Propertiana

Notions of ‘authorship’, ‘publication’ and ‘final text’ are often mentioned in traditional textual criticism, but less frequently discussed in detail. The projects of source and redaction criticism end and textual criticism begins based on when scholars imagine a text was finished. Yet modern notions of publication, textuality and authorship, which are largely shaped by the printing press, are often anachronistically applied to the ancient world. Exploring evidence from Plato to 4 Ezra to Tertullian and Augustine, I take up the question of when a text was considered ‘final’ by reconsidering what counted as publication in the ancient world. Once the assumption of textual finalization is set aside, the tools traditionally associated with textual, source and redaction criticism become unhelpful. While textual critics have noted the practical impossibilities of arriving at the ‘original text’, I demonstrate the conceptual roadblocks to imagining an ‘original’ and ‘final’ text in the ancient world.

Reviewed by: Mummings and Entertainments Roger A. Ladd John Lydgate . Mummings and Entertainments. Ed. Claire Sponsler. Middle English Texts Series. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2010. Pp. vi + 186. $15.00. The desire to read or teach John Lydgate can be challenging because there are no current critical or student editions of much of his work. The Middle English Texts Series (METS) sponsored by the Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages (TEAMS) has improved this situation with recent editions of Troy Book selections, The Temple of Glas, The Siege of Thebes, and now from Claire Sponsler [End Page 355] the Mummings and Entertainments. This edition is not purely a critical edition, as the Middle English Texts Series remains accessible to a student reader, but it has a reasonably complete textual apparatus, excellent and well-researched notes, and a thorough bibliography. Mummings and Entertainments effectively shows the growth of this series to an interesting compromise between student accessibility and scholarly thoroughness, while avoiding the incomprehensibility of many critical editions. Sponsler presents as readable a text as is possible, and there is no question that this particular group of documents might fit nicely into a number of possible courses—certainly this book would supplement an anthology in a medieval drama class, or could be more central in a course looking at the discourse of the Lancastrian affinity. If METS/TEAMS publish much more Lydgate, a dedicated seminar on the poet will also become possible. This edition will support further scholarship on these verses: the notes and bibliography provide an effective orientation to critical work on Lydgate's occasional poetry. Putting together this particular selection of mummings and entertainments represents interesting critical work on Sponsler's part, and it is clear from the quality of her supporting materials that she was a good choice to edit this volume. As she explains in her introduction, modern generic terms for performance do not align well with the "literate orality" (1) of the fifteenth century, and none of these selections are exactly plays in the sense the N-Town plays, Mankind, or the Digby Mary Magdalene (5), would be. In order to explain how this volume holds together, Sponsler creates her own definition: these verses all "seem to have involved some degree of mimetic activity and show signs of the use of impersonation, action or gesture, costuming, props, oral recitation, or visual display" (1). This volume includes recitations or inscriptions to go with decorative hangings ("Bycorne and Chychevache," "Legend of St. George," possibly "Mesure Is Tresure"), royal entertainments ("Disguising at Hertford," "Mumming at Eltham," "Mumming at Windsor"), entertainments for civic or other groups ("Disguising at London," "Mumming at Bishopswood," "Mumming for the Goldsmiths of London," "Mumming for the Mercers of London"), a poetic description of a royal entry or a procession ("Henry VI's Triumphal Entry into London," "A Procession of Corpus Christi"), and even verses to go with a course at a royal banquet ("Soteltes at the Coronation Banquet of Henry VI"). Some texts, like "Of the Sodein Fal of Princes in Oure Dayes" or the "Pageant of Knowledge," defy clear categorization. This selection replicates no existing anthology, and gives the reader a clear vision of the variety of occasional verse that could be commissioned from a well-known public poet in the fifteenth century. Sponsler gives us a selection of Lydgate's occasional work worth reading, and she should be praised for making this material available for scholarly and classroom use. [End Page 356] While perhaps some Lydgate specialists might have chosen a slightly different selection, the only aspect of this volume that invites critique is the inherent contradiction of a combined student and critical edition. Because it includes so many works that lack current critical editions, the Middle English Texts Series has increasingly embraced this contradiction, and Sponsler effectively seeks a manageable middle ground. The textual apparatus is thorough: the textual notes (135-56) methodically record every major manuscript variant of each text and articulate editorial choices. The textual notes also act as a strong corrective to the previous edition of most of this material, Henry Noble MacCracken's 1934 two-volume Minor Poems for the Early English Text Society (EETS). Sponsler...

