Not a Big Deal, but...

...Wikipedia says that the Logos attribution of authorship below...

...is incorrect...

...per a recent German source...

...however, the Logos blurb does state the attribution is "traditional".

I'm not sure how I feel about this. If the German evidence/conclusion is accurate, I'm not so sure Logos should perpetuate a false attribution. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. I probably won't read this title, but Logos may want to reconsider it's attribution. Logos should be on the cutting edge of this kind of thing. Granted, Logos has to go with what primary publishers print, but in any area where they get to make the call, they should be willing to make corrections when circumstances suggest that course of action.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Well, I've been reading my Shinto book, which attributed Buddha to the greeks.

I think that would work pretty nicely as a 'traditional' attribution. No?

Rosie Perera

Logos tends to be on the conservative side on such things. "Tradition" states that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark (which actually does not mention its own author's name). Just because some newer scholarship says it might have been written by a woman, we don't need to abandon the "traditional" view. It is not erroneous to continue saying it was written by Mark.

And we all know that Wikipedia is a glowing source of 100% accuracy. [:P] But even though I trust Wikipedia in this case, that R. Volk in 2006 says the traditional attribution of Barlaam and Josaphat is wrong, who the heck is R. Volk, and why should I trust her? (Or him; can't even tell the author's gender.)

P.S. I don't have anything riding on this particular attribution. In fact I'd never even heard of Barlaam and Josaphat before this thread. Just wanting to be a stickler about tradition vs. newer scholarship. It takes a lot of proof to overturn tradition.

JT (alabama24)

...Wikipedia says that the Logos attribution of authorship below...

...is incorrect...

No it doesn't! It is in FULL agreement! Logos AND Wikipedia both say that the TRADITIONAL attribution of authorship is John! Where is the discrepancy?

Gabe Martini (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598540#Comment_598540

This is not so much about being a stickler for any particular tradition, but rather following the metadata of the published work.

Since this resource is based on a print volume from 1914, the authorship noted by that volume and its editors/translators is being used.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598540#Comment_598540

OK, Rosie. You're knowledgability exceeds mine in this area by far. Why would you logically say tradition must be overturned by a LOT of proof. I'm referring to the historians' dilemma (not John).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598552#Comment_598552

A standard description of the text - which I've known and enjoyed for 40+ years ...

The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva). Still it is of historical value, since it contains the "Apology" presented by the Athenian philosopher Aristides to the Emperor Adrian (or Antoninus Pius). The Greek text of the legend, written probably by a monk of the Sabbas monastery near Jerusalem at the beginning of the seventh century, was first published by Boissonade in "Anecdota Graeca" (Paris, 1832), IV, and is reproduced in Migne, P.G., XCVI, among the works of St. John Damascene. The legend cannot, however, have been a work of the great Damascene, as was proved by Zotenberg in "Notices sur le livre de Barlaam et Josaphat" (Paris, 1886) and by Hammel in "Verhandl. des 7 internat. Orientalisten Congresses", Semit. Section (Vienna, 1888). Another edition of the Greek was made by Kechajoglos (Athens, 1884). From the original Greek a German translation was made by F. Liebrecht (Münster, 1847). Latin translations (Minge, P.L., LXXIII), were made in the twelfth century and used for nearly all the European languages, in prose, verse and in miracle plays. Among them is prominent the German epic by Rudolph of Ems in the thirteenth century (Königsberg, 1818, and somewhat later at Leipzig). From the German an Icelandic and Swedish version were made in the fifteenth century. At Manila the legend appeared in the Tagala language of the Philippines. In the East it exists in Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Hebrew.

The Hebrew version of the tale was identified by Steinschneider ("Z. D. M. G." v. 91) under the title ("Prince and Dervish"), translated or adapted by Abraham ibn Ḥasdai, the first edition of which appeared in Constantinople, 1518, and others at Mantua 1557, Wandsbeck 1727, Frankfort-on-the-Oder 1766 (with German translation), Frankfort-on-the-Main 1769, Zolkiev 1771, Fürth 1783, Leghorn 1831, Lemberg 1870, Jitomir 1873, and Warsaw 1884. A German paraphrase by W. A. Meisel appeared at Stettin in 1847, and a second edition at Budapest in 1860. An earlier translation into German is contained in a Munich manuscript, written in Hebrew characters, No. 345. A Yiddish version appeared at Lublin in 1874. The exact origin of Ibn Ḥasdai's version is difficult to trace, though several Arabic translations and one Georgian have been recently discovered.

Balavariani the Georgian version of the legend, well known in world literature, of Barlaam and Josaphat. It contains a Christianized story of the life of Buddha. The Georgian version has been preserved in two texts: a long text (ninth-tenth centuries) and a short text (11th century). Euthymius the Hagiorite (955–1028) edited and translated the Balavariani from Georgian into Greek. The work was known in Russian as The Tale of Barlaam and Josaphat (translated from Greek in 1637 and 1680).

and for the benefit of SuperTramp

In 1591, Jesuit missionaries in Japan produced one of the first books in Japanese to be printed in movable type, albeit in Latin script¹. What they printed was a compendium of the Acts of the Saints (»Sanctos no Gosagveono Vchinvqigaqi«), which included »The Life of the Blessed Confessors Saint Barlaam and Saint Josaphat« (»Tattoqi Confessores S. Barlan to, S. Iosaphat no gosagueo«). It is the oldest such book, copies of which are still extant today.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598552#Comment_598552

OK, Rosie. You're knowledgability exceeds mine in this area by far. Why would you logically say tradition must be overturned by a LOT of proof. I'm referring to the historians' dilemma (not John).

It's not logical. It's just what a pastor of mine whom I respect used to say, mostly with respect to traditional authorship of biblical books. So perhaps it was a bit of a stretch for me to call upon that idea in reference to this. But traditions do have reasons for being so entrenched. They usually aren't made up out of thin air. But in this case, the newer scholarship might indeed be correct. Nevertheless, Gabe Martini's reply above trumps this entire conversation.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598608#Comment_598608

But traditions do have reasons for being so entrenched. They usually aren't made up out of thin air. But in this case, the newer scholarship might indeed be correct.

Don't we all know that newer scholarship obviously knows more about any situation than those who lived closest to the actual events? [;)]

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598623#Comment_598623

But traditions do have reasons for being so entrenched. They usually aren't made up out of thin air. But in this case, the newer scholarship might indeed be correct.

Don't we all know that newer scholarship obviously knows more about any situation than those who lived closest to the actual events?

Personally I think that Rosie's Pastor has a good point and that this is a sensible counter balance to new is always better and right. Some modern scholars seem to dismiss the traditional view without pausing to consider whether it could be true unfortunately the phrase "tradition says" has become and easy and quick way of dismissing a long held Christian belief.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598635#Comment_598635

Personally I think that Rosie's Pastor has a good point and that this is a sensible counter balance to new is always better and right. Some modern scholars seem to dismiss the traditional view without pausing to consider whether it could be true unfortunately the phrase "tradition says" has become and easy and quick way of dismissing a long held Christian belief.

Just make sure you don't throw away the baby and keep the bathwater (i e dismiss the Tradition that goes all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles, and keep a whole bunch of human traditions that appeared centuries later).