stephan huller

http://books.google.com/books?id=kMQ...A13%22&f=false

I am on pretty good terms with Baarda - whom I consider the greatest living scholar owing to his command of languages - yet I don't know if I agree with all his conclusions here. Nevertheless as he is smarter than me I can't really put up any serious resistance. Here is amazingly thorough discussion of the massive variations with respect to Luke 12:13 - 14:

Baarda has written two papers inspired by similar questions of textual diversity prompted by me (I am referenced in the most recent by name). I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions but since Google books has the entire article available for reading (it is amazing to see how long the article is) it is well worth the read. Scholarship at its best.

Jeffrey Gibson

Massive? How massive is massive? That's to say how many variants are there exactly? 50? 20? 2? And are they significant (or just changes in word order?) And we are speaking about the Vulgate text, yes?

13 Ait autem ei quidam de turba : Magister, dic fratri meo ut dividat mecum hæreditatem. 14 At ille dixit illi : Homo, quis me constituit judicem, aut divisorem super vos ?

What are the variants to this text?

FWIW, there don't seem to be massive variants in the Greek witnesses to this text. See below. So what point are you making?

And this is text critical question, is it not, not a linguistic one?


Jeffrey

ϛ̠ϛ i. e. Elzev. 1624. unaque ed. Rob. Steph. 1550. Quae ubi differunt, ϛ est Rob. Steph., ϛe Elz.

unc unc i.e. unciales

al al i.e. alii; sub finem seriei codicum uncialium significat al codices minusculos, e.g. al6 = alii codd. minn. sex; post patres Graecos significat al alios patres Graecos; post patres Latinos, alios patres Latinos.

pler pler i.e. plerique etc.

om om i.e. omittunt etc.

rell rell i.e. reliqui

omn omn i.e. omnes etc.

add add i.e. addit etc.

Novum Testamentum graece. 1869-94 (C. v. Tischendorf, C. R. Gregory & E. Abbot, Ed.) (1:580). Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient.




Jeffrey

stephan huller

Perhaps the word should have been 'massive' but 'diverse.' I didn't know for instance about al-Gabbar (I know this will be used against me but so be it). I guess my point is the question of what is the best way to weigh the evidence from textual variations. For instance, when we assemble the readings of manuscripts and Patristic witnesses they tend to reinforce a particular POV. The early Church Fathers for instance tended to write 'against' opponents rather than 'for' positions.

The variants that manage to squeeze their way into our studies are ultimately imperfect windows to alternative possibilities. It reminds me of the debate during the last election cycle about the value of land-line based polls to reflect the composition of the electorate in November. In the end, despite all the advances in technology, most polls were way off. If we turn around and use the analogy for textual witnesses, how skewed are the existing results (= land-line phones) versus cell phone only homes? How do you properly weigh the results in order to know what the 'original' reading is, or to determine how the original material was altered by the various witnesses?

Some background (quickly). When I asked Baarda to take a look at a strange passage in the Diatessaron recently it was determined by him to be a composite rather than a preservation of an older reading. This was determined in part by taking a look at known textual witnesses. Yet IMO there is great difficulty in knowing precisely how to weigh the existing evidence. For instance, if the heretics used a particular variant reading to bolster an important point of doctrine, the Catholic witnesses are unlikely to have faithfully reported the evidence to their readership. You can't prove that of course. But that seems to be a reasonable assumption.

I tend to be too permissive when I don't know the right answer. But the reason for this is that I find it impossible to determine what the right answer should be.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the matter of how you are once again engaging in equivocation to avoid admitting that your initial claim was wrong and un informed, just what was this "diversity"?

Yes. You went of half cocked again all the while posturing as if you were a master of the evidence. Otherwise why make such global and expansive and apodictic claims?



Did they now. Is this an informed claim? Or another Hullerism?

Manage to do what?? Are you saying text critics like Tischendorff and Metzger and Epp and those who are on the NA and UBS committees ignore evidence and are selective in what they use to establish a given text?

What is your point? And are you claiming expertise in text criticism now?

Why should I trust your opinion when you seem to be unfamiliar with what the witnesses are and what they do and do not say? You also seem to be unaware of the criteria that have been worked out by text critics to evaluate the evidence.

Why is it reasonable? It seems anything but. If they misrepresented what their opponents said, they'd lose the argument. Did Origen misrepresent Celsus? Sorry, but your view is agenda driven because you don't want to admit that guys like Marcion were what their opponents said they were.


In any case, Catholic witnesses. In Greek texts?

And I still have no idea why you are bringing up Augustine's text of Lk, 12:13-14.

You tend to be what?

Yes. Because you are basically uninformed in the areas you make sweeping pronouncements over. And if you don't know the right answer, you should say so rather than making the sorts of claims you do..