In the past one hundred years, as textual criticism has become more common in Iran, we have witnessed an increase in the number of textual criticisms of classical works. These editions, except in some cases, are generally a kind of imitation and methodological duplication of the work done by renowned scholars in the field, and do not move beyond the virtual structure of the text in question. One of the main challenges of textual criticism in contemporary Iran is the disregard for the theoretical fundamentals of this field. Underdeveloped theoretical foundations, in most cases, have reduced the edition of Persian texts to a simple and mechanical countermeasure. Considering the necessity of theoretical discourse in the field of textual criticism, this paper tries to explore, explain and critique the teleology of textual criticism in various traditional, modern and postmodern views. Moreover, the relationship between reader comprehension and textual criticism has been criticized as one of the forgotten principles in the theoretical areas of correction. Extended Abstract 1. Introduction Textual criticism has been defined variedly in different eras and civilizations. The kinds of texts, ideologies, worldviews, social structures and scientific movements in different periods of human civilization have resulted in the development of different methods of textual criticism. These methods have been based on users’ understanding, which has been in turn affected by the goals pursued in textual criticism. At least three kinds of teleological viewpoints, developed in classical, modern and postmodern eras, can be traced in textual criticism. In the classical era, the text is considered to be sacred, while in the modern era it is desecrated and examined within the framework of a scientific process. By going beyond textuality, postmodernism seeks to identify factors contributing to the production of the text, no longer finding it to be exclusively formed by the author. 2. Theoretical Framework In the past two centuries, European scholars have tried to replace traditional methods of textual criticism with modern ones. Textual criticism has a thousand-year-old history in the Islamic civilization. In the contemporary era, although many valuable Islamic works have been textually analyzed and emendated, Muslim scholars have been unwilling to join the theoretical discussions on textual criticism, such as the teleology of such an endeavor. Our understanding of the text and the methods we use to reconstruct old and modern texts are directly influenced by the telos followed in the textual analysis of texts. Teleology is the basis of theories of textual criticism and provides the theoretical framework for textual studies. Thus, engagement in such discussions, which have been predominantly overlooked in Iran, can pave the way for theoretical debates on the nature of textual criticism. 3. Methodology In the present study, first the traditional perfectionist attitude toward textual criticism, which is based on the Iranian culture in the Islamic era, is examined. Then, the bases of the modern experimental attitude will be discussed, and finally the pluralistic postmodern viewpoint will be studied. Also, the role of the audience in the teleology of the texts will be analyzed. 4. Findings Traditional scholars have adopted a perfectionist outlook toward textual criticism as a tool for annotating and ornamenting texts. In the modern outlook, which has been influenced by scientific-experimental movements such as Darwinism, the text is regarded as a kind of evolution and attempt is made to trace the possible changes that the text has probably undergone so that its original form is revived. In the postmodern attitude toward textual criticism, a democratic approach is adopted and the text is considered to be the outcome of the contribution of different factors rather than being exclusively created by the author; thus, the postmodern critic tries to offer different accounts of the changes in the text, rather than reverse these changes. 5. Conclusion Our conception of the text and its reconstruction is rooted in the telos resulting from the outlook taken by researchers and manifested through their taste and concerns. Audiences in different eras determine what objectives different texts and textual studies should pursue. However, not all audiences do exert the same influence; “superior audiences” develop new ends for researchers by attaching more importance to specific types of research. By refining their ideological and scientific beliefs, these audiences provide textual researchers with more reasonable ends.

Reviewed by: Christian Faith—A New Translation and Critical Edition by Friedrich Schleiermacher R. David Nelson Christian Faith—A New Translation and Critical Edition. 2 Vols. By Friedrich Schleiermacher. Translated by Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016. xxxiii + 1140 pp. This publication of an up-to-date, critical English translation of Schleiermacher's Glaubenslehre is a major event in contemporary scholarship in the fields of theology, church history, and religious studies. Prior to the appearance of this two-volume set, the only complete translation available in English was the edition prepared in the late 1920s by a team of British scholars and edited by Hugh Ross Mackintosh and James Stuart Stewart. The Tice-Kelsey-Lawler edition is a significant improvement over its predecessor, rendering Schleiermacher's opus into a clear and elegant English text that is faithful to the German original. Explanatory footnotes illuminate the reasons behind certain translation decisions and provide commentary on the backgrounds and meanings of Schleiermacher's proposals and concepts in Romanticism and German Idealism. The editors supply numerous cross-references to other contemporaneous and antecedent sources. Of particular note are the echoes in Christian Faith of ideas Schleiermacher developed in Brief Outline for the Study of Theology (1830) and On Religion (31831). Readers will encounter here the new standard text of Christian Faith in English, packaged in a critical study edition that reflects leading scholarship in Schleiermacher's theology and in nineteenth-century Protestant thought. This release should inspire fresh scrutiny of Schleiermacher's contribution to modern Protestantism. As Christine Helmer points out ("Schleiermacher for Lutherans," Lutheran Quarterly 29 [2015], 162–183), Lutherans are inclined to object to Schleiermacher's contention that religious experience originates in a pre-linguistic awareness of creaturely finitude that manifests itself in the form of, in the words of a locution he made famous, a "feeling of absolute dependence" upon the infinite God. This awareness-cum-feeling occurs before and independently of language. What goes missing in Schleiermacher's theology—and this is the root of the Lutheran concern—is the precedence and antecedence for faith of the external word of justifying grace through which God communicates his victorious righteousness and awakens sinners for the life of faith. Rather [End Page 458] than starting from the priority of the external word, Schleiermacher focuses on "seeing the (religious) experience as it is experienced, not on its subsequent articulation or even expression. It is an experience that precedes the rational act of expression . . . Language is inevitable . . . Yet the experience of love's unity precedes description and explanation" (Helmer, 170). It is fascinating to observe how Schleiermacher develops these themes in Christian Faith. After an extensive introduction addressing a nest of prolegomenal concerns (notably, theology's borrowing of concepts from ethics, philosophy, and apologetics), he unfurls a complete first-to-second-to-third article dogmatic cycle. "Religious self-consciousness," which he identifies in the introduction as the pious acknowledgment of and dependence upon the infinite God, becomes something of a first principle, extending laterally through the three units on "The Doctrines of Faith" in order to show how this fundamental religious posture unlocks Christian understandings of the attributes of God and the doctrine of creation, the plight of sin and the redemptive agency of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the essence and historical development of the "uneven and fluid" and yet "distinctively circumscribed" community of the church. The experience of God as the infinite other precedes and thus grounds the church's language of faith and its theological reflection. Preaching is ensconced within this discursive nexus. While Schleiermacher does concede that preaching can incite religious feeling, his focus is on various forms of Christian discourse as recitations, repetitions, and celebrations of the redemption enacted in Jesus. To be sure, it is possible to follow Schleiermacher's lead by doing theology from the ground up—commencing from the general experience of religious self-consciousness and proceeding toward the particularities of Christian doctrine and practice—and still articulate an account of divinity in a distinctively Lutheran theological voice. One thinks of the recent programs of Pannenberg (who defines the imago dei...

