Sloppy Scholarship?

The Dutch academic world is still in shock over the immense fraud by Diederik Stapel. One week ago, the term “slodderwetenschap” was introduced to the Dutch language as translation of “sloppy science”. Science and scholarship should be exact and meticulous. Scholars and scientists should stick to the rules and be fully transparent on their findings and the ways in which they have obtained them.

Of course, we all know examples where scholars are less than exact in their references and in the way they treat their sources. Only today, we have come across a striking example of this type of scholarship. The dissertation of José M. Jané Coca, “Ser hallado en Él.” La reciprocidad intersubjetiva entre Pablo y Cristo. Un estudio exegético-teológico de Flp 3 (Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologica 157; Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2008), contains at least one case of plagiarism.

In chapter 1 the author deals with “Mysticism in Paul”. Footnote 53 of this chapter contains a typo that is no doubt due to parablepsis (and perhaps a not fully active command of the beautiful German language). It quotes Rudolf Bultmann as follows: “Gerade das, was die Mystik macht, kann man nicht übernehmen, ohne den Glauben preiszugeben.” The correct quote, however, would have added the words “zur Mystik”: “Gerade das, was die Mystik zur Mystik macht, ...”

A search in various libraries eventually disclosed the source of the typo. It is also found in Daniel Marguerat, “La mystique de l’apôtre Paul”, in: Jacques Schlosser (ed.), Paul de Tarse. Congrès de l’ACFEB (Strasbourg, 1995), 307-329. Footnote 2 on page 310 corresponds exactly with the text of Jané Coca’s note 53 (p. 28).

This observation made us aware that there might be more at stake here. And yes, there is more at stake. Let us mention a couple of examples by giving the Spanish text first (Jané Coca), followed by the French original (Marguerat):

• “Pero ¿cómo el cristianismo ha superado la aporía que constituía la muerte del Maestro y la no realización de su profecía apocalíptica? Schweitzer responde: por la mística” (Jané Coca, p. 26).
• “Mais alors, comment le christianisme a-t-il surmonté l’aporie que constituaient la mort du Maître et la non-réalisation de sa prophétie apocalyptique? Schweitzer répond: par la mystique” (Marguerat, p. 309).

(Note the singular “constituía” against the plural “constituaient”. Is this sloppy translation as well?)

• “Esta es la continuidad que presenta A. Schweitzer: el mundo nuevo esperado por Jesús no se ha disuelto como un sueño en la cruz; la resurrección, vector del mundo nuevo, ha introducido en el mundo una dinámica de muerte y de vida en la que se encuentra el creyente que vive ‘en Cristo’” (Jané Coca, p. 26).
• “On perçoit la continuité que pose Albert Schweitzer: le monde nouveau attendu par Jésus ne s’est pas dissous comme un rêve à la croix; la résurrection, vecteur du monde nouveau, a introduit ici-bas une dynamique de mort et de vie, où se trouve entraîné le croyant qui vit ‘en Christ’” (Marguerat, p. 310).

• “La genialidad de Pablo, pues, sería esta conversión de la concepción apocalíptica de Jesús en un programa de pertenencia mística a Cristo, que realiza desde el interior la redención esperada por el hombre de Nazaret” (Jané Coca, p. 26).
• “Le coup de génie de Paul aurait donc été cette conversion du scénario apocalyptique de Jésus en un programme d’appartenance mystique au Christ, qui réalise par l’intérieur la rédemption espérée par l’homme de Nazareth” (Marguerat, p. 310)

• “Se oponen a la tesis los que rechazan la escatología consecuente del Jesús histórico, pero también los que se indignan viendo degradado al rango subalterno el debate paulino sobre la justificación por la fe, sin hablar del anatema lanzado por la teología dialéctica contra la idea misma de una mística neotestamentaria, considerada como el apogeo de la tentativa religiosa de captar a Dios” (Jané Coca, p. 28).
• “Car la thèse fail l’unanimité contre elle: s’y opposent ceux qui rejettent l’eschatologie conséquente du Jésus historique, mais aussi ceux qui s’indignent (avec raison) de voir dégradé au rang subalterne le débat paulinien sur la justification par la foi, sans parler de l’anathème lancé par la théologie dialectique contre l’idée même d’une mystique néotestamentaire, considérée comme l’apogée de la tentative religieuse de capter Dieu” (Marguerat, p. 310).

To this last passage, Jané Coca attaches his footnote 53 mentioned above, which contains a citation by Barth (in French!), a citation by Bultmann (in German!), and a reference to a book by Van Cangh. All this comes directly from Marguerat’s footnote 2; only the reference system is adapted.