In any case, let's stick with your revised claim, please. What are these "diverse" readings for Lk. 12:13-14 and how many exactly are there? And why is it important to bring them up?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Oh brother. Every claim comes under the microscope. Yes if this was a serious academic forum, I would keep my mouth shut (as I do at a number of textual criticism groups where I lurk). But as this is a free for all, an amateur discussion group I feel right at home here. I have brought up the question many times why Mr. Oxford comes here to act as the dog in the manger but that apparently is being rude unlike Mr Oxford here.

The difference between the 'revised' and 'original' terminology is slight. Baarda is different from let's say - you Mr Oxford - insofar as he can actually read Arabic, Syriac and a host of other languages where you - by your own definition - become disqualified from contributing anything to the discussion because of your ignorance.

I know Baarda well enough to place him in the elite ranking of scholarship in that he has a mastery of a great number of languages. All of which brings us to the topic of 'weighting' in scholarship. Do scholars devalue testimonies in languages they can't understand? I think it is a valuable point. Take your consistent position about the importance of proficiency in Greek. What would you Mr. Oxford do when confronted with a testimony in a language you have little or no fluency?

If your position is that people that can't read a page of Greek without assistance from dictionaries and translations should be disqualified from having opinions about that text - then it would stand to reason that someone with this harsh opinion would shy away from evidence written in languages that they have little or no proficiency or at the least emphasize the testimonies in which they have mastery. This is a basic human deficiency. People generally think that 'their things' are the 'right things.' But it has the effect of marginalizing important 'alternative viewpoints' - most notably the importance of Diatessaronic witnesses.

I love Baarda because he always tackles the question of Diatessaronic witnesses. He can't help it. Most of the early Syriac and Persian witnesses come from this background. But - again going back to the question of the weighting of evidence - is it a fact that the Greek/quaternion witnesses are better than Syriac/Diatessaronic witnesses - or is this just a consequence of scholars coming from a mindset that 'what's mine' is better, what I know is all there is (or all there needs to be to come to the right answer).

I think you're right about the importance of language skills but I would extend your argument to only allowing people who can read at least six or seven ancient language to make broad presumptions about the state of 'early Christianity.' I've seen this play out in other disciplines - the study of Samaritanism for instance. The reason why no one calls it into question is because the field is dominated by people who only speak Latin and Greek. It is our inherited cultural bias.

The point of raising these issues related to Augustine - and you'd have to be familiar with the breadth of Baarda's work - is that Augustine's writings are often a respository of readings which have been argued to reflect the existence of a Western Diatessaron. The question that is really being asked here is whether Augustine is witnessing a tradition or 'making shit up.' I am not so sure that the conclusions of 1975 Baarda would be the same as 2013 Baarda. He was still cutting his teeth as it were back then. Fighting a tide of prejudice against Eastern witnesses. He hadn't yet found the flying Jesus. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102187219017

Jeffrey Gibson

So how many diverse witnesses are there to the text of Lk. 12:13-14? And how are they diverse from one another?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Here's an example of what I am talking about. I was just reading this book Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity. It's a really good book for what it is. But the author seems really, really obsessed with Greek Church Fathers and Greek writers (though there are a few references to Jewish texts in Aramaic). But no Syriac Church Fathers at all. No Ephrem, no Aphrahat - none of the Syriac Fathers. Now I am sure that the author's excuse is that these are 'late' writers - i.e. fourth century. But is that fair to the Syriac tradition? Ephrem may be 'late' but in order to give a balanced approach to the portrait of early Christianity that emerges from the book, it would have been nice to see an offhanded reference to 'what the Syriac tradition' says with its Diatessaron and its different interpretation. The same could be said with respect to Coptic traditions.

There is a circular argument here. Yes the Greek authors survive first. But does that mean that there wasn't Syriac Christianity? No certainly not. Edessa was among the earliest places to have widespread adoption of Christianity. Surely they wrote something at some point in history, long before Palut, long before Bardaisan, long before written history that has come down to us.

There was certainly an effort to establish one sort of Christianity and blot out all contradictory traditions which culminated in Nicaea. But if you read this book you'd think that it was all Greek, Greek, Greek.

stephan huller

Well I am walking out the door but Baarda counts Augstine, Thomas, Marcion, Ephrem, al-Gabbar for starters. I wish we had Tatian's original Diatessaron and that of Ammonius too. I wish we had the Gospel of the Hebrews to know whether Epiphanius was full of shit when he identified it as the Diatessaron. I wish we had the Marcionite gospel which I think was another Diatessaronic text.

Why doesn't the Diatessaron survive in Greek? My guess - it has something to do with the selective process of orthodoxy. In summa: they were destroyed.

I think there is a Diatessaron beneath Origen's Commentary on Matthew and John but that would require greater research to confirm. I think Clement used a Diatessaron. I even wonder whether Clement might have been the historical 'Ammonius Sacca' but that is wild speculation which I know you hate so much. So I won't even bring it up.

Jeffrey Gibson

So 5. Not massive. And how and in what way are they diverse from one another? More importantly, what difference does it make if they are?

Except you did.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Well what do you expect?








εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia