Textkit Logo

John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:26 pm

Hort has a very long note on this verse, despite that face that NA gives no apparatus for it. The patristic evidence strongly indicates that τὸ πάσχα was not present in many texts of the 2nd/3rd century. It is, however, present in all of our manuscripts.

This verse is also one of the things that gives us John's 3-year ministry for Jesus, versus the apparently shorter period of the Synoptics.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby mwh » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:02 pm

το πασχα is obviously an intrusive gloss, identifying (or misidentifying) the festival in question.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:45 pm

It's striking to come across things like this. It wasn't in Georg Luck's Conjectural Emendations article -- I only found it by looking through the list of obelisked verses in W&H. I would think that an OCT apparatus would at least mention it, but I suppose the NA apparatus is a bit different from that. If so, is there anything that really replaces W&H?

It's also surprising to me that an insertion, not widely present in the 2nd century, could have made it into all of our surviving texts. I had assumed that there wasn't anything useful in Patristic quotations, since apparatuses never mentioned anything interesting. Maybe that was a bad assumption to make.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:30 am

jeidsath wrote:It's striking to come across things like this. It wasn't in Georg Luck's Conjectural Emendations article -- I only found it by looking through the list of obelisked verses in W&H. I would think that an OCT apparatus would at least mention it, but I suppose the NA apparatus is a bit different from that. If so, is there anything that really replaces W&H?

It's also surprising to me that an insertion, not widely present in the 2nd century, could have made it into all of our surviving texts. I had assumed that there wasn't anything useful in Patristic quotations, since apparatuses never mentioned anything interesting. Maybe that was a bad assumption to make.


Do you think there is a single New Testament textual critic that hasn't read what you're reading? If the answer is no, how do your account for the fact that this doesn't show up in the apparatus? I suggest reading some articles on the evaluation of patristic evidence.

Postscript: Ruben Swanson didn't include any patristic evidence in his parallel copper apparatus. There was some criticism about that.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby mwh » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:32 am

Certainly an OCT editor would mention it, and remove it if he was worth his salt. Textual traditions are full of such incorporated glosses. But NT editors are a peculiarly timid lot, and know what howls of protest would greet even the smallest change.
It’s a general rule that interpolations tend to spread (as manuscripts are compared with one another), while omissions are quickly made good.

I don’t think it should surprIse if quotations in early authorities occasionally offer a more pristine text than our manuscripts. They are earlier, after all.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:24 am

W. Willker covers this:

An Online Textual Commentary
on the Greek Gospels

http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf

SEARCH for: "163*, 1634, 2206"

RE: Patristic Evidence
Look for this in the Graduate Theological Union[1] Lib Berkeley:
GTU BS2325 .T48 2013 AVAILABLE

The Use of the Greek Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism

The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research Authors: Gordon D. Fee and Roderic L. Mullen Source: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, pp 351-373 Subjects: Biblical Studies Publication Year : 2012

[1] The GTU Library is in Joel's neighborhood.
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Timothée » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:46 am

jeidsath wrote:NA gives no apparatus for [τὸ πάσχα].

Nestle—Aland has
vs 1634 pc

in its apparatus, and that refers to the whole verse, as it is in its totality between the signs □ and \. That means that the whole verse is missing in whatever is in the apparatus. This is plausible enough, as earlier in John we have basically the same twice (in 2,13 and 5,1), as NA notes in the margin (adding an exclamation mark in the margin after both of these loci).
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:10 pm

NA 28 removes even that, I'm afraid. But some searching on the web confirms that NA 27 gives the same as you quote, originally 472, but 1634 in the update.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Timothée » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:35 pm

For confirmation:
Image

Yes, I have the 27th edition.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:20 am

mwh wrote:το πασχα is obviously an intrusive gloss, identifying (or misidentifying) the festival in question.


It's a standard cliche, but still true enough, that whenever someone uses "obviously" in an assertion the assertion is automatically suspect. A text which has near universal manuscript support bears a great weight of prejudice in favor of it's authenticity. Since it's not obvious to everyone, why don't you support your assertion?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Virtus omnia domet...
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby mwh » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:14 am

Because it should be obvious to everyone, and would be if they had more extensive textual experience.

You are free (obviously) to regard everything I say as automatically suspect. It seems you do.

