Ken Penner Talks NT Backgrounds

I have received several helpful responses to my posts (here and here) on NT Backgrounds materials (pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, etc.). Some come in the form of blog posts, some in the form of email, and some in the form of comments.

This one is from Ken Penner, whom some of you may know through the Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, which I have blogged about favorably in the past. This was sent via email and I have his permission (of course!) to post this. I was fortunate to meet Ken at SBL, so I can put a face to the e-mail.

Thanks Ken!

I’ll take your question in two directions:

First, how would I rank the importance for NT background?

1. Josephus
2. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
3. Old Testament Apocrypha
4. Dead Sea Scrolls
5. Mishnah
6. Philo

Where should coding humanists be concentrating their efforts? I’ll evaluate by availability in the following criteria: print translation, print original language, electronic translation, electronic original language, morphology, textual apparatus.

Josephus is freely available in electronic translation, electronic Greek (perseus), morphology (perseus), cheaply available in print translation, reasonably priced in print original language (Loeb) and expensive with thorough textual apparatus (Niese).

The OTP is freely available in electronic translation (Charles), reasonably priced in print translation (Charles, Charlesworth), electronic morphologically tagged Greek (Accordance). Non-Greek original texts are expensive and most are not available electronically. The textual apparati and electronic texts are coming available via the OCP.

The OTA is freely available in electronic translation (Brenton), electronic Greek (LXX) & Latin (Vulgate), morphology (LXX only), and reasonably priced in print original language (UBS) and textual apparatus.

The DSS are freely available in Aramaic (CAL), cheap in print translation (Vermes, Garcia-Martinez), reasonably priced in print original language (DSSSE), electronic translation and morphologically tagged electronic original (Accordance, Logos), and costly for textual notes (questionable readings noted: Brill-BYU; commented: DJD). This is changing, via the openscrolls.org. The Mishnah is free in Hebrew (mechon-mamre), reasonably priced in print translation (Danby) and morphologically tagged electronic Hebrew (Accordance), electronic translation (Accordance, Logos), and expensive in print Hebrew and textual apparatus.

Philo is free in electronic translation, cheap in print translation (Yonge), reasonably priced in original language (Loeb), expensive in electronic Greek (TLG) and textual apparatus (Cohn-Wendland), and not available at all tagged for morphology (to my knowledge).

It is the unavailable and expensive areas we need to address first: electronic translation of the Mishnah; electronic original language texts of non-Greek OTP and Philo; morphological tagging of Philo; textual apparati for OTP, DSS, Mishnah, and Philo.

Of these, priority should be given to the more significant texts, as ranked above:

1. OTP in original languages with textual apparatus (Online Critical Pseudepigrapha should supplement Accordance by adding non-Greek texts, morphology, and apparati).
2. DSS with textual notes (openscrolls.org should supplement the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon by adding non-Aramaic texts with uncertain readings marked).
3. The Mishnah with textual apparatus.
4. Philo in Greek, morphologically tagged, with textual apparatus. The OTP and Philo need the most work.