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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.