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

English translation of Pierson & Naber's _Verisimilia_?

Expand Messages
  • David C. Hindley
    I am curious. Is anyone aware of an Eng. Translation of Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt by
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I am curious.

      Is anyone aware of an Eng. Translation of Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt by Allard Pierson, Samuel Adrianus Naber & Arthur Tappan Pierson, 1886 (295 pp)?

      FWIW, I have found a scan of the book in the original ecclesiastical Latin, and several web authors praise it as brilliant, but as far as I know no one has translated it into English!

      Someone tell me I am wrong, and point out where such a translation can be found.

      Thanky danky.

      DCH

      Per Schweitzer, Paul & His Interpreters,
      In the year 1886 [Allard Pierson] published, in association with the philological scholar, Samuel Adrian Naber, the Verisimilia. The book was not adapted to make a deep impression. It was too much the ingenious essay for that.

      The two friends combined their efforts in order to show New Testament exegetes how much they had left unexplained in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and how many problems, incoherencies, and contradictions appear when one reads these writings with an open mind. (123n3)

      But instead of making a thorough examination of the problems and laboriously arguing the case with the other students of Paulinism, the authors at once proceed to suggest what appears to them a possible solution. They claim to have discovered that the inconsistencies are due in the main to the presence of two strata of thought which have been worked together. The one is of a sharply anti-Jewish character; the other consists of milder and more conciliatory ideas.

      If it be assumed, so runs their argument, that Christianity was in its real origin a Jewish sect which had liberal ideas in regard to the law and directed its expectation towards the Messiah, the antinomian sections of the Epistles represent documents of that period.

      The present form of the letters is due to the fact that a later " Churchman " —the authors call him Paulus episcopus, and think that he may have served as model for the Paul of Acts—worked into them the second, milder set of ideas. [pages 123-124]

      123n3 ... The work gives a running analysis of the letters in the course of which very interesting questions are thrown out. Why is nothing said about the earthly life of Jesus? Why is no trace of the influence of this Paul's thought to be found in history? Do the various characteristics and actions of his which are recorded show us a character which is at all intelligible?

      The authors assume that the Jewish movement which led up to " Christianity " at first had only to do with the Messianic belief in general. Only later, through the blending of Greek myths with Isaiah liii., did the belief arise that the expected Messiah had already come and had passed through death and resurrection.

      The analysis of the Pauline Epistles is followed by essays upon the Paul of Acts and some chapters on the Fourth Gospel. The close is formed by an essay on the gradual origin of the conception of Christ in the New Testament.
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... several web authors praise it as brilliant, but as far as I know no one has translated ... By coincidence, I happen to have this book checked out from the
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jul 10, 2009 8:46 PM, "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:
        >Is anyone aware of an Eng. Translation of Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi
        >Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt by Allard Pierson,
        >Samuel Adrianus Naber & Arthur Tappan Pierson, 1886 (295 pp)?
        >
        >FWIW, I have found a scan of the book in the original ecclesiastical Latin, and
        several web authors praise it as brilliant, but as far as I know no one has translated
        >it into English!
        >
        >Someone tell me I am wrong, and point out where such a translation can be found.

        By coincidence, I happen to have this book checked out from the library. IIRC,
        there is a copy on Google books. Based on my knowledge of its age and its
        contents (in the Dutch Radical vein of scholarship), I'd be very surprised that
        there's an English translation. As for several web authors praising it as
        brilliant, I might trust Detering to have read the Latin, but not so much other
        people.

        Stephen

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
        Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
      • David C. Hindley
        Thank you Stephen. Actually, I do not believe the web author I am thinking of was Detering. There is a 2003 web version, by Michael Hoffman, of a tractate
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you Stephen.

          Actually, I do not believe the web author I am thinking of was Detering.

          There is a 2003 web version, by Michael Hoffman, of a tractate published by Edwin Johnson, in 1894 that summarizes its main points (in chapter XIII):

          http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

          True, this work (without Hoffman's contributions) is also available on Detering's site, probably because Johnson is said to be the "anonymous" writer of Antiqua Mater, which is dearly loved by modern "radical critics."

          What I recall was looking at a web page by someone who owned a copy of the original and offered his opinion as to its "brilliance." My only exposure has been the comments in Schweitzer, who faults them for only offering a hypothesis without arguing out their points in detail.

          I am not endorsing Dutch radical criticism, although IMHO many modern critics make similar assumptions about the processes and likely historical developments that contributed to early Christianity as we know it from the NT and early Christian literature. I would like to get a better idea of what kinds of issues spurred on the likes of Loman, etc, without having to enroll in graduate school or learn how to properly read ecclesiastical Latin.

          David Hindley

          --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:
          >
          > On Jul 10, 2009 8:46 PM, "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:
          > >Is anyone aware of an Eng. Translation of Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi
          > >Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt by Allard Pierson,
          > >Samuel Adrianus Naber & Arthur Tappan Pierson, 1886 (295 pp)?
          > >
          > >FWIW, I have found a scan of the book in the original ecclesiastical Latin, and
          > several web authors praise it as brilliant, but as far as I know no one has translated
          > >it into English!
          > >
          > >Someone tell me I am wrong, and point out where such a translation can be found.
          >
          > By coincidence, I happen to have this book checked out from the library. IIRC,
          > there is a copy on Google books. Based on my knowledge of its age and its
          > contents (in the Dutch Radical vein of scholarship), I'd be very surprised that
          > there's an English translation. As for several web authors praising it as
          > brilliant, I might trust Detering to have read the Latin, but not so much other
          > people.
          >
          > Stephen
          >
          > --
          > Stephen C. Carlson
          > Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
          > Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
          >
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... My impression of Pierson & Naber is more that they show how the texts of Paul (plus Acts and John) ought to be stratified based on their hypothesis, rather
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 11, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            On Jul 11, 2009 1:14 PM, "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:
            >What I recall was looking at a web page by someone who owned a copy of the
            >original and offered his opinion as to its "brilliance." My only exposure has been
            >the comments in Schweitzer, who faults them for only offering a hypothesis
            >without arguing out their points in detail.

