Hypotyposeis

Codex Sinaiticus Online

2009-07-06T12:38:00.000-05:00

As far as I can determine, all of Codex Sinaiticus has now been put on online.

Full Text for Jerome's Letter to Hebidia Now Online

2009-07-04T11:18:00.003-05:00

A while ago, in Full On-line Text for Jerome's Letter to Hebidia (Jan. 18, 2004), I had been asking about the on-line status of the full text for Jerome's letter Hebidia. A reader has now informed me that the full Latin text with a French translation is on-line at: Saint Jérôme : Critique Sacrée : Lettre à Hébibia (10 questions sur l'écriture sainte).

Martin Hengel, RIP

2009-07-02T21:43:00.003-05:00

Many bibliobloggers have reported that Martin Hengel has passed away at the age of 82 (e.g. TheoBlog; also a German-language obituary). For me, the books of his that I have enjoyed the most are his studies on the gospels of Mark and John.

Learning Theological German

2009-07-01T21:36:00.003-05:00

My classmate at Duke, Andy Rowell, has put up a web site for those wishing to learn German in connection with their studies in theology and biblical studies. The site is called, Theological German: The Guide to Quick Competency. He invites people to comment on his tips.

UPDATE: Ben Blackwell of Dunelm Road also has some suggested Websites for Learning German (July 2, 2009).

The Oxford Hebrew Bible Project

2009-06-24T18:57:00.003-05:00

The Oxford Hebrew Bible project has a home page, which blurbs itself as follows:

The Oxford Hebrew Bible will be a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible featuring a critical text, apparatus, and text-critical introduction and commentary. Each book of the Hebrew Bible will be addressed in a separate volume, published by Oxford University Press, with a single volume each for the Minor Prophets, the Megillot, and Ezra-Nehemiah. This project represents a departure from the other major textual editions (the Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Hebrew University Bible), which are diplomatic editions.

The project’s web site contains papers about the theory and method behind their edition, as well as some samples of their work.

As I mentioned in my previous post, Eclectic versus Diplomatic Critical Editions (June 20, 2009), I am very much in favor of an eclectic critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, particularly since we already have good diplomatic editions of the Masoretic text. The OHB critical edition promises to take the witness of LXX very serious, even preferring it at times to establish the main text. Based on the nature of the evidence, it seems to be a reasonable and a defensible decision that the OHB project uses the MT as a copy text, changing the reading of the MT only when the evidence of other witnesses is sufficient to overturn it.

Eclectic versus Diplomatic Critical Editions

2009-06-20T20:51:00.005-05:00

As a student of the Greek New Testament with a particular interest in textual criticism, I am very used to eclectic editions. After all, the major critical editions of the Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland, UBS) are eclectic, and eclecticism has dominated the textual criticism of the New Testament at least since Westcott and Hort. In fact, even the editio princeps of the New Testament by Erasmus can be thought of an eclectic edition, though his manuscript base was much more limited than it is today.

The attitude to editing the text of the Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, is very different. There, the idea of producing a diplomatic edition (that of a single manuscript) holds sway. For example, the prolegomena to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia states:

There is no need to defend the use of the Leningrad Codex B 19^A L as the basis for an edition of the Hebrew Bible, whatever one may think of its relationship to the Ben Asher text. ...

...

2. Text. We have thought it best to reproduce the text of the latest hand of L with close fidelity. We have accordingly refrained from «removing obvious scribal errors;» how we have dealt with doubtful examples may be seen in the critical apparatus to Is 2,15, note a. ...

Now, diplomatic editions certainly do have their place (particularly to convey to scholars what a particular textual witness reads), but it strikes me as very odd that the dominant scholarly text should be a diplomatic text of a single manuscript when there are multiple independent witnesses to the text. Because no manuscript copy of any appreciable length is perfect, a diplomatic text will reproduce the (known) errors of its base manuscript, even “obvious scribal errors.” To be sure, these errors are (sometimes?) noted in the apparatus, but the apparatus is not always clear about it. For example, at Isa 30:25, note a, the apparatus merely says “cf. 2, 15^a”; only by flipping the pages to 2:15 does it become apparent that a similar reading at that location is a scribal error. It is bad enough to have to consult the apparatus at the bottom of the page to avoid errors printed in the main text; it is much worse to be forced to check the apparatus on another page to do so.

