Another Successful PhD Defense in Cambridge

Yesterday, following in the footsteps of co-blogger Christian Askeland, our guestblogger Myrto Theocharous successfully defended her University of Cambridge PhD dissertation entitled "Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets: Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah" (supervisor: Professor Robert Gordon).

CONGRATULATIONS DR. THEOCHAROUS!

During last year Myrto offered summaries and reflections on the eight essays in Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006 (WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

Links:

Introduction to the volume/guest posts (Peter Head)

Karrer-Kraus (LXX 1)

Gruen (LXX 2)

Hauspie (LXX 3)

Kreuzer (LXX 4)

Muraoka (LXX 5)

Rosel (LXX 6)

Wright (LXX 7)

Joosten (LXX 8)

The King's Version: A Contemporary Translation of the New Testament

Apparently, N.T. Wright has prepared a new translation of the NT, "The King’s Version: A Contemporary Translation of the New Testament" to be released in September by HarperCollins (HT: Euagelion).

Clayboy assumes that Wright has simply extracted the working translation of the New Testament he developed in his “for everyone” commentary series. I do not know whether and to what extent Wright's translation work involves any text-critical decisions.

Excerpt from ECM Apparatus of Acts

Klaus Wachtel of the INTF notifies me that an excerpt of the ECM apparatus of Acts has been made available on the INTF website here

This preliminary apparatus is a companion to the recently published Novum Testamentum article by Georg Gäbel, "The Text of P.Oxy. 4968 and Its Relationship with the Text of Codex Bezae" (see further discussion and links here), showing the evidence from full collations of all manuscripts included in the ECM of Acts for the portion of text contained in Papyrus 127, i.e., Acts 10:32–12:9; 15:29–17:10.

There is more explanation to the apparatus here.

Picturing ETC

I came bottom in school in my Art examination. However, I thought a picture might help. I think that ETC is best represented by diagram 3. Thus one should not expect there to be anything unique about ETC. ETC seeks to align itself with what it believes best TC practice to be, thus to be at the centre of the discipline. By following best practice people who are not evangelical may also be at the centre of the discipline (I realise some people really won't like the way I put that, but everyone tends to believe that their ideology is normal/central, so no one should get too upset by my saying so.)

What is Evangelical Textual Criticism? (Again, Again)

A recent comment over at the Amsterdam NT Weblog reminded me of our old conversation on this blog (now years ago) about what is "evangelical textual criticism" and how does it differ from textual criticism proper.

On some occasions I have thought of writing on this subject, e.g., when I read a brief passage in David Parker's An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (CUP, 2008), especially since I haven't said much on the topic myself (in contrast to other ETC bloggers).

So I guess I will start with David Parker's brief note (p. 187):

The obvious significance of the connection between one’s wider understanding of history and human society and one’s attitude to textual criticism will be more clearly illustrated to someone working in the theological milieu by examples of a quite different point of view.

...

For an example of an approach to New Testament textual criticism with an equally explicit ideology, see the website ‘Evangelical Textual Criticism, a Webpage Promoting Textual Criticism of the Bible from the Perspective of Historic Evangelical Theology’ (www.evangelicaltextualcriticism.com/), claiming among others for evangelical textual criticism the characteristics that

It approaches the task of identifying the words given by God with reverence and therefore caution.

It approaches the task of identifying the words given by God with a confidence in God’s provision.

It is not clear whether this providence is seen in the way in which the text has been preserved or in the work of the textual critic (or both),...

For the specific question how providence is seen, I personally would refer primarily to the way in which the text has been (sufficiently) preserved. On the other hand, I agree with David in general that it is not clear what this approach actually means,and I actually think I like it to stay that way. Perhaps it is easier to say what evangelical textual criticism is not. For example, in a comment to a guest post by James Snapp, Peter Williams (blogfounder) says:

Members of this blog represent a variety of approaches by evangelicals, and that's how it should be. There are various possible interpretations of the evidence that are compatible with historic evangelical theology. However, there are also some approaches that do not sit well with such theology (and scholars will therefore either challenge the approaches or the theology, or both). Thus we may at least define our approaches negatively: they are not X, Y, or Z. For instance, Von Soden's preference for 'Joseph begot Jesus' in Matthew 1:16 on the basis of the Sinaitic Syriac was wrong philologically, but even before a demonstration of its philological error was available, it looked wrong-headed to evangelical (and other) theology.

Peter Head, on the other hand, once suggested in a blogpost that one "cannot have an 'evangelical' textual criticism, when there is no consensus of what an evangelical position is on this topic." He further stated that

If a site like ETC is to have a goal it should work toward a consensus among evangelicals which should rule out some DIY approaches and agree on some parameters arising from an evangelical concensus on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, or is there no consensus on that doctrine among evangelicals?

I doubt that there is a consensus doctrine and I would not want to work out one. For me Dirk Jongkind's ""basic tenets of evangelical textual criticism" are more than enough:

I think there are three basic assumptions that characterise evangelical textual criticism (each with their own modifications and refinements, but we are not going to bother with these).
1) There is an 'original text' to aim for in New Testament textual criticism.
2) There is the theological conviction that the preservation of the New Testament is sufficiently reliable.
3) The canon of the New Testament is (in one way or the other) a real and given entity.

These basic tenets give room for "a variety of approaches" (PJW), interpretations and problematization (cf. the various comments to Dirk's post).

To add my personal thought on 1), I prefer to use the term "initial text." I regard the reconstruction of the initial text as an on-going scientific enterprise (which is on-going), whereas the acceptance of the simplest working hypothesis, that the initial text essentially represents the autographs is a matter of faith. There are many other related and complex matters; for example, I agree with Ulrich Schmid who has pointed out that we cannot deal with individual writings and neglect that they have been transmitted in collections. At least one person (the collector) has affected the book in terms of editorial activity.

In November 2008 I was involved in some related discussions with Bart Ehrman and others on Wieland's textual criticism discussion list if anyone would want to read. There are two or three relevant threads ("Initial text and exegesis" and "Analogy and internal evidence" and perhaps "99.5% Reliability and the 'Dark Age' of the Text"). I suppose you can find them at the bottom of this page.

Larry Hurtado and Rethinking the Text of Acts

One of the intractable problems in TC research is the Book of Acts. Larry Hurtado has a stimulating post on Rethinking the Text of Acts in light of a recently published 5th century manuscript P.Oxyrhynchus 74.4968 (Gregory-Aland P127), comprising portions of eight leaves preserving portions of Acts 10–12 and 15–17. He refers to the volume by David C. Parker and Stuart R. Pickering in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume LXXIV, ed. D. Leith, et al. (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2009) that discuses the manuscript. In short, the discovery shows that the bifurcation between the Alexandrian and Western text of Acts needs to be re-thought since P.Oxy 74.4968 probably shares a common ancestor with Codex Bezae even though the texts are not particularly close.

For an introduction to the problems associated with the text of Acts see Peter M. Head, “Acts and the Problem of its Texts,” in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (eds. B.W. Winter & A.D. Clarke; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans & Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993), 415–444.

Up-date: There is a scanned version of this paper here (PMH).

"The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism"

Juan Hernandez' article on The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism" has just been published in JBL 130.1 (2011): 183–196. Juan tells me that the first two paragraphs captures well the essence of the whole piece. I cite them here without the accompanying footnotes:

Contemporary textual critics attend to a variety of pressing questions. No longer restricted to the quest for the “original” text of the NT, current practitioners pursue a number of interrelated issues. Topics like scribal activity, theological variation, the nature and scope of the NT canon, and the sociohistorical worlds of scribes and their manuscripts are now commonplace in text-critical discussions. The definition of what a textual critic is (and does) has been broadened to include the pursuit of questions once considered peripheral to the discipline.

These questions are not new. Writing at the threshold of the early Byzantine era, Andrew of Caesarea displays an awareness of competing variants, comments on their theological significance, and condemns scribes who atticize the Greek manuscripts of the Bible. Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse appears to reflect the same integration of issues that characterizes contemporary text-critical research, albeit from the perspective of the seventh century. Andrew’s handful of text-critical exempla speaks directly to a discipline that probes the relevance of scribal activity and challenges contemporary assumptions about its significance. In particular, Andrew’s assessment of textual variation confounds modern sensibilities. Andrew embraces textual variants that produce a semantic difference in the reading of the Apocalypse and excoriates scribes who make stylistic changes. Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse offers a distinctively Byzantine appraisal of variants that enriches our understanding of textual variation and contributes to current discussions about its significance for textual criticism.

