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

tc-list Re: The James M. Robinson debate about Matt. 6.28 and par.

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Did Skeat himself make the latter suggestion as well as the former? He may well have done -- I have not checked his article -- but Fitzmyer, who prefers
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 31 6:32 AM
      Dr. Ulrich Schmid wrote:

      > Let's sum up:
      > 1) We are dealing here with a conjectural emendation by the scribe of
      > 01 (in Skeat's view) plus a conjecture made by Skeat to fill in a
      > lacuna in P.Oxy. 655 (as part of the Gospel of Thomas = GT).

      Did Skeat himself make the latter suggestion as well as the former? He may well
      have done -- I have not checked his article -- but Fitzmyer, who prefers the
      reconstruct HATI[NA A]UXANEI, attributes the reconstruction to R. A. Kraft,
      "Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 655 Reconsidered", _HTR 54 (1961), pp. 253-262 (pp.
      258-9). In an ealier exchange on Robinson's article on the Gospel of Thomas list,
      Sytze van der Laan noted that this reconstruction was also proposed by Bartlet
      (1905), Taylor (1906) and Michelsen (1909) -- for full references see his
      comprehensive Gospel of Thomas bibliography.

      > 2)
      > Correct me, if I'm wrong. But, out of the four copies of GT only one
      > gives us a hint to speculate about the XAINW-reading. Oddly enough,
      > the hint is a dammaged portion of text. Would you call that
      > substantial evidence that GT ever contained the reading under
      > discussion?

      This point lacks force because only one of "the four copies of GT" contains the
      *sentence* in question -- so we have nothing within the Thomas tradition with
      which to compare this reconstruction. P Oxy 655 is the fragment featuring the
      words in question; P Oxy 654 and 1 do not cover the same material and Coptic
      Thomas has a much shorter version of Logion 36.

      > 3) Let's assume for a moment that one copy of GT might
      > have given the XAINW-reading. How likely is ist to assume that the
      > mentioned reading was transmitted faithfully within the textual
      > transmission of GT, considering (a) the dramatically unstable textual
      > transmission of GT when compared to Mt, Mk, and Lk, and (b) the clear
      > signs of influence from the canonical Gospels on GT (by the fourth
      > century GT was already transmitted with the title borrowed from the
      > canonical Gospels = Gospel _according_ to Thomas)? I'm left with
      > puzzling questions: Is there undisputable evidence that GT exerted any
      > other influence on fourth century scribes of Gospel manuscripts (by
      > now we have only evidence of the reverse)? Is there any chance that a
      > possible XAINW-reading at some point within the fluid textual
      > transmission of GT might go back to a written source anterior to GT's
      > initial composition?

      If I have understood Robinson (and Heil's) thesis, isn't that the point, that Thomas
      and Q shared a Vorlage that featured the words OU XAINEI? Thomas (P Oxy
      655) witnesses directly to the Vorlage while Q is held to have made a scribal
      error, misreading the words as AUXANEI.

      Mark
      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      The New Testament Gateway
      Mark Without Q
      Aseneth Home Page
    • U.B.Schmid
      ... To be honest, I don t know. My point simply was that we are dealing here with conjectures, i.e. a conjecture made by the scribe of 01 in Skeat s view
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 1, 1999
        Mark Goodacre wrote:
        > Dr. Ulrich Schmid wrote:
        >
        > > Let's sum up:
        > > 1) We are dealing here with a conjectural emendation by the scribe of
        > > 01 (in Skeat's view) plus a conjecture made by Skeat to fill in a
        > > lacuna in P.Oxy. 655 (as part of the Gospel of Thomas = GT).
        >
        > Did Skeat himself make the latter suggestion as well as the former?

        To be honest, I don't know. My point simply was that we are dealing here with
        conjectures, i.e. a conjecture made by the scribe of 01 in Skeat's view
        (according to Robinson), and a conjecture in P. Oxy. 655 supported by some.

        > > 2)
        > > Correct me, if I'm wrong. But, out of the four copies of GT only one
        > > gives us a hint to speculate about the XAINW-reading. Oddly enough,
        > > the hint is a dammaged portion of text. Would you call that
        > > substantial evidence that GT ever contained the reading under
        > > discussion?
        >
        > This point lacks force because only one of "the four copies of GT" contains
        > the
        > *sentence* in question -- so we have nothing within the Thomas tradition with
        > which to compare this reconstruction. P Oxy 655 is the fragment featuring
        > the
        > words in question; P Oxy 654 and 1 do not cover the same material and Coptic
        > Thomas has a much shorter version of Logion 36.

        I probably gave a confusing presentation of my case. What I indended to argue
        was as follows:
        Robinson brought up the number "four" apparently to illustrate the wide
        dissemination of GT which enhances the probability that the scribe of 01 made
        contact with the (conjectured) reading of GT. It is, of course, Robinson's point
        that lacks force, because the only copy of GT to compare P. Oxy. 655 with, i.e.
        Coptic Thomas, lacks this part of the logion, as you already indicated.
        My main point is the confusing textual history of GT which becomes apparent when
        comparing the Greek fragments with the Coptic text. This is especially odd for
        logion 36, for this very logion apparently was not preserved in its integrity
        throughout the entire textual history of GT. To put it boldly: Arguing on the
        basis of "four copies" of GT for a wide dissemination of the conjectured
        *reading* in P. Oxy. 655 is deeply misleading.

        > > 3) Let's assume for a moment that one copy of GT might
        > > have given the XAINW-reading. How likely is ist to assume that the
        > > mentioned reading was transmitted faithfully within the textual
        > > transmission of GT, considering (a) the dramatically unstable textual
        > > transmission of GT when compared to Mt, Mk, and Lk, and (b) the clear
        > > signs of influence from the canonical Gospels on GT (by the fourth
        > > century GT was already transmitted with the title borrowed from the
        > > canonical Gospels = Gospel _according_ to Thomas)? I'm left with
        > > puzzling questions: Is there undisputable evidence that GT exerted any
        > > other influence on fourth century scribes of Gospel manuscripts (by
        > > now we have only evidence of the reverse)? Is there any chance that a
        > > possible XAINW-reading at some point within the fluid textual
        > > transmission of GT might go back to a written source anterior to GT's
        > > initial composition?
        >
        > If I have understood Robinson (and Heil's) thesis, isn't that the point, that
        > Thomas
        > and Q shared a Vorlage that featured the words OU XAINEI? Thomas (P Oxy
        > 655) witnesses directly to the Vorlage while Q is held to have made a scribal
        > error, misreading the words as AUXANEI.

        Let's rephrase the (rhetorical) questions of my previous post. Given the
        unstable textual history of GT, especially for logion 36 (see above), I would
        argue as follows:
        1. The extant textual transmission of GT strongly suggests that the
        XAINW-reading, had it once existed, has not seen wide dissemination (see above).
        Therefore, this reading is a very poor example of GT influence on scribes of
        Gospel manuscripts. I would like to see more and better examples of that kind in
        order to enhance the probability for the XAINW-reading.
        2. On the other hand, we do have evidence that GT, at least the Coptic version,
        has been subjected to influence from the canonical Gospels. Therefore, we can't
        even be sure, that the XAINW-reading, had it once existed within the textual
        transmission of GT, belonged to the earliest version of GT, let alone to a
        written source anterior to GT.
        One could argue the reverse as well: Logion 36 of GT has been subjected to
        influence from the canonical tradition (Mt 6:28), since 01* testifies to the
        reading that could have stood in P. Oxy. 655.


        ------------------------------------------
        Dr. Ulrich Schmid
        U.B.Schmid@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.