Fortunately, the situation with a scholarly text of the Hebrew Bible is not completely dire. Ronald Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” VT 58 (2008): 324-351, describes a project to provide a proper (IMHO) critical edition of the Hebrew edition. May it come to pass soon!

Hendel’s article has been discussed among bibliobloggers, e.g., Chris Weimer, The Oxford Hebrew Bible (Sep. 19, 2008).

Judas Ointment and Christ

2009-06-14T09:32:00.004-05:00

There will shortly be available an English translation by Yancy Smith of On the Song of Songs by Hippolytus. Until then we must make do with the Latin translation by Garitte. (This is a translation into Latin of a Georgian text translated from an Armenian version of a Greek original.)

Chapter 2 of On the Song of Songs discusses Song of Songs 1:2-3 with particular attention to the significance of the references to ointment (which Hippolytus applies to Christ). There is an interesting passage about Judas which is the earliest surviving example of an idea later found much more widely, e.g. in the Golden Legend. The idea of a connection between the suggestion that the ointment poured by the woman over Jesus should have been sold instead for 3oo pence, and the betrayal of Christ by Judas for 30 pieces of silver. This passage provides a good example of the intertextual exegesis with which Hippolytus handles New Testament passages in this commentary. An intertextual exegesis which is nearly but not quite full-blown allegory. I am going to post my attempt at a translation of Garitte's Latin. NB My grasp of the Latin may sometimes be a little shaky, and, at least as important, the Latin itself is at several removes from the original Greek.

This ointment Judas hated and sold Christ for thirty denarii on account of this, crying out saying, "For what reason this waste of this ointment ? It should have been sold for three hundred denarii." This saying shows us O men a certain type. Now what was that ointment if not itself Christ ? Were we not before the passion instructed through the denarii of the cost of the passion ? In the passion a sale for thirty denarii is arranged. For worthy indeed was the truth when for a cheap price sold and when the poor were yet easily able to acquire it. And so it was esteemed.

Academic Blogging: Publication or Service?

2009-05-24T21:36:00.010-05:00

A friend of mine at the annual meeting of the North American Patristics Society (NAPS) reported that a speaker at a session on scholarly publishing observed that blogging tended to count more as service instead of publications for one’s academic career (read: tenure and promotion). On the face of it, this observation seems plausible--one’s web work does count, but not as a replacement for publishing. My questions are: is this really the case? and is this a good way to evaluate the role of blogging in conjunction with one’s academic career?

As for me, I mentioned blogging on my grad school application in 2006. I figured that blogging was well enough developed not to be viewed as a net negative (unlike, say, discussing how much time you’ve invested into World of Warcraft) and that any reasonably diligent admissions committee should easily be able to find my internet presence.

UPDATE: See Opus Imperfectum’s post on this topic: Publishing For Dummies: Blogging as Research/Teaching/Service? (May 25, 2009) for a fuller treatment.

MORE: See Mark Goodacre, Academic Blogging: Publication, Service or Teaching? (May 25, 2009), reminding us about the “teaching” portion of the triad; Jim West, Blogging: To What End? (May 26, 2009), broadening the question beyond academic issues; and Mark Goodacre, Why blog? (May 26, 2009), following up.

Those who read Portuguese will appreciate Airton José da Silva, Um blog é uma ferramenta democrática (May 26, 2009).

SEE ALSO: Rafael of Verily, Verily, digital scholarship (May, 27, 2009), linking to an InsiderHigherEd.com article by Scott Jaschik, Tenure in a Digital Era (May 26, 2009).

EVEN MORE: Tim Bulkeley, Should blogging count for academics? (May 28, 2009), answers his own question as follows:

Should blogging "count"? I do hope not, because if it does, I'll need to produce "n" posts a year, and remove from Sansblogue any posts I fear will not meet the approval of some committee. If blogging starts to "count" then the biblical blogsphere will become a mass of turgid, safely academic, posts full of language designed to impress rather than to communicate, relieved only by the amateurs - used in it's deep sense of someone who undertakes an activity for love rather than payment - and the outsiders.

Christian Allegory of the New Testament

2009-05-09T08:17:00.002-05:00

It is generally and correctly accepted that, although (some form of) allegory of the Old Testament goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity (see Paul's allegory of Sarah and Hagar and their sons in Galatians 4:21-31), the allegorical interpretation of the New Testament develops later.

