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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Carlson
    ... According to Juelicher s edition of the Itala, Luke 22:19b-20a is missing in a b d e ff2 i l and present in some form in aur c f r1 vg. Note that at least
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

      > **
      >
      > A simple question: Is there any evidence that any part of Lk 19b-20a
      > existed in the Old Latin? I can�t find any.
      >
      According to Juelicher's edition of the Itala, Luke 22:19b-20a is missing
      in a b d e ff2 i l and present in some form in aur c f r1 vg. Note that at
      least some of the latter are influenced by the Vulgate to varying extents.

      Stephen
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson
      Graduate Program in Religion
      Duke University


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Inglis
      Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don t have access to Juelicher s edition, could I please ask the following: 1) I don t recognize vg as an old Latin
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don't have access to Juelicher's edition, could I please ask the following:
        1) I don't recognize 'vg' as an old Latin ms. Could you give me the Beuron number for this, or are you using this simply
        to mean 'Vulgate'?
        2) You include r1, but not (for example) r2. Is this because the text of the gospels in r2 is close to the Vulgate? What
        about the other old Latin mss of the gospels that you do not mention?
        3) Where you state that Lk 22:19b-20a are "present in some form," is there more detail available? What is actually
        stated about the form of these verses in these mss?
        4) The two groups you list below seem to split largely along 'age' lines, with Lk 22:19b-20a missing only in the earlier
        mss. Do you agree with this assessment?
        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
        Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 4:01 PM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

        On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        > A simple question: Is there any evidence that any part of Lk 19b-20a
        > existed in the Old Latin? I can't find any.
        >
        According to Juelicher's edition of the Itala, Luke 22:19b-20a is missing in a b d e ff2 i l and present in some form in
        aur c f r1 vg. Note that at least some of the latter are influenced by the Vulgate to varying extents.

        Stephen
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Graduate Program in Religion
        Duke University
      • Stephen Carlson
        ... Yes, vg is Juelicher s symbol for the Vulgate. ... I just copied the refs from Juelicher. If Juelicher didn t cite them, neither did I. ... Juelicher
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
          > Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don't have access to Juelicher's edition,
          > could I please ask the following:
          > 1) I don't recognize 'vg' as an old Latin ms. Could you give me the Beuron number
          >for this, or are you using this simply to mean 'Vulgate'?

          Yes, vg is Juelicher's symbol for the Vulgate.

          > 2) You include r1, but not (for example) r2. Is this because the text of the gospels
          > in r2 is close to the Vulgate? What about the other old Latin mss of the gospels that you do not mention?

          I just copied the refs from Juelicher. If Juelicher didn't cite them,
          neither did I.

          > 3) Where you state that Lk 22:19b-20a are "present in some form," is there more detail available?
          > What is actually stated about the form of these verses in these mss?

          Juelicher gives the text. Its basically the Vulgate but with the
          usual little textual variants (e.g. tradetur for datur, ad for in,
          etc.).

          > 4) The two groups you list below seem to split largely along 'age' lines, with Lk 22:19b-20a
          > missing only in the earlier mss. Do you agree with this assessment?

          I haven't made a study of these MSS, but many so-called Old Latins
          have been mixed with Vulgate readings to varying extents.

          Stephen

          --
          Stephen C. Carlson
          Graduate Program in Religion
          Duke University
        • David Inglis
          Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 10, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
            of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:

            1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and

            2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.

            3) David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA



            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
            Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:43 AM
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

            On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
            > Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don't have access to Juelicher's edition, could I please ask the following:

            > 3) Where you state that Lk 22:19b-20a are "present in some form," is there more detail available? What is actually
            stated about the form of these verses in these mss?
            Juelicher gives the text. Its basically the Vulgate but with the usual little textual variants (e.g. tradetur for datur,
            ad for in, etc.).

            Stephen
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Graduate Program in Religion
            Duke University



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Matson, Mark (Academic)
            David: I think it s a bit more complicated than that. OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies autou with
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 10, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              David:

              I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

              OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies "autou" with an expanded "tois mathhtais autou". And OL r1 has 19b but with a textual variant.

