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

Re: [textualcriticism] Abbreviation Help in Elliott's Bibliography

Expand Messages
  • John McChesney-Young
    Perplexing, isn t it? Even with corrections, the numbers don t work for _Vivarium_, _Vetera Christianorum_, or _Vox Romanica_ either, and although they came
    Message 1 of 16 , May 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Perplexing, isn't it? Even with corrections, the numbers don't work
      for _Vivarium_, _Vetera Christianorum_, or _Vox Romanica_ either, and
      although they came closer with _Vita Latina_ (Avignon), it's off by
      enough that even disregarding the topical incongruity it seems out of
      the running. Perhaps writing directly to the author would be the best
      approach:

      http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/staff/keith_elliott.htm

      John

      ***

      "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> asked:

      >In J. K. Elliott's Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts
      >(SNTSMS 109; 2d ed., 2000), he cites reference for MS 2537 (p. 231)
      >as VV 23 (1963) p. 190. Unfortunately, after scanning his lengthy
      >list of abbreviations, I've been able to spot how to resolve VV as
      >an abbreviation. It does not appear to be a typo for VC (Vigiliae
      >Christianae) or VT (Vetus Testamentum) because of the volume numbers
      >would match the year differently.

      --


      *** John McChesney-Young ** panis~at~pacbell.net ** Berkeley,
      California, U.S.A. ***
    • Larry Swain
      ... Not really. Do recall that it is Eusebius who tells us explicitly that Papias did not hear John son of Zebedee, but rather John the Elder, a different
      Message 2 of 16 , May 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        >
        > Much of this is tied to the tradfitionalist belief that Yohanan bar
        > Zebedy wrote GJohn (which he did not)

        Not really. Do recall that it is Eusebius who tells us explicitly that Papias did not hear John son of Zebedee, but rather John the Elder, a different person entirely. But Eusebius is also quite clear throughout his discussion of the origins of the gospels that John of Zebedee did in fact write that fourth gospel, the letter (I JOhn certainly), and even the Apocalypse. I. e. what Papias said does have impact on the Johannine question, but can be discussed quite apart from it as well: and how one answers one side (did Papias hear from disciples of John of Zeb? Did John of Zeb write the gospel?) of the problem in no way resolves or addresses the other side of the problem. Traditionally perhaps this has not been so, but it seems to me to be a logical necessity.




        --
        _______________________________________________
        Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
        Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

        Powered by Outblaze
      • Bart Ehrman
        Thanks James, and thanks to Larry Swain for his response as well. I think the issues are pretty clear; and I have a sneaking suspicion that I m not going to
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks James, and thanks to Larry Swain for his response as well. I
          think the issues are pretty clear; and I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm
          not going to convince either of you! But probably this discussion isn't all
          that relevant to t-c (or Judas); so if people want to pursue the matter and
          see what positions are available, I'd suggest they simply read the
          literature.

          Best,

          -- Bart Ehrman

          Bart D. Ehrman
          James A. Gray Professor
          Department of Religious Studies
          University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



          -----Original Message-----
          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
          Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:55 PM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [textualcriticism] G-Judas and the Significance of Papias

          Dear Dr. Ehrman:

          Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait for
          others to chime in:

          Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is it
          realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
          component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really answer
          the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
          considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the first-
          second centuries?".)

          The question about the date of Papias is fairly relevant to NTTC, so
          I will focus especially on it. You said that R.H. Gundry's date for
          Papias (101-108) "probably isn't plausible." Why do you think it
          probably isn't plausible?

          BDE: "What Papias says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew.
          Does what he say about Mark apply to our Mark?"

          Papias was completely capable of having read a Matthean Saying-
          Source kind of document, without encountering the Gospel of Matthew
          as we know it. (This gets more difficult to maintain the later the
          date assigned to Papias is.) Considering the difference between
          what Papias says about the demise of Judas Iscariot, and what the
          Gospel of Matthew says about it, it seems fair, to me, to conclude
          that Papias had not read the Gospel of Matthew when he wrote about
          the demise of Judas Iscariot.

          The idea that Papias did not encounter the Gospel of Mark is a
          different fish. The statement that Mark "wrote as much as he
          remembered" is almost immediately clarified by the statement that
          Peter had delivered the teachings anecdotally, not systematically;
          no one could read the whole statement and expect the Gospel of Mark
          to be an exhaustive account. So this objection is a rather tenuous
          foundation on which to build any sort of case for the idea that the
          Elder was referring to some very large Proto-Mark rather than the
          Gospel of Mark.

          (New question: in Papias' report of the Elder's statement, as
          recorded by Eusebius, "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's
          interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered," is the "he"
          Peter, or Mark?)

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
          Curtisville Christian Church
          Indiana (USA)
          www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html












          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • g_gardner1234
          I posted this earlier to the group but it did not come up. If this turns out to be a double post, I apologize. ... Bart, After our last discussion on this
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I posted this earlier to the group but it did not come up. If this
            turns out to be a double post, I apologize.

            James Sapp stated:

            > > Dear Dr. Ehrman:
            > > Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait
            for others to chime in:

            > > Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is
            > >it realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
            > > component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really
            > > answer the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
            > > considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the
            > > first-second centuries?".)