The very fact that the author (?) quotes Barth in French (“Le mysticisme est un athéisme larvé, ésotérique”, with the source: “Dogmatique I/2/2, 111”), just as Marguerat had done, is another tell-tale sign of plagiarism. One would expect the original German or a Spanish translation ...

Admittedly (and ironically), Jané Coca refers to Marguerat in his next footnote, no. 54 (“Cfr. D. Marguerat, La Mystique, 310-311”), but this reference is of course not nearly enough. The entire preceding passage contains neither blockquotes nor quotation marks. Therefore no reader without exact knowledge of Marguerat’s work would suspect the origin of what amounts to more than a full page of faithful translation.

We did not check the rest of this dissertation, but this (mis)use of the work of Daniel Marguerat makes us fear that the book may contain more of this. Who knows what would happen if the author were a German politician?

Conclusion: by translating, without proper attribution and marking-up, important passages from Marguerat’s article, Jané Coca obviously commits an act of plagiarism. That is sloppy scholarship, in one of its manifestations. By copying also Marguerat’s error, and leaving a Barth quote untranslated, it becomes even more than sloppy scholarship. It is sloppy plagiarism.

Jan Krans
Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte

Beza’s New Testament editions online

When I wrote my dissertation, I had to go to university libraries in the Netherlands to consult Beza’s five maior New Testament editions. Nowadays, most of his editions can be found online, and some even in surprisingly good quality (though without OCR of the Latin texts, let alone the Greek). Especially the Swiss e-rara project is a rich source of 16th-century books.

1582 edition; title page (part)

In numbering the editiones maiores, I follow Beza’s own numbering, which includes as the first edition the New Testament part of Robertus Stephanus’ Latin Bible with annotations. There is no Greek text in this edition, only Beza’s “new translation” together with the Vulgate, and of course his annotations.

Major editions
¹1556/57: e-rara (Beza’s NT in Volume 2, from [541] onwards) (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 2341); GB and GB (a better copy).
²1565: e-rara (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 794).
³1582: e-rara (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 2222).
⁴1588/1589: e-rara (Lausanne : Bibliothèque, shelf mark 2015); CSNTM; IA; GB.
⁵1598: e-rara (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark X 2990); GB (Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon, call number 20121).

Special cases
1559: unauthorised Basel edition: e-rara (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 2347); ULB Sachsen-Anhalt.
1563: Beza’s Responsio against Castellio (referred to on the title page of the 1565 and 1582 editions): e-rara (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 150).
1565: a special copy with Beza’s own handwritten notes in preparation of the third edition (MHR O4 cd (565) a): réro (no longer accessible; one can try the Internet Archive).
1569: Tremellius’ Syriac NT, with Beza’s Greek and Latin text included: e-rara (both volumes); GB (Matt-John).
1594: the Annotationes printed separately: e-rara.
1642: the Cambridge edition, with Camerarius’ commentary: EEBO (limited access).

Minor editions
¹1565: e-rara.
²1567: e-rara.
³1580: e-rara; GB.
⁴1590: e-rara
⁵1604: GB (vol. 1); GB (vol. 2).

Other
1575: a Latin-only edition which introduces Chapter summaries: GB.

Suggestions for additions are welcome in the comments; this post will be updated when new sources are found.

Updates
20 May 2013: GB link to ⁴1588 added; category “Other” and the 1575 edition added (HT: Emanuel Contac).
19 August 2013: second GB link to ¹1556 added.
18 September 2013: e-rara link to the 1569 Syriac edition added.
3 February 2016: e-rara links to ¹1556 and ⁴1588 added.
2 February 2017: e-rara links changed to doi; added shelf marks.
9 December 2024: GB for 1598 added; some links updated; some minor corrections.

SBL-AAR 2012 (Chicago) – Reaction of a Recidivist

Last week I visited my 12th Annual Meeting of SBL. As usual, it was a huge conference, with more than 10,000 scholars attending. The venue, McCormick Place, is probably the largest convention center of North-America, and its size occasionally resulted in the feeling “Hey, where is everybody?”

Three things struck me in particular during this conference.

The first point is that, for me, SBL-AAR has become the place to meet my colleagues and friends from abroad. The individual and business meetings I have been in were actually at least as important to me as the academic sessions. If you want to arrange things with your colleagues, SBL-AAR is the place to do this.

