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

Re: [textualcriticism] Initial and Archetype (literary interdependence)

Expand Messages
  • Larry Swain
    ... Your comment is anticipate and addressed in the article.
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Mitch Larrimore wrote:

      >>Larry:

      Your comment is anticipate and addressed in the article.<<

      Apologies for the delay in responding to this, Mitch. But I disagree. The closest I think he comes to dealing with either of my comments is in the first part of the article where he talks about assumptions about the gospel writers being "theological editors", an assumption he rejects as being inimical to his so-called "inductive" method. However, I am no such assumptions about the gospel-writers. If I've made an assumption, its an assumption that they did not work in an extraordinary fashion, but rather worked like other authors in the Greco-Roman world, or even other Jewish authors in the Greco-Roman world. I think that's a pretty safe assumption and those who assume an extraordinary method need to demonstrate it. So, no, I don't think Thomas anticipates or addresses what I've said at all.

      >> The only real area of attack to the conclusions of this article is whether or not the gospel writers considered the other gospel writers as having written scripture, which they surely did the OT.<<

      I disagree here as well. While this is certainly a large and significant issue, it is very far from the *only* real area of attack on the article.

      >>They would be more careful when quoting "scripture" (OT) than when quoting from various non-scriptural collections of Jesus sayings, traditions, etc (including NT gospels not yet gaining canonical status).<<

      I'm not certain this is true either, considering the early confession about Jesus, assuming that the state of the "quotations" we have if not from other gospels are not in fact accurately quoted and what we have is evidence of various scribal and oral errors in transmission.

      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.