Reviewed by: Autos sacramentales completos de Lope de Vega by Lope de Vega Hilaire Kallendorf Lope de Vega. Autos sacramentales completos de Lope de Vega. Edición crítica de J. Enrique Duarte (vol. 1) y Juan Manuel Escudero Baztán (vol. 2). edition reichenberger, 2017, 2 vols. 282 pp. (vol. 1) y 231 pp. (vol. 2). these are the initial two volumes of a planned six-volume series of critical editions of Lope de Vega's autos sacramentales, or sacramental plays; the other four volumes have already been assigned to specific editors. Perhaps reflective of the amount of work involved in preparing a critical edition, the other four volumes will each contain two plays apiece, as do these volumes; but most of the future plays will be edited by two different scholars. In the case of these first two installments, a single scholar prepared both critical editions within each separate book. Volume 1, edited by J. Enrique Duarte, contains Las bodas entre el Alma y el Amor divino along with El hijo pródigo; volume 2, edited by Juan Manuel Escudero Baztán, contains La Maya and El viaje del alma. Escudero Baztán is also the coordinator for the series, whose chief editor is Ignacio Arellano. These projects have been developed under the auspices of GRISO (Grupo de Investigación Siglo de Oro), based at the University of navarra in Pamplona and funded by a grant from Spain's Ministerio de Economía, Industria y competividad. A presentation note at the outset of the first volume indicates that this is only the first phase of a project that may later double in size to include editions of all twenty-four of Lope de Vega's autos sacramentales that do not pose problems of dubious authorship. This number in itself is astoundingly small, given that at various points through the centuries since [End Page 201] the death of this author, scholars have estimated that Lope de Vega might possibly have written as many as one hundred, two hundred, or even six hundred autos sacramentales (the true number of comedias attributable to him is likewise debated). In modern times, this number has been reduced to a corpus of some forty-four sacramental plays, with only about half of those attributable to Lope with any stable degree of certainty. Presumably, the same research team will solicit another, similar grant from the spanish government to finance the preparation of the next dozen editions. It should be noted that this is the same scholarly network responsible for producing scholarly editions of the complete autos sacramentales of Pedro calderón de la Barca, one of Lope's seventeenth-century literary successors and by far the most famous cultivator of this dramatic genre. The reasons to review these two books together are multiple. Not only were they published in the same year, together forming the first fruits of a multiyear collaborative endeavor, but these four autos sacramentales also appeared together when they were first published in the seventeenth century, namely, as intercalated dramatic pieces appearing at the end of each of the first four books within Lope de Vega's Byzantine novel El peregrino en su patria (Seville, 1604). Given that they were originally incorporated into a larger work, the decision to publish them separately might seem debatable, especially in light of what historians of the book as artifact have taught us about the inseparability of a book's form from its content. However—especially since at least one of the plays, namely, Las bodas entre el Alma y el Amor divino, boasts a documented performance history apart from the novel—the option of lifting them out of their original context to place them alongside Lope de Vega's other, similar autos is at least justifiable. At least two complete editions of this novel have been released by reputable academic university or commercial presses within the past two years: in April of 2016 Cátedra published a version with notes in Spanish edited by Julián González Barrera, while in 2017 there appeared in the north carolina studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures series a new six hundred-page critical annotated edition and...

People can introspect on their internal state and report the reasons driving their decisions but choice blindness (CB) experiments suggest that this ability can sometimes be a retrospective illusion. Indeed, when presented with deceptive cues, people justify choices they did not make in the first place, suggesting that external cues largely contribute to introspective processes. Yet, it remains unclear what are the respective contributions of external cues and internal decision variables in forming introspective report. Here, using a brain–computer interface, we show that internal variables continue to be monitored but are less impactful than deceptive external cues during CB episodes. Moreover, we show that deceptive cues overturn the classical relationship between confidence and accuracy: introspective failures are associated with higher confidence than genuine introspective reports. We tracked back the origin of these overconfident confabulations by revealing their prominence when internal decision evidence is weak and variable. Thus, introspection is neither a direct reading of internal variables nor a mere retrospective illusion, but rather reflects the integration of internal decision evidence and external cues, with CB being a special instance where internal evidence is inconsistent.

