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)
    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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.