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

Re: [XTalk] English translation of Pierson & Naber's _Verisimilia_?

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