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

Lucianic Recension

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    Three questions: 1. Can list members tell me what the state of the opinion now is on the question of the Lucianic recension of the NT? A glance at the Oxford
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 26, 2004
      Three questions:

      1. Can list members tell me what the state of the opinion now is on the
      question of the Lucianic recension of the NT? A glance at the Oxford
      Dictionary of the Christian Church shows that it still has vigour.

      But from what I gather, it appears to be something that is now being (or
      has been) abandoned by text critics. For instance, in "The Greek
      Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament" in Ehrman & Holmes, _The
      Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (S&D 46; Metzger FS;
      Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 45 n.6, Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel
      state,

      "We can no longer maintain without reservation the view that was still
      held by the present author (B. Aland) in _The Text of the New
      Testament_, 64-66, that the Koine text is to be attributed to a
      recension produced by Lucian. . . . "

      And Birdsall also rejects the view in his article on the NT text in the
      _Cambridge History of the Bible_.

      So is my impression correct? Is it the idea of a Lucianic recension
      going the way of the dinosaur?

      2. Does Metzger's position on the origin of the Koine/Byzantine text
      type hinge on the existence of a Lucianic recension?

      3. Has Metzger ever believed in -- and if so, does he still believe
      in -- a Lucianic recension? He seems to have on p, 212 of his TofNT.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey Gibson
      --

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

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

      jgibson000@...
    • Wieland Willker
      ... No. ... Certainly yes. 1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 26, 2004
        > Is it the idea of a Lucianic recension
        > going the way of the dinosaur?

        No.

        > 3. Has Metzger ever believed in -- and if so, does he still
        > believe in -- a Lucianic recension?

        Certainly yes.

        1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the
        name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface to the
        four Gospels and this is only about 70 years after Lucian's death. There
        was a recension of the Old and New testament which passed under the name
        Lucianea.
        This stated, we can come to the more difficult problem:

        2. Is the Lucianic recension the predecessor of the Byzantine text?

        Arguments in favor:
        - Jerome mentions that it was approved from Constantinopel to Antioch.
        - the time of its creation fits.
        - the recensional activity which we know from Lucianic LXX MSS is
        exactly of the kind which we also know from the Byz text: lucidity and
        completeness.

        Arguments against:
        - Why did Lucian's LXX recension fail to gain the same acceptance?
        Although portions esp. the Psalter became the official text of the
        Orthodox church.
        - Jerome speaks unfavorable about it, but this could be explained.

        I invite list members to add more items to the list.

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        ------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
      • sarban
        ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Textual Criticism Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:21 PM Subject: [textualcriticism] Lucianic Recension Three questions: 1.
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 26, 2004
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:21 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Lucianic Recension


          Three questions:

          1. Can list members tell me what the state of the opinion now is on the
          question of the Lucianic recension of the NT?  A glance at the Oxford
          Dictionary of the Christian Church shows that it still has vigour.

          But from what I gather, it appears to be something that is now being (or
          has been) abandoned by text critics.
           
          <SNIP>

          So is my impression correct? Is it the idea of a Lucianic recension
          going the way of the dinosaur?

          2.  Does Metzger's position on the origin of the Koine/Byzantine text
          type hinge on the existence of a Lucianic recension?

          One should IMO distinguish two issues
           
          a/ Is the early form of the Koine/Byzantine text
          of the NT the result of a revision around
          300 CE ?
           
          IMO this fits the available evidence, (the
          absence of evidence of this text type in the 3rd
          or earlier centuries and its widespread presence
          later on (the text of Chrysostom the text of the
          gothic version the text of the Peshitta, Codex
          Alexandrinus etc).
           
          b/ Is this revision the work of Lucian of
          Antioch ?
           
          There is little evidence of this (mainly an
          ambiguous statement by Jerome) and has always
          been a rather speculative idea.
           
