From majordom Mon Apr 1 01:29:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26267; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 01:29:22 +0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 01:29:10 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 10286 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > (Earlier I wrote:) > > To assert that archetype=autograph is a faith statement. > > This is partly due to the underlying presuppositions of the eclectic > schools, which also are "faith" statements. No argument here. I'm just trying to examine a few presuppositions, in order to see how they affect the resulting positions we take. > Even though the competing presuppositions underlying each text-critical > viewpoint may be "faith" assumptions, I would argue de minorem ad majorem, > and suggest that, since classical scholars consider their textual > restoration, made with far less extant data than we possess for the the > NT, to be the restoration of the autograph and not the archetype in almost > every situation, it is only a peculiarly biased viewpoint which would not > think the abundance of evidence would bring us closer to and not further > away from that goal. Abundance of evidence is certainly preferable to paucity of evidence. I would agree that it's possible to get closer to the original with more evidence, but as we approach the "100% original" limit, the diversity of the evidence shows us that this limit cannot really be reached. > > I raise > > again the spectre of Hort's "primitive corruptions," because they always > > lurk behind the text. > > I question that assumption entirely. Why "always"? There seems to be a > presumption of non-authenticity which prevails in such an assumption. > Why not a presumption that, unless some demonstration of inauthenticity > can be _proven_, the text should be considered basically "authentic" and of > autograph originality. To do otherwise will make a mockery of the labors > of textual critics, since anyone can then argue that, even in places > where there are NO textual variants, that the original "could not have so > read." There is no presumption of non-authenticity. My presumption is non-certainty. Textual critics can only work with the data they have, and NT text critics certainly do have good data in comparison with, say, classical text critics, but assuming that the reading of the autograph has been preserved in _every_ case is quite a presumption. > Even if the "spectre of primitive corruption" is only invoked in places > where there are variant readings and where interpretation is difficult, > this still makes its own "faith presumption" regarding the transmission of > the text. Here I will have to disagree. If I had said that primitive corruption is definitely behind certain readings in our NT text, this would be a faith presumption. To say that we cannot be certain that _every_ autograph reading is preserved in one or more extant witnesses is a statement of caution. It might not even be too much to say, from a purely logical standpoint, that it is a statement of fact, which could only be disproved if we had all of the autographs. > > It is irrelevant whether someone "advocates" > > conjectural readings, because in some instances, admittedly probably only > > a small number, the "original" reading may not be recoverable, and text > > critics have to admit that. > > Only some NT textual critics make a place for conjecture within the text > of the NT. Most handbooks rule such a practice out entirely. I don't deny that many, maybe most (I haven't checked all of them), handbooks rule out conjecture; certainly all caution against its overuse. But let me quote Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_: "One must admit the theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New Testament a process which has so often been found essential in the restoration of the right text in classical authors. On the other hand, the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament, whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations, is so much greater than that available for any classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. It is perhaps chiefly in the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, where the early manuscript evidence is more limited than for any other part of the New Testament, that the need for attempting conjectural emendation may arise with any degree of urgency" (p. 185). Again, I am _not_ advocating wholesale emendation of the text; I am only saying that emendation cannot be theoretically ruled out as a tool of the textual critic. > Further, as mentioned above, if primitive error can be suspected in _some_ > places where variation occurs, what is there to prevent suspicion of > primitive error even in places where _no_ variation occurs? There is no > legitimate boundary which restricts such a presupposition from being > applied anywhere once one does not happen to agree with or understand the > text. This is the famous "slippery slope" argument, popularly used by many people on all sides of many debates, but logically of no value to the argument. Of course nothing can prevent people from suspecting primitive error in any given location, but the real questions is whether other scholars will agree with their assessment. Textual criticism, like other forms of scholarship, is not done in a vacuum. Hundreds of emendations have been proposed over the years, but how many have met