A second point I noticed was the lively character of the sessions on textual criticism. The crowds drawn to these sessions were large, and the presentations were generally good. This was also the case in the “Constructing Christian Identities” section – here, the study of the second century leads to new insights and progress of the field. Unfortunately, I have not been able to attend the other groups I am always stimulated by: the sections on Early Jewish and Christian Relations and on Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. In my experience, these groups ask the questions that I am most interested in. Their questions concern the textual transmission of the writings we study and the socio-religious contexts out of which these writings originated.

The third point I want to share here regards a disappointment. I was rather disappointed with the book exhibition. For those of you who haven’t ever attended an SBL-AAR: the book exhibit at these meetings is huge. It may be regarded as the Frankfurter Buchmesse for Biblical and Religious Studies. Among the thousands of new books, I could hardly find any really exciting material. It amazed me to see how many new commentaries have been published on Romans, on Luke, on Mark, how many introductions to Paul, to the NT in general and to the historical Jesus were presented here. A certain fatigue got to me. It made me realize that many of us spend our time and energy on rewriting (or unwriting!) books that have already been written, sometimes even long ago. The good news is, that it also made me realize that I was looking for that one book I could not find. And now you may wonder about the subject of that book. If I will be given the time, you might actually get to see the result at a future SBL Annual Meeting...

And thus, in the end, I return from Chicago satisfied and full of plans.

Reflections of an Annual Meeting novice

Looking back at SBL Chicago 2012. My first Annual Meeting, my first time in the USA. What did I learn?

1) That it is not a problem if a hotel makes a reservation mistake, 

as long as there are suites on the 33d floor with a view on Lake Michigan.

2) That Erasmus used funny reference signs for passages he wanted to insert in the draft of his Annotationes:

 (Above: the 1519 supplement to the annotatio on 1 Cor 7:39. Right: three passages, written on a separate folio, that had to be inserted at the indicated places in the text.)

 3) That of buying many books there is no end.

   

 

  

 4) How it feels to be with too many textual critics in one cab (contest: find Tommy Wasserman on this picture.)

 5) That they were glad we were there!

Of course I learned a lot more, such as the fact that Parker not necessarily sides with Ehrman ("you hope"); that when Jesus rescues Adam and Eve from Hades Abel as a rule has a clean chin, but may as well have grown a beard; and that New Testament textual criticism sessions are more interesting and lively than any of the other sessions (but that comes as no surprise to me).

We are very much looking forward to further encounter and exchange this year!

SBLGNT in TC

In TC 17 (2012), we just published our second panel review of this year. This time, it concerns contributions made by Michael Holmes, David Parker, Harold Attridge, and Klaus Wachtel, during the 2011 SBL meeting, discussing the SBLGNT edition. Next to the discussion, there is a list compiled by Klaus Wachtel of the differences between SBLGNT and other editions, most notably Nestle-Aland (still 27).

The Text of the New Testament Today (Baarda Aland Symposium)

Yesterday (October 16, 2012), we had an exciting symposium here in Amsterdam, entitled The Text of the New Testament Today. It was a symposium in honour of Prof. em. Tjitze Baarda on the occasion of his eightieth birthday and celebrating the publication of the New ‘Nestle-Aland’ (NA-28). The symposium was organised by the Amsterdam Centre of New Testament Studies (ACNTS) in cooperation with the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung (Münster). We were very privileged to have Prof. Barbara Aland and Dr Klaus Wachtel in our midst, as well as a number of outstanding New Testament colleagues from the Netherlands.

The first part of the meeting (chaired by Dr Arie Zwiep) was on our department’s project on Conjectural Emendation. Dr Jan Krans introduced us into the world of Conjectural Criticism in a presentation entitled “Rückblick und Ausblick. Konjekturalkritik im Nestle und Nestle-Aland (1898 bis heute)”.

 Prof. Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte then lectured on Friedrich Blass’ attempt to restyle Matthew 23:8-10, and Drs Bart Kamphuis presented part of his work for this project under the title “Straatman, the Silenced Women and the Resurrection: The Curious Origin of the Conjectured Omission of 1 Cor. 14:34-35”.

The second part of the meeting (chaired by Prof. Martin de Boer) was on the new Nestle-Aland (NA-28). Dr Wachtel introduced us to the ins and outs of the new edition and Prof. Aland shared some personal memories of her work with the Committee members (most of them no longer among us), and expressed her gratitude for the scholarly work of Tjitze Baarda and their longstanding friendship. She presented the first copy (not really the first, of course) of NA-28 to Baarda as a token of appreciation. NA-28 has made its entry into the Netherlands! Tolle, lege!!

Arie Zwiep (ACNTS, VU University)
[Two images added, Jan Krans, 18/10/2012]

Working on a different (floor) level

At VU University, the Faculties of Theology and Philosophy have moved, and introduced flexible workspaces. It will take some time to get used to, I guess.