          Andrew Criddle
           
           
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... Can you give me the details of this this passage in Jerome? Where within his preface may it be found? Yours, Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil.
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 26, 2004
             

            Wieland Willker wrote:

             
            > Is it the idea of a Lucianic recension
            > going the way of the dinosaur?

            No.

            > 3. Has Metzger ever believed in -- and if so, does he still
            > believe in -- a Lucianic recension?

            Certainly yes.

            1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the
            name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface to the
            four Gospels and this is only about 70 years after Lucian's death.

            Can you give me the details of this  this passage in Jerome?  Where within his preface may it be found?

            Yours,

            Jeffrey
            --

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

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

            jgibson000@...
             

          • Chris
            ... I thought Lucian s LXX did have wide acceptance.
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 26, 2004
              Wieland Willker wrote:

              >Arguments against:
              >- Why did Lucian's LXX recension fail to gain the same acceptance?
              >
              >

              I thought Lucian's LXX did have wide acceptance.
            • Dave Washburn
              ... Someone else said that Jerome s statement was ambiguous; what exactly did he say? The strongest argument I have seen against the idea that a recension by
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 26, 2004
                On Tuesday 26 October 2004 11:45, Wieland Willker wrote:
                > > Is it the idea of a Lucianic recension
                > > going the way of the dinosaur?
                >
                > No.
                >
                > > 3. Has Metzger ever believed in -- and if so, does he still
                > > believe in -- a Lucianic recension?
                >
                > Certainly yes.
                >
                > 1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the
                > name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface to the
                > four Gospels and this is only about 70 years after Lucian's death. There
                > was a recension of the Old and New testament which passed under the name
                > Lucianea.
                > This stated, we can come to the more difficult problem:
                >
                > 2. Is the Lucianic recension the predecessor of the Byzantine text?
                >
                > Arguments in favor:
                > - Jerome mentions that it was approved from Constantinopel to Antioch.
                > - the time of its creation fits.
                > - the recensional activity which we know from Lucianic LXX MSS is
                > exactly of the kind which we also know from the Byz text: lucidity and
                > completeness.
                >
                > Arguments against:
                > - Why did Lucian's LXX recension fail to gain the same acceptance?
                > Although portions esp. the Psalter became the official text of the
                > Orthodox church.
                > - Jerome speaks unfavorable about it, but this could be explained.
                >
                > I invite list members to add more items to the list.

                Someone else said that Jerome's statement was ambiguous; what exactly did he
                say?

                The strongest argument I have seen against the idea that a recension by Lucian
                became the "official" text of the Byzantine era is that Lucian was an Arian
                in an Athanasian age. Like some others I have read, I find it doubtful that
                a recension by an Arian would have caught on under such circumstances. But
                nothing in my personal views of textual criticism hinges on this question, so
                for me it's pretty much academic.

                --
                Dave Washburn
                http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                "No good. Hit on head." -Gronk
              • Wieland Willker
                ... Well to a certain extent only. It had Origen s Hexapla as a strong competitor. But I am no expert on this. ... within his preface may it be found? Jerome
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 27, 2004
                  "Chris" <chris@...> wrote:
                  > I thought Lucian's LXX did have wide acceptance.

                  Well to a certain extent only. It had Origen's Hexapla as a strong
                  competitor. But I am no expert on this.


                  J. Gibson wrote:
                  > Can you give me the details of this this passage in Jerome? > Where
                  within his preface may it be found?

                  Jerome writes:
                  "Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant, quibus;
                  tot enim sunt exemplaria quot pene codices. Sin autem veritas est
                  quaerenda de pluribus, cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes, ea quae
                  vel a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, vel a praesumptoribus imperitis
                  emendata perversius, vel a librariis dormientibus aut addita sunt, aut
                  mutata, corrigimus ? Neque ego de Veteri dispute Testamento. ... De Novo
                  nunc loquor Testamento: quod Graecum esse non dubium est. ... Hoc certe
                  quum in nostro sermone discordat, et diversos rivulorum tramites ducit,
                  uno de fonte quaerendum est. Praetermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et
                  Hesychio nuncupates, paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio: quibus
                  utique nec in Veteri Instrumento post septuaginta interpretes emendare
                  quid licuit, nec in novo profuit emendasse: quum multarum gentium
                  linguis Scriptura ante translata, doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt.
                  Igitur haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quattuor tantum
                  evangelia, quorum ordo est iste, Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas, Johannes,
                  codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum."


