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

Re: [Synoptic-L] hypothesizing and difficulties

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/2/2000 7:14:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
    Message 1 of 73 , May 2 5:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/2/2000 7:14:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      brian@... writes:

      << Thus the
      number two in some places in Greek manuscripts of the synoptic gospels
      is written in full as the complete word DUO, and in other places is
      represented by only one cipher letter, the single letter B, with
      superscript line. (A number in cipher form in Greek was frequently given
      a superscript line.) >>

      Brian, a couple of questions occur to me as I read these lines, to which
      perhaps you, better than anyone, might have an answer:

      1. Are there cases in which, in parallel passages, one evangelist has, say,
      DUO, with fair consistency in the manuscript tradition, and another B, also
      with some consistency?

      2. Would it ever be possible to argue that the original text of a given
      evangelist plausibly had either the fully written number or the cipher?

      3. On the assumption (which you will pardon, I trust, for the sake of the
      discussion) that one evangelist knew and used the work of another, could a
      case be made for a text, of two parallel texts, that carries the cipher
      (where its parallel carries the fully written number) being less (or more)
      original than the parallel?

      4. In general, do you believe that the use of ciphers was original in the NT
      documents, or that it took place only at the stage of manuscript copying?

      Leonard Maluf
    • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
      This discussion of whether New Testament documents were written on scrolls or codices has gone on for a long time (among a small number of participants). Most
      Message 73 of 73 , May 19 11:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        This discussion of whether New Testament documents were written on scrolls
        or codices has gone on for a long time (among a small number of
        participants). Most of us have lost track of the significance of the
        discussion for understanding the synoptic gospels. It seems to me that
        exchanges such as the one below are becoming more frequent in this thread
        and add little of substance to our work together.

        I'd like to remind you of our purpose. "Synoptic-L is an academic list
        devoted to scholarly discussion of the Synoptic Gospels. Its purpose is to
        provide a forum for questions relating to the exegesis of Matthew, Mark and
        / or Luke, using and analysing the standard critical tools and methods,
        with a special emphasis on the interrelationships among the Synoptics."
        While I agree with Mark Goodacre that we often need to "lighten up a bit"
        and not take ourselves too seriously, and while I certainly think that a
        little banter now and then is a good thing, there comes a point when we
        need to recognize, especially in a thread that has gone on this long, that
        one should ask, "do my comments here make a serious contribution to the
        ongoing discussion for which this list has been created?" Remember that you
        are asking hundreds of colleagues to devote some their time to reading what
        you have written.

        I'd like to ask that colleagues pause a moment before "firing off"
        responses such as these, perhaps to raise the kind of questions that I do
        above.

        Thomas R. W. Longstaff
        Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
        Colby College, Waterville, ME 04901 USA
        Member of the Advisory Committee of Synoptic-L


        At 06:21 PM 5/19/00 +0100, Jacob Knee wrote:
        >I hypothesize that Philemon was written on a roll. Which fact disconfirms
        >this hypothesis.
        >
        >Jacob Knee
        >(Boston, England)
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: owner-synoptic-l@... [mailto:owner-synoptic-l@...]On
        > > Behalf Of Brian E. Wilson
        > > Sent: 19 May 2000 11:29
        > > To: Synoptic-L@...
        > > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Philemon
        > >
        > >
        >
        > > You also state that "the burden of proof is on the one with the
        > > extraordinary hypothesis to come up with the clear and convincing
        > > evidence". I think this is the most revealing statement you make. There
        > > is no burden of proof on anyone. Proof enters nowhere whatsoever into
        > > this matter. The idea that Paul wrote Philemon on a codex is a
        > > **hypothesis**. If you want to shoot down a hypothesis there is one, and
        > > only one way of doing so. That is to point to an observed phenomenon
        > > which is a difficulty for the hypothesis. I am still waiting for you to
        > > point to such an observed phenomenon.
        > >
        > > Best wishes,
        > > BRIAN WILSON
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.