Hadīths were subjected to many examinations during the process of compilation and recording in books. The first stage of these examinations is to determine whether the hadīth's script is sahīh or not. After the hadīths with valid conditions were included in the books by the authors, they were sometimes evaluated in terms of textual criticism. However, it has been claimed in some classical works that the text is not given importance and in some recent studies that textual criticism is not practiced by muhaddiths. The basis of their criticism of classical sources is the idea that only the different tarīqs of hadīths were tried to be brought together and that no attention was paid to understanding the hadīths. Names such as Goldziher, Caetani, and Juynboll, on the other hand, argued that only the isnād was taken as a basis for the acceptance of hadīths. However, they were of the opinion that if the hadīths were reliable, they were accepted directly, and the hadīth texts were not examined in terms of intellectual and historical aspects. These allegations bring to mind the idea that the hadīths are not sufficiently analyzed in terms of acceptance and rejection and that the text is not taken into account in judging and evaluating the hadīths. It is necessary to determine whether this is really the case because hadīths are the most fundamental source for understanding religion after the Qur'an. The claim that the hadīths, which constitute the basis of fiqh, have not been sufficiently analyzed is suspicious and undermines the reliability of the main hadīth sources. Based on the data showing that textual criticism was made in Abū Dāwūd's (d. 275/889) Sunan, it was seen that the aforementioned claims were open to criticism, and it was aimed to criticize these claims. The statements that the Muhaddiths did not perform textual criticism were determined by scanning the books to which the criticisms were directed. These criticisms were compared with the data in the Sunan. It has been determined that the data on textual criticism in the Sunan is included in different sections, and it has been seen that the author only performs textual criticism on issues that may cause confusion. It was also found that some of the hadīths were presented and interpreted by Abū Dāwūd according to the actual Sunnah. The practice of the Companions was also taken as evidence in the textual criticism as a criterion that directly affects the ruling of the hadīth. In addition, the author performed a criticism activity by evaluating some of the hadīths rationally. In addition, explanations on issues directly related to the text, such as tashif-tahrif, ziyāda, and idrāj, were found to be effective in understanding the text. This shows that the author cares about the text as much as the isnād and that he endeavors to understand the hadīths and analyze the text. However, the author made explanations on the issue of Ikhtilāf al-ḥadîth by identifying the discrepancy in the text. He contributed to the comprehension of the text by making many references to the issue of gharīb al-hadīth. His explanations and references to the rulings of hadīths show that an activity related to the content of the text took place in the context of fiqh al-hadīth. All of this shows that the claims that there is no textual criticism in classical sources, that only the isnād is dealt with, and that the text is ignored do not reflect the truth in the context of the Sunan. Based on this study, it is thought that the existence of issues related to textual criticism in hadīth sources other than the Sunan can be the subject of more comprehensive research.

248 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION This is, then, a rather traditional study of generally rather obscure texts; but it is thoughtful and well written, and provides a precious aid to those involved in the effort to understand the evolution of French fiction immediately before and after 1700. Patrick Brady University of Tennessee Aphra Behn. Oroonoko, or, The Royal Slave: A Critical Edition. Edited with an introduction by Adelaide P. Amore. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987. xliv + 86pp. US$24.25 cloth; US$11.25 paper. In a recent essay Richard Altick quotes from a "deservedly scathing review" that appeared in Literary Research Newsletter, and seconds the reviewer's assertion that "[a]ny publisher honorably engaged in the production of academic books ... must be willing to accept a burden of responsibility to enforce standards of excellence." "Quality control," he added, "should be the concern of everybody involved in the gathering, evaluating, and disseminating of bibliographical information" (Literary Reviewing, ed. J.O. Hoge, 1987, p. 68). The same standards of excellence must also be maintained in textual criticism, and so the editor and the publisher have much to answer for in this edition of Aphra Behn's Oroonoko, an edition that fails every test of a good edition. The first problem with this text comes on the title page where the words "A Critical Edition" are prominent. Since a critical edition of Behn's Oroonoko has been done—and done well—by Gerald Duchovnay (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1971), what could a new critical edition have to offer? What texts might have been examined other than those Duchovnay collated? To my knowledge , Duchovnay missed only two copies of the 1688 Oroonoko, neither one significantly different from seven of the eight he examined. Adelaide Amore claims to have examined only three copies of the first edition: the Bodleian's as copy-text, the Beinecke's, and the British Library's (which seems to have reappeared after a long disappearance). Ignored are the Huntington and Harvard copies readily available in the University Microfilms Early English Book series. This, then, is a "critical edition" with no textual apparatus. Duchovnay adopted twenty-six emendations in his critical text and recorded close to one hundred accidental variants and over two hundred substantive variants in his collations, including two press variants in the 1688 text. One of these press variants, extant only in the Bodleian text of Behn's dedication to Maitland , was suppressed in a stop-press cancellation because it revealed Behn's Roman Catholicism. Yet this most important textual (and biographical) detail is buried in square brackets in the Dedication on page 2 of this editor's text. REVIEWS 249 But these are not the only problems with this edition. I fear that Restoration scholars for years will be correcting students' errors generated by the introduction , the notes, and the primary and secondary bibliography. The list of Behn's works is so filled with misdatings, mangled titles and subtitles, significant omissions, and ghosts that it would take pages here to offer corrections. The same carelessness with titles and dates surfaces in the "Selected Bibliography " (pp. 83-86). Here, under "Alphra" [sic] Behn, are listed the 1688 edition of Oroonoko, the 1871 publication in Pearson's edition (although it is not identified as such), Sey's 1977 edition published in Ghana (not Chana), two of La Place's five known editions (but the editor does not seem to realize that La Place rewrote half the novel to give it a happy ending), and the 1709 Hamburg edition with the German title butchered. Other Behn works, such as the 1698 third edition of the collected novels and Summer's edition, are listed by title, while the first edition (1696) of the collected novels is omitted. Significantly absent from the bibliography are twentieth-century editions of Oroonoko in English, of which there have been six others (to 1985) not counting Summers's or Sey's. Surely the two most important editions of the past twenty years, Duchovnay's invaluable critical edition (with its 145-page introduction) and Lore Metzger's Norton edition (which follows Summers's), merit notice. Yet they are not listed. The preliminary matter of...

