No description available.

This thesis is a critique of the theory of Western non-interpolations' propounded by Westcott and Hort, the famous British scholars in the Introduction to their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, 1881. The theory concerns eight cruces interpretum in the concluding section of Luke's Gospel and one in the last but one chapter of Matthew's Gospel. The eight Lukan passages, though missing from Codex Bezae (D) and its allies ('Western' family), are read by Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א) as well as by (p⁷⁵ and) the vast majority of the other ancient witnesses. (The pattern of the textual evidence for the Matthaean passage is rather different, although B and א are ranged against the omission shown by D). In these contexts Westcott-Hort decided to apply the principle of brevior lectio potior. This was indeed a radical departure from their low estimation of the 'Western' group in general vis-a-vis the B א (Alexandrian) group which they idealised as 'neutral' and as having a very high degree of purity. Having once rated the latter so high it was too awkward for our editors to admit that their favourite Text had gone corrupt at those crucial points. Hence they devised the face-saving term 'Western non-interpolations to emphasize that while their characterisation of the 'Western' Text as containing numerous 'interpolations' still held good, in the eight cases listed the 'Western' omissions were to be reckoned as real 'non-interpolations'. This 'writer believes that although Westcott-Hort's intuition regarding the eight passages was correct (except in one instance), the premise from which they started needs to be revised. Omissions of NT texts including the above were caused by various factors. They are confined neither to one family, nor to a single Gospel, nor even to one particular area of a Gospel. Westcott-Hort's inclusion of one Matthaean passage in the above 'classic' (the designation is mine)' category speaks for itself. Moreover, they also called attention to eighteen other ‘Western' ‘omissions' scattered 'across all the Gospels although they attached only a secondary degree of suspicion to the longer texts. I submit that it was our editors' creation of this subtle distinction between these two categories of readings, as also their exaggerated delineation of the 'purity' of the Alexandrian family as against the 'Western' that has given rise to various other theories regarding the editorial vicissitudes of the Third Gospel. In my first volume I examine the twenty-seven passages in question and conclude that out of the eighteen 'non-classic' ones, at least five in Mt represent genuine omissions. In volume II, seven other passages where Westcott-Hort detected the characteristic tendency of 'Western' witnesses, viz., that of 'expansion', are examined. Of these I recommend two for full reinstatement, two for partial reinstatement arid a fifth one for full reinstatement, though not in its traditional position. If these findings have any credibility, then Westcott-Hort's depiction of the 'Western' Text was indeed a gross exaggeration as far as the Gospels are concerned. The Methdology of this thesis consists in a judicious application of the 'eclectic' principle. Each passage is studied on its own merits under three main heads: 1. External Evidence (Inferences to be drawn from MS data). 2. Internal Evidence: a) Transcriptional Probability (The possible attitude of a scribe in inserting or rejecting a passage as the case may be; also the probabilities of accident behind a reading). b) Intrinsic Probability (Considerations such as vocabulary, style and theological propensity of an author; also his general handling of his sources. In fact the application of the principles of Source Criticism, Form Criticism and Redaction Criticism in deciding whether a reading suits its context or not). 3. Conclusion: It is emphasised that the External Evidence is to be carefully balanced against the Internal Evidence in establishing the authenticity or otherwise of a given text rather than reading one's pre-conceived notions into it. The contributions of outstanding commentators and textual critics over the span of about 90 years since Westcott-Hort's time have been critically examined in drawing the inferences of each section. The concluding chapter which is a summation of the above inference serves to highlight the fallacy of Westcott-Hort's pre-suppositions and of certain subsidiary theories and demonstrates why the theory, of' Western non-interpolations' should be discarded as a principle of Textual Criticism.

No description available.