              Moreover, it is not clear to me that OL aur and c, while they follow the Vulgate, are derivative of it or the other way around. But I'm not a big vulgate scholar.


              Mark A. Matson
              Milligan College
              Milligan College, TN
              http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
              ________________________________________
              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:29 PM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

              Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
              of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:

              1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and

              2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.

              3) David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA



              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
              Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:43 AM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

              On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
              > Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don't have access to Juelicher's edition, could I please ask the following:

              > 3) Where you state that Lk 22:19b-20a are "present in some form," is there more detail available? What is actually
              stated about the form of these verses in these mss?
              Juelicher gives the text. Its basically the Vulgate but with the usual little textual variants (e.g. tradetur for datur,
              ad for in, etc.).

              Stephen
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson
              Graduate Program in Religion
              Duke University



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • David Inglis
              Mark, it is my understanding that Lk 22:19b is NOT in b, so I d be very interested in your evidence for its existence. Also, I m aware of the differences in
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 11, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark, it is my understanding that Lk 22:19b is NOT in b, so I'd be very interested in your evidence for its existence.
                Also, I'm aware of the differences in order (e.g. Lk 22:17-18 after 19a in b and e), and the other variants of Lk
                22:17-20 in the Syriac and other versions. Although I only asked about Lk 22:19b-20a, I was just using these as a
                'proxy' for 1 Cor 11:24-25, as what I'm really interested in is determining whether there are pre-Vulgate traces of any
                of these verses in Latin mss of Lk. 'Mixed' (old Latin and Vulgate) mss are of course a problem, but so far I haven't
                come across anything that suggests to me that any text from 1 Cor 11:24-25 existed in old Latin form in Lk.

                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark (Academic)
                Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:36 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                David:

                I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
                OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies "autou" with an expanded
                "tois mathhtais autou". And OL r1 has 19b but with a textual variant.
                Moreover, it is not clear to me that OL aur and c, while they follow the Vulgate, are derivative of it or the other way
                around. But I'm not a big vulgate scholar.

                Mark A. Matson
                Milligan College
                Milligan College, TN
                http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                ________________________________________
                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...
                <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> ]
                Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:29 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
                of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:
                1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and
                2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.
                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Mealand
                I am aware that this group is very much focused on the view that Luke used Matthew as well as Mark. This makes me, as someone who inclines towards the 2ST feel
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 12, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am aware that this group is very much focused
                  on the view that Luke used Matthew as well as Mark.
                  This makes me, as someone who inclines towards the
                  2ST feel that I should tread delicately here.

                  I have tried to apply stylometric tests to work
                  out a possible "crucial experiment" to see if new
                  evidence can help with the relative probabilities
                  in the debate between 2ST and FGT.

                  The idea is that if we look at the sayings and also
                  the apophthegms and parables in Matthew which are
                  attributed to Q, and compare them with those found
                  only in Matthew then we might get one of two possible
                  results.

                  a) The material attributed to Q and that found only in Matthew
                  does not reveal stylistic differences when we allow for genre.
                  b) There are such stylistic differences between the two sets
                  of material.

                  The results of this experiment are set out in an article
                  recently published in New Testament Studies (October 2011).
                  There are links to CUP, and to NTS, and also a link to
                  the text of the article, on my Edinburgh Uni site here:

                  https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/DLM/DLM-stylometric-analysis

