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

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

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