                  Dave Washburn wrote:
                  > The strongest argument I have seen against the idea that a
                  > recension by Lucian became the "official" text of the Byzantine
                  > era is that Lucian was an Arian in an Athanasian age.

                  That is true.
                  It might be the reason for several rather unfavorable statements about
                  Lucian and his text (e.g. Jerome, Decretum Gelasium etc.).

                  It should be stressed that the evidence about all this is very slim. It
                  may be that Lucian's recension lead to the Byzantine text, but it is
                  also possible that this was not so. It is also possible that there where
                  several smaller recension steps or that his name has been mixed up with
                  something else.
                  Can the Byz text be explained without a recension?
                  I am not sure, the Muenster team now promotes a continuous development
                  model, but this is based on the Catholic Letters only, where the
                  situation is quite different to the Gospels. This model avoids the
                  problem of an insufficiently attested recension. But is has the new
                  problem to explain the rather abrupt appearance of a text in the late
                  3rd/early 4th CE which had already about 80-90% of the known Byz
                  readings.
                  In the Gospels I still think that some kind of recension best explains
                  the evidence, which created the base text of A, K, Pi etc. with about
                  75-90% of all Byz readings. But this is an extremely difficult question,
                  which needs much more study.

                  I agree with Jim Snapp when he wrote: "I think that in the Byzantine
                  Text, several ancient text-channels converge, with the result that its
                  unique readings should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, rather than
                  be collectively dismissed as Hort recommended."
                  This was also the view of Metzger, who thought that the starting base of
                  the Byzantine text was the old Antiochian text, current there from the
                  earliest times. He thinks that there are several readings unique to the
                  Byz text which are not necessarily correct, but at least older than any
                  possible recension.

                  "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few ..."

                  Best wishes
                  Wieland
                  <><
                  ------------------------------------------------
                  Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                  mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                  http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                  Textcritical commentary:
                  http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                • sarban
                  ... From: Dave Washburn To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Lucianic Recension
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 27, 2004
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:54 AM
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Lucianic Recension


                    <SNIP>

                    The strongest argument I have seen against the idea that a recension by Lucian
                    became the "official" text of the Byzantine era is that Lucian was an Arian
                    in an Athanasian age.  Like some others I have read, I find it doubtful that
                    a recension by an Arian would have caught on under such circumstances. 
                     
                    Lucian died as a martyr in c 312 
                     
                    The Arian controversy begins around 318
                     
                    Arius appealed to his status as a pupil of Lucian in defence of
                    his (Arius's) ideas and the Dedication Creed of Antioch in 341
                    (which was intended as a replacement of the creed of Nicaea 325
                    and is at least more sympathetic to Arian ideas than is the Nicene
                    creed) was claimed to be based on a creed of Lucian.
                     
                    The real teaching of Lucian is extremely obscure although almost
                    certainly unorthodox by later standards of orthodoxy (Lucian was
                    almost certainly in later categories 'Apollinarian' whether or not he
                    was 'Arian')
                     
                    Hostility to a NT edition attributed to Lucian on the ground of
                    Lucian's heterodoxy would not be expected IMO before the late
                    4th century if at all.
                     