It is clear that Heracleon in his Commentary on John in the late 2nd century CE treats the Gospel in a radically allegorical way and other examples could be found in other Gnostic writers. The history of allegorical interpretation of the New Testament by orthodox writers is, however, less clear or more disputed. Origen in the 3rd century CE obviously allegorizes the New Testament, but there is disagreement about whether earlier orthodox writers do so. I am going to suggest that one cause of the disagreement among modern scholars results from differences in what is meant by allegory.

Hanson in his excellent study of Origen Allegory and Event p. 119 criticises Grant for claiming, in The Letter and the Spirit p. 89, that Clement of Alexandria does not allegorize the New Testament. Hanson would include Irenaeus and Hippolytus as well as Clement among New Testament allegorists before Origen. Grant may have retreated in his later work from this position about Clement of Alexandria, but the original disagreement between Hanson and Grant seems to involve a difference in terminology.

For evidence of the allegorical interpretation of the New Testament by Irenaeus and Clement, Hanson refers to the Christological interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan by Irenaeus in Against Heresies book 3 (Wherefore we have need of the dew of God, that we be not consumed by fire, nor be rendered unfruitful, and that where we have an accuser there we may have also an Advocate, the Lord commending to the Holy Spirit His own man, who had fallen among thieves, whom He Himself compassionated, and bound up his wounds, giving two royal denaria; so that we, receiving by the Spirit the image and superscription of the Father and the Son, might cause the denarium entrusted to us to be fruitful, counting out the increase [thereof] to the Lord) and by Clement in Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved ? (Who else can it be but the Saviour Himself? or who more than He has pitied us, who by the rulers of darkness were all but put to death with many wounds, fears, lusts, passions, pains, deceits, pleasures? Of these wounds the only physician is Jesus, who cuts out the passions thoroughly by the root,-not as the law does the bare effects, the fruits of evil plants, but applies His axe to the roots of wickedness. He it is that poured wine on our wounded souls (the blood of David's vine), that brought the oil which flows from the compassions of the Father, and bestowed it copiously. He it is that produced the ligatures of health and of salvation that cannot be undone,-Love, Faith, Hope.) These are clearly allegorical interpretations but they are allegorical interpretations of reported speech, and reported speech of a clearly non-literal kind. Modern readers will (probably correctly) find this type of interpretation of the parable unconvincing, but it has no tendency to minimize the significance of the Gospel account as literal history. These interpretation are based on what Jesus is reported to have actually said although they suffers from an anachronistic understanding of what Jesus might have meant. Similar considerations probably apply to Hippolytus in his Commentary on the Song of Songs where Jesus' (metaphorical) reference to Herod in Luke 13:32 Go and tell that fox is interpreted on the basis that scriptural references to foxes actually refer to heretics.

Heracleon's interpretation of the passage in John 4:46-53 where Jesus heals the nobleman's son, (The nobleman is the Demiurge etc), much more radically undermines serious concern with historicity. We find similar interpretations of the Gospel narratives in Origen see for example the Commentary on John Book 10 in which the cleansing of the temple is interpreted as referring to the casting out of spiritual evils by Jesus (But it may also be the case that the natural temple is the soul skilled in reason, which, because of its inborn reason, is higher than the body; to which Jesus ascends from Capernaum, the lower-lying place of less dignity, and in which, before Jesus' discipline is applied to it, are found tendencies which are earthly and senseless and dangerous, and things which have the name but not the reality of beauty, and which are driven away by Jesus with His word plaited out of doctrines of demonstration and of rebuke, to the end that His Father's house may no longer be a house of merchandize but may receive, for its own salvation and that of others, that service of God which is performed in accordance with heavenly and spiritual laws. The ox is symbolic of earthly things, for he is a husbandman. The sheep, of senseless and brutal things, because it is more servile than most of the creatures without reason. Of empty and unstable thoughts, the dove. Of things that are thought good but are not, the small change.) Origen combines this interpretation with a degree of scepticism about the historicity of the narrative. It is this preparedness to wholeheartedly allegorize the Gospel narrative as such, that does not appear to be found in orthodox writers before Origen.

Hence Grant was IMO correct to claim that in spite of (or because of) the Gnostic precedent, orthodox Christian writers refrain from serious allegorizing of New Testament narratives until the time of Origen.

Secret Mark Session at SBL 2009

2009-04-13T19:15:00.002-05:00

There is going to be a session on Secret Mark at this year's annual meeting of the SBL (see program book), devoted to Peter Jeffery's book, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled; Imagined Ritual of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery.