                  This should mean that it is available to members of Synoptic-L

                  David Mealand




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


                  --
                  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                  I was looking at the extensive apparatus from the Critical NT Textual project on Luke (2 vols). But their source was Juelicher. Mark A. Matson Academic Dean
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 13, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I was looking at the extensive apparatus from the Critical NT Textual project on Luke (2 vols). But their source was Juelicher.
                    Mark A. Matson
                    Academic Dean
                    Milligan College
                    Milligan College, TN
                    http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                    ________________________________________
                    From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...]
                    Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:15 PM
                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                    Mark, it is my understanding that Lk 22:19b is NOT in b, so I'd be very interested in your evidence for its existence.
                    Also, I'm aware of the differences in order (e.g. Lk 22:17-18 after 19a in b and e), and the other variants of Lk
                    22:17-20 in the Syriac and other versions. Although I only asked about Lk 22:19b-20a, I was just using these as a
                    'proxy' for 1 Cor 11:24-25, as what I'm really interested in is determining whether there are pre-Vulgate traces of any
                    of these verses in Latin mss of Lk. 'Mixed' (old Latin and Vulgate) mss are of course a problem, but so far I haven't
                    come across anything that suggests to me that any text from 1 Cor 11:24-25 existed in old Latin form in Lk.

                    David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                    From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark (Academic)
                    Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:36 PM
                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                    David:

                    I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
                    OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies "autou" with an expanded
                    "tois mathhtais autou". And OL r1 has 19b but with a textual variant.
                    Moreover, it is not clear to me that OL aur and c, while they follow the Vulgate, are derivative of it or the other way
                    around. But I'm not a big vulgate scholar.

                    Mark A. Matson
                    Milligan College
                    Milligan College, TN
                    http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                    ________________________________________
                    From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...
                    <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> ]
                    Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:29 PM
                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                    Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
                    of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:
                    1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and
                    2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.
                    David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    ------------------------------------

                    Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Ronald Price
                    ... David, Thanks for this pointer to your article, which I was indeed able to access. The overall conclusion that stylometric analysis favours the 2ST more
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 14, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 12/01/2012 23:05, "David Mealand" <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

                      > There are links to CUP, and to NTS, and also a link to
                      > the text of the article, on my Edinburgh Uni site here:
                      >
                      > https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/DLM/DLM-stylometric-analysis
                      >
                      > This should mean that it is available to members of Synoptic-L

                      David,

                      Thanks for this pointer to your article, which I was indeed able to access.
                      The overall conclusion that stylometric analysis favours the 2ST more than
                      the FGT, is perhaps what I would have expected. However the footnote about
                      the groups 'R' and '8' is surely open to question. For those who haven't
                      seen David's article, he suggests that the double tradition woes of Mt 23
                      ('R') // Lk 11 might not belong to Q, and certain M sayings in Mt chs. 10,
                      11, 12, 16 & 18 constituting his group '8' may actually have been derived
                      from Q. Can an analysis based on the most common Greek words in 250-word
                      samples, be sufficiently accurate to provide a reliable indication of the
                      source of a single sample? For anyone not used to counting NT Greek words,
                      250 words is about one sixth of the size of Colossians.

                      In any case (to take up a couple of David's points) a low level of agreement
                      in the double tradition does not necessarily indicate a different source. It
                      can mean simply that one of the synoptic authors was not entirely satisfied
                      with a specific pericope or set of pericopes. Also the evidence for
                      divergent translation from Aramaic in Mt 23 // Lk 11 should be linked with
                      evidence there and elsewhere for paronomasia in the underlying Aramaic, and
                      the parallelism in scores of aphorisms, as thoroughly undermining
                      Kloppenborg's Greek-in-origin Q.

                      I would still argue that it is not tinkering with Q which is required, but a
                      radical rethink.

                      Ron Price,

                      Derbyshire, UK

                      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Mealand
                      Ron Thanks for your view of the paper. I notice that you focus mainly on a tentative afterthought. It was only when the main argument and conclusions had been
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 14, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ron

                        Thanks for your view of the paper.

                        I notice that you focus mainly on a tentative afterthought.

                        It was only when the main argument and conclusions had
                        been reached, that I included (probably tucked away in a footnote)
                        some tentative thoughts on a few oddities I noticed
                        on my route.