This article was originally presented as a paper in the New Testament Textual Criticism Section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston, Massachusetts, November 21, 2008. I gave a thorough report of that presentation with a nice image of the presenter, a summary of the paper along with my comments.

Early Manuscript of Hebrews Discovered

Brian Small, PhD student at Baylor University and regular reader of this blog, published the following startling announcement (Polumeros kai Polutropos)

Newly Discovered Manuscript Fragment on Hebrews
Baylor University is hosting a King James Bible conference this weekend. Concurrent with the conference is an exhibit showcasing ancient manuscripts and Bibles through the Middles Ages and Reformation and beyond. One of the manuscripts is a newly-discovered (three weeks ago!) papyrus fragment containing a portion of Hebrews 11. It was discovered in a funerary mask and is dated to the second century! I have pictures but I cannot post them here since the manuscript has been assigned to someone for study and publication.

Apparently, it seems to be Scott Carroll, Research Professor of Manuscript Studies and the Biblical Tradition at Baylor, who is the scholar in charge of this collection to which I assume the early papyrus belongs. On his webpage we read about Carroll that "He is presently directing the research of some of the earliest-known Greek literary papyri in the world which Dr. Carroll extracted from mummy cartonnage and some of the earliest biblical texts known to-date."

In the 1990's Carroll helped Robert van Kampen build the private Van Kampen Collection of Bibles and related material in Florida. Now he is working with another wealthy family, Green, to build up another great collection of bibles and manuscripts to be exhibited in a Bible museum in Dallas. More information about the Green collection in NY Times story here and here (slideshow). One of the MSS they acquired last year from Cambridge was Codex Climaci Rescriptus, which we reported about here (with further links). Apparently, Carroll himself is currently working on a publication of Codex Climaci Rescriptus.

In addition to the growing collection, there is the Green Scholars Initiative which has been organized allow scholars to research and produce scholarship around items in the Green Collection. Scott Carroll is Director and Principal investigator of the collection, whereas Jerry Pattengale is Director of the Green Scholars Initiative.

While we wait for a scholarly edition of the Hebrews papyrus, hopefully including images, and adequate information about the provenience, we have to be extremely cautious about the claimed second-century date. In the past there have been numerous claims from representatives of collections like these including the Van Kampen collection, and of course there is, coupled with a strong interest to promote the items in the collection, a real danger to through out sensational claims about "earliest biblical texts known to-date," etc (which media just loves). For a discussion of the the "early dating issue" raised by Roger Bagnall recently, see Peter Head's posts here and here.

The papyrus is on display at Baylor University until tomorrow. Perhaps some reader of this blog, who lives nearby Baylor could go there and take a peek for us? Any significant readings?

Conference schedule here

Conference and exhibition flyer here

"The Son of God Was in the Beginning (Mk 1:1)"

Just published in Journal of Theological Studies:

Tommy Wasserman
"The 'Son of God' was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1)"
J Theol Studies 2011 62: 20-50; doi:10.1093/jts/flr013.

Abstract
The text-critical problem in the very beginning of the Gospel of Mark is both crucial and much debated. The main question is whether the phrase ‘Son of God’ was accidentally omitted from an original or added by some scribes in order to expand the divine name or the title of the book. The disputed words are enclosed in square brackets in UBS4 and NA27 but omitted in the recent SBLGNT edition. Whereas most modern translations and commentators include the words, several scholars have recently argued for the shorter version of Mark 1:1. This article, however, defends the longer version that includes the words ‘Son of God’, taking into account external as well as internal evidence, in particular the plausibility of an accidental omission in the light of scribal habits.

In the same issue of Journal of Theological Studies are several reviews of interest:

J. K. Elliott
The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Edited by MICHAEL W. HOLMES.
J Theol Studies 2011 62: 288-294; doi:10.1093/jts/flr014.


J. K. Elliott
Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible. By D. C. PARKER.
J Theol Studies 2011 62: 294-301; doi:10.1093/jts/flr015.


H. A. G. Houghton
The Curzon Gospel. Volume I: An Annotated Edition. Volume II: A Linguistic and Textual Introduction. By C. M. VAKARELIYSKA.
J Theol Studies 2011 62: 302-304; doi:10.1093/jts/flr039.

Dirk Jongkind on P52

Watch Dirk Jongkind give a scholarly Easter meditation on P52 on video here.