Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Some Inaccuracies in Tischendorf's Notes
- James Snapp Jr wrote: "Is that actually your view. Just out of curiosity: what do you see as the composition-date of the Gospel of Luke?"Plummer in his ICC commentary on Luke notes: "The main theories respecting the date of the Third Gospel contend respectively for a time in or near the years a.d. 100, a.d. 80, and a.d. 63" while discounting arguments that Luke was dependent on Josephus.Fitzmeyer in his Anchor Yale Bible commentary notes: "From the Gospel itself it emerges that the author is not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, but that he depends on those who were (1:2). He is rather a second- or third-generation Christian. Further, he is scarcely a native Palestinian; his knowledge of its geography and customs seems inadequate and argues in favor of another origin. Third, he is obviously a rather well-educated person, a writer of no little merit, acquainted with both OT literary traditions (especially as they are known from the Greek Bible) and Hellenistic literary techniques. Fourth, he differs from other evangelists in his desire to relate the story of Jesus not only to the contemporary world and culture, but also to the growth and development of the nascent Christian church." After reviewing various arguments he concludes: "Hence the best solution is to adopt the date for Luke-Acts that is used by many today, ca. a.d. 80–85. See further W. G. Kümmel, Introduction, 151 ("between 70 and 90"); A. Wikenhauser and J. Schmid, Einleitung, 272 ("zwischen 80 und 90")."Bovon fails to specify a date in his Hermeneia commentary on Luke as does Conzelmann in his Hermeneia commentary on Acts.Marshall in his NIGTC states: "As for the date of composition, this is closely bound up with the dates of Mk. and Acts. There are two serious possibilities, a date in the early sixties or a date in the later decades of the first century. The latter is the view most commonly held, with AD 80 being suggested as a round figure. This date presupposes that Luke was not dependent on the writings of Josephus (c. AD 93) but that he did write after the fall of Jerusalem. While the possibility of vaticinia ante eventum is not to be ruled out, it may well be the case that the comparatively frequent and more precise references to the fall of Jerusalem in Lk., although based on genuine prophecy by Jesus, reflect a knowledge of and an interest in a recent event. On the other hand, the complete lack of interest in the fall of Jerusalem in Acts and the way in which that book ends its story before the death of Paul are strong indications of a date before AD 70. On the whole a date not far off AD 70 appears to satisfy all requirements."Noland in the WBC states: "Taken together, the considerations that we have reviewed encourage a date for the Gospel between the late sixties and the late seventies of the first century, although it is not possible to be rigid even about the limits of this range."He also notes: "It seems reasonable to assume that there is no large passage of time between the dates of composition of the Gospel and of Acts."I think Noland's comment regarding the relationship between Luke and Acts is fairly reasonable. I also think that Pervo's dating of Acts in his Hermeneia commentary as a.d. 115 while in the right ballpark is possibly a bit too late.The letters of Ignatius show no such hagiography or reliquary as does Acts (and Acts seems to differ from Luke in these respects as well) which would seem to indicate that it was not a practice at roughly the turn of the century. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, however, this is a factor.18.1 Ἰδὼν οὖν ὁ κεντυρίων τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων γενομένην φιλονεικίαν, θεὶς αὐτὸν ἐν μέσῳ, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, ἔκαυσεν. (2) οὕτως τε ἡμεῖς ὕστερον ἀνελόμενοι τὰ τιμιώτερα λίθων πολυτελῶν καὶ δοκιμώτερα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ, ἀπεθέμεθα ὅπου καὶ ἀκόλουθον ἦν. (3) Ἔνθα ὡς δυνατὸν ἡμῖν συναγομένοις ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ παρέξει ὁ κύριος ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου αὐτοῦ ἡμέραν γενέθλιον, εἴς τε τὴν τῶν προηθληκότων μνήμην καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἄσκησίν τε καὶ ἑτοιμασίαν.Pervo may be approximately correct in his dating of Acts which would put Luke slightly earlier.george
gfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus
_________From: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 6:23 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Some Inaccuracies in Tischendorf's NotesGeorge,
On page 123 of my copy of Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" -- a 1975 Corrected Edition -- Metzger affirms, in a footnote, that the much-parroted claim that three Ethiopic manuscripts now in the British Museum lack the last 12 verses of Mark is erroneous. Double-check and let me know if you still can't find it in your copy (just about the note about Arabic 13), and I can provide a quotation of it for you. But it would be best to consult the 1980 article in NT Tools & Studies! (Possibly if you Google-search through Metzger's "Versions" you may find a repetition of the same material.)
After describing the Ethiopic evidence, Metzger goes on to say that the Arabic copy that Tischendorf listed is actually only a damaged copy, and that its text "breaks off just before the end of Mk 16.8." Metzger also mentions the same "Appendices" article by Clarence Williams that I mentioned, in which, on pages 398-399, more details about this Arabic copy can be found. As I said, and as Metzger affirms in his brief note, this is only a damaged copy -- and thus, to Metzger, it is "without significance." He is echoing Williams, who said, after presenting J.P.P. Martin's description of the pertinent part of this copy, "We find, therefore, that Arabic 13 is in reality of no significance in discussing this question." (I note the strange way in which it suddenly becomes unimportant when it turns not to support the abrupt ending!)
Metzger's admission about the Ethiopic evidence is, as I said, in the same footnote. Let me know if you still can't find it in your copy.
GFS: "There can be no question regarding Aleph and B. When these two agree, the matter is virtually settled."
I'm not sure how we have jumped from a brief note that there is a clipped-away leftover page in B after Tobit, to an analysis of Tischendorf's notes, to a statement that Aleph + B = original text. We will never get anywhere with this sort of hyperspace-jump method of discussion. Perhaps another time we can revisit your claim about Aleph and B.
GFS: "There also can be no doubt that the passage Mk 16.9-end is different in character from that of the rest of the gospel."
And likewise there can be no doubt that Jeremiah 52 is different in character from the rest of the book, and that Psalm 88 is different in character from some psalms of praise, and that Proverbs 30 is different in character from other parts of Proverbs. That does not make these portions unoriginal, or post-production accretions. Nor does the non-transition in Mk. 16:9 indicate that it cannot have been added during the production-stage.
GFS: "It reeks of a later time when a hagiography was being developed and miraculous occurences were attributed to the apostles as well as to Jesus Christ -- such is found in Acts . . . It would appear that Acts was written around a.d. 100 or slightly later."
Is that actually your view. Just out of curiosity: what do you see as the composition-date of the Gospel of Luke?
Despite its leaps from subject to subject, this brief discussion about the blank space in B after Tobit, and about the actual testimony of the Ethiopic version, has been fascinating.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Gethsemane – Γεθσημανη / Γεθσημανει is English transliteration of Greek transliteration of Hebrew / Aramaic גת שמנ \ שמנא – Geth shemen – “oil press”.
rom: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 14:56
Subject: [textualcriticism] Gethsemane
Could someone tell me what language Gethsemane is. I thought it was Latin, but I checked several references and there is some contradiction.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the globalweb.net MailScanner and is
believed to be clean.