                    Andrew Criddle
                  • Peter M. Head
                    The (so-called) Lucianic recension (which certainly exists as a distinct text-type in the LXX prophets, whether or not Lucian himself was involved/responsible)
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 27, 2004
                      The (so-called) Lucianic recension (which certainly exists as a distinct text-type in the LXX prophets, whether or not Lucian himself was involved/responsible) was used by various church fathers. I can't give other details off the top of my head, but I came across this clearly in John of Damascus recently in connection with a small fragment of Jeremiah in Greek, which is clearly aligned to the 'Lucianic' Recension group.

                      For Metzger see:
                      B.M. Metzger, 'The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible', Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTS 4; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 1-41.
                      For the Jeremiah fragment see:
                      �A New Manuscript of Jeremiah in Greek according to the Lucianic Recension (de Hamel MS 391; Rahlfs 897)� Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 36 (2003), 27-37.

                      Cheers

                      Peter
                       At 08:51 AM 10/27/04 +1000, you wrote:


                      Wieland Willker wrote:

                      >Arguments against:
                      >- Why did Lucian's LXX recension fail to gain the same acceptance?

                      >

                      I thought Lucian's LXX did have wide acceptance.







                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                      $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
                      http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GuTslB/TM
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                       
                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                       

                      Peter M. Head, PhD
                      Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                      Tyndale House
                      36 Selwyn Gardens                                             Phone: (UK) 01223 566607
                      Cambridge, CB3 9BA                                            Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                      http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm

                    • Minton, Ron
                      My view is that the freedom to communicate after Constantine, allowed churches to compare stuff, including the text. Before, there was frequent persecution
                      Message 10 of 11 , Oct 29, 2004
                        My view is that the freedom to communicate after Constantine, allowed
                        churches to compare stuff, including the text. Before, there was frequent
                        persecution and less communication, resulting in the chaos that is obvious
                        in the extant papyri. The communication finally allowed a correction of the
                        text, and that not just by one group of churches. If this is considered a
                        recension, I believe there was one. I consider it only a correction, an
                        effort that would continue for centuries.

                        Prof. Ron Minton
                        Capital Bible Seminary
                        6511 Princess Garden Pkwy
                        Lanham, MD 20706
                        W 240-387-1274
                        C 240-432-8925
                        H 301-918-1792
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Wieland Willker [mailto:willker@...-bremen.de]
                        Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:46 PM
                        To: Textualcriticism List
                        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Lucianic Recension



                        > Is it the idea of a Lucianic recension
                        > going the way of the dinosaur?

                        No.

                        > 3. Has Metzger ever believed in -- and if so, does he still
                        > believe in -- a Lucianic recension?

                        Certainly yes.

                        1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the
                        name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface to the
                        four Gospels and this is only about 70 years after Lucian's death. There
                        was a recension of the Old and New testament which passed under the name
                        Lucianea.
                        This stated, we can come to the more difficult problem:

                        2. Is the Lucianic recension the predecessor of the Byzantine text?

                        Arguments in favor:
                        - Jerome mentions that it was approved from Constantinopel to Antioch.
                        - the time of its creation fits.
                        - the recensional activity which we know from Lucianic LXX MSS is
                        exactly of the kind which we also know from the Byz text: lucidity and
                        completeness.

                        Arguments against:
                        - Why did Lucian's LXX recension fail to gain the same acceptance?
                        Although portions esp. the Psalter became the official text of the
                        Orthodox church.
                        - Jerome speaks unfavorable about it, but this could be explained.

                        I invite list members to add more items to the list.

                        Best wishes
                        Wieland
                        <><
                        ------------------------
                        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
                        Textcritical commentary:
                        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html








                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Schmuel
                        Hi textualcriticism, Wieland ... Jeffrey ... Schmuel Hi Jeffrey, here are the Preface words, first with the Philip Schaff footnote, which also alludes to the
                        Message 11 of 11 , Nov 1, 2004
                          Hi textualcriticism,

                          Wieland
                          >>1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface to the four Gospels and this is only about 70 years after Lucian's death.

                          Jeffrey
                          >Can you give me the details of this this passage in Jerome? Where within his preface may it be found?