                        It is the argument based on the evidence of the main series
                        of tests which must carry the weight. For that samples ranging from
                        1000 words down through 500 to 250 were in fact used. If you use
                        rare words of course you need very large samples, that is why arguments
                        based on rare words are often seriously problematic. Most of my tests
                        used the words in Matthew with the very highest frequency, and none of
                        them used very rare words.

                        One could, of course, compare all of Q with all of M using just two large
                        blocks of text, but that would be very unwise.
                        It would give no indication of within group consistency
                        (or otherwise), and it would commit the serious error of not allowing
                        for the differences of style between sayings and such things as
                        apophthegms and parables. The tests allow for these genre differences,
                        and they do check "within source" differences, as well as between source
                        differences. That is why the material has to be divided into small
                        samples, and so rely on the words of the highest frequency. Doing this
                        takes considerably longer of course, but taking what looks like an
                        attractive short cut can have inconvenient consequences.

                        David M.





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


                        --
                        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                      • Ronald Price
                        ... David, I did mention that they were in a footnote. What I didn t mention is that in the final section headed Conclusions , the footnote is explicitly
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 16, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 14/01/2012 23:59, "David Mealand" <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

                          > I notice that you focus mainly on a tentative afterthought.
                          >
                          > It was only when the main argument and conclusions had
                          > been reached, that I included (probably tucked away in a footnote)
                          > some tentative thoughts on a few oddities I noticed
                          > on my route.

                          David,

                          I did mention that they were in a footnote. What I didn't mention is that in
                          the final section headed "Conclusions", the footnote is explicitly referred
                          to thus:

                          "Note 34 explored some further implications of these results relating to the
                          extent of Q."

                          So what your article referred to as "some further implications of these
                          results", you now call "tentative thoughts on a few oddities". They seem to
                          be rapidly losing their status! In any case my response did not pretend to
                          be a formal review, and I don't see why even tentative thoughts should be
                          exempt from comment.

                          > It is the argument based on the evidence of the main series
                          > of tests which must carry the weight.

                          The main thrust of your argument does indeed seem to count significantly
                          against the FGT, in which the double tradition is taken as essentially
                          Matthean, and therefore would be expected to be similar in style to 'M'
                          material.

                          But lest some readers deduce that the hypothesis of Luke's use of Matthew
                          has been dealt a serious blow, I should point out that the crude form of the
                          3ST outlined by Tuckett as a possible fall-back position would behave
                          exactly like the 2ST on David's stylometric tests. Also my more radical form
                          of the 3ST would require a different arrangement of the input data if it
                          were to be tested using David Mealand's methods. Luke's subsidiary use of
                          Matthew is a fundamental part of the 3ST.

                          Ron Price,

                          Derbyshire, UK

                          http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_meri.html




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • David Mealand
                          Ron Yes thanks for the clarification. I was trying to make the logical structure of the argument clear. The first and main concern was to compare a sufficient
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 16, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ron

                            Yes thanks for the clarification. I was trying
                            to make the logical structure of the argument
                            clear. The first and main concern was to compare
                            a sufficient set of samples representing the DT with
                            an equivalent set of samples representing sayings,
                            parables and apophthegms only in Matthew. Once it
                            was clear from the results that the great majority of Q
                            differs on these criteria from the great majority of
                            M, I then, and only then, allowed myself some further
                            exploration of the few bits of material that didn't go
                            all the way with the trend.

                            One of 12 samples from Q is at issue, and this turned out
                            to include some verses that several people are hesitant about
                            attributing to Q anyway. They are some verses from the woes
                            against the scribes which have low levels of agreement in the DT,
                            indications of the use of a source other than Q, and evidence of
                            some divergent translation from Aramaic. But we are talking about
                            part of one 250 word sample here, and some people do attribute
                            some of these verses to M. My results suggest they are right
                            to do so. Similar considerations apply to the few bits of M that
                            are closer to Q. Some of these contain verses which are immediately
                            adjacent to verses evidently belonging to the DT. My results
                            suggest that these few verses should be considered more carefully
                            as possibly being verses in Q that Luke omitted. But we can only
                            start looking at this in this way if we can first get an 82%
                            success rate in blind assigning of Q samples to Q, and M samples to M.

