Friday, February 18, 2022

WM 225: Wasserman on the PA: Not Scripture but should be read in the church?





Tommy Wasserman said...

It is a pity that you accuse me of "speculating" in this brief and popular article e.g., on the point that the PA was not there when the lesson for Pentecost was constructed, when you know well that the arguments are laid out in full detail in one chapter of my book (co-authored with Knust) on the topic. There we make the arguments, and, of course, as is common in our discipline, we do not say that we have proved this or that, but we come to a certain conclusion that the PA was likely not there in the earliest Constantinopolitan liturgy. When it entered, however, it had to be skipped. Tolle lege!

Tommy Wasserman said...

As I listen, I cannot understand why you are complaining that we do not make assertations reflecting 100% certainty of this or that. In regard to that likelihood that the PA was first composed in Greek, again read our book. Clearly, there are other examples of interpolations that originated in Latin, but *likely* not this one.

Tommy Wasserman said...

Let me make it clear that Marcion was not a scribe.

The only way to form an opinion on whether early scribes could have omitted the PA is to study their scribal habits and there are methods for doing so.

Again, I have to refer to chapters 2-3 in our book for the extended discussion.

Tommy Wasserman said...

In regard to the critical note in Family 1, again we cannot date it with certainty, but the note common to Family 1 (in some medieval manuscripts which go back to an older archetype) *mentions a couple of church fathers including Cyril of Alexandria (died 444) so it can hardly be earlier than the fifth century.* Did you think it was much earlier?

Here is a link to an open access article which develops this particular thread (and also what we know about Bishop Mara's copy):