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

Re: [XTalk] Codex Schoeyen

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Here s a reply that William Petersen just posted to my forwarding Mike s message to the T-C List. Yours, Jeffrey ******* Just a brief comment. I have not
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike Grondin wrote:

      > Recently, Terje Bergersen, a specialist in Gnostic studies, wrote to
      > the GThomas list about MS 2650 in The Schoeyen Collection of the
      > Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology. This
      > ms is also designated 'mae2' and 'The Schoeyen Codex'. Does anybody
      > know anything about this? Thanks - Mike Grondin.

      Here's a reply that William Petersen just posted to my forwarding Mike's
      message to the T-C List.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey

      *******
      Just a brief comment.

      I have not studied the text itself, nor Schenke's edition. However,
      about three years ago, just when the book
      appeared, I spoke with Prof. Tjitze Baarda (Free University of
      Amsterdam, now emeritus) about it. As I recall,
      he had been asked to review it, and his view was very negative. I
      should add that he and the now-deceased
      Schenke (obit 2002) were friends; he even arranged for a Schenke to
      serve as a visiting lecturer at the Free
      Univ. for a period.

      Anyone interested should check for Baarda's review (I'll contact him and
      see if/when it appeared [or will
      appear]; I will notify the list of what I learn; I suspect he was
      doing it for *Novum Testamentum*).

      Baarda told me that his examination showed that far from being an
      "independent" Matthew, the Schoeyen
      Codex was simply (from his analysis of the variants) a rather
      adulterated text, filled with variants paralleled
      elsewhere in the MS tradition of Matthew (Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc.,
      etc.) and/or the commentary traditions. He
      was disappointed in Schenke's rather--from his point of view--facile
      analysis of the text and failure to notice
      parallel variants elsewhere in the MS tradition.

      If this is so, then it is one more example of a familiar phenomenon: a
      new MS is brought to light; an editor
      publishes it, failing to thoroughly research its "curious" readings, and
      fails to note already-existing parallels; the
      editor proceeds to proclaim his newly-discovered manuscript
      exceptionally important, and epoch-making for
      the field. Later, however, a closer analysis shows that over-enthusiasm
      and a failure to thoroughly excavate
      other MSS for parallels has led the editor to mischaracterize the find.

      Caution is warranted, for Baarda is an expert Coptologist and has Middle
      Egyptian; the meticulousness of his
      work is well know. Those unfamiliar with his work may enjoy: The
      Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat The Persian
      Sage (2 vols.; Meppel, 1975); Early Transmission of the Words of
      Jesus: Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the
      New Testament (Amsterdam, 1983); Essays on the Diatessaron (Kampen,
      1994).

      --Petersen, Penn State University.
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bob Schacht
      ... I would rather see this cycle of understandings, in public print, than to see the alternative, which is what happened to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which for a
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 14, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:10 PM 1/14/2004 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:


        >Mike Grondin wrote:
        >
        > > Recently, Terje Bergersen, a specialist in Gnostic studies, wrote to
        > > the GThomas list about MS 2650 in The Schoeyen Collection of the
        > > Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology. This
        > > ms is also designated 'mae2' and 'The Schoeyen Codex'. Does anybody
        > > know anything about this? Thanks - Mike Grondin.
        >
        >Here's a reply that William Petersen just posted to my forwarding Mike's
        >message to the T-C List.
        >
        >Yours,
        >
        >Jeffrey
        >
        >*******
        >Just a brief comment.
        >
        >I have not studied the text itself, nor Schenke's edition. However,
        >about three years ago, just when the book
        >appeared, I spoke with Prof. Tjitze Baarda (Free University of
        >Amsterdam, now emeritus) about it. As I recall, he had been asked to
        >review it, and his view was very negative. I should add that he and the
        >now-deceased Schenke (obit 2002) were friends; he even arranged for a
        >Schenke to serve as a visiting lecturer at the Free Univ. for a period.
        >
        >Anyone interested should check for Baarda's review (I'll contact him and
        >see if/when it appeared [or will appear]; I will notify the list of what
        >I learn; I suspect he was doing it for *Novum Testamentum*).
        >
        >Baarda told me that his examination showed that far from being an
        >"independent" Matthew, the Schoeyen Codex was simply (from his analysis of
        >the variants) a rather
        >adulterated text, filled with variants paralleled elsewhere in the MS
        >tradition of Matthew (Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc., etc.) and/or the
        >commentary traditions. He
        >was disappointed in Schenke's rather--from his point of view--facile
        >analysis of the text and failure to notice parallel variants elsewhere in
        >the MS tradition.
        >
        >If this is so, then it is one more example of a familiar phenomenon: a
        >new MS is brought to light; an editor publishes it, failing to thoroughly
        >research its "curious" readings, and fails to note already-existing
        >parallels; the
        >editor proceeds to proclaim his newly-discovered manuscript exceptionally
        >important, and epoch-making for the field. Later, however, a closer
        >analysis shows that over-enthusiasm and a failure to thoroughly excavate
        >other MSS for parallels has led the editor to mischaracterize the find.

        I would rather see this cycle of understandings, in public print, than to
        see the alternative, which is what happened to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which
        for a long time were tightly controlled by a small group of scholars who
        were being very cautious and meticulous-- with the result that there were
        NO results on many manuscript fragments for a long time, until someone
        broke the rules and busted open the process.


        >Caution is warranted, for Baarda is an expert Coptologist and has Middle
        >Egyptian; the meticulousness of his work is well know. Those unfamiliar
        >with his work may enjoy: The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat The Persian
        >Sage (2 vols.; Meppel, 1975); Early Transmission of the Words of
        >Jesus: Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the New Testament (Amsterdam,
        >1983); Essays on the Diatessaron (Kampen,
        >1994).
        >
        >--Petersen, Penn State University.

        Yes, caution is warranted. I have had my own (pleasant) encounter with Dr.
        Baarda, and his cautious skepticism also has led him to be very skeptical
        of an early date for GThomas. It may be that we have not heard the last
        about this codex, and that further analysis will be needed to determine the
        direction of influence in the textual variants. To make an analogy with
        another situation, most NT scholars now believe (sic.) that the authors of
        Matthew and Luke knew Mark, but looking at the same texts, others come to a
        different solution of the synoptic problem. (I know this is mixing up text
        criticism with source criticism, but I think there's a parallel point to be
        made.) So, unless other data are available, it can be a tricky business to
        establish who was borrowing from who. It will be interesting to learn more
        about this text.

        Bob Schacht

        Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
        Northern Arizona University
        Flagstaff, AZ

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mike Grondin
        Many thanks to our esteemed Jeffrey Gibson, who knew the best place to ask the question I raised, and took the trouble to put it there. I ve reported
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 14, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Many thanks to our esteemed Jeffrey Gibson, who knew the best place
          to ask the question I raised, and took the trouble to put it there.
          I've reported Peterson's information back to the GThomas membership,
          and am quite pleased at this fine example of how different online
          forums can work together to disseminate factual information of
          common interest.

          Mike Grondin
        • Mike Grondin
          Whoops, forgot to thank Prof. Petersen. Hope you ll pass on our appreciation to him, Jeffrey. Mike Grondin
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 14, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Whoops, forgot to thank Prof. Petersen. Hope you'll pass on our
            appreciation to him, Jeffrey.

            Mike Grondin
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.