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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Initial and Archetype (A few questions to Dr. Ehrman from a layman)

Expand Messages
  • Larry Swain
    ... This doesn t really address my point. The answer to your query would be simply that like later copies we do have, copiests put Euaggelion kata X at the
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Eddie wrote:


      >>There is absolutely no reason to think not. Everyone knew who wrote The Annals in ancient times, but Tacitus didn't put his name in them. I think some try to make this far more complicated than it really is. How, for example, do you explain 4 gospels, all going in hundreds of different geographical directions, hundreds of miles apart, all ending up being called the same names? The logical way is that BEFORE they were distributed throughout the known world, their names were already pretty much affixed to them. (Martin Hengel is a good read in this regard.)<<

      This doesn't really address my point. The answer to your query would be simply that like later copies we do have, copiests put "Euaggelion kata X" at the head of the text. No need to posit a papyrus tab hanging out there like a chad.

      Re: Tacitus, we actually don't know that. *OUR* copies of Tacitus' Annales depend on late medieval and Renaissance copies. And for books 1-6, on a single 9th century manuscript. There are sections that are missing in our copies of the Annals. In other words, we have no idea what the text looked like, what if any sort of preface Tacitus originally appended to the text. Those few writers in Late Antiquity who refer to Tacitus' Annals may in fact not have been referring to an anonymous text at all, but a text that had an author's note or his explicit mention of his authorship in some portion now lost to us (we're not even sure if the ending we have is where Tacitus ended!) Further, Jerome's citation of Tacitus once indicates that the Histories and Annals traveled together (he refers to the 30 books), and the Histories does have Tacitus naming himself as author, and if memory serves Tacitus mentions his intent to compose the Annals in earlier works. Thus, I'm not sure your analogy here is on the face of it able to be maintained.



      Finally, Hengel writes in "The Fourth Gospel" "Anonymous works were relatively rare and must have been given a title in libraries. They were often given the name of a pseudepigraphical author....Works without titles easily got double or multiple titles when names were given to them in different libraries."

      Larry Swain


      --
      _______________________________________________
      Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
      Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

      Powered by Outblaze
    • tvanlopik
      Further investigation of quotations of and allusions to the NT text in 1Clem as provided in the Codex Alexandrinus (A) is welcome. But is to optimistic to
      Message 33 of 33 , Mar 21, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Further investigation of quotations of and allusions to the NT text in 1Clem as provided in the Codex Alexandrinus (A) is welcome. But is to optimistic to consider the job can be finished quickly. Of course it is possible to compare the parallels of the NT text of A with the text in 1Clem as is provided in the text and apparatus of Funk/Bihlmeyer/SchneemelcherĀ“s Die Apostolischen Vaeter, 1970. On pp. 154-157 the quotions and allusions are indexed. But there is more.

        The question is to investigate the assimilation or harmonization in A of the text of Clemens with the NT text in the mind of the scribe. Otherwise: are the NT quotations of 1Clem in A from 95 AD or perhaps changed by the scribe(s) of A in the 5th century.

        First of all we need to know more about the scribes of A. According to Kenyon there are five: two of the OT and three of the NT. According to Milne and Skeat: two of the OT and one of the NT. 1Clem and 2Clem are written by the scribe of the second part of the OT. (Kenyon/Adams, Der text der griechischen Bibel, 1961, pp. 41, 64; Kenyon/Adams, Our Bible an the ancient manuscripts, 1958, pp. 121, 199)

        Determination of the harmonizing or assimilating activities in A, especially by the scribe of 1Clem, will be served by comparison of the NT quotations in 2Clem (145 AD), but also the quotations in the NT of OT texts (LXX) as provided in A should be involved in the investigation. Already a lot is done in the field of NT quotations of the LXX text in general. E.g., see: Michel, Der Brief an die Hebraeer, 1975 (Meyer's Komm.), pp. 151-158.(By the way on A: pp. 156-157, bibliography on pp. 157-158.)

        Funk/Bihlmeyer, p. XI mentions: The New Testament in the Apostlic Fathers by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, Oxford 1905. That work, also referred to by Vogels, Handbuch der neutestamentlichen Textkritik, 1923, p. 153, is I suppose a 'must' for the scholar who want to investigate the NT quotations of 1Clem in A.