                          Schmuel
                          Hi Jeffrey, here are the Preface words, first with the Philip Schaff footnote,
                          which also alludes to the Preface to Chronicles. The Lucian reference there
                          is a tad terse and crytpic from our perspective.
                          http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-20.htm
                          http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN305/jerome1.html
                          "we must go back to the fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons" .(7)

                          "It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labours of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false.

                          Following the Schaaf footnote above
                          [7] Lucian in Syria and Hesychius in Egypt attempted their recensions about the middle of the third century, the time when Origen also began to labour in the same direction. Lucian's recension, also called the Constantinopolitan, and to which the Slavonian and Gothic versions belong, spread over Asia Minor and Thrace. See the Preface to the Chronicles. It was decreed by a council held under Pope Gelasius in 494, that "the Gospels which Lucian and Hesychius falsified are apocryphal."

                          ===
                          Fountainhead = Greek manuscripts
                          Lucian and Hesychius are also referenced there in regard to the GOT

                          The Preface to the Chronicles are mentioned
                          http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm#P8020_2606771

                          The only quote I have found is ..Denny Diehl on b-Greek
                          http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-January/003301.html
                          Jerome makes mention of three different versions of the Septuagint in Preface To Chronicles:
                          "Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr, the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the MSS which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilius on the basis of Origen's
                          labors, and the whole world is divided among these three varieties of texts."

                          =============================================================

                          Some differences in translation of the Preface - Kevin P. Edgecomb,
                          http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_gospels.htm
                          it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. I pass over those books which are called by the name of Lucian and Hesychius, for which a few men wrongly claim authority, who anyway were not allowed to revise either in the Old Instrument after the Seventy Translators, or to pour out revisions in the New; with the Scriptures previously translated into the languages of many nations, the additions may now be shown to be false.
                          =================================================================
                          A more traditional earlier textcrit Lucian Recension view is given online in some depth in

                          http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch5.htm#II
                          THE FOUR GOSPELS A STUDY OF ORIGINS THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION, SOURCES, AUTHORSHIP, & DATES BY BURNETT HILLMAN STREETER - 1924.
                          .....It is stated in the Menologies­short accounts of a Saint for reading on his day­that Lucian bequeathed his pupils a copy of the Old and New Testaments written in three columns in his own hand. .... Jerome, who had himself studied in both these cities before 380, expressly says that these Churches used the revised text of Lucian, (reference to Antioch and Constantinople)....The contention that the Byzantine text is an essentially revised text­following sometimes one, sometimes another of the earlier texts­made in or near Antioch about 300, was the foundation-stone of Westcott and Hort's theory of the textual criticism of the New Testament.

                          ===================================================================
                          Ron Minton
                          > My view is that the freedom to communicate after Constantine, allowed churches to compare stuff,
                          > including the text. Before, there was frequent persecution and less communication, resulting in the
                          > chaos that is obvious in the extant papyri. The communication finally allowed a correction of the
                          > text, and that not just by one group of churches. If this is considered a recension, I believe there
                          > was one. I consider it only a correction, an effort that would continue for centuries.

                          Schmuel
                          While I am not sure if this can be taken as a carte blanche understanding of the extent of persecution (outside of Jewish first century persecution, was persecution particularly wide-ranging ? -- how wide were even the Diocletian persecutions?) the basic point seems very strong. Especially since the 'proto-Byzantine' readings are now acknowledged, which was apparently not acknowledged or fully known when the recenscion theory was first promulgated.

                          One could also point to Jerome's work as being possible due to the same relative calm and improved communication -- of course we do not necessarily have to consider every attempt at correction as being equally well done :-) In Jerome's case there were other factors, eg. while the OT was a fairly independent work, the NT was done specifically for the Bishop of Rome.

                          Shalom,
                          Steven Avery,
                          Queens, NY


                          schmuel@...

                          Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.