Anyway, we are back at work; here in a room with two desks, of which we use only one to share a screen (and forget about the Windows computer normally attached to it).

Dirk Roorda (from DANS) is busy programming data structures for New Testament Textual Criticism, while I, when I am not taking pictures, try to keep track of the real-life entities such as the parchment and ink about which we are actually talking.

RBL Reviews of MC de Boer's Galatians Commentary

Dear all,
See http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8373 for two recent reviews of our esteemed colleague's commentary on Galatians.

[To avoid a possible conflict of loyalty between my Doktorvater and my current boss I promise herewith that - if time and subsidizers permit) - I'll write a commentary on Galatians myself, written from the newest possible perspective ... :-)]
Arie Zwiep

Bowyer's 1763 Collection of NT Conjectures

It took some time, but now, thanks to the Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum, the first edition of William Bowyer’s collection of New Testament conjectures is available online (or here). It is part of the second volume of Bowyer’s (very rare) 1763 Greek New Testament (the first part of this second volume is found here or here). Thus far we could had to go to the Library of the Leiden University to consult it.
For our project here at VU University this edition is important, even though it contains far fewer conjectures than later editions (1772; 1782; 1812). For a number of New Testament conjectures, it is simply the earliest source there is.

Update 17 May 2013: added some links, as the GDZ ones do not seem to work.

SBL International, Amsterdam 2012: papers accepted

Members of our research group will present some important papers at the coming SBL International meeting in Amsterdam, in July.

Silvia Castelli will present on Wettstein’s Greek New Testament:

Beyond the Received Text? Discerning Patterns in Wettstein’s Textual Decisions
In his Novum Testamentum Graecum 1751-1752, Johann Jakob Wettstein reprints the received text, yet indicating very clearly his proposed omissions, additions, and substitutions. Are there patterns to be discerned in Wettstein’s decision in favour of certain variant readings? And does he somehow motivate his choices? Through a systematic analysis of Wettstein’s changes to the received text, some answers to these questions will be provided.

Bart Kamphuis will present on conjectural emendation proper (beware: rather long abstract ahead):

Problems and Causes: A Classification of New Testament Conjectures
The reflection upon conjectural emendation of the text of the New Testament has generally been limited to the question to which degree such emendation can be permitted. Little attention has been paid, by contrast, to the corpus of literally thousands of conjectures that have actually been made since Origen. This gap is currently being filled in Amsterdam by the VU University research project New Testament Conjectural Emendation: A Comprehensive Enquiry.
In any research into a large set of data, classifications are made for the purpose of analysis. My study of the conjectures discussed and made in Holland from 1846 to 1906 (what I call the Dutch Movement of Conjectural Criticism) has led to the classification of New Testament conjectures proposed in this paper.
The key to this classification is the idea that, in principle, the reasoning behind every conjecture concerns both the problem as perceived in the transmitted text and the cause of the supposed textual corruption. It turns out that all problems and causes mentioned in the analysed argumentations can be classified into a limited number of types. The classification of conjectures can thus be projected onto a two-dimensional table, with types of problems on the one axis, and types of causes on the other. Every sufficiently substantiated conjecture occupies at least one cell in this table.
This classification makes it possible to discern patterns in the conjectural criticism of particular scholars and even in the history of New Testament conjectural criticism in general.

If this all does not convince you that you should come to Amsterdam and visit the “Working with Biblical Manuscripts” sessions, or even submit a proposal yourself, while you still can (today, January 30, and tomorrow), I throw my hands up in despair.

Or perhaps one final presentation can tip the scales for you. Even though the 2012 SBL International meeting will be in my hometown, and I did not really have to submit a paper in order to justify my presence (financially, that is), I could not refrain from the following proposal, which – to my great relief – my co-chair Tommy Wasserman accepted without much ado.

Who coined the name “Ambrosiaster”?
Traditionally, the coinage of the name “Ambrosiaster” for the author of an important commentary on the Pauline epistles has been attributed to Erasmus. (“Ambst” is mentioned more than 400 times in the current Nestle-Aland apparatus.) As demonstrated by René Hoven in 1969 already, the attribution to Erasmus cannot be sustained. A recent attempt by Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe (2007) mentions the 1686–90 edition of Ambrose’s works by the Benedictines of St Maur, but their use of the name “Ambrosiaster” can be shown to depend on earlier sources. This paper will establish that Jülicher, in 1894, was pointing in the right direction when he mentioned “around 1600” for the first use of the name “Ambrosiaster”, and solve the riddle of its coinage once and for all.

See you in Amsterdam!