Participants include: Peter Jeffery, Princeton University; Robin Jensen, Vanderbilt University; Donald Capps, Princeton Theological Seminary; J. Ellens, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; and Raymond Lawrence.

It should be interesting.

One Step Forward and Another One Back: The TNIV on Luke 2:7c

2009-04-03T15:17:00.005-05:00

The final clause of Luke 2:7c, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι, has often been mistranslated as “because there was no room for them in the inn” (so NIV and many others). As scholars have often been pointing out, in this context it is unlikely for several reasons that κατάλυμα means “inn” but rather should be “guest room.” Thus, it is not the case that Joseph and Mary were denied a place to stay in the inn, but that where they were staying (cf. v.6) was too small to accommodate the birth and new baby. There was no place in their accommodations for all three of them. While Matthew has an infancy narrative fit for a king, Luke on the other hand chooses to emphasize Jesus’s impoverished beginnings.

The TNIV’s rendition of Luke 2:7c is “because there was no guest room available for them.” To be sure, this represents an improvement over its predecessor in one respect: rendering κατάλυμα as “guest room” instead of “inn.” Inexplicably, however, it still succumbs to the old imagery of the Christmas pageants by saying that there was no guest room available for Joseph and Mary. That is not what v.7c says. It says that there was no place in the κατάλυμα for them, not that there was no κατάλυμα for them.

One step forward, and another one back.

New Partitions for Second Corinthians

2009-04-01T00:01:00.000-05:00

The latest issue of the Journal of Kerygmatic Ecclesiology (which, as we remember, is mainly focused on Pauline Christianity) has a fascinating article by two scholars at Chicago detailing papyrological evidence in favor of partitioning 2 Corinthians.

As everybody knows, the tone changes drastically in the final four chapters of 2 Corinthians, and vv. 6:14-7:3 (about yoking with unbelievers) looks like an obvious interpolation, leading many scholars to conclude that 2 Corinthians was not originally a unified letter at all but rather multiple letters that had been stitched together to create the canonical letter we have today. Partition theories are very good at solving exegetical problems in the canonical letter, including Paul’s changes in tone, the notices about Titus, and the Paul’s activities toward the collection. The biggest obstacle for partitioning 2 Corinthians, however, is the lack of any manuscript evidence in favor of it.

This now has changed. Two fragments of Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthian church have now been found among some previously unidentified papyrus fragments and ostraka being conserved at Chicago University.

The first fragment, identified by Dr. Franz Dietrich Butz, consists on the recto side what is now 2 Cor 12:16-21, which begins with Πάλιν λέγω, μή τις με δόξῃ ἄφρονωα εἶναι, “Again I say, let no one deem me a fool.” Confirming that this fragment actually was from Paul, there is on the verso side a signature with the name “Paul” and a date, the Kalends of Αρτεμίσιος, which is an Ionic lunar month suggesting a date in late March or early April.

What’s interesting about the text is that it lacks the word ὡς in v.21, solving a real exegetical quandary there because critics could not figure out what that word is doing in that sentence: κατὰ ἀτιμίαν λέγω, ὠς ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠστενήκαμεν, “Shamefully I say (as if?) that we had been weak.”

Even better is that the missing word, ὡς, was found (by Dr. Margaret Musso), on an ostrakon, written in the same hand as the previous fragment. This shows that it too was written by Paul. Musso has determined that this was Paul’s answer to the offender in 1 Cor 5 who asked Paul that, since he could not longer sleep with his father’s second wife, whether her younger sister was acceptable. Paul’s answer was a single word scratched on the pottery sharp: ὡς meaning “as if!” Musso further surmises that this word must have been interpolated into the middle of what is now 2 Cor 12:21, thereby causing that tortuous syntax.

The full cite to the article is: Franz Dietrich Butz and Margaret Musso, “Paul’s April ‘Fool’ Letter,” JoKE 42 (2009) 12-21.

