ἐνθύμησις

Dr. Knust begins her presentation.

Jennifer began her presentation by thanking the sponsors and the southern hospitality she has experienced while here!

While Dr. Wasserman looked at the textual evidence of the PA, Dr. Knust’s treatment looks at the patristic evidence. The arguments made by these scholars will appear in a future publication on the PA.

Jennifer’s assessment of the Patristic evidence finds that it is unlikely that the PA was suppressed for moral reasons. Just yesterday, Dr. Punch argued for precisely this theory: that the text was suppressed on pious grounds. I can’t wait for the panel discussion!

Dr. Knust provides us with a thorough look at the church father’s heavy censure of scribal omissions. The fathers would not have looked kindly on intentional omissions. In light of this evidence, Dr. Knust finds it highly unlikely that a passage as long as the PA would have been intentionally omitted, especially as widely and thoroughly as would have been necessary considering the late evidence for the PA.

Now, Jennifer has moved away from a general discussion of the father’s disdain for adding to or taking away from the manuscripts to a discussion of Origen. Knust’s use of Origen supports the theory that problematic texts would not have been to expunge them. Instead, the scribal practice would have been to use a mark to signify the spurious nature of the passage. As a matter of fact, the later Byzantine manuscripts bear this very mark.

Dr. Tommy Wasserman begins his session. He is a world class Textual Critic, and I’m looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

Dr. Wasserman begins by noting the division over the inclusion of PA. He humorously notes that two of our own SEBTS professors are divided. Dr. Köstenberger does not even include the passage in his Baker Exegetical Commentary, whereas Dr. Robinson avidly contends for its originality. Dr. Wasserman asks SEBTS students to pick our favorite passage [edit: professor].

Wasserman cites Royce’s important study of the papyri and their overall tendency towards omission rather than omission [edit: addition]. Despite this tendency, the omissions of these texts are usually 1-2 words, not whole texts. Dr. Wasserman concludes that these major redactional sections appear to have been added, not omitted from the texts.

Dr. Punch’s lecture is divided into 3 parts:

1. Context
2. Grammar and Syntax
3. External Evidence (textual and patristic)

In the context section, Dr. Punch makes a number of connections within the overall context of John demonstrating that the content of the PA is altogether consistent with the book’s immediate context. The immediately context is concerned with the interpretation of the law, Jesus’s act of writing on the ground with his finger alludes to Moses’ reception of the law where God wrote with his finger, etc.

Concerning the Grammar and Syntax, Dr. Punch observers that there are both non-Johannine terms and features as well as features that are distinctively Johannine. For instance, the use of the κάτα prefix is not used often within John. The PA, however is  filled with the prefix. Dr. Punch argues, however, that the addition of the prefix in a context that is specifically concerned with judgment (κρίνω) may heighten the intensity of each term. Punch highlights John’s distinctive use of διδάσκαλε, Moses imagery, the vocative γύναι, μηκέτι ἁμαρτανε, λιτθάζω, λίθος, and the Johannine aside. All of these distinctive elements are included within the PA.

Finally, regarding the Patristic evidence, Punch cites Papias, The Infancy Gospel of James, Didascilla Apostolorum, Didymus the Blind, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, etc. as evidence of the early knowledge of the story and support for its originality.

Now for the Q&A section.

The conference is underway. Dr. Black is currently introducing the conference. This is another in a long series of Textual Critical conferences that addresses controversial subjects in the field. There was the conference on the long ending of Mark, various methodological approaches within the field of TC, etc.

The speakers are:

• Dr. John David Punch
• Dr. Tommy Wasserman
• Dr. Jennifer Knust
• Dr. Chris Keith
• Dr. Maurice Robinson

Last month when I was in Baltimore, I went out with the gang for Ethiopian. I made sure that Mary Beth knew about it so that I might incite in her a bit of jealousy. I didn’t want to make her jealous in the, I have but you have not sort of way. I wanted to ensure that she would remind me numerous times before we leave NC to go out for Ethiopian food.

This evening we did just that. We went out to eat at Ashee in Cary, NC. Mary Beth and I split the Keyi Tibs Wot (beef stew) and the Yebeg Alicha (Goat/Lamb stew).

Before

After

Do you think I liked it? You bet! Becky Black wrote in her autobiography:

An absolute favorite time at Bingham was Friday suppers, when the meal was served outside: all-you-can eat enjera b‘ wot, the national food of Ethiopia. I would get my food, move only a short distance away, eat, and be back for seconds before anyone else could turn around!”

That is exactly how I feel every time I have Ethiopian. I can’t slow down. It doesn’t take long after the meal is over for me to start again.

About a year and a half ago I sat in on Larry Perkins’ paper at SBL Chicago entitled “The Order of Pronominal Clitics in Greek Exodus – An Indicator of the Translator’s Intentionality.” You can read about my summary of the presentation and Perkins’ findings here. At the time I thought the paper was fascinating, but wasn’t entirely sure it would be anything other than…well…fascinating.

As I was working through Jonah 1:9 today, I found a perfect example of what Perkins was talking about. Here’s what I wrote:

The first question hurled at Jonah concerns his occupation. Sasson notes that it may seem odd to modern readers that this would be the first question the sailors ask. It is customary in common parlance first to ask a person’s name.[1] He goes on to observe that this should not strike us as odd. The sailors are on the cusp of death frantically trying to circumvent their inevitable fate. We would only expect the most important question to be placed first. After all, and as the reader already knows, it is precisely Jonah’s occupation and his flight from duty that has created the problem.[2] The LXX translator seems to pick up on the importance of this question as well. Larry Perkins argues that the normal word order for clitics (words like μου and σου) in the LXX follows Hebrew syntax: noun + pronoun. Where this order is reversed, however, the translator recognizes and marks significant development within the narrative.[3] The translator of Jonah 1:8d places the pronoun σου before the noun it possesses. Of the nineteen instances of μου or σου in Jonah, this is the only instance where the translator places it before the noun. He means to draw the reader’s attention to this question. How will Jonah answer this probing question? What will the sailors do when they learn what the reader has known all along? The subsequent questions slow the narrative down creating tension as the reader dwells on these questions and their implications.

[1] Jack Sasson, Jonah, 113.

 [2] Ibid.

 [3] Larry Perkins, “The Order of Pronominal Clitics in Greek Exodus – An Indicator of the Translator’s Intentionality” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Chicago, Il., 11/18/2012).