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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Didymus, Trinitate II:12, and Mk. 16:15-16

Expand Messages
  • A. Dirkzwager
    Dear all, I don t want to interfere in the discussion, but only make some things clear about the use of capitals in Latin book titles. The word de means
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 19, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear all,

      I don't want to interfere in the discussion, but only make some things
      clear about the use of capitals in Latin book titles.

      The word 'de' means 'about', 'on'. It was used by the Romans very often
      in book titles where we wouldn't use it. We would write e.g. 'Trinity',
      not 'On Trinity'. The Greeks used 'peri' likewise.
      In Latin the omission of the preposition 'de' before 'trinitate' gives a
      weird impression, because 'trinitate' is an ablative depending of the
      preposition 'de'. The word without declension would be trinitas.
      In English the first word and the substantives of a book title are
      written with capitals. Americans are using still more capitals. In other
      European languages only the first word of a book title is written with a
      capital (and names of course).
      The Romans had only capitals.

      So we can find different customs.
      Some prefer to write Latin titles without capitals (no distinction, like
      in Roman times) - except for names.
      Others are using a capital in the first word and in names.
      Still others are using capitals in substantives, but certainly not in
      prepositions.

      Arie

      A. Dirkzwager
      Hoeselt, Belgium
    • James Snapp, Jr.
      I ve acquired Hanson s Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. (Now if only someone else would track down Alasdair Heron s 1989 essay for comparison.)
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 21, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I've acquired Hanson's "Search for the Christian Doctrine of God."
        (Now if only someone else would track down Alasdair Heron's 1989
        essay for comparison.) Here are the problems with a Didymian
        (Didymite? Didymusian?) authorship of De Trinitate, which are
        mentioned on pp. 653-658 (most of which seem to have been formulated
        by a Franch-writing scholar named Doutreleau; Hanson sums up
        Doutreleau's points), accompanied by some thoughts about possible
        problems with the problems.

        (1) The author of De Trinitate III:16, when commenting on I Tim.
        5:6, refers to his previous work on the Holy Spirit, but in
        Didymus' "On the Holy Spirit," as preserved and translated by Jerome,
        there is no exposition of I Tim. 5:6.

        (I Tim. 5:6 says, "But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she
        lives." Does the author of De Trinitate explicitly say that he
        commented on I Tim. 5:6 in his work on the Holy Spirit, or does he
        just say something like, "For my earlier comments about this sort of
        thing, see my comments in my treatise on the Holy Spirit"? Is there
        anything in Didymus' "On the Holy Spirit" that, while not explicitly
        quoting I Tim. 5:6, could be considered to be thematically related to
        it? And, did Jerome translate the entire work?)

        (2) The author of De Trinitate refers to the "Macedonians," but
        in "On the Holy Spirit," Didymus refers to this group of heretics as
        the "Pneumatomachians."

        (Could Jerome have taken slight liberties with the text of "On the
        Holy Spirit" so as to refer to this group by a name which he
        considered more appropriate than "Macedonians"? -- Also, the
        nomenclature by which some heretics were described back then may have
        drifted similarly to such nomenclature today ("Mormons" vs.
        LDS; "Jehovah's Witnesses" vs. Watchtower Society). An author may
        arbitrarily use either one on different occasions.)

        (3) "Jerome in his account of Didymus does not mention a work on the
        Trinity by him, though De Trinitate must have been written fairly
        soon after 381 and Jerome visited Didymus in 386."

        (In ch. 109 of Viris Illustribus is, Jerome, after naming several of
        Didymus' commentaries and books, finishes the list by saying, "and
        many other things, to give an account of which would be a work of
        itself. He is still living, and has already passed his eighty-third
        year." Since Jerome stated explicitly that he did not mention "many
        other" works by Didymus, this objection is extremely light.)

        (4) "De Trinitate enumerates Zechariah as the last of the Minor
        Prophets, whereas Didymus Comm. on Zechariah counts him as the
        eleventh (before Malachi)."

        (Okay. I'd like to see the contexts of the two listings. Is one a
        chronological listing, and the other a list in order of appearance in
        a canon-list? Is one a shortest-to-longest list? Or are we looking
        at two canon-lists, and if so, is that a big deal in 381?)

        (5) "The explanation of the candelabra in Zech. 3:8-4:10 is utterly
        different in every detail in De Trinitate and Comm. on Zechariah, and
        the latter does not refer to the treatment of the passage in the De
        Trinitate."

        (Okay; this is a significant difference. But an author approaching
        that passage in search of allegorical insights could probably squeeze
        two very different allegorical insights out of it, depending on what
        themes he wished to emphasized, or what points he wished to make, on
        different occasions.)

        (6) De Trinitate "deploys a full technical vocabulary in dealing
        with Trinitarian themes," while in the undisputed works of Didymus,
        he "uses almost no technical terms at all."

        (Okay; I'll consider this a significant difference. On the other
        hand, topics can greatly affect style. Even text-critics don't often
        employ text-critical jargon unless they are writing something related
        to textual criticism. Also, Hanson does mention that
        Didymus "applies homoousios twice to the Son but never to the
        Spirit." Just because Didymus didn't typically employ terms
        like "homoousois" and "theotokos" and "isotimia" in works that were
        not about the Trinity does not mean that they were not in his verbal
        arsenal.)

        (7) Didymus never quotes pagan poets, but the author of De
        Trinitate "frequently quotes Homer and the classic Greek poets."

        (Okay; this is a significant point.)

        (8) Didymus is "fond of arithmology, i.e. playing around with the
        significance of numbers," but De Trinitate "has only two brief
        excursions into arithmology."