The more interesting question is the status of the sentence itself. το πασχα may be a secondary intrusion.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Paul Derouda » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:17 pm

What mwh means, is that if the text originally had ἦν δὲ έγγύς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, someone would have added τὸ πάσχα in the margin as an explanatory gloss. The person who made the next copy of the text would have then thought that the word in the margin was a correction for a word that had accidentally dropped out, and would have incorporated it in the main text when making his copy. I've seen this kind of thing many, many times in apparatuses and commentaries to other classical texts. What's more, since people who made copies of manuscripts knew that there were mistakes, they compared different manuscripts when making their copies, and when they noticed something that seemed to be missing in one text, they would complement the new text they were writing with what they found in the text that seemed more complete. For this reason, traditions tend to be accretive – texts tend to accumulate material as time goes by; something dropping out of a tradition is much more unlikely and (as far as I understand) only happens if there are few manuscripts (so either in the beginning or a "bottleneck" of a tradition). Interpolations that appeared early on can very well contaminate the whole medieval tradition (I've seen that kind of thing many times with Homer at least). Here we apparently we have evidence that the church fathers had a different text, and, as Timothée and mwh point out, we have manuscripts that don't have the whole verse at all – which might mean that we're dealing with an interpolation within an interpolation.
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:11 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The GTU Library is in Joel's neighborhood.


I'm over in Wisconsin nowadays. Paul might appreciate knowing that where I'm at, it's 30 degrees (Fahrenheit) colder than Helsinki today. The lakes all froze over last week. But in California there was an earthquake this morning, centered under my old apartment, which I missed.

mwh wrote:το πασχα may be a secondary intrusion.


The absence of the entire verse would also explain the patristic evidence. It might even explain it better. Here is Origen on 5:1 (mentioned by Hort):

Ἐὰν δὲ αὕτη ἡ ἑορτὴ <ἡ> τοῦ πάσχα ᾖ—οὐ <γὰρ> πρόσκειται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς—, στενοχωρεῖται τὸ ἀκόλουθον τῆς ἱστορίας, καὶ μάλιστα ἐπεὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα ἐπιφέρεται ὅτι «Ἦν ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἡ σκηνοπηγία.»


So Origen passes over 6:4 completely, looking ahead to 7:2.

Just looking at the text, I would say that 6:4 is less motivated by the surrounding text than 5:1 or 7:2. It is very similar to 7:2.

As an interpolation, ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων makes sense. A scribe adding it as a marginal note might be saying: "John 7:2 explains the crowds." Though in my opinion, the festival of booths is not a very good explanation for crowds on a mountain. Still, I can imagine someone thinking that it was.

I don't see how the full ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων could be an independent interpolation all at once. It makes far less sense as a marginal note. So if 6:4 was originally not present, I think there would have to be a two step process, with ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων coming in first, and then τὸ πάσχα.

On the other hand, I don't see any way to say that ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων couldn't have been John himself. The manuscript evidence against it seems late, and perhaps the verse dropped out as a mechanical mistake? I imagine that someone would have to know more about the characteristics of 472 and 1634 (and whatever others are meant by "pc") to make a determination.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Paul, thanks for your response, very helpful. This is supposed to be a teaching and discussion forum, and no, not everyone has the extensive experience with manuscripts that you and apparently MWH have had, so it's not obvious to everyone and further explication is very helpful. So, the facts are:

1) There is near universal manuscript support for the reading.

2) There is no internal evidence to indicate that the reading is suspect.

3) The reading is missing from a number of 2-3 century writers who quote the text, which suggests that the early transmission history of the text may have been more complicated than the current manuscript evidence indicates.

Would you consider that a fair summary?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Virtus omnia domet...
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:34 pm

472 is Lambeth 1177. Scrivener describes it here: https://archive.org/stream/afullandexac ... 3/mode/1up

The collation of this strange and troublesome manuscript was commenced by Burney, and at the end of the third chapter abandoned in despair: "mendis erratisque ita scatet, ut scriptorum imperitiae et oscitantiae luculentissimum fiat argumentum" is his emphatic sentence of condemnation. I certainly never met with a copy of the Gospels written with such irreverent and scandalous negligence, but this is only one instance out of a thousand of the danger of judging hastily from first appearances. Had Dr Burney patience or leisure to have completed the examination of Codex c, he would have found it abound, far beyond any other in the whole collection, with novel and remarkable readings, which (in spite of its unpromising appearance) would have amply repaid all the diligence he could have bestowed upon it.