                            If someone wishes to explore variations on 3ST then
                            I would be quite happy to see the results. I would
                            only warn that setting this kind of thing up, assembling
                            all of the data, checking the experiments carefully etc.
                            etc. is not going to be done quickly. If it could be
                            done speedily I might have tested all the Synoptic
                            theories at once while about it, but sadly it ain't like
                            that.

                            One final comment. I am more passionate about trying to persuade
                            NT scholars to allow the discipline to take scientific methods
                            seriously, than I am about the results that come out at the end.
                            We need to be much much more serious about formulating hypotheses
                            to test our theories, and then rigorously finding and checking
                            the evidence. This is even more the case when dealing with a
                            clash of theories which affects so much else in the discipline.
                            We should not give up traditional literary methods, but should
                            reinforce them with more logical and analytical and numeric processing
                            of the evidence. I do care about the results, but I might have to
                            rethink them tomorrow.

                            David M


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


                            --
                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                          • Bob Schacht
                            ... I agree with this sentiment. However, your (and my) efforts in this direction are swimming against the tide of C. P. Snow s The Two Cultures: Those
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 16, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 09:52 AM 1/16/2012, David Mealand wrote:
                              >...I am more passionate about trying to persuade
                              >NT scholars to allow the discipline to take scientific methods
                              >seriously, than I am about the results that come out at the end.
                              >We need to be much much more serious about formulating hypotheses
                              >to test our theories, and then rigorously finding and checking
                              >the evidence. ...

                              I agree with this sentiment. However, your (and my) efforts in this
                              direction are swimming against the tide of C. P. Snow's The Two
                              Cultures: Those educated in the humanities tradition vs. those
                              educated in the "sciences." My experience has been that people
                              educated in the humanities just don't like the words "hypothesis" or
                              "testing" of hypotheses or theories, etc. That is, they either just
                              don't like those terms anywhere, or they feel that those words just
                              don't apply to the humanities. There is this mis-perception that
                              "hypothesis" and "testing" must always involve men and women in white
                              lab coats working in a clean laboratory with microscopes and test
                              tubes, and they just don't see how their information can be reduced
                              to slides and test tubes. They generally don't know much about
                              science (and so, The Two Cultures), and don't realize how much of
                              science does not involve those kinds of laboratories (think of the
                              social sciences, geology, astronomy, etc.) They don't see the value
                              of stating an idea in the form of a testable hypothesis.

                              For example, J.D. Crossan has written about "prophecy historicized"
                              (e.g., Birth of Christianity, p. 521) when he discusses the
                              Passion-Resurrection stories, by which he explains the passion and
                              resurrection stories in terms of prophecies. Years ago, he did an
                              internet seminar with CrossTalk (XTalk) on his book. I asked him
                              about this idea, "prophecy historicized," saying that it sounded like
                              an interesting hypothesis for Biblical studies, because it seemed
                              like historicizing prophecy is something that might have happened
                              more than once..
                              * How does prophecy become historicized?
                              * When, and in what circumstances does this occur?
                              But he was unwilling to investigate this idea in this way. He would
                              only apply it to the passion-resurrection narratives. And
                              furthermore, when I tried to outline what was involved, I found that
                              he employed many different fragments of prophecy from different
                              places in a variety of contexts. I could see no way to generalize
                              this thought into a more wide-ranging theory. It seems like an ad hoc
                              idea, produced only to explain one literary phenomenon, and not
                              applicable to any other situation. I think it more likely is a case
                              of "history rationalized," whereby an attempt is made to explain one
                              incident with fragments of prophecies that had common elements. But
                              this makes the assumption that the incident in question actually happened.

                              In short, I think your issue is not simply a numerical problem, but a
                              philosophical one, as well.

                              Bob Schacht
                              Northern Arizona University





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.