with widespread scholarly approval? Only one emendation has been put in the text in UBS4 and NA27 (Acts 16:12, perhaps not strictly a pure emendation, since it does have some weak versional support), and this only over the objections of two of the original five members of the UBS committee (Metzger and Aland). Perhaps the most popular emendation of the NT text has been the suggestion that ENWK dropped out of the text in 1 Pet 3:19 due to haplography. This emendation was accepted by Goodspeed in his translation (An American Translation, 1923). All in all, I doubt that admitting that conjecture is a legitimate tool of the NT textual critic will lead to a stampede of new emendations in future critical editions of the text. > On the assumption that texttype archetype would NOT equal the > autograph, then we would end up with the peculiar situation of being > quite able to restore some form of primitive archetype for the Byzantine, > Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean texttypes, but would be utterly > incapable of going beyond that to a postulation of the autograph > archetype. This is highly illogical, and inconsistent with the data > preserved to us in the extant witnesses. Granting for the moment the assumption that text-type archetypes could be reconstructed (and I'm not sure that they can, except perhaps for the Byzantine, as Maurice said), nothing I have said would prohibit the postulation of the archetype that lay behind the text-type archetypes. However, it would only be a _postulate_, not a _certainty_, and it begs the question to say that it would of necessity be identical with the autograph. > > Reconstructed hypothetical "autographs" _may_ require conjectures, but > > these are hardly scientific. > > What is unscientific about a reconstruction of the autograph based upon > the extant data as opposed to the reconstruction of the archetype of a > texttype based upon the extant data? Why is conjecture or suspicion of > "primitive error" needed in the first case, but not so in the second case? > There still seems to be a double standard and illogic at work, and it goes > back to the "faith presupposition" underlying this type of theory, but not > my own. What I meant was that, by their nature, conjectures are unscientific. That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, only that they rely on reasoned argument rather than extant textual data to make their case. Other scholars will have to decide whether each "reasoned argument" holds any water. Regarding the supposed double standard here, I don't agree that every text-type can be reconstructed with 100% assurance, especially the Western text-type. _Of course_ my conclusions are derived to a large extent from my presuppositions, as are Maurice's. He has stated that one of his presuppositions is that the autographs were viewed with such high regard by their initial recipients that each was copied more than once (or the first copy was copied more than once). He has further indicated that one reason for thinking this is his "view of apostolic authority and the evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of the autograph MSS." Fine. I can see why he concludes that every reading of the autographs has been preserved. I, however, am not as convinced that every NT autograph was so fortunate. We know that other early gospels existed, and many scholars think that other letters of Paul have been lost (e.g., Laodiceans, other letters to the Corinthians). This suggests to me that _some_ works that made it into the NT may not have been copied as early or as frequently as others, such as the gospels and the major Pauline letters. After all, the early Christians didn't have the luxury of knowing which books would ultimately be in the NT (this gets into the issue of the NT canon). I imagine that many other works, especially letters, by lesser known early Christians were written, but they just haven't been preserved (cf. the Egerton gospel). Further evidence for this presumption is the sparsity of early mss of books like James and 2 Peter. All this leads me to question whether the autographs of these books, or their immediate textual descendants, were copied more than once, or, if two or three copies were made, whether these lines of textual descent might not have completely died out without leaving a trace on the preserved ms tradition. Again, all I'm saying is that I'm not as certain as Maurice that all of the readings of the autographs have been preserved in the extant mss. Maybe they have been, but I suspect that they haven't in every case. At whichever conclusion the text critic arrives, presuppositions play a large role in his or her decision. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Apr 1 02:19:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26377; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 02:19:29 +0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 02:16:33 -0500 From: MrNyse195@aol.com Message-Id: <960401021632_459503326@mail06> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Thiede's Essays Content-Length: 811 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu My mother surprised me today by picking up my copy of "Rekindling the Word" and I'm starting to read thru it. In search of all honesty and truth, I'd like to examine the opposing views against Thiede's arguments in this book. Since I've noticed folks making references to older works and theories, I assume that this subject really ain't that new......with that in mind, does anyone have any older refs (preferably available on the Web since I don't have access to a car and the only good seminary library in the area is Capital Theological Seminary) on the subject? Pro and against Thiede's view are welcome. Thanks, Kerry "The Novice on the list" Gilliard Director and Founder W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries http://members.