 13 > HFZ 53; see the commentary by Duyvendak).
          This makes a nice exercise for people learning to detect directionality in
          text relations, and for people learning to detect meaningful differences of
          emphasis in competing political theories. Salutary. Less well known but
          also instructive is the incorporation of part of a late Mician chapter (MZ
          52:13, c0270?) by an even later, but still pre-Unification, Gwandz chapter
          (GZ 44, c0260; see the commentary by Rickett). The Sinologists tend to work
          in their own corner, seemingly without any perception of the value of these
          instances for the other textual sciences; of course much the same might be
          said of the NT people. Our journal is one attempt to bring selected results
          from several textual sciences together, where each can have a peek at the
          other's results. I don't predict any great success for this effort; I merely
          point out that it is being made.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Bob Schacht
          ... David, I hope you get a better answer to your question than I can give. Your question raises for me a scenario that I have seldom seen discussed: has
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 26 8:11 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            At 04:33 AM 7/26/2011, David Mealand wrote:

            >This issue arises in a number of places
            >not only in Luke & Acts but also in the
            >very blatant discontinuities in the Fourth
            >Gospel.
            >
            >These are often discussed in their NT context
            >and those discussing them tend to bring assumptions
            >about what might or might not have caused them....

            David,
            I hope you get a better answer to your question than I can give.
            Your question raises for me a scenario that I have seldom seen
            discussed: has anyone considered the possibility that some of our NT
            texts were written over a period of time by the same person? In other
            words, that some of the discontinuities that you refer to result from
            insertions by the same author at a later time?

            For example, Luke writes out a first draft of his gospel on a papyrus
            quire and carries it around, showing it to various knowledgeable
            persons. They get to talking about some section of the text, and Luke
            decides to add something about that. So he takes some loose pages of
            papyrus, writes out an editorial insertion, and sticks the loose
            pages into the quire at the appropriate place. Later, he has the
            original manuscript re-copied with the editorial insertions included.
            This could produce several kinds of discontinuities, including
            theological, resulting from the author's shifting viewpoints. Has
            this type of scenario been discussed?

            Bob Schacht
            Northern Arizona University


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Inglis
            Bob, In aLk s case I think it s not unreasonable to suggest that he may not have had access to all his (possibly) many sources before he started writing.
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 26 10:32 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Bob, In aLk's case I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that he may not have had access to all his (possibly) many
              sources before he started writing. Instead, he may well have added new material (or edited what he had previously
              written) as more 'sources' came to light over an extended period. However, depending on how careful he was at blending
              the new material into the older, we may or may not be able to distinguish one from the other.

              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Schacht
              Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 8:12 AM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Discontinuities in texts

              At 04:33 AM 7/26/2011, David Mealand wrote:

              >This issue arises in a number of places not only in Luke & Acts but also in the very blatant discontinuities in the
              Fourth Gospel.
              >
              >These are often discussed in their NT context and those discussing them tend to bring assumptions about what might or
              might not have caused them....

              David,
              I hope you get a better answer to your question than I can give. Your question raises for me a scenario that I have
              seldom seen discussed: has anyone considered the possibility that some of our NT texts were written over a period of
              time by the same person? In other words, that some of the discontinuities that you refer to result from insertions by
              the same author at a later time?

              For example, Luke writes out a first draft of his gospel on a papyrus quire and carries it around, showing it to various
              knowledgeable persons. They get to talking about some section of the text, and Luke decides to add something about that.
              So he takes some loose pages of papyrus, writes out an editorial insertion, and sticks the loose pages into the quire at
              the appropriate place. Later, he has the original manuscript re-copied with the editorial insertions included. This
              could produce several kinds of discontinuities, including theological, resulting from the author's shifting viewpoints.
              Has this type of scenario been discussed?

              Bob Schacht
              Northern Arizona University



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bob Schacht
              ... Yes; he makes it clear that he has more than one source, increasing the likelihood of the addition of some sources after the original draft. ... Exactly.
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 26 11:25 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:32 AM 7/26/2011, David Inglis wrote:
                >Bob, In aLk's case I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that he
                >may not have had access to all his (possibly) many
                >sources before he started writing.

                Yes; he makes it clear that he has more than one source, increasing
                the likelihood of the addition of some sources after the original draft.

                >Instead, he may well have added new material (or edited what he had previously
                >written) as more 'sources' came to light over an extended period.

                Exactly. Luke is more clear than the others that he is a compiler,
                rather than an eye witness.

                >However, depending on how careful he was at blending
                >the new material into the older, we may or may not be able to
                >distinguish one from the other.

                Indeed. In some cases, he might simply have told a copyist to "stick
                the words from this loose page in at the mark in the text on this
                page," without bothering much about careful blending.