This thesis investigates an aspect of the first complete translation of the Bible into French. It shows how the study of the Gospels glosses, hitherto considered of secondary importance by scholars, increases our understanding of the date and context of this translation. This thesis takes two complementary approaches to the gloss material: (a) a study of the likely Latin sources for these glosses, and (b) an investigation into their recurring themes and rhetorical construction, as a way of showing how far they fit into the tradition of Latin exegesis. Chapter one surveys existing scholarship and presents the methodology of the thesis. Chapter two is a handlist of Latin commentaries consulted. In chapters three to six, the main body of the thesis, a comparison is made between Latin gloss material from these commentaries and corresponding glosses in the French Gospels, Chapter seven presents the broad patterns which have emerged from this study, discussing the use of material and rhetorical techniques, as well as identifying remaining problems, namely, those of other types of source-text, and the question of multiple translators. Chapter eight contains a summary of the conclusions reached, and discusses the implications of these for our knowledge of this Bible translation. The glossator is revealed as someone with access to exegesis from several different traditions, not just commentaries, and as a person trained in Latin commentary technique, which he adapted for writing in the vernacular. The glossator is shown not to have copied literally from commentaries or other texts, but to have used material thoughtfully, and reworked it for his own purposes. That the glossator was learned, and that his glosses fit into the Latin exegetical tradition, are the major findings of this thesis, challenging previously-held views as to the fundamental worthlessness of these glosses.

This dissertation addresses the question: how might the Sufi master, Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī (1165-1240 CE), have read the Gospel of John? Although the Gospel of John belongs originally to the Christian tradition, this dissertation is a contribution to Islamic Studies, endeavoring to illuminate Ibn al-ʿArabī’s distinctive manner of reading religious texts and to highlight features of his negotiation of a dual heritage from Jesus and Muḥammad. To set Ibn al-ʿArabī’s thought against an Islamic backdrop and situate it in an Islamic context, this dissertation adopts the device of constructing a commentary, guided by seminal passages in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s written corpus, on an Arabic translation of the Gospel of John: the Alexandrian Vulgate, widely circulated in the Arab world during Ibn al-ʿArabī’s time. This amounts not only to a comparison between Johannine doctrines and Ibn al-ʿArabī’s doctrines, but also a comparison between the latter and historical Muslim commentaries on the Christian scriptures—particularly the Biblical commentary (in circulation by the thirteenth century) attributed to the famed Sufi theologian Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, and the fourteenth-century Muslim Biblical commentary by Najm al-Dīn al-Ṭūfī (d. 1316 CE). Part I of the dissertation establishes a foundation for the commentary, inquiring into Ibn al-ʿArabī’s general attitudes towards non-Islamic religions, then considering autobiographical accounts of his relationship to Christianity, the question of his familiarity with the New Testament, and illustrations of his creative engagement with Christian doctrines. Part II of the dissertation constitutes the commentary, considering Ibn al-ʿArabī’s possible views on a number of Johannine doctrines: Jesus’ claim to have been the son of God; Jesus’ claim to have been one with God; the doctrine that Jesus was the embodied Word; the expiatory and epistemic functions of the embodied Word (paralleled by a dialectic relationship between two divergent kinds of witnessing); and the rumor, at the end of the Gospel of John, that the Beloved Disciple would never die.

The study aims, in the first part, at a coherent formulation of a theory of text production, one located against the backdrop of an Hegelian conception of reality which sees text and society as constituting a dynamic and mutually formative relationship. This theoretical appropriation is situated more broadly in the Tri-Polar exegetical framework as set out by my supervisor, Prof. Jonathan Draper, and in this regard also entails a dialogue with his approach. This then constitutes the first pole of the framework, distantiation. At the second pole, contextualisation, the methodological tool by which contemporary society is critiqued, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, is used to explicate the mythological degeneration of the modern scientific paradigm in its partnership with the culture industry, where the system’s totalising logic is seen as delimiting the realm of legitimate knowledge generation such that forms of knowledge that might be counterpoised in opposition to this paradigm are from the outset proscribed. The section of contextualisation therefore points to the need for alternative forms of knowledge generation, ones which are not complicit with the internal logic of the system and which thereby seek to avoid either co-option or obsoletisation. In the final stage of appropriation two case studies are offered to suggest how this has been, or could further be, achieved with reference, in the first instance, to the Genesis 3 narrative and the field of anthropological studies and, in the second, to John 20 and the sphere of contemporary ecclesial praxis. The case studies draw on the work of biblical scholars from the relevant fields and seek to represent this work in a kind of re-appropriation interpreting it in light of the theory set out at the stage of distantiation. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2013.