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html "God has a great sense of humor and I'm living proof!!" From majordom Mon Apr 1 04:17:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26687; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:17:06 +0500 Message-Id: <9604010814.AA115191@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 10:13:11 +0100 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Subject: Luke 12,58 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 6605 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu First, I have to apologize my late dealing with this subject again. It's due to some days of vacancies. On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > Although unusual, the future tense after MHPOTE is not unique to > the critical text, but is also found in the Byzantine Textform in > Mk.14:2 (MHPOTE QORUBOS ESTAI) and Heb.3:12 (MHPOTE ESTAI). By > the analogy given, > the Byzantine scribes should have been as swift to "correct" > those instances as well as in Lk.12:58. Since they did not, the > question is whether the Alexandrian scribes may have had reason > to alter the clause to the future tense and to depart from the > subjunctive. > Blass-Debrunner note specifically that it is the introduction of > the future tense which is anomalous, since in some MSS "the > fut.ind. has also been introduced to a very limited degree in the > very places where it would not have been permissible in > classical...usually with the aor.subj. as variant" (sec.369[2]) > More to the point, Bl-D. sec.370 note that MH "is combined in > classical with the subjunctive if the anxiety is directed towards > warding off something still dependent on the will, with the > indicative of all tenses if directed toward something which has > already taken place or is entirely independent of the will .... > (1) usually strengthened by POTE or PWS ... and then always with > the aor.subj. .... This construction is evidently literary and > not a part of the vernacular." > Note within the context of Lk.12:58, the act of the will appears > to be lacking in the final clauses, thereby giving some reason to > alter the tense to the indicative. The Byzantine reading > reflects the literary, if not the classical perspective. > The use of the fut.indic. in Lk.12:58 appears thus to be a late > variant created within the Alexandrian texttype, and an > alteration reflecting common vernacular rather than normal > literary style. First of all, I would like to comment on Blass-Debrunner sec. 370. Since I do not know exactly which edition/translation of this tool of reference you are referring to, Maurice, I may add that the formulation "MH...wird in der klass. Sprache mit dem Konj. verbunden, wenn die Besorgnis abwehrend auf etwas noch vom Willen Abhaengiges, mit dem Indik. aller Tempora, wenn sie auf etwas schon Geschehenes oder überhaupt vom Willen Unabhaengiges gerichtet ist" (is combined in classical with the subjunctive if the anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent on the will, with the indicative of all tenses if directed toward something which has already taken place or is entirely independent of the will) is replaced by "...wird in der klass. Sprache mit dem Konj. verbunden, wenn die Besorgnis auf etwas Zukuenftiges, mit dem Indik. aller Tempora, wenn sie auf etwas schon Geschehenes gerichtet ist" (Ergaenzungsheft zu Blass-Debrunner, 12th edition, Goettingen 1970). Note, the reference to "the act of the will" is completaly abandonned, supposedly due to its inappropriatness. But, since you may rely on the formulation of the older edition, for judging it appropriate, I would like to add some further comments on the scenario you provided. 1) If, "within the context of Lk. 12:58, the act of will appears to be lacking in the final clauses", then the indicative tense and _not_ the Byzantine subjunctive ought to be judged as reflecting "the literary, if not the classical perspective". 2) If the Alexandrian scribes are so conscious with regard to the act of the will in Lk 12,58, what about the first verb KATASURH? And what about the indicative in Heb 3,12 where the subjunctive is so desperately required? 3) Given the fact that in Lk 12,58 the "Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the classical perspective", what about the argument from lectio difficilior? I may refer to your case on 1.Cor 13,3, the so-called "future subjunctive" of the Byzantine tradition. On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, you wrote: > The bigger problem is that it not only is 'not good Greek' but it > blatantly appears to be erroneus by suggesting a non-existent > future subjunctive. I fail to see how scribes in the main would > simply allow such an anomalous reading to stand. Here in 1.Cor 13,3 you pushed the argument from lectio difficilior so far that it results in suggesting an erroneus reading in the autograph in order to defend the authenticity of the Byzantine text. In Lk 12,58 on the other hand, you feel comfortable with a Byzantine reading that "reflects the literary, if not the classical perspective". For someone who does not a priori know which reading is "the original" it is not easy to follow your arguments. 