EDIT:

Reading further:

Two disputed passages are obelized in the margin, Luke xxiii. 39-41; John vi. 4.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Paul Derouda » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:12 pm

Just to make it clear, I have zero actual experience on manuscripts. Greek is my hobby and textual transmission is one of the subject I've studied, especially as far as it concerns Homer (Was there a Homer?! Who, why, when wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey!? That sort of thing...). Mwh is the real expert here and a large part of what I've learnt comes from him.
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Paul Derouda » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:26 pm

jeidsath wrote:I'm over in Wisconsin nowadays. Paul might appreciate knowing that where I'm at, it's 30 degrees (Fahrenheit) colder than Helsinki today. The lakes all froze over last week. But in California there was an earthquake this morning, centered under my old apartment, which I missed.

For those of you who live in warmer climates than me, I can tell you that I'd really prefer if it were just a bit colder in winter. Every time it snows the snow melts and that means your feet are wet, which is much worse than just being cold. Besides it's very dark here and the snow would make evenings much brighter. I'm told we're one of the regions most affected by climate change, and I can believe that since we've lately had several winters almost without snow, which just didn't happen when I was a kid (I know this is anecdotal, but still).

I don't see how the full ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων could be an independent interpolation all at once. It makes far less sense as a marginal note. So if 6:4 was originally not present, I think there would have to be a two step process, with ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων coming in first, and then τὸ πάσχα.

Looks quite likely to me. We can never be sure with this kind thing, of course.

pc means pauci, "a few manuscripts".
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:15 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:Just to make it clear, I have zero actual experience on manuscripts. Greek is my hobby and textual transmission is one of the subject I've studied, especially as far as it concerns Homer ...


Textual criticism of the New Testament is a whole different ballgame. For anyone sufficiently interested to do some reading, it might be worth tracking down a library copy Bruce Metzger's Second edition.[1] The fourth edition[2] revised by Bart Ehrman is both late and corrupt. :lol:

Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible[3] perhaps has a little more in common with classical authors. The main point of similarity is the distance between the "original" and the earliest extant manuscripts. Beyond that there isn't much similarity. The text of the so-called Septuagint presents a completely different set of problems.

Attitudes, assumptions, methods, and procedures such as we have seen in this thread, might be (?) common working with classical manuscripts separated by 1,500 years from the author. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was common for New Testament textual critics to be classical philologists. R. H. Charles ICC commentary on the Apocalypse of John is a prime example. Nobody pays any attention nowadays to his fanciful reconstruction of the text. There's nothing wrong with reading Victorian authors like B.F. Westcott. I have his commentary on John's Gospel in my hands. I was unable to find any reference to a hypothetical "gloss" in John 6:4. Westcott discusses important variant readings. The book that Joel is reading was intended for a different audience than Westcott's commentary.

Contemporary New Testament textual criticism is vastly removed from Westcott and Hort.[4]

[1]The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2nd Edition), Bruce M. Metzger.

[2]The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) (9780195161229): Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman

[3] Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov, 2nd ed. 2001.

[4] A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism
Peter J. Gurry, Brill, 2017.
http://www.brill.com/products/book/crit ... -criticism
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Timothée » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:33 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:2) There is no internal evidence to indicate that the reading is suspect.

6,4 doesn’t quite fit into the story, and we have almost the same twice earlier in John. (Of course John could have repeated it himself.) 6,4 may easily have been (it seems even likely) a post-Johannine explanation into the text. It cannot, of course, be proven, but that’s not the aim of philological scholarship anyway.

Barry Hofstetter wrote:This is supposed to be a teaching and discussion forum, and no, not everyone has the extensive experience with manuscripts that you and apparently MWH have had, so it's not obvious to everyone and further explication is very helpful.

The delicate balance is to serve people of all the levels of learning, ideally from the basics all the way to the highest levels of academia. Not everything can be explained everywhere, unfortunately—it just wouldn’t work. But the purpose is not to keep readers in the darkness, either. I think mwh may have thought that people partaking in this discussion on NT text-criticism know the basic mechanisms of it.

