Exegetical

Revisions to the Greek NT in NA28 are restricted to the Catholic Epistles—the product of the Münster Institute’s ongoing work on the Editio critica maior. The text of the rest of the NT remains unaltered. The updated manuscript data, however, spans the apparatus of the entire NT and signals a new day for its textual history. The revised correctors of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus make the point. The proposed revisions have direct and far-reaching implications for the book’s textual history. Corrections once placed in the fourth through sixth centuries now occupy the seventh. The changes appear slight, even inconsequential—“touch ups” in support of the task of reconstruction. The clarification and re-dating of the correctors, though, represent a material shift with instant repercussions. The inclusion of new and additional witnesses—alongside of and in juxtaposition to the corrections—further portend altered textual alignments and disclose forgotten chapters in the history of textual criticism. The clarity of the new data also facilitates an examination of their limitations and unclutters the landscape for renewed textual research. The stage is set for a reappraisal of the Apocalypse’s textual history.

An overview of the variety of textual differences that exist between the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus and the book in modern critical editions, thereby offering a window into the book's early readership. There is also a YouTube link to the lecture version of this paper, which was recently delivered at Samford University for their Holley Hull Lecture Series: https://vimeo.com/878444925/a35492dd8b?share=copy&fbclid=IwAR10Iu7HKuAjjcEcDdxgfT7XKqe2F6W6Bwb1cVHafNO0Yz6g4VhsIhXHMz4

"ABSTRACT:
    This study assumes the subject's pursuit of meaning is generally incapacitating and should be suspended. It aims to demonstrate how such a suspension is theoretically accomplished by utilizing Lacan's formulae of sexuation integrated with his work in discourse theory and topology.
    Part I places this study into context by examining scholarship from the established fields of hermeneutics, phenomenology, (post)structuralism, aesthetic theory and psychoanalysis in order to extract out their respective theory of meaning. These theories reveal that an historical struggle with meaning has been underway since the Reformation and reaches near crisis proportions in the 20th century. On the one hand this crisis is mollified by the rise of Heideggerian-Gadamerian hermeneutical phenomenology which questions traditional epistemological approaches to the text using a new ontological conceptualization of meaning and a conscious rejection of methodology. On the other hand this crisis is exacerbated when the ubiquitous nature of meaning is itself challenged by (post)structuralism's discovery of the signifier which inscribes a limit to meaning, and by the domains of sense and nonsense newly opened up by aesthetic theory. These historical developments culminate in the field of psychoanalysis which most consequentially delimits a cause of meaning said to be closely linked to the core of subjectivity.
    Part II extends these findings by rigorously constructing out of the Lacanian sexuated formulae a decidedly non-hermeneutical phenomenological approach useful in demonstrating the sexual nature of meaning. Explicated in their static state by way of an account of their original derivation from the Aristotelian logical square, it is argued that these four formulae are relevant to basic concerns of textual theory inclusive of the hermeneutical circle of meaning. These formulae are then set into motion by integrating them with Lacan's four discourses to demonstrate the breakdown of meaning. Finally, the cuts and sutures of two-dimensional space that is topology as set down in L'étourdit are performed to confirm how the very field of meaning is ultimately suspended from a nonsensical singular point known in Lacanian psychoanalysis as objet a. The contention is that by occupying this point the subject frees himself from the debilitating grip of meaning."

The publication of Josef Schmid's landmark work on the textual history of the Apocalypse seemingly established the Andreas Text Type as a fourth-century product. The primary evidence for Schmid's claim came from the fourth-century corrections of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus, corrections which bore a close resemblance to the Andreas text of the Apocalypse. Schmid's reconstruction, however, is flawed. The fourth-century corrections he identified are actually from the seventh-century. The data supporting a fourth-century Andreas text type does not exist. Schmid's widely influential error appears to have been based on a misreading of Milne and Skeat's "Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus."

A short article on the origin and development of the longer Trinitarian text of 1 John 5:7-8 as found in the Textus Receptus. The typos that are present in this draft will be corrected before the final version is submitted for publication. These include: Lachman > Lachmann; 1881 > 1831; Montifortianus > Montfortianus; [Ayuso] Ionneum > Ioanneum; [Bludau 1903-1] Bibeldruchen > Bibeldrucken; [Bludau 1919-1] den Glaubensbekenntnis > dem Glaubensbekenntnis; [Fischer] pseudo-autustinischen > pseudo-augustinischen; obiectarum. > obiectarum.’; [Rivière] es trois > des trois. Thanks to Jeff Cate, Peter Gurry, and especially Jan Krans for alerting me to these when it was originally posted on academia in 2015. The data of this DRAFT will also fully updated and footnoted in the 2020 peer-reviewed version in "Early Christianity."

This essay tracks the ways Wilhelm Bousset broke new ground in tracking the Apocalypse's textual history and in particular how he influenced Josef Schmid's landmark work, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes," which to this day remains the standard text-critical work on John's Apocalypse. The essay also notes the ways in which Bousset continues to exert an influence in the 21st century, despite considerable theoretical, methodological, and artifactual advances.

Syftet med denna uppsats är att försöka ge ytterligare bidrag till debatten angående vem som kan tänkas ha skrivit pastoralbreven.

Då pseudepigrafhypotesen på senare år har kommit att ifrågasättas och dess metoder påvisar brister i validitet och reliabilitet motiveras en prövning av andra hypoteser. Uppsatsen har därför valt att pröva sannolikheten att en skrivare varit med vid författandet av pastoralbreven. Uppsatsen avser att driva hypotesen att Lukas agerat skrivare åt Paulus vid författandet av pastoralbreven. En hypotes som har fördelen att den går att pröva mer ingående än sekreterarhypotesen i allmänhet då det finns textmaterial som tillskrivits Lukas att jämföra med.

Uppsatsen driver tesen genom att kritiskt granska och argumentera mot teorin om ett rent paulinskt författarskap såväl som mot pseudepigrafhypotesen. Nästa steg är att uppsatsen granskar sannolikheten för att Paulus skulle använt sig av sekreterare vid författandet av brev i allmänhet och pastoralbreven i synnerhet. Slutligen söker uppsatsen finna om det finns kopplingar mellan pastoralbreven och Lukas genom att jämföra de texter som tillskrivits Lukas med pastoralbreven.

Uppsatsen drar slutsatsen att hypotesen om Lukas som skrivare åt Paulus är mycket sannolik
på grundval av historiska, språkliga och innehållsliga skäl. Pastoralbreven utformning och innehåll talar dock emot att Lukas helt på egen hand skulle ha författat dem. Mycket talar istället för en gemensam inblandning vid komponerandet. Uppsatsen lämnar dock frågan öppen huruvida Lukas agerat som redigerare eller som medförfattare vid komponerandet av breven. Uppsatsen ser även möjligheten att Lukas varit både och.

Nyckelord: pastoralbreven, författarskap, sekreterarhypotesen, pseudepigrafhypotesen, Paulus, Lukas