4) You wrote: > I would further suggest, in light of certain MSS having altered > the order of the text from SE PARADW into PARADW SE that this may > well have given impetus for other scribes coming upon such in > their exemplars to simply create PARADWSEI from that latter > combination. I simply fail to see how one single minusule (1071, 12th century) can be referred to as "certain MSS". Note, versions and (Latin) fathers are usually no secure witnesses to alterations in word order of that limited effect. 5) You wrote (quoting Robertson): > "Both subj. and fut.ind. likewise occur in Mt 13:15 MH POTE > IDWSIN -- KAI IASOMAI" [Byz and Alex here agree]. I'm afraid that your assertion in brackets is somehow ambiguous. Only the vast majority of von Sodens K 1 agrees here with Alex. K x is divided, 15 manuscripts out of 50, K r in total, and Chrysostomos give the subj. IASWMAI. Even more interesting is the fact that Mt 13,15 is a quotation from Is 6,10 (the LXX MSS are divided too), and most interesting is the fact that this quotation is also given in John 12,40 where 89 manuscripts out of 158 of von Sodens K x and K r in total, and also some K 1 manuscripts give the subj. IASWMAI (For the sake of completeness should be added that the subj. IASWMAI in Acts 28,27 is supported by von Sodens K c and K r). When checking your own edition I feel deeply in need of some explanation, for in Mt 13,15 and in Acts 28,27 you give ind. IASOMAI, but in John 12,40 you give subj. IASWMAI. 6) To sum up from my viewpoint: I would strongly suggest that in Lk 12,58 the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) are assimilations in tense and mood to the first KATASURH. Together they "reflect the literary, if not the classical perspective", and therefor in this peculiar instance the Byzantine text has to be judged as secondary. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Mon Apr 1 04:37:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26722; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:37:30 +0500 Message-Id: <9604010835.AA67593@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 10:35:27 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: Re: Luke 12,58 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9604010814.AA115191@mail.uni-muenster.de> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 98 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sorry, I erroneously used the mailbox of wilrut for my previous reply. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Mon Apr 1 07:21:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26962; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:21:07 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:21:23 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Thiede's Essays Cc: MrNyse195@aol.com Content-Length: 1896 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu At 2:16 AM 01/04/96, MrNyse195@aol.com wrote: >My mother surprised me today by picking up my copy of "Rekindling the Word" >and I'm starting to read thru it. In search of all honesty and truth, I'd >like to examine the opposing views against Thiede's arguments in this book. > Since I've noticed folks making references to older works and theories, I >assume that this subject really ain't that new......with that in mind, does >anyone have any older refs (preferably available on the Web since I don't >have access to a car and the only good seminary library in the area is >Capital Theological Seminary) on the subject? Pro and against Thiede's view >are welcome. Kerry Here's an excerpt from a posting I made a couple of weeks back which may be helpful. >Others have pointed to recent discussions on this topic that appeared on >this list (and on IOUDAIOS). Two other, easily accessible, in-print >discussion of this material are: > >Graham Stanton, "A Gospel Among the Scrolls?", Bible Review, Dec 1995. > >Graham Stanton, _Gospel Truths?: New Light on Jesus and the Gospels_ >(Trinity Press, 1995). > >(The BR article (primarily selections from the book) focuses on p64 and the >proposal, put forth by Jose O'Callaghan that certain fragments discovered >at Qumran contained portions of the NT. The book is a "popular" survey of >the current state of contemporary NT scholarship. The book covers a very >wide range of topics and, while there are several places where I wished >that the book had contained a bit more detail, it is a very nice overview >of the material. A good book, rich in bibliographic detail, for those of >us who view these things from the sidelines or for a friend who wonders >what is actually going on in the field.) Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From majordom Mon Apr 1 13:08:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29172; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:08:17 +0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:08:06 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: subscribers reach 200! Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1236 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu A recent flood of subscribers after I made an announcement about this list on the b-greek list has pushed the number of people on the tc-list over the 200 mark. Now if we can only get more of you to participate, so it doesn't look like I set up the list for Maurice and me to debate text-critical theory! Seriously, though, I would like to welcome all of the new people to the list and remind the subscribers that we can talk HB/OT textual criticism, too (including LXX, etc.). Also, let me remind you that you can subscribe to a digest version of the list. Simply send the message subscribe tc-list-digest unsubscribe tc-list to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu (you can include an e-mail address after the list name if you are subscribing to a different e-mail account from the one you are using at the time). Depending on list traffic, you will receive anywhere from three to ten messages per week, each containing several different messages, with a list of subject headings for these messages at the top. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Apr 1 20:05:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01746; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:05:27 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:05:23 +0800 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: rmoore@central.murdoch.edu.au (Richard K. Moore) Subject: autographs versus archetypes Content-Length: 1911 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu What working hypothesis ought a textual critic have for any 'autograph' of a NT writing? Is there the expectation that in a longer document such as Romans (about 28 A-4 pages if written out by hand today) there would be absolutely no (unintentional) errors of any kind whatever? Even with computer technology, including spell and grammar checkers) modern tertiary-trained students are not, in my experience, able to achieve this even for much shorter documents. Few books, even the most scholarly, are without any unintentional errors. It would be surprising if there were absolutley no errors in any of the original compositions of the NT, and naturally, the possibility of error increases with the increase in length of a document. The point being made gains force when the purposes for which the NT writings came into being are taken into account. To stay with Romans, for example, Paul and Tertius no doubt saw their task as that of writing to Christians at the heart of the Empire; it would never have occurred to them that they were engaged in writing Holy Scripture or that their letter would be studied in 2000 years time. Here indeed is a double standard: to accept that everyone else makes (unintentional) errors when composing longer documents, but not the NT authors! The view that the autographs themselves were completely free of (unintentional) errors is itself a faith statement. (This situation, indeed the whole history of the transmission of the text of the NT, far from being a threat to a committed Christian, beautifully illustrates how God, in his grace, delights to use the weak and foolish things of this world to shame the strong and the wise; it is not just the copyists and modern scholars who are involved here, but the original authors). Richard K. Moore, Head of New Testament Department, Baptist Theological College of Western Australia; Lecturer, Murdoch University. From majordom Tue Apr 2 01:46:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02878; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:46:52 +0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:43:48 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Archtype and autograph In-Reply-To: <9604010500.AA26022@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4475 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Zuntz points out in his _Disquisition on the Corpus Paulinum_ that every MS of Paul's letters is a collection. Even Hebrews is always found in a collection. There are some points of dissension, but in general there is agreement that Paul's letters and Hebrews were in circulation as a collection by 100 AD. When I mentioned archtype rather than autograph in my initial post, it was with this in mind. No one knows what happened between the original composition of these writings and their collection into one corpus, but here is a possible scenario (the usual arguments about dating etc. aside): 1) 55 - 70 AD Paul's letters and Hebrews written and sent (copies may have been made for other churches, especially where the letter was addressed to one but instructions were given for it to be read in others). 2) Some enterprising early believer, probably while being reprimanded for wasting time on trifles, decided to collect Paul's writings. Who was it? My favourites are Timothy and Luke (Timothy because a couple of the collection are addressed to him; Luke because of his interest in orderly written records), but, as with Hebrews, 'only God knows' (Origen, c. 200). As others have pointed out, this would most practically have been achieved by writing to the various letters' custodian churches asking for copies (aside from letters already at hand). 3) Copies of letters not already at hand would be made (with varying accuracy, I dare say) and sent to the intrepid collector. This person then copied all of the letters into a single collection which is the archtype on which all subsequent copies of the Pauline collection are based. Where a copy of the collection was sent back to a church holding one of the originals, it could have been cross-checked. Many implications spring from this possible scenario: 1) The autographs are (at least) one copy distant from the archtype for all letters in the Pauline collection, except those that were already in the possession of the original collector. 