Naber on Gal 4:25a

2009-03-28T09:27:00.007-05:00

In the 19th century, Samuel Adrianus Naber (1828-1913) thought that Gal 4:25a was an obvious interpolation. From S. A. Naber, “ϒΠΕΡ ΤΑ ΕΣΚΑΜΜΕΝΑ,” Mnemosyne n.s. 6 (1878): 85-104 at 102:

LI. Numquam vidi interpolationem stultiorem quam ea est, quae invenitur in Ep. ad Gal. 4. 25. Sermo est de utroque testamento. Αὗται γάρ εἰσι δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις εςὶν Ἄγαρ. Allegoria, nam ipse Paulus allegoriam appellat. intellectu facilior est quam elegantior. Veteris Testamenti exemplum Ismael est, ex ancilla susceptus, Novi autem Testamenti Isaac, qui ingenuus erat, quem ingenua mulier pepererat. Sed asinus quidam adscripsit: τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ (deest hoc nomen in Codice Sinaitico) Σινᾶ ὄρος εςὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ. Narrant interpretes Agar esse nomen montis in Arabia. Fabula. Nunc certe magni facienda auctoritas librarii, qui codicem Sinaiticum exaravit. Numquam is quidquam inaudivit de monte Agar; scripsit enim simpliciter: τὸ δὲ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐςὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ, quae praeclara adnotatio iis praesertim utilis esse debuit qui ipsum montem incolebant, in quo ille liber repertus est.

51. I have never seen an interpolation more stupid than that which is found in Gal 4:25. The discourse is about each covenant. [For these are two covenants, one indeed from Mt. Sinai born into slavery, which is Hagar]. Allegory. Now Paul himself calls it allegory. It is easier, rather than more sophisticated, to understand. The Old Testament example is Ishmael, begotten from the handmaid, but the New Testament, Isaac who was freeborn whom a freeborn woman bore. But a certain jackass added: [now “Hagar” (this name is missing in Codex Sinaiticus) is Mt. Sinai in Arabia]. Interpreters says that Hagar is the name of a mountain in Arabia. Hogwash. Now much is certainly to be made of the authority of the copyist who penned the Sinaiticus codex. He has never heard anything of a Mount Hagar; for he simply wrote: [now Sinai is a mountain in Arabia], whose excellent annotation ought to be especially useful for those who inhabited this mountain, on which this book was discovered.

Thanks to the folks at B-Latin for help with the Latin of one of the sentences.

Daily Greek NT Feature Removed

2009-03-24T12:27:00.003-05:00

With the demise of Zack Hubert’s Greek website, this blog’s sidebar feature of the Daily Greek New Testament is no longer working. Therefore, I have reluctantly removed it until its resurrection.

Paul Maas on Interpolations

2009-03-20T09:26:00.002-05:00

From Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (trans. Barbara Flower; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 14-15:

An investigation of this kind would be particularly desirable in the case of interpolations, i.e. the class of alterations (mostly insertions) which is not due to accident but is an attempt to restore the original or actually to represent forged matter as original, by a conscious but not openly admitted interference with the tradition. Alterations of this kind are particularly dangerous, as it is often very difficult to prove that a text based on them has been deformed (whereas scribal blunders normally produce obvious nonsense); and in texts where such an interpolation has been demonstrated much becomes suspect simply because it appears to be superfluous. And it is so easy simply to cut out what could easily be dispensed with! But there is undoubtedly superfluous (or at least not demonstrably indispensable) matter in every original. So very thorny problems arise. The history of interpolation is closely linked with that of the forging of whole works; this too would be worth writing.

Delbert Burkett's Forthcoming Book on Q

2009-03-17T07:37:00.003-05:00

I ran into Delbert Burkett (Ph.D., Duke) of Louisiana State University at last weekend’s Southeast regional meeting of the SBL (SECSOR). He tells me the following about his second book on the synoptic problem:

My book on Q (Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Vol. 2: The Unity and Plurality of Q) should be out later this year. It's with one of the SBL series, now titled "Early Christianity and Its Literature."

So, let’s keep an eye out for it.

CSEL Online

2009-03-16T23:04:00.001-05:00

Stefan Zara, a Romanian scholar, has collected the links to freely available web copies of certain texts from CSEL:

The Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) is a series of critical editions of the Latin Church Fathers published by a committee of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

[via Roger Pearse, List of CSEL volumes with links to Google books (Mar. 13, 2009)]

Biblica Patristica Online

2009-03-16T20:32:00.001-05:00

Biblica Patristica Online is a useful tool for looking up Patristic references to the Bible.