Reviewed by: Meditations on the Life of Christ: The Short Italian Text by Sarah McNamer Emma Louise Barlow McNamer, Sarah, Meditations on the Life of Christ: The Short Italian Text (The William and Katherine Devers Series in Dante and Medieval Italian Literature, 14), Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 2018; hardback; pp. clxxx, 264; R.R.P. US$65.00; ISBN 9780268102852. The William and Katherine Devers Series, founded in 1995, explores the works of Dante and his contemporaries as points of convergence for the interweaving lines of inquiry of the medieval Italian cultural tradition. As noted by Daragh O'Connell and Beatrice Sica ('Literary Cultures in/and Italian Studies', Italian Studies, 75 (2020), 125–39), recent scholarship in the field has shown an inclination to look beyond the canon in favour of examining potential alternative canons and 'minor' authors and texts, contributing to a reframing of cultural authority in the early Italian literary tradition. Given this trend, it is entirely clear why the series editors have invested in Sarah McNamer's book: while the unattributed Latin text of the Meditationes vitae Christi was highly influential during the medieval period, McNamer proposes a previously unstudied Italian text, allegedly authored by one of the Poor Clares of Tuscany, as the original text of the Meditations, thus complicating not only its textual history, but the history of medieval Italian literature more broadly. This book constitutes an exciting and compelling new perspective on a significant text. The preface to this volume states that it will present the Italian testo breve with an English translation and commentary, as well as a detailed exposé of the ramifications of the Italian text in terms of 'the development of prose narrative in the early Trecento; the role of women as writers and readers in the invention of genres and devotional practices; the part played by the Franciscans in the cultivation of affective piety; the rise and risks of vernacular theology; and the history of emotion' (p. xviii). The presentation of the text, translation, [End Page 243] and commentary is exemplary, and McNamer makes illuminating observations regarding the vital role of Franciscans and of women in medieval devotion, and the ways in which prose narrative developed in fourteenth-century Italy. However, the compact nature of the initial paratextual argument leaves the question of medieval vernacular theology and its relationship to affective states comparatively underdeveloped, and McNamer's frequent redirections to her contemporaneous article published in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum (111.1–2 (2018), 65–112) do not quite counterbalance this shortcoming. The book is presented in two main sections. The first 180 pages contain an introduction that presents the reasoning behind offering a critical edition of this testo breve, alongside a paratextual argument. There is a textual history that accounts for the newly 'discovered' (p. xxviii, n. 13) testo breve as well as the Italian and Latin texts already known to scholars, following a meticulous close reading of particular textual interpolations. The 'authorship' section posits an author of Franciscan affiliation and a woman, based on analysis of textual referents as well as contextual information regarding literacy and social practices, while the 'date and place of composition' section gives a detailed provenance of the testo breve, dated to c. 1300–1325 (p. cxx). This is followed by a catalogue of the manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian MS Canon. It. 174), a linguistic analysis by Pär Larson, which argues that the text is Tuscan but copied by Venetian copyists, and notes on editorial principles and quirks of the translation. The second section contains the 'critical edition' of the testo breve, divided into its thirty-one chapters. The facing-page English translation is sound and notes on the text prove highly useful in understanding the text's devotional uses and contexts. However, references to the author's close comparative reading of the text with one purportedly later Italian version (the testo minore, a longer text that most closely resembles the testo breve) is revealed only in snippets, rather than comprehensively. While McNamer acknowledges that producing a comparative critical edition is against the intention of the monograph (pp. xxxiii–xxxiv), some confusion remains regarding the accuracy of the term 'critical edition' in reference...