2) Production of the archtype introduced another copying step. 3) Nevertheless, the collection archetype could be compared with the autographs whenever a copy of the collection archtype was sent to a custodian of an autograph. 4) These primary copying steps are a possible source of the primitive corruptions that have been discussed by Maurice Robinson and James Adair. Aspects of this theory may even be testable: if certain members of the collection have significantly less of what seem to be primitive corruptions than would be expected from the overall average then this may be due to those members having been copied less before incorporation into the archtype collection. (What a shame that there are no papyri which have the two letters to Timothy.) On a related matter, a couple of years ago I wrote a C program that simulates copying. It starts off with a row of zeroes, then introduces 'variants' by incrementing zeroes at random with a certain (low) probability. There are parameters included which give the 'manuscripts' (i.e. rows of numbers) chances of dying of old age or by violent death. This is a funny program. Sometimes it seems to not work. That's because no copies get made because the autograph dies or is killed before it gets copied. This made me think that we might have lost some autographs by this phenomenon, but I don't think so any more because the possibility of early collections having been made introduces a different dynamic: we either end up with a whole collection or nothing. One outcome which I found interesting was that once a sample of the set of copies produced was taken, it was quite common (depending on the probabilities put into the program at the start) for a number besides zero (the original 'reading') to predominate at a particular 'variation unit'. Modeling of early copying might produce some clues to help us in our attempt to reconstruct the development of the New Testament text. One phenomenon which happens in other populations is that conditions which adversely affect a first population but favour or don't affect a second, lead to a predomination of the varieties in the second population. On the face of it, this could explain why the Byzantine text became dominant after the Moslem conquest of Egypt. Whether or not the Egyptian or Byzantine variety is closest to the original is another question. Tim Finney Baptist Theological College of Western Australia From majordom Tue Apr 2 06:25:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03580; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 06:25:15 +0500 Message-Id: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:19:52 GMT Subject: Re: Thiede's Essays Priority: normal X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Content-Length: 446 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I have neither met nor read any palaeographer or papyrologist who gives any credence whatever to Thiede's claims about the Magdalen papyrus of Matthew. My own criticisms are in The Expository Times for last November (Vol. 107), pp. 40-43. His work is simply peripheral to what is being done in the study of NT MSS. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From majordom Tue Apr 2 07:36:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03703; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 07:36:43 +0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 07:33:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: More Thiede Content-Length: 1776 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu DC PARKER wrote: >I have neither met nor read any palaeographer or papyrologist who >gives any credence whatever to Thiede's claims about the Magdalen >papyrus of Matthew. My own criticisms are in The Expository Times >for last November (Vol. 107), pp. 40-43. His work is simply peripheral >to what is being done in the study of NT MSS. >DC PARKER As a footnote: Yesterday I received my copy of the new NYTimes Book Review (dated 7APR96 --i.e. Easter Sunday) which contains a 2/3-page add for yet another book by Thiede on this topic. The ad is topped by large, headline-ish letters: "WHAT IF PROOF OF JESUS' LIFE WAS THERE ALL ALONG BUT NO ONE NOTICED... UNTIL NOW." The book is title _Eyewitness to Jesus_ and is subtitled "Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels" and is co-authored by Thiede and Matthew O'Ancona (who I assume is a journalist/ghostwriter?) The accompanying copy begins "Is there finally material proof that the Gospel of Matthew is the account of an eyewitness to Jesus?" and ends "...recount[s] the fascinating story of a discovery that rivals that of the Dead Sea Scrolls." Following this are two gushing blurbs from the famous papyrological journals Time and The Times (London). ;-) The book is being published by Anchor[? *] Doubleday. Also noted is that the book will be offered as alternate selections by the Book of the Month Club and One Spirit Book Club. [* Note: I _think_ it's Anchor Doubleday. What the ad actually says is "Doubleday" preceeded by an anchor-symbol, although the word Anchor does not appear as it usually does.] Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From majordom Tue Apr 2 10:08:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06249; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:08:03 +0500 Message-Id: <9604021337.AA31069@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 15:37:27 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: autographs and archetypes To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 3886 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > No other work of antiquity has such a wealth of support, and no > classical scholar would suggest that primitive error were likely > in such a situation. Conjectural emendation is always a critical point. Nevertheless, especially classical scholars are often forced to, how they call it, _divinatio_, whether due to only one existing copy of a given text or due to a corrupt archetype of the textual transmission of a given text. The whole problem is theoretically and practically exposed in 'Paul Maas, Textkritik, Leipzig (3rd ed.) 1957'. Looking at New Testament textual criticism especially classical scholars or classical trained scholars did never rule out the possibility of, if not the need for divinatio. Randomly chosen I may refer to Schleiermacher (note hat he was also an editor of Plato), and in our century to Guenter Zuntz and his article 'The critic correcting the author; in: Philologus, XCIX (1955), 295-303 (idem, Opuscula selecta, Mancester 1972, 269-277)'. It is quite an other thing, to be shure, if one has to accept every single conjectural emendation, but it is simply a fact that most, if not all classical scholars never totally rule out the need for divinatio even in the New Testament. I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the so-called 'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' (author unknown, copmosed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The text is conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th centuries. They all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of leaves, etc.). The dialogue was translated by Rufin into Latin (around 400 A.D.), and, though lacking the major interchange of leaves corruption, included one hardly understandable reading which Rufin smoothed away in his translation. That the reading in charge is in fact a scribal error can be demonstrated because we know the source of the dialogue in this particular instance. So we know that the corruption goes back at least to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at the textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are today. What makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source. To be shure, I don't want to argue for total corruption in New Testament textual transmission. Personally I would opt for extreme caution with respect to conjectural emendation. This is mostly due to the vast amount of textual data we have to work through. On the other hand there is the very crucial point that the New Testament is not just one book, but in fact a _collection_ of books consisting of different _subcollections_. With respect to this problem conjectural emendation is never to be ruled out. Because, what can be reconstructed as archetype of the textual transmission may not be identical with what was written down for example by Tertius (c.f. the doxology and the ending of Pauls letter to the Romans). On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Timmothy John Finney wrote: > Zuntz points out in his _Disquisition on the Corpus > Paulinum_ that every MS of Paul's letters is a collection. > Even Hebrews is always found in a collection. There are > some points of dissension, but in general there is agreement > that Paul's letters and Hebrews were in circulation as a > collection by 100 AD. > When I mentioned archtype rather than autograph in my > initial post, it was with this in mind. No one knows what > happened between the original composition of these > writings and their collection into one corpus. I totally agree with that. What may be an interesting and worthwile effort is to collect data possibly connected to the emergence of collections. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Tue Apr 2 11:17:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08962; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:17:19 +0500 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:55:34 -0600 From: PFlesher@uwyo.edu (Paul V. M. Flesher) Subject: Re: Bibliographical request X-Sender: PFlesher@Plains.UWYO.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 1294 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Dear Michael, The essay by Weitzman appeared in _VI Symposium Syriacum 1992_, Rene Lavenant, SJ, ed., (Rome, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994) Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247. I could xerox a copy if you need it. The Weitzman coming out in the next issue of _Targum Studies_ (currently in preparation) is "Is the Peshitta of Chronicles a Targum?". Hopefully it will be out by the fall. Paul P.S. All recent publications in Targum and Aramaic Studies are published twice a year by the _Newsletter for Targumic and Cognate Studies_. It costs $8.00 a year and you subscribe by contacting me. The next issue should be out in early May. >Has anyone come across an article by M.P. Weitzman, "Peshitta, Septuagint, and >Targum"? If so, I would appreciate full biblio info. (If Dr Weitzman is reading >this, perhaps he could send me an offprint.) I am also looking for R. Owens's >"The relationship between the Targum and Peshitta..." Perhaps that's already >appeared in Targum Studies. > >Thanking you in advance, > >---------------------------------------------------------- > Michael V. Fox > Professor of Hebrew > University of Wisconsin > 1220 Linden Drive > Madison, WI 53706 > Paul V. M. Flesher Religious Studies University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 82071-3353 From majordom Tue Apr 2 12:35:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09846; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:35:31 +0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:30:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199604021730.AA03286@vnet.net> X-Sender: mburrill@vnet.