            My impression of Pierson & Naber is more that they show how the texts of
            Paul (plus Acts and John) ought to be stratified based on their hypothesis,
            rather than actually making a case for it.

            >I am not endorsing Dutch radical criticism, although IMHO many modern critics
            >make similar assumptions about the processes and likely historical developments
            >that contributed to early Christianity as we know it from the NT and early Christian
            >literature. I would like to get a better idea of what kinds of issues spurred on the
            >likes of Loman, etc, without having to enroll in graduate school or learn how to
            >properly read ecclesiastical Latin.

            I only made the point about the Dutch radical criticism in assessing its likelihood
            of being translated. A lot of those works remained in Dutch and German and were
            never translated into English. Their main audience after the decline of the school
            is primarily only those scholars with a bent for the history of biblical criticism. I
            have a feeling grad school wouldn't help very much for learning more about them
            (many professors find the history of scholarship dreadful), but learning German,
            Dutch, and modern Latin and reading their works first-hand would.

            Stephen

            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
            Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Would Leudeman be any help in getting a handle on this work? Bob [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 11, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:01 PM 7/11/2009, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
              >On Jul 11, 2009 1:14 PM, "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:
              > >What I recall was looking at a web page by someone who owned a copy of the
              > >original and offered his opinion as to its "brilliance." My only
              > exposure has been
              > >the comments in Schweitzer, who faults them for only offering a hypothesis
              > >without arguing out their points in detail.
              >
              >My impression of Pierson & Naber is more that they show how the texts of
              >Paul (plus Acts and John) ought to be stratified based on their hypothesis,
              >rather than actually making a case for it.
              >
              > >I am not endorsing Dutch radical criticism, although IMHO many modern
              > critics
              > >make similar assumptions about the processes and likely historical
              > developments
              > >that contributed to early Christianity as we know it from the NT and
              > early Christian
              > >literature. I would like to get a better idea of what kinds of issues
              > spurred on the
              > >likes of Loman, etc, without having to enroll in graduate school or
              > learn how to
              > >properly read ecclesiastical Latin.
              >
              >I only made the point about the Dutch radical criticism in assessing its
              >likelihood
              >of being translated. A lot of those works remained in Dutch and German
              >and were
              >never translated into English. Their main audience after the decline of
              >the school
              >is primarily only those scholars with a bent for the history of biblical
              >criticism. I
              >have a feeling grad school wouldn't help very much for learning more about
              >them
              >(many professors find the history of scholarship dreadful), but learning
              >German,
              >Dutch, and modern Latin and reading their works first-hand would.
              >
              >Stephen

              Would Leudeman be any help in getting a handle on this work?

              Bob


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David C. Hindley
              You mean Gerd Luedemann? _Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity_ translated by M. Eugene Boring.(1989) _Paul, the founder of Christianity_ (2002) Or did
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 12, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                You mean Gerd Luedemann?

                _Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity_ translated by M. Eugene Boring.(1989)

                _Paul, the founder of Christianity_ (2002)

                Or did you mean Hermann L.?

                Dave Hindley

                --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
                >
                > Would Leudeman be any help in getting a handle on this work?
                >
                > Bob
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Bob Schacht
                ... No, I was thinking about Gerd, particularly since he did a Seminar with us a while back. Bob ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 12, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 11:52 AM 7/12/2009, David C. Hindley wrote:
                  >You mean Gerd Luedemann?
                  >
                  >_Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity_ translated by M. Eugene
                  >Boring.(1989)
                  >
                  >_Paul, the founder of Christianity_ (2002)

                  No, I was thinking about Gerd, particularly since he did a Seminar with us
                  a while back.

                  Bob


                  >Or did you mean Hermann L.?
                  >
                  >Dave Hindley
                  >
                  >--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Would Leudeman be any help in getting a handle on this work?
                  > >
                  > > Bob
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >------------------------------------
                  >
                  >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                  >
                  >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... Well, Gerd is much more conservative with the state of the text than Pierson and Naber. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 12, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Jul 12, 2009 6:32 PM, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
                    >No, I was thinking about Gerd, particularly since he did a Seminar with us
                    >a while back.

                    Well, Gerd is much more conservative with the state of the text than
                    Pierson and Naber.

                    Stephen

                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson
                    Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
                    Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
                  • Bob Schacht
                    ... That may be, but I m guessing that he is fluent in the language Pierson & Naber wrote in, and might be able to discuss honestly with us what they are
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 12, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 01:42 PM 7/12/2009, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                      >On Jul 12, 2009 6:32 PM, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
                      > >No, I was thinking about Gerd, particularly since he did a Seminar with us
                      > >a while back.
                      >
                      >Well, Gerd is much more conservative with the state of the text than
                      >Pierson and Naber.

                      That may be, but I'm guessing that he is fluent in the language Pierson &
                      Naber wrote in, and might be able to discuss honestly with us what they are
                      suggesting?

                      Bob


                      >Stephen
                      >
                      >--
                      >Stephen C. Carlson
                      >Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
                      >Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
                      >(Baylor, 2005)
                      >
                      >
                      >------------------------------------
                      >
                      >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                      >
                      >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >

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