Introduction: New cancer-specific antigens are needed to fully realize the potential of antibody-based cancer therapies. Cancer cells express novel antigens that are characteristic of the transformed state and may engender an antibody response in patients. We hypothesize that some of these antibodies detect neo-antigens shared by diverse tumor types. We optimized a hybridoma method for cloning human IgG monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) by screening for binding to heterologous cell lines. Here, we describe four mAbs, isolated from cancer patients, that bind to cancer cells. Methods: We developed immunofluorescence binding assays with the A431, MCF-7, and MDA-MB-231 cell lines, detecting cell-reactive human IgG with the Operetta (Perkin Elmer). The assays were adapted for extracellular binding as well as internalization using specific culture conditions. We tested sera from 59 lung cancer patients with diverse clinical features. 24 of the samples contained IgG reactivity with A431 cells at > 1:100 titer, and 17 had evidence of IgG internalization. We generated hybridomas using peripheral blood B-cells isolated from two of these lung cancer patients, as well as B-cells from a lymph node of a stage I, ER+PR+ breast cancer patient. We characterized the binding of four mAbs using immunohistochemistry (IHC), microscopy, flow cytometry and immunoblotting. One mAb was used to identify its cognate antigen by immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry. Results: In a panel of 59 lung cancer patient sera, 24 had IgG that bound the A431 cell line, and 17 of these had evidence of internalization. We isolated three human mAbs from two lung cancer patients and one mAb from the breast cancer lymph node. We performed IHC with three of the mAbs in formalin fixed, paraffin embedded normal and tumor tissues and found primarily tumor cell binding to a variety of tumor types. The 5A6 (lung) bound 3 of 4 non-small cell lung, 3 of 4 colon, 2 of 4 ovarian and 1 of 4 small cell lung cancers. 19F10 (lung) bound 1 of 4 colon and 2 of 4 small cell lung. 2G4 (breast) bound 4 of 4 non-small cell lung, 3 of 4 prostate, 3 of 4 ovarian, and 2 of 4 colon cancers. Some normal tissue binding was observed, such as small intestine and distal renal tubule (2G4 and 19F10), pancreatic islet (19F10), and prostate (2G4). The 6A10 mAb (lung) bound to the constitutive heat shock protein, HSC70, which was localized in the plasma membrane of cancer cell lines. Conclusion: We have cloned 4 human mAbs from cancer patients. This supports the hypothesis that patients with active malignancies make antibodies capable of binding cancer-specific antigens. We identified HSC70, a protein that has an altered cell localization in cancer cells, as one such antigen. The three mAbs tested by IHC bound to diverse tumor types that often differed from the tumors of the patients where the B-cells originated. The human anti-cancer antibody repertoire holds promise as a tool to identify new targets for mAb-based cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Citation Format: Huiwu Zhao, Jiping Zhang, Ramdev Puligedda, Cezary Swider, Paul Simon, Baron Heimbach, Sharad Adekar, Maureen Murphy, Hossein Borghaei, Scott Dessain. Tumor-specific human monoclonal antibodies isolated from cancer patients. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 3625. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-3625

The textual criticism is an interpreter of the Bible in a peculiar relationship to exegesis. The outer textual criticism can keep the exegetes easier subjective prior miscarriages of justice; but often the textual critic must consider itself the context and context to use and more exegetical methods to arrive at a decision (internal textual criticism). So there is a constant dialogue between textual criticism and exegesis, and there are cases for which because of its complexity far no agreement has been reached yet. This also includes John 14: 7, and since Professor D. Gr. Kilpatrick on the close connection between textual criticism and exegesis always placed great emphasis, is a discussion contribution to his Festschrift not be out of place. This chapter starts from the outer text of testimony and then brings the exegetical and linguistic aspects of the game. Keywords: John; text of testimony; linguistic aspects; bible; textual criticism