        (This is a pretty light objection! An author can't be expected to
        use numerically-based illustrations in every single work. And then,
        when we see that the author of De Trinitate does this, well, two such
        uses is just not enough?!?)

        (9) Didymus relies on Origen for a lot of his theology, but De
        Trinitate "shows no influence from Origen."

        (Since Didymus had been appointed to lead the school of Alexandria by
        Athanasius, it would come as no surprise to see that despite admiring
        Origen's erudition, and despite learning from Origen's works, Didymus
        did not rely on Origen when writing about the Trinity, but took his
        stand on ground taken by more recent, and more orthodox, movers-and-
        shakers in the church.)

        (10) The author of De Trinitate states, in III:1 (784), "I go
        forward to the next task, trusting that even before I speak I shall
        receive grace along with the children whom (God) has given to me and
        the children of those children, through whom as long as we live we
        labor, and indeed also all whom (God) knows." Didymus was a monk,
        and the idea that he had children and grandchildren is unlikely.

        (Hanson wrote, "These 'children' could refer to the writer's
        disciples, but to call disciples of a later generation or disciples
        of one's disciples would be odd." Why? To a writer such as Didymus,
        fond of allegories and such, it seems entirely natural. This
        evidence may be easily converted into evidence in favor of Didymusian
        authorship: the author says that he is speaking -- i.e., dictating,
        as Didymus (and others) did -- and by the 380's, Didymus had worked
        long enough to see the disciples of his disciples mature. Didymus
        was old. The author of De Trinitate, if he here refers to students
        of his students, was old.)

        (11) In De Trinitate II:11 (660), the author writes, "But John too
        is obvious, as they say, even to a blind man." It is unlikely that
        Didymus the Blind would have used this expression.

        (Why? That Didymus could make an occasional self-referential
        statement like this does not seem unlikely to me.)

        (12) In De Trinitate II:27 (768), the author "urges his readers or
        disciples to 'live among books,'" and this, according to Hanson,
        is "not a likely piece of advice for a blind man to give."

        (Why not? Are we to imagine that Didymus did not realize the
        advantages that the acquisition of books could provide? As the
        author of many books -- which Didymus wanted people to read --
        Didymus would be entirely capable of encouraging people to live in
        the company of books.) (tangent: didn't Chrysostom also say this
        somewhere?)

        (13) "And at one point [III:2 (825)], quoting Aquila's version, the
        author transliterates the Hebrew word into Greek letters. We have to
        ask ourselves whether a blind man is likely to have learnt even the
        letters of the Hebrew alphabet."

        Didymus the Blind's career is one unlikely accomplishment after
        another. Is it likely that a blind man would learn geometry? Yet
        the record that he did so is there, along with a report that he
        learned to read by the use of carved wooden letters. There is
        nothing in the way of the view that Didymus knew enough Hebrew to be
        able, with the help of his assistants, to transliterate one Hebrew
        word into Greek. A commentator on several OT books (including
        Psalms) whose erudition was saluted by Jerome would almost inevitably
        have an awareness of the Hebrew alphabet.

        +++++++

        Out of the 13 objections that Hanson presented, #9-13 seem
        inconsequential, #2, #3, and #8 seem feathery, #1 and #4 are possibly
        significant but more info is needed, and only #5, #6, and #7
        obviously carry real and firm weight, such as it is. Focusing on
        these points, the case that Didymus is not the author of De Trinitate
        seems, for the moment, to rest on three points:

        The author of De Trinitate and Didymus interpret Zech. 3:8-4:10 in
        two very different ways.
        The author of De Trinitate uses technical jargon about the Trinity,
        but Didymus hardly ever uses such terms.
        The author of De Trinitate frequently quotes Homer and other pagan
        poets, but Didymus never does so.

        I wonder how Alasdair Heron tackled these objections.

        In related news: at
        http://papyrology.blogspot.com/2007/04/rc-hill-tr-didymus-blind-
        commentary-on.html
        there's a mention of R.C. Hill's new English translation of Didymus'
        commentary on Zechariah, and Emanuela Prinzivalli's Italian
        translation of Didymus' commentary on the Psalms.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
        Tipton, Indiana (USA)
        www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
      • Benjamin Pehrson
        In Peter Williams (2004) Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels, he argues (p. 2) that too often an omission in the
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 27, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          In Peter Williams (2004) Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels, he argues (p. 2) that too often an omission in the Syriac has been used to support an assumed Greek Vorlage, and the possibility of formal alterations during the translation process have been explored too little. In his discussion (pp. 163-64) of the adverb ETI ‘still’, he discusses a possible ‘tendency’ of Syriac to omit this adverb (5 of 37 occurrences in the Gospels). In support of Williams’ general argument, I draw your attention to a blog post (http://agaphseis.blogspot.com/2007/08/early-syriac-translation-technique.html) that discusses some translation factors that may have influenced two of the instances where the Syriac omission goes against the entire extant Greek tradition (Lk. 8:49 and Lk. 9:42) and two instances where the Syriac omission might be used to support one Greek reading over another (Jn. 4:35 and Jn. 11:30). Could the apparent redundancy of ETI in the Greek text explain the Syriac omission in all four of these passages?

           

          Benjamin Pehrson

          Aitape West Translation Project

          Papua New Guinea

        • David Robert Palmer
          Hello Benjamin! Are you working with SIL? What is the mame of the language into which you are translating? I m thinking Aitape is a name of a region or
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 30, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Benjamin!
             
            Are you working with SIL?  What is the mame of the language into which you are translating?  I'm thinking Aitape is a name of a region or district, not a language.
             
            What I really want to get at is, what Greek text do you use as the source text for the New Testament you are working on?
             
            Thanks.
             
            David Robert Palmer
             
            ._,___
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.