Medieval News: Update on the Collapsed Cologne Archive

2009-03-09T22:12:00.000-05:00

Medieval News: Update on the Collapsed Cologne Archive:

Christian Hillen, who has been on the scene of the collapsed archive building in Cologne, Germany, has reported to Medievalists.net that more than 100 books from the medieval chronicles collection have been recovered undamaged so far.

Read the whole thing.

Via: Richard Scott Nokes, Not a Total Loss at Cologne (Mar. 9, 2009).

SBL Unicode Greek Font Now Available

2009-03-06T23:14:00.001-05:00

The long awaited SBL Unicode Greek font sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature is now available. It is a nice looking font.

[via: Rod Decker, SBL Greek font just posted (Mar. 6, 2009)].

Generic Advice for Succeeding in Grad School

2009-03-03T18:33:00.000-05:00

Fabio Rojas of orgtheory.net has some fairly generic advice for succeeding in grad school (though his specific examples are mostly drawn from the social sciences): grad skool rulz (Jul. 27, 2007).

Anna Blanch's Review of Hypotyposeis Blog

2009-03-01T22:44:00.001-05:00

Anna M. Blanch of Goannatree has been reviewing the Christian Colleges.com’s Top 100 Theology Blogs. Here is what she says about this blog, Hypotyposeis:

Hypotyposeis: Subtitled as Sketches in Biblical Studies by Stephen C. Carlson. Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's invention of the Secret Mark (Baylor University Press), Carlson's blog is a true biblioblog which focuses on presenting research finds, research, abstracts, and reviews, along with commentary of other things going on in the blogosphere. This blog is incorrectly categorised as 'writings' and would be better classified as Academic even though Carlson who has a J.D rather than a PhD. This interview on Biblioblogs.com with Carlson is a great introduction to his motivations for biblioblogging and to biblioblogging in general. The blogroll is a good place to start for anyone interested in biblioblogging or biblioblogs.

Making the Grade:

Scope - A

Quality - A-

Theological Leanings - ?

(Well, I’m working on the Ph.D....)

I suppose that the most important thing I would like to add is that this blog has been benefiting greatly from the contributions of guest biblioblogger Andrew Criddle, all of whose posts should be collected under the label: Andrew Criddle.

Tracking Down the Supposed Bentley Conjecture for Gal 4:25

2009-02-27T23:35:00.007-05:00

In Conjectures in the NA27 Apparatus for Galatians (Feb. 15, 2009), I listed the five places in Galatians where the NA27 apparatus set forth a conjecture. It turns out that matters are more complicated than they appear. For example, Jan Krans commented immediately (Feb. 16, 2009) that the one listed for Gal 2:17 is not a conjecture at all, but an editorial preference and should be ignored. As another example, Krans posted about the Gal 1:10 conjecture and found that the apparatus understates the scope of the conjecture: 6. What now? - Cramer on Gal 1:10 (Feb. 22, 2009).

As for the Bentley conjecture for Gal 2:25, my first attempt to track it down is to examine some leading, older commentaries: Burton, Lightfoot, and Hort. All of their discussions, however, indicate that the NA27 has overstated the scope of the conjecture. Take a look at the following:

Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 260.

The difficulty of interpretation, especially the absence of definite evidence of any usage that would account for the identification of Hagar and Sinai, either as names or places suggests the possibility of an interpolation at this point. Bentley (Letter to Mill, p. 45; according to Ellis, Bentleii Crit. Sac., he afterwards changed his mind and adopted reading (a) [τὸ γὰρ Σινὰ ὄρος ἐστίν]) suggested that the words Σινὰ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ were a marginal gloss afterwards introduced into the text; and Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, I. 1, p. 171, et al., conjecture that the whole sentence τὸ δὲ . . . Ἀραβίᾳ is an interpolation. Cf. Clemen, Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe, pp. 118 f.

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (1882; repr.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), App. 121.

Both the early readings, which differ only by the presence or absence of ΔΕΑ, are perplexing and hard to interpret but there is no need to have recourse to Bentley’s violent remedy and to suppose Σινὰ ὄρος ἐστίν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ to be a marginal gloss, the intrusion of which led to the insertion of δέ after συνστοιχεῖ.

J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (1st ed., 1865; repr.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995), 193.

Such seems to be the most probable account of the passage. Otherwise the earlier conjecture of Bentley, that we have here a gloss transferred from margin to text, has much to recommend it. Bentley himself indeed read it τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ συστοιχεῖ τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσαλήμ, but it seems simpler, if any such solution be adopted, to erase the whole clause τὸ γὰρ......ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ. This hypothesis derives some colour from the fact that there is a slight variation of reading in the connecting particles of the following clauses, as if the connexion had been disturbed by the insertion of the gloss.