The papyri offer us the most direct access we have to the experience of ordinary people in antiquity. -E. A. Judge1 A year and a half ago I presented to a distinguished NT scholar an offprint of an article I had just published on the Junia/Junias variation in Rom 16:7.2 A few weeks later, in his presence, I handed a copy also to another NT scholar. At that point, the first colleague said to the second, You must read this article. Can you imagine-something interesting written by a textual critic! This was meant to be a genuine compliment, yet it echoed a common and almost unconscious impression that biblical textual critics are dull creatures who spend their careers tediously adjudicating textual minutiae that only impede the exegete's work. Of course, critical editions are considered essential and therefore welcome, but must we really be bothered by that complex apparatus at the foot of the page? I. Introduction: Traditional and New Goals of Textual Criticism Naturally, textual critics will continue their tradition of establishing the earliest or most likely text, though now we use such a term, if we use it at all, with caution and even with reluctance, recognizing that original carries several dimensions of meaning.3 Indeed, ever since Westcott-Hort entitled their famous edition The New Testament in the Original Greek,4 we have learned that many a pitfall awaits those who, whether arrogantly or naively, rush headlong into that search ior the Holy Grail. Yet the aim to produce better critical editions by refining the criteria for the priority of readings and by elucidating the history of the text will remain; at the same time, however, textual criticism s other goals will be pursued in accord with significant changes that recent decades have brought to the discipline. example, emphasis has fallen on scribal activity, especially the purposeful alteration of texts that reflect the theology and culture of their times. One dramatic presentation was Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, a work so well known that I need only summarize his main point: During the christological controversies of the first three centuries, proto-orthodox scribes, as he calls them, sometimes changed their scriptural texts to make them say what they were already known to mean.5 Hence, they corrupted their texts to maintain correct doctrine. Much earlier, textual critics had been willing to attribute such arrogance only to heretics, but Ehrman boldly and correctly turned this on its head. Though startling and unexpected, his thesis, as he recognized, issued quite naturally from text-critical developments of the preceding four decades.6 A second phenomenon, long troubling to textual critics, concerns multiple readings in one variation-unit that defy resolution, and attention has turned to what these multiple-often competing-variants might tell us about crucial issues faced by the churches and how they dealt with them. David Parker, whose small volume is at risk of being overlooked owing to its simple yet significant title, The Living Text of the Gospels,7 confronted the problem head-on, with fascinating results. instance, the six main variant forms of the so-called Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke show the evolution of this pericope under liturgical influence. This is well known, but my description of it is much too detached. What obviously happened, of course, was that the fervent, dynamic worship environment in early churches at various times and places evoked appropriate expansions of the shorter and certainly earlier forms that we print in our Greek texts of Matthew and Luke, including additional clauses such as Your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us, but especially the lofty praise of the Almighty and Eternal God offered with grandeur and dignity and beauty in the famous doxology, For the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours forever and ever. …

Reviewed by: Iphigenias at Aulis: Textual Multiplicity, Radical Philology Paul Allen Miller Sean Alexander Gurd . Iphigenias at Aulis: Textual Multiplicity, Radical Philology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2005. 188 pp. Iphigenias at Aulis is quite simply one of the most exciting books I have read in some time. In a field (classics) that is still known for its allergy to all modes of theoretical reflection, and in a discipline (textual criticism) that is still considered the most conservative redoubt in an otherwise conservative field, Sean Alexander Gurd has produced a work of astonishing audacity. Drawing on the resources of Derrida, Deleuze, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Phillipe Lacoue-Labarthe, with stops along the way for Iser, Jauss, Barthes, Foucault, Saul Kripke, and Paul de Man, Gurd asks us to rethink the nature and production of our most cherished cultural monuments from antiquity. The texts of Homer, Plato, and Sophocles, or of Horace, Vergil, and Cicero, according to Gurd, come down to us not through an unbroken chain of transmission, in which the humble textual critic is but the amanuensis of immortality, but they are produced instead in a kind of differential flux by strange Cyclopean "cyborgs" laboring in the mines of tradition. The dossier of manuscripts, archetypes, witnesses, autographs, readings, and critical editions that lies behind the received text of any work from antiquity, does not constitute the set of sources from which a pristine original has been drawn. These artifacts are not various approximations of an ideal embodiment of authorial intent, which it is the critic's task to produce through patient collation and reasoned deduction. Rather they are the structures of iteration and dissemination that constitute the text as textuality. As in Lévi-Strauss's theory of myth, there is no Ur-text from which all other versions can be seen as [End Page 344] derivations, deviations, and corruptions. Rather the text of the work exists precisely in the differential body of competing versions that constitutes its concrete and evolving totality. The textual critic as cyborg is at once an image of the latter's enslavement, of the chains it which he/she/it toils, and of the critic's simultaneous ascendance to the ranks of the Nietzschean posthuman. The production of the critical text is never simply the result of the free invention of the critic. It is always a strange hybrid of submission to the dictates of the mechanics of information transmission and the free (almost Sartrean) consciousness of the critic. That consciousness can never be separated from the mechanism of transmission. It is not simply the ghost in the machine. It is at once immanent to the mechanism and its transgression. It is at once the fabric and materialization of tradition and historicity, and its radical negation. "In the cyborg operations of textual criticism consciousness reasserts itself, throwing a wrench into the works and instituting in place of the monstrous automaton of tradition a new vision of its origin and destiny. The textual critic is not the agent of tradition but its saboteur" (43). Each new critical iteration is always already a moment of dissemination in a tradition that necessarily deconstructs itself in the moment of its constitution. Of course, Gurd in fact is not the first classicist to have discovered poststructuralist theory, nor is he even the sole philologist to have pondered theory's relation to that most hidebound of disciplines, textual criticism. Yet until very recently most theoretical work in classics has been in the form of "applying" theory. A given theoretical apparatus is chosen—Lacanian, Derridian, Foucauldian, Iserian—and is then used as the lens through which the works of antiquity are read. Few and far between are the truly original theoretical syntheses on the order of what Gurd has achieved here. At the same time, the theoretical work that has been done in textual criticism primarily consists of the occasional isolated article. No one to my knowledge has attempted a sustained and systematic rethinking of the textual enterprise in light of poststructural theory in the manner of Gurd. The reasons for the relative lack of theoretical reflection among classical philologists are not hard to discover. Beyond the innate conservatism embodied in the...