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Mark E. Burrill" Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes Content-Length: 914 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu At 09:05 AM 4/2/96 +0800, Richard K. Moore wrote: >Here indeed is a double standard: to >accept that everyone else makes (unintentional) errors when composing >longer documents, but not the NT authors! The view that the autographs >themselves were completely free of (unintentional) errors is itself a faith >statement. >(This situation, indeed the whole history of the transmission of the text >of the NT, far from being a threat to a committed Christian, beautifully >illustrates how God, in his grace, delights to use the weak and foolish >things of this world to shame the strong and the wise; it is not just the >copyists and modern scholars who are involved here, but the original >authors). This is interesting indeed and from a purely human point of view would be accepted without reservation. BUT...doesn't this theory necessarily presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS? From majordom Tue Apr 2 13:17:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10132; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 13:17:21 +0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 13:14:25 -0500 From: MrNyse195@aol.com Message-Id: <960402131424_262236283@mail06> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More Thiede Content-Length: 462 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >>>>>Following this are two gushing blurbs from the famous papyrological journals Time and The Times (London). ;-) The book is being published by Anchor[? *] Doubleday. Also noted is that the book will be offered as alternate selections by the Book of the Month Club and One Spirit Book Club.<<<<<< Why is this starting to sound more and more like one big FAD instead of responsible scholarship? A novice sitting back and watching the whole mess..... Kerry From majordom Tue Apr 2 14:48:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10631; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:48:22 +0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:46:08 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960402144606_262304959@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes Content-Length: 946 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a message dated 96-04-02 12:35:27 EST, you write: >This is interesting indeed and from a purely human point of view would be >accepted without reservation. BUT...doesn't this theory necessarily >presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS? The notion that the Biblical writers were somehow possessed by the Divine Spirit, losing their humanity and becoming automatons drives against the grain of serious Biblical interpretation. To inisit that God emptied them of their humanity (which is the logical conclusion of your implication) is to repeat the error of Docetism- this time not in the area of Christology, but in the area of something far less. The Biblical writers did not know they were writing Scripture- they were just writing theology, like Barth or Schleiermacher or Schaffer, or the like. Their works were and are treasured because they are meaningful, not because they are inhuman. Jim West Jim West From majordom Tue Apr 2 19:23:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12225; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:23:56 +0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960403002015.0067ca44@mail.vantek.net> X-Sender: mbrownfield@mail.vantek.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b12 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 18:20:15 -0600 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Marty Brownfield Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes Content-Length: 1170 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu At 12:30 PM 4/2/96 -0500, Mark E. Burrill wrote: >At 09:05 AM 4/2/96 +0800, Richard K. Moore wrote: > >>Here indeed is a double standard: to >>accept that everyone else makes (unintentional) errors when composing >>longer documents, but not the NT authors! The view that the autographs >>themselves were completely free of (unintentional) errors is itself a faith >>statement. > >This is interesting indeed and from a purely human point of view would be >accepted without reservation. BUT...doesn't this theory necessarily >presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS? > It does no such thing. I find it amazing that normally intelligent people will believe that they have the Word of God only if the autographs are infallible, even though the autographs no longer exist. Instead, what we have are fallible preachers and teachers using fallible translations based on fallible manuscripts. Everyone agrees on these points; but somehow the inspiration of the Word is compromised unless the non-extant autographs are infallible! Marty Brownfield mbrownfield@vantek.net or mpbrownf@fedex.com