        Teunis van Lopik
        Leidschendam, the Netherlands

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Rogers" <jrogers@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
        > <voxverax@> wrote:
        > >
        > > "It also seems plain to me that even a layman with a very limited
        > > knowledge of Greek . . . can compare the "majority text" of Greek NT
        > with these citations and determine how the NT of 90-115 compares to the
        > documentary evidence we have between 115 and 325."
        > >
        > > Yes; observing the text in what Burkitt called the "dark age of the
        > NT" -- the period from the writing of the NT books to the
        > production-dates of the earliest substantial MSS and substantial
        > quotations (the kind of thorough quotation one finds in a commentary, as
        > opposed to by-the-way citations) -- could yield a useful comparison of
        > the Majority Text, the "Western" Text, and the "Alexandrian" Text to the
        > earliest-perceptible text. To make the comparison more substantial you
        > might want to include more second-century witnesses.
        > >
        > > Yours in Christ,
        > >
        > > James Snapp, Jr.
        > >
        >
        >
        > On the question: Have the quotations of the NT in the earliest patristic
        > manuscripts been systematically compared to the earliest NT manuscripts
        > themselves?
        >
        > The several objections are valid as anyone with even a cursory knowledge
        > of the church fathers can attest:
        >
        > 1. That the church fathers were sometimes paraphrasing "off-the-cuff."
        > 2. That scribal errors entered into those manuscripts as well.
        >
        > However, the existence of these variants among the church fathers seems
        > to indicate that few (if any) sought to correct their habit of
        > paraphrasing by bringing the text into line with a direct quote. Even
        > so, this could be useful if the correction was made early on.
        >
        > In other words, the existence of a variant by a patristic witness not
        > found in any NT manuscript, in and of itself, ought to give some idea of
        > the integrity of the extant texts of the church fathers.
        >
        > 3. The patristic manuscript evidence is not early enough.
        >
        > Codex Alexandrinus contains 1 Clement. That is fairly early -- 5th
        > century. Who has compared the NT quotes (and allusions) in 1 Clement to
        > the actual NT text in Alexandrinus?
        >
        > This seems the place to start. It wouldn't take too long to compare.
        > Then where to go from there?
        >
        > 1. Compare patristic data from the same codices that also contain the
        > NT.
        > 2. Compare the earliest patristic manuscript evidence with closest
        > copies from the same time period.
        > 3. Compare the earliest patristic manuscripts with the earliest NT
        > manuscripts.
        > 4. Compare the future "critical edition" of the church fathers' quotes
        > with the most recent critical edition of the NT.
        >
        > 5. And any combination of the above.
        >
        > None of the above methods is without inherent problems as noted, but it
        > would give a consensus of some kind. From there several things could be
        > determined.
        >
        > 1. How closely the church fathers agree with either the TR and the
        > "Majority Text."
        > 2. Which manuscript tradition the church fathers most reflect.
        > 3. Which individual manuscripts are supported by which quotations by
        > which church fathers.
        > 4. Which church fathers support which manuscript family tradition.
        > 5. What are some regional generalizations -- that is, would Ignatius and
        > Clement of Alexandria be more inclined toward an Alexandrian reading
        > while Clement of Rome and Justin be more inclined toward a western
        > reading, etc.
        >
        > This last idea seems useful in tracking when and where the text families
        > branched off. I am of the persuasion (without having done any real TC
        > myself) that the western text might have a lot more integrity in light
        > of patristic quotations due to the sheer fact that the Alexandrian
        > family had a "climate advantage" to preserve older fragments and
        > manuscripts. I am just using common sense here, the data might
        > contradict me. But from what I have read, some seem to think the Western
        > tradition is bolstered by the church fathers.
        >
        > Obviously with the paraphrased material, there is going to be great
        > discontinuity, but even with the textual variants in the patristic
        > material (original and scribal) there might be some idiosyncratic things
        > that jump out that textual critics were not aware of before.
        >
        > Criticize these ideas please. Am I putting this in the right order of
        > priority? Has this already been done?
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.