Reviewed by: Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ed. by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts Scott Charlesworth stanley e. porter and andrew w. pitts, Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ( Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). Pp. xvi + 202. Paper $22. Porter and Pitts have set out to fill a gap in the literature by writing a mid-level textbook for first- and second-year students of Greek. Their aim is to avoid both oversimplification and too much complexity by introducing NT textual criticism in enough detail to provide "exposure to major issues" (p. xiii). High expectations are dashed, however, when in chap. 1 they define the primary goal of textual criticism as "reconstruction of the original text of the NT" (p. 6). Omitted is any reference to theoretical discussions about the meaning of "original" and current preference for distinctions implied by use of the terms "authorial," "initial," and "archetype" (text). Is the rationale pragmatic, due to the limitations the authors have set themselves? If so, it cannot be justified. Moreover, the selected bibliography that follows this (and every other) chapter, which is designed to facilitate further study and make up for the paucity of footnotes, does not include any literature on the subject. In order to lay a foundation for exegesis, text-critical matters are "book-ended" by chaps. 2 and 13 on canon (the "domain of NT textual criticism") and English translations respectively. It is certainly right, as the authors explain, to get students thinking about all three areas before they come to exegesis, but the uncritical tone now becomes apologetic. The canon was established "as soon as the literature was written … and closed as soon as the last of the apostles died" (p. 30). The church did not then decide but discovered what was canonical (p. 30). The Canon 1 and 2 distinction is dismissed, and evidence to the contrary all but ignored, except as regards, for obvious reasons, the date of the Muratorian Fragment. Concerns about approach continue in chaps. 3 and 4 on materials, methods of classification, and major witnesses. There is apparent acceptance of Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett's consistently early dating of NT papyri (The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001] 58-59; cf. the endorsements [End Page 735] on pp. 46, 102), even though Comfort and Barrett's methodology has been roundly criticized by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse ("Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Date," ETL 88 [2012] 443-74), who describe it as "theological palaeography." Additional questions about accuracy also start to arise. The review copy came with an errata slip correcting the highly inaccurate numbers of papyri, majuscules, minuscules, and lectionaries given in the book (p. 50). The notion of text-types, let alone geographically based text-types (so chap. 5), is under increasing challenge. While scribes in copying the text did not have license to change its essential meaning, the low-level "improvements" that were allowable all but disallow the classification of the papyri according to text-types. Again, there is no reference to current scholarly discussion of text-types in the text or bibliography. Chapter 6, however, contains a helpful introduction to textual variants with some input from linguistics. But students are also denied even-handed treatment in the methodological chaps. 7‒10. The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method is dismissed in a footnote (p. 90 n. 2) and the authors are ambivalent about whether students should even use the latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28, UBSGNT5) since it contains the text of the Catholic letters from the Editio Critica Maior (p. 147 n. 1). The ECM, as a result, is not among the critical editions discussed in chaps. 11‒12. In addition, the authors' strong preference for external evidence along with their hope that Sinaiticus, as "an ancient eclectic text that likely reflects or closely resembles the original" (p. 101), might become the diplomatic or base text of a future critical edition, risks "canonizing" a new "standard text" and diminishing the role of textual criticism. Finally, devaluation of the papyri (p. 102) in favor of the majuscules passes over the very important...

In the Gospel of Matthew of the GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP, the only case where the textual critical grade D is given is 23:26. However, it is surprising that few of the commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew deal with textual criticism of this verse in detail. B. M. Metzger, one of editors of the GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP regarded the singular genitive pronoun αὐτοῦ (of cup) as the original rather than the plural genitive pronoun αὐτῶν (of cup and bowl) which later scribes altered. He briefly explains that παροψίς (dish) of Matthew 23:25 was added to verse 26. However, Metzger provides no concrete evidence for his own claims. In this verse, there is no consensus even among the editors of GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP, so αὐτοῦ (of cup) is indicated in the text of GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP, but D is given as its critical grade. For the textual criticism of Matthew 23:26, this article first studies the external evidence that examines the support of the manuscripts. Then, the structural analysis (namely colon analysis) of Matthew 23:13-36, the textual context of 23:26, the literary style of Matthew, and the purpose of writing and the main theology of the Gospel of Matthew are explored in turn in order to analyze the internal evidence. Finally, the conclusion of textual criticism is suggested in the light of the intertexts of the Gospel of Matthew 23:26.BR Through this study of textual criticism of Matthew 23:26, it is suggested that when attempting New Testament Greek textual criticism, not only the external evidence but also the detailed internal evidence should be investigated. For internal evidence, it is suggested to comprehensively consider the structural analysis, the purpose of writing, the study of core theology, and the intertextual interpretation that have been overlooked in previous studies. This kind of study is more appropriate when the text critical grade is low. In addition, this comprehensive analysis has the advantage that it does not stop with the theoretical study of textual criticism itself, but also encompasses the grammatical interpretation of context and structure, and the theological interpretation that considers main theology. The present researcher suggests that textual criticism which stayed at the level of reconstructing the original text should be developed in the direction that can provide practical help to interpret a text.