                Bob Schacht
                Northern Arizona University


                >David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                >
                >
                >
                >From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
                >Behalf Of Bob Schacht
                >Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 8:12 AM
                >To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Discontinuities in texts
                >
                >At 04:33 AM 7/26/2011, David Mealand wrote:
                >
                > >This issue arises in a number of places not only in Luke & Acts
                > but also in the very blatant discontinuities in the
                >Fourth Gospel.
                > >
                > >These are often discussed in their NT context and those discussing
                > them tend to bring assumptions about what might or
                >might not have caused them....
                >
                >David,
                >I hope you get a better answer to your question than I can give.
                >Your question raises for me a scenario that I have
                >seldom seen discussed: has anyone considered the possibility that
                >some of our NT texts were written over a period of
                >time by the same person? In other words, that some of the
                >discontinuities that you refer to result from insertions by
                >the same author at a later time?
                >
                >For example, Luke writes out a first draft of his gospel on a
                >papyrus quire and carries it around, showing it to various
                >knowledgeable persons. They get to talking about some section of the
                >text, and Luke decides to add something about that.
                >So he takes some loose pages of papyrus, writes out an editorial
                >insertion, and sticks the loose pages into the quire at
                >the appropriate place. Later, he has the original manuscript
                >re-copied with the editorial insertions included. This
                >could produce several kinds of discontinuities, including
                >theological, resulting from the author's shifting viewpoints.
                >Has this type of scenario been discussed?
                >
                >Bob Schacht
                >Northern Arizona University
                >
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >------------------------------------
                >
                >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                David and Mark G: The focus on both Luke and John certainly got my attention. The question I have, and increasingly, is how much authorial control does one
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 26 12:02 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  David and Mark G:

                  The focus on both Luke and John certainly got my attention. The question I have, and increasingly, is how much authorial control does one have in writing, and how consistent is our writing?

                  I know the normal paradigm is to see variations in language and disjunctures in the flow of narrative as indications of use of a source (hence the reference to John's aporias, which Fortna used famously to find seams of sources, incorrectly I think). But I remember looking back over some writing I did in Grad School, and being struck by how much my writing at points "sounded" like Moody Smith's. I had unconsciously picked up some wording from him. Other times I have looked at older papers and realized the argument started and stopped in weird ways. But it was me writing each of these. I think this is behind David's questions about actual studies of style in various circumstances.

                  On the other hand, even if a source is used, a writer often "absorbs it" into his or her own idiom. So sometimes use of sources might become difficult to determine.

                  All that is to say that I am increasingly suspicious of "clear" standards for an author's style. Authors can mimic styles (infancy narrative of Luke; or the various speeches in Acts, each with its own style). And authors can absorb other's material -- and in that case what is source and what is composition?

                  One other issue -- when one talks about the theology of an author -- do any of us have a cohesive theology or view of life? For instance, I am amazed at people who claim to have an absolute ethic of life (re: abortion, for instance), and yet can in the next breath support the death penalty. To me this is a complete contradiction. And yet... to them they are consistent, or they categorize these in different "pockets" of thought.

                  Mark A. Matson
                  Academic Dean
                  Milligan College
                  423-461-8720
                  http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  > Of David Mealand
                  > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 7:34 AM
                  > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Discontinuities in texts
                  >
                  >
                  > This issue arises in a number of places
                  > not only in Luke & Acts but also in the
                  > very blatant discontinuities in the Fourth Gospel.
                  >
                  > These are often discussed in their NT context and those discussing them
                  > tend to bring assumptions about what might or might not have caused them.
                  >
                  > Has anyone seen an empirical study of discontinuities in modern texts and
                  > whether they are due to
                  > a) the author rewriting their own material or b) the author incompletely
                  > absorbing source material or c) another author unevenly adapting an
                  > earlier author's work?
                  >
                  > I can remember a very blatant example of b many years ago when I had set
                  > items of very different viewpoints as reading for a seminar. One student
                  > contribution dutifully read out plagiarized sentences from A followed by a
                  > sentence from B without apparently noting that B contradicted A.
                  > (I hasten to add that this did not happen in Edinburgh.) So I can offer
                  > limited first hand evidence for b. I also think that I have first hand
                  > evidence for discontinuities becoming evident at proof stage in at least
                  > one item of mine that I had heavily revised myself before releasing. We
                  > also, of course, know of discontinuities which arise simply from errors in
                  > copying a manuscript from an exemplar.
                  >
                  > But if someone knows of a study of causes of discontinuity it might throw
                  > more light on the phenomenon.
                  >
                  > David M.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------
                  > David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
                  > with registration number SC005336.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • ddcanne@windstream.net
                  Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations, writes in his introduction about seven types of changes that could have led to
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 26 12:06 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations, writes in his introduction about seven types of changes that could have led to discontinuities in texts. Additions from "oral tradition," "additions for liturgical use," "additions due to the influence of certain ascetic practices," "emendations due to the tamperings of heretics" (he notes Luke 3:22), "emendations due to doctrinal biaes," "harmonization" and "adustments made by pious scribes." Any of these, it seems, could lead to discontinuity. He then quotes Origen on the diversity of texts in the third century.

                    Dennis Dean Carpenter
                    Dahlonega, Ga.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.