I should hope that the texts of the New Testament could be discussed like any other ancients texts on these forums, but it’s a vain hope, I fear.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:39 pm

Timothée wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:2) There is no internal evidence to indicate that the reading is suspect.

6,4 doesn’t quite fit into the story, and we have almost the same twice earlier in John. (Of course John could have repeated it himself.) 6,4 may easily have been (it seems even likely) a post-Johannine explanation into the text. It cannot, of course, be proven, but that’s not the aim of philological scholarship anyway.


It also opens up a chronology difference between John and the synoptics. However, is that something that John would have cared very much about? Perhaps not, given the chronology of his Passion account.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:11 pm

Timothée wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:2) There is no internal evidence to indicate that the reading is suspect.

6,4 doesn’t quite fit into the story, and we have almost the same twice earlier in John. (Of course John could have repeated it himself.) 6,4 may easily have been (it seems even likely) a post-Johannine explanation into the text. It cannot, of course, be proven, but that’s not the aim of philological scholarship anyway.


This is precisely the example of applying different methods and different assumptions. Fanciful emendation of ancient texts by a "philologist" is not a current practice among New Testament textual critics. Dogmatic assumptions have nothing to do with this. The committee of five who produced the text behind NA26 and third edition of UBSGNT we're not theological conservatives motivated by dogmatic considerations. The text that they produced has been altered very little in NA28.

Decades ago Gordon Fee attempted to omit two verses in chapter 14:34-35 First Corinthians, his proposal didn't get any traction. Why do you suppose Westcott didn't mentioned John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα in his commentary?

Suggesting the omission τὸ πάσχα John 6:4 is ignoring the obvious: the manuscripts. In New Testament textual criticism decisions are made based on evidence. Fanciful emendation is anathema.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:42 pm

Timothée wrote:6,4 doesn’t quite fit into the story, and we have almost the same twice earlier in John. (Of course John could have repeated it himself.) 6,4 may easily have been (it seems even likely) a post-Johannine explanation into the text. It cannot, of course, be proven, but that’s not the aim of philological scholarship anyway.


TC on classical texts often deals with a very poor manuscript base, and so conjectural emendation becomes much more important. The more manuscripts you have, the less need for conjectural emendation. What we are discussing here concerning John 6:4 is in the realm of sheer speculation. It "doesn't quite fit into the story?" Why would that be? Or could it possibly be that John is organizing his narrative in a way different than a modern reader might expect? This could be more of a genre/literary issue than a text critical one. Hint: the fact that we have "almost the same twice earlier in John" might be a clue that this is not incidental or an addition, but that it's intentional on John's part. So I would suggest that "doesn't quite fit" is a judgment that may not be concordant with the full context and John's careful use of devices to move that narrative forward.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Virtus omnia domet...
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby mwh » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:47 pm

Stirling, One of your unargued assumptions is that current NT text-criticism is better than it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That is questionable, to say the least.

In your final remark, you appear to take the surviving manuscripts as constituting the entirety of evidence. That is wrong. No suggestion about the history of the text ignores the manuscripts as you claim.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:56 pm

mwh wrote:Stirling, One of your unargued assumptions is that current NT text-criticism is better than it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That is questionable, to say the least.

In your final remark, you appear to take the surviving manuscripts as constituting the entirety of evidence. That is wrong. No suggestion about the history of the text ignores the manuscripts as you claim.


That there are no advancements or improvements in TC since the Victorian era seems me to be the assumption which needs to be argued. And the question is the relative weight placed on hard, tangible evidence vs. the subjective use of the text in secondary authors.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Virtus omnia domet...
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:50 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:The more manuscripts you have, the less need for conjectural emendation.


If you amend that to "the more independent witnesses of early texttypes that you have," I would probably agree. But you will want to note that the incidence of certain types of errors may probably increase with more early manuscripts and more collation events. Including the type of accretion event that has been suggested for this verse.

Also, it's 250 years between the originals and the great unicals, and sometimes thousands of miles between the where the NT books were written and where the unicals were copied, and perhaps some evidence of important text recension events affecting what we have now.

Obviously, that's better than a 1000 more years of copying, but it's not infinitely better. I would guess that the reduced error rate per line is only linearly better, not exponentially better.

Barry Hofstetter wrote:That there are no advancements or improvements in TC since the Victorian era seems me to be the assumption which needs to be argued.


