New Marginalia to Minuscule 69

The 5th of March, 2013, the participants of the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament visited the Leicester Record Office in order to take a look at the famous Leicester Codex, minuscule 69.

David Parker lecturing on the Leicester Codex

The manuscript is very interesting. As a member of family 13 (the so-called Ferrar group, or φ), it links Britain to Southern Italy in mysterious ways. The manuscript was studied by Erasmus during his stay in Cambridge (1510-1515), in the years that Erasmus’ New Testament project still consisted of hardly more than critically collating and annotating the text of the Latin Vulgate with whatever Greek sources he could find. Some of the particular readings of min. 69 subsequently found their way into Erasmus’ Annotationes.

During our visit, we were drawn into yet another interesting aspect of the manuscript’s history, namely a set of marginal notes to the word Ἀντιπᾶς in Revelation 2:13 (f. 203^r).
First, an unknown annotator, in the decades before 1844, wrote the following (in ink!):

Originally written Αντειπας and the erasure and alteration of τιπ in blacker ink is obvious.

Tregelles, who studied the manuscript while preparing his own edition of the text of Revelation (published in 1844), reacted sharply:

There is no erasure or alteration. S.P. Tregelles.

One easily senses some irritation in the double underlining of “no”. In any case, O. T. Dobbin (did we already know that he studied this manuscript?) found the case important enough to add his own two cents:

Dr. Tregelles is certainly correct – O. T. Dobbin.

Scholarship in the margins?

After careful study of the passage, we (Tommy Wasserman and Jan Krans) could not but fully agree with Tregelles’ and Dobbin’s judgment. In fact, it is amazing to see with what ease people then and now cover the margins of manuscripts with such trifles

NB: This post is published on both the Amsterdam New Testament Weblog and Evangelical Textual Criticism.

Paul, John, and Apocalypic Eschatology

Last Friday (February 15th, 2013), our Professor of New Testament Studies, Martin de Boer, retired from his academic duties. We, as his colleagues, took up the good academic tradition of offering him a Festschrift. And in just as good an academic tradition, he was indeed surprised and honoured when Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, his successor, presented the book:

We managed, as the title shows, a certain degree of thematic unity, which is a Good Thing, not only according to the publisher. The book contains <blurb>important contributions by leading New Testament scholars</blurb>, which were at least for us as editors a pleasure to read and see through publication.

My own small article, which closes the book, is admittedly rather loosely connected to the theme, as it deals with the Pauline commentator "Ambrosiaster", and then only with the question who coined the name "Ambrosiaster". (If you think you already knew the answer, you will have to read the article.)

The book can be previewed at Google Books. It is available from Brill, both in electronic and old-fashioned format; the latter, fittingly, is not yet listed in the series Supplements to Novum Testamentum. But it exists, for <eyewitness testimony>it was offered to Martin de Boer last Friday</eyewitness testimony>. Ad multos annos!

Jesus Traditions and the Construction of Masculinities in World Christianity

"Jesus traditions" have an afterlife as well. This also applies to the use of Jesus tradition in the construction of (ideal) masculinities around the globe. With Dr. Adriaan van Klinken (Leeds University), Dr. Peter-Ben Smit co-edited a special volume of the journal Exchange dedicated to this subject. Its contents can be found here: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/1572543x/42/1

SBL International Meeting

Today was to be the last day for paper proposals for the upcoming Meeting of SBL International, to be held in St. Andrews (July 7-11, 2013), but I just received notice that the deadline has been extended to February 11th. (Lucky you ...)
There is a program unit on (Biblical) Textual Criticism called ”Working With Biblical Manuscripts”, which already has quite some interesting papers coming, but which can of course use some more ...
[JK; updated 31 January 2013 (also changing “Aberdeen” to “St. Andrews” (lucky me)]

Plagiarism in 1880

Those old German journals can be fascinating, once you are used to the language and the script. What about this one:

Source: Literarisches Centralblatt für Deutschland 32 (1881), cols. 811-812 (via GB; two parts put together in Photoshop).

The nice sentence is, of course, “Besonders der letzte Umstand veranlaßt uns zu folgender Erklärung ...” It would seem to me that the plagiarism was not done very intelligently.

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) (with lots of interesting handwritten notes by Casaubon).
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).

Other
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.
18 March 2025: a reference to Casaubon added to ³1582.