            Bart,

            After our last discussion on this forum, I purposely acquired some of
            your work on loan. My logic being, that if I was going to discuss it
            any further, I should, at the very least make that attempt to read a
            cross section of your writing. In your book "The Orthodox Corruption
            of Scripture" and your version written with the layman in mind
            "Misquoting Jesus", I do agree that your observations on the occurence
            of textual variants are in fact correct. It is your conclusions that I
            disagree with, but that is another topic possibly for later
            discussion. I am currently reading "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene."
            In your book, I once again get the feeling that you are trying to
            validate the gnostic writings as somehow being Christian. This seems
            to be a concept that is also put forth by Elaine Pagels, Marvin Meyer,
            and others in their books and interviews. Once again my question is,
            if one can review the gnostic gospels as Christian writings, then why
            wouldn't the Talmud, Toldoth Yeshu, Quran, Jewish mystical writings
            such as the Zohar, and even various documents with a satanic overtone
            such as the book of shadows, that talks about Jesus (in a negative
            light of course) also fall under this category? Let's do a quick
            comparison using the Gospel of Judas, since that is the topic of this
            thread. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus is mentioned approximately 21
            times. In the Quran, Jesus is mentioned in approximately 51 passages,
            and there is a complete chapter (Sura Maryam) dedicated to Mary, which
            even discusses the virgin birth. Both documents demonstrate the belief
            that Jesus is a messenger sent by God, so what is the difference then?
            I think that you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim that would
            agree that the Quran is a Christian document, so then what is the
            criteria? It would be equally hard to find a Christian, who's belief
            is based on orthodoxy to agree that the GOJ is a Christian document as
            well. (IMO)

            Bart, it is my understanding that you once were a student of Christian
            orthodoxy, but because of doubt created by your study of the variants
            in Greek mss, you decided to alter your original course. Far be it for
            me to judge another man's belief, but I guess my concern, is that it
            almost appears to me at times that you now have sort of an axe to
            grind with orthodox Christianity, which could possibly have the effect
            of coloring one's objectivity or neutrality in respect to
            interpretation. Sometimes your work appears to me as almost a subtle
            attempt to dismantle orthodoxy, or at least blur the lines by creating
            grey areas using the gnostic writings to assist in the "shading"
            techniques. I wonder how this same technique would be received by the
            adherents of Judaism, or by those of the Muslim faith if it was
            applied by you to the writings of those faiths?


            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Thanks James, and thanks to Larry Swain for his response as well. I
            > think the issues are pretty clear; and I have a sneaking suspicion
            that I'm
            > not going to convince either of you! But probably this discussion
            isn't all
            > that relevant to t-c (or Judas); so if people want to pursue the
            matter and
            > see what positions are available, I'd suggest they simply read the
            > literature.
            >
            > Best,
            >
            > -- Bart Ehrman
            >
            > Bart D. Ehrman
            > James A. Gray Professor
            > Department of Religious Studies
            > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
            >
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
            > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:55 PM
            > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [textualcriticism] G-Judas and the Significance of Papias
            >
            > Dear Dr. Ehrman:
            >
            > Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait for
            > others to chime in:
            >
            > Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is it
            > realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
            > component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really answer
            > the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
            > considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the first-
            > second centuries?".)
            >
            > The question about the date of Papias is fairly relevant to NTTC, so
            > I will focus especially on it. You said that R.H. Gundry's date for
            > Papias (101-108) "probably isn't plausible." Why do you think it
            > probably isn't plausible?
            >
            > BDE: "What Papias says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew.
            > Does what he say about Mark apply to our Mark?"
            >
            > Papias was completely capable of having read a Matthean Saying-
            > Source kind of document, without encountering the Gospel of Matthew
            > as we know it. (This gets more difficult to maintain the later the
            > date assigned to Papias is.) Considering the difference between
            > what Papias says about the demise of Judas Iscariot, and what the
            > Gospel of Matthew says about it, it seems fair, to me, to conclude
            > that Papias had not read the Gospel of Matthew when he wrote about
            > the demise of Judas Iscariot.
            >
            > The idea that Papias did not encounter the Gospel of Mark is a
            > different fish. The statement that Mark "wrote as much as he
            > remembered" is almost immediately clarified by the statement that
            > Peter had delivered the teachings anecdotally, not systematically;
            > no one could read the whole statement and expect the Gospel of Mark
            > to be an exhaustive account. So this objection is a rather tenuous
            > foundation on which to build any sort of case for the idea that the
            > Elder was referring to some very large Proto-Mark rather than the
            > Gospel of Mark.
            >
            > (New question: in Papias' report of the Elder's statement, as
            > recorded by Eusebius, "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's
            > interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered," is the "he"
            > Peter, or Mark?)
            >
            > Yours in Christ,
            >
            > James Snapp, Jr.
            > Curtisville Christian Church
            > Indiana (USA)
            > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            Thanks to all who responded on my query. It is the case that VV = Vizantiiskii vremennik. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks to all who responded on my query.

              It is the case that VV = Vizantiiskii vremennik.

              Stephen
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
              Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.