At this point in the investigation, it is looking like the NA27 apparatus is incorrect in presenting the scope of the conjecture. According to my research so far, Bentley did not propose that the entire clause was an interpolation, and the person who did so was not Bentley.

Nevertheless, I have requested a copy of Bentley’s letter to Mill from the library. When it comes in, we’ll see what he really said.

Redating the Reign of Herod the Great?

2009-02-26T14:02:00.003-05:00

The latest issue of Novum Testamentum has an interesting article on redating the reign of Herod the Great: Andrew E. Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” NovT 51 (2009): 1-29. In this article, Steinmann argues that the “Schürer consensus” that Herod reigned from 40 to 4 BCE is wrong and that Herod actually reigned form late 39 to early 1 BCE.

The best part about the essay is the reminder that precise dates for Herod’s reign are not directly attested in the surviving evidence but must rather be deduced from various and often conflicting clues mostly found in Josephus but also in the New Testament and numismatic evidence. As for the end of Herod’s reign, Joseph tells us that he died between a lunar eclipse and Passover, which means that the two best candidates for his death are in 4 BCE and 1 BCE. The “Schürer consensus” prefers the former, while Steinmann argues for the latter.

Herodian chronology is not my specialty, so I must leave the most technical critique of the article to those who are. Nevertheless, I was ultimately not persuaded by the article based on what I have read. In particular, it does not seem likely that three of Herod’s (Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip) would all reckon their reigns from 4 BCE unless that was the year that Herod’s reigned ended. Steinmann’s attempts to overcome these difficulties by separate arguments (supposing coregencies for Antipas and Archelaus and textual corruption in the case of Philip) strike me as lacking the economy of explanation of the “Schürer consensus.” Ultimately, history is about probabilities and too many things have to coincide just right for Steinmann’s case to carry conviction.

Also problematic for me is Steinmann's appeal to Luke 3:26 stating that Jesus was “about thirty” (ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα). He compares this to the age of Jairus’s daughter at Luke 8:42 (p. 19):

However, Luke 8:42 is very similar to Luke 3:26. It states that a synagogue ruler had a daughter who was “about twelve years old” (ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα). Now it would appear in choosing to report her as “about twelve,” Luke is attempting to be as accurate as possible. He means something like “closer to twelve than to eleven or thirteen,” since he could have chosen a more general description if he only meant to indicate that she was in early adolescence. But, in choosing to give us an age, he is implying that she was close to twelve, but not exactly twelve, or he is implying that he had had a good--but not exact--idea of what her age was (within a year or so).

Nowhere in Steinmann’s discussion, however, is the source of Luke’s information as to her age: Mark 5:42 “for she was twelve years old” (ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα). Indeed, what Luke does with numbers in his source is not treated in Steinmann’s article at all. For example, Mark 9:2 has “after six days” (μετὰ ἡμέρας ἓξ), but Luke changes this to “about eight days after these words” (μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ). For Luke, “six” is “about eight,” or 33% longer than his source’s number. (Note that 33% longer than 30 is 40!) This evidence paints a very different picture of Luke’s attitude to numerical precision than that advocated for him by Steinmann.

My 2009 SBL Paper on Origen's Use of Thomas

2009-02-24T17:56:00.006-05:00

I am pleased to learn that my paper, “Origen’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas,” has been accepted for the Consultation on the Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and Early Christianity at the 2009 Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Here is the abstract:

Origen is especially well-suited for a study on the reception of the Gospel of Thomas in antiquity. He was perhaps the most well-read Christian intellectual of the third century and he amassed a huge library to support his prolific output of exegetical writings, many of which have survived. Moreover, Origen was more open-minded about citing “apocryphal” works than many other ancient Christian writers, so his vast body of work promises to contain several examples of his use of the Gospel of Thomas. This paper surveys a half-dozen cases where Origen used the Gospel of Thomas, both by name and anonymously—including one previously unrecognized instance—and assesses his attitude toward this text. In short, this survey shows that, despite Origen’s recognition that the Gospel of Thomas did not rank with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and despite the presence of some content he must have found objectionable, Origen nonetheless thought that the Gospel of Thomas contained historically useful and homiletically edifying material.