The goal of the thesis is to trace the sequence of materials of different origin in the synoptic Gospels through stylistic features. The question is whether an author's style is typical in the way it employs syntax. Using syntax, the thesis tests whether a sample can be correctly associated with one author, rather than incorrectly associated with another author. 'Syntax,' in this thesis, quite specifically intends 'an assessment of a very broad range of syntax.' The thesis reviews the literary debate over the 'synoptic problem,' finding that Luke knew and depended the triple tradition known to Mark. Luke did not know or use the unique parts of Mark. This set of materials, then, can be used to test whether syntax indicates a similar relationship. Regarding the literature on style in authorship attribution, the thesis develops principles for measuring style through syntax, and compares the distribution of the occurrence-the 'weighted sum of the logs of the ratio'--of syntax in each of three blocks of text. Such a distribution associates a reference block of text with the correct distribution from the distributions in two alternative texts offered. That is, a reference block drawn from the editorial layer in Mark proves to be closer to the remaining editorial layer in Mark (which is correct), than it proves to be to the editorial layer in Luke (which would be incorrect). This is at least a first step towards using this method with sources that appear in New Testament documents, even when they are small or fragmentary. The thesis then applies such an analysis to one of the clearest sources in the synoptic Gospels, namely, the 'triple tradition' as presented by Luke. The analysis is congruent with the results of literary criticism. This supports the idea that syntax can discern or define a source, and so it can help us understand more about the evolution of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the thesis finds that although Luke knew the 'triple tradition' that Mark used, yet Luke appears not to have fully relied on the version of the triple tradition that we know in, and as edited by Mark. / New Testament Studies / D.Th. (New Testament)

The goal of the thesis is to trace the sequence of materials of different origin in the synoptic Gospels through stylistic features. The question is whether an author's style is typical in the way it employs syntax. Using syntax, the thesis tests whether a sample can be correctly associated with one author, rather than incorrectly associated with another author. 'Syntax,' in this thesis, quite specifically intends 'an assessment of a very broad range of syntax.' The thesis reviews the literary debate over the 'synoptic problem,' finding that Luke knew and depended the triple tradition known to Mark. Luke did not know or use the unique parts of Mark. This set of materials, then, can be used to test whether syntax indicates a similar relationship. Regarding the literature on style in authorship attribution, the thesis develops principles for measuring style through syntax, and compares the distribution of the occurrence-the 'weighted sum of the logs of the ratio'--of syntax in each of three blocks of text. Such a distribution associates a reference block of text with the correct distribution from the distributions in two alternative texts offered. That is, a reference block drawn from the editorial layer in Mark proves to be closer to the remaining editorial layer in Mark (which is correct), than it proves to be to the editorial layer in Luke (which would be incorrect). This is at least a first step towards using this method with sources that appear in New Testament documents, even when they are small or fragmentary. The thesis then applies such an analysis to one of the clearest sources in the synoptic Gospels, namely, the 'triple tradition' as presented by Luke. The analysis is congruent with the results of literary criticism. This supports the idea that syntax can discern or define a source, and so it can help us understand more about the evolution of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the thesis finds that although Luke knew the 'triple tradition' that Mark used, yet Luke appears not to have fully relied on the version of the triple tradition that we know in, and as edited by Mark. / New Testament Studies / D.Th. (New Testament)