Well, I'll take this as an opportunity to restate a question on that point from earlier in the thread that I'd like answered:

jeidsath wrote:It's striking to come across things like this. It wasn't in Georg Luck's Conjectural Emendations article -- I only found it by looking through the list of obelisked verses in W&H. I would think that an OCT apparatus would at least mention it, but I suppose the NA apparatus is a bit different from that. If so, is there anything that really replaces W&H?
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:21 am

Joel was the author the original post. After some reflection on this thread and similar recent threads he has initiated, applying traditional authorial-intent hermeneutics [E. D. Hirsch], it appears that some of the critique has been somewhat misdirected. Joel is doing what any student might enjoy doing and benefit from, going back and reading old books and analyzing the old arguments and testing them. Nothing wrong with that. It's an intellectual game. While your at it, read Walter Bauer, Adolf von Harnack, James D. G. Dunn. [1] Get your fill of it.

Meanwhile, lets not confuse this with a discussion of N.T. textual criticism as it is currently practiced by people like Dirk Jonkind, Peter Head, Tommy Wasserman, Peter J. Williams and others.

[1] Not textual critics, rather authors who promoted a history of early Christianity from which Bart Ehrman collected his central ideas. This is connected tangentially to the textual criticism.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby mwh » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:38 am

Barry, Get real. The NT corpus is a small one and has been endlessly worked over. Advance comes through new ideas and new evidence. Without new hard evidence in the form of ancient manuscripts (such as we now have in a papyrus of Acts, for example) little significant progress can be expected. (Linguistic analysis is more advanced and sophisticated, but the main result is simply reformulation of earlier work. Computerization improves the accessibility and usability of data, but evaluation must still be human.) Scholars back then knew Greek far better than NT scholars do now. And they knew how to use their heads.

All textual criticism is subjective. It’s matter of iudicium, intelligently applied to pertinent information. That doesn’t change.

Meanwhile, Stirling continues to ride the wave of the latest fashion (I recall an illuminating exchange in viewtopic.php?f=23&t=65724), flaunting names and bibliography and taking potshots at his favorite betes noires (Ehrman, philology, ...). I look in vain for any sign of actual thought.

I’ve had enough.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:57 pm

mwh wrote:Barry, Get real. The NT corpus is a small one and has been endlessly worked over. Advance comes through new ideas and new evidence. Without new hard evidence in the form of ancient manuscripts (such as we now have in a papyrus of Acts, for example) little significant progress can be expected. (Linguistic analysis is more advanced and sophisticated, but the main result is simply reformulation of earlier work. Computerization improves the accessibility and usability of data, but evaluation must still be human.) Scholars back then knew Greek far better than NT scholars do now. And they knew how to use their heads.

All textual criticism is subjective. It’s matter of iudicium, intelligently applied to pertinent information. That doesn’t change.

Meanwhile, Stirling continues to ride the wave of the latest fashion (I recall an illuminating exchange in viewtopic.php?f=23&t=65724), flaunting names and bibliography and taking potshots at his favorite betes noires (Ehrman, philology, ...). I look in vain for any sign of actual thought.

I’ve had enough.


I've actually been real since July 14th, 1958. Another way of phrasing your comments is that TC is as much an art as it is a science. Speaking of art, I like the way you simply insert your ad hominems directly in your response as though they represent some sort of definitive argument. Nicely done. Evaluating, reevaluating, and working over the evidence is simply a part of scholarship. As for Stirling, I just don't know. Somehow, I've always thought that keeping up with current scholarship is a good thing. The assumption that it's all been done and there's nothing really left to do reminds me of the attitude of many scientists at the end of the 19th century, who felt that all had been discovered and discussed, and everything to follow would be footnotes. Maybe, but maybe not, even in biblical studies.

I'm glad you're done. Your comments have added little of insight to this discussion, and your valuable time is perhaps best spent elsewhere.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Virtus omnia domet...
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby jeidsath » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:54 pm

I have 64 more obelized verses from W&H, and I can and will post threads on every one of them unless people get along.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: John 6:4 τὸ πάσχα

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:04 pm

jeidsath wrote:I have 64 more obelized verses from W&H, and I can and will post threads on every one of them unless people get along.


That has got to be the best "moderator threat" I've ever seen. Point taken!
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Virtus omnia domet...
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm


Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 22 guests