Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Early Quotes/Allusions and Textual Studies

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Robert Kraft)
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Robert Kraft)
  • Subject: Early Quotes/Allusions and Textual Studies
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:03:28 -0400 (EDT)


Frank Hughes wrote, among other things:

Michael Thompson wrote:
|| <p><i>We don't know if they had the texts in front of them when they
|| wrote or whether they quoted from memory, or simply alluded to oral
|| traditions. Certainly they use the texts with freedom.</i>

| <p>Check out the quotation from Didache from "the Gospel" which includes
|a form of what we know as the Sermon on the Mount, yet with
|interpolations
|from the Lukan Sermon on the Plain.&nbsp; It really looks to me like a
|completely different text of the Sermon.&nbsp; And what gospel was Didache
|referring to?&nbsp; Apparently the only one that author knew.&nbsp; Maybe
|Q.&nbsp; Maybe an early form of the Sermon on the Mount before "Matthew"
|got his hands on it.&nbsp; Check out the quotation from "the gospel
|according to Mark" in Clement of Alexandria's <i>Quis dives salvetur</i>,
|which says it's from Mark but then quotes it with interpolations from the
|other gospels.&nbsp; Clement is the teacher in the catechetical school in
|the intellectual capital of Christianity at the end of the second
|century.&nbsp; He should have had a good text of Mark.&nbsp; But he
|didn't, or he is quite sloppy in his quotation of it.&nbsp; But that's
|another matter.<i></i>

|<p><i>The analogy with the texts of the gospels is a fair one though, in
|which case don't we have some mss that go a little further back into the
|_early_ 2nd c to give us a feel for flexibility and firmness of
|texts?</i><i></i

[[At this point Frank asks for input from text-critics, etc.]]

My approach has been to start with the assumption that the didachist,
Clement, et al., were indeed trying to quote actual texts (written or
oral) when they explicitly refer to texts (although sometimes that can
itself be ambiguous -- is "the gospel" a text reference?), and to avoid
begging the question by judging the "quoted" material by what we think we
know about the texts (e.g. Frank's initial shorthand about what to us seem
like "interpolations," although Frank goes on to point out that the
situation may well have been much more complicated/complex).

I would assume that, in general, individuals in antiquity knew and used
particular texts -- they were not aware in detail of the range of
variation, cross-fertilization, reediting, etc., present in a
cross-section of the available texts, such as we can see present in the
later developments. I also assume (wishing there were more solid evidence
on which to base this logical assumption) that the earliest period of
textual transmission, before ideas of authorial authority, inspiration,
and canon became firmly established, would be the least controlled,
possibly producing a wider range of variation than would survive into the
later periods and materials.

Based on such assumptions, the "variations" that appear in early
"quotations" (using introductory formula) or even strong allusions, are
among our best evidence for the early period of possible fluidity.
Methodologically, I would hesitate to invoke explanations that would
neutralize such evidence (the author quoted from memory, the author
harmonized different texts, etc.) except as a conclusion from exploring
all aspects of the situation first. If we assume from the outset that such
"secondary" references to ancient materials (apparent quotes, etc.) are
flawed if they vary from what we think we already know, we preclude the
possibility of learning more about such textual developments from that
admittedly complex evidence. Textual criticism, where most of the
available manuscript evidence is later than the 2nd century, can perhaps
help us to get back to the earliest recoverable textual archetypes for
what survived, but to move back from there to "the originals" involves a
major leap of faith!

For Paul, some of our earliest textual evidence comes from Marcion as
filtered through his opponent Tertullian. How do I know, objectively, when
a textual claim made by either of those combatants is correct (in relation
to what Paul actually had written), or textually accurate (in relation to
manuscripts available to, and earlier than, each of them), or
contemporaneously tendentious (in relation to what either wanted to
think/believe)? There are many things to consider if we hope to move
beyond solving such problems on the basis of unexamined assumptions!

Bob
--
Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html



  • Early Quotes/Allusions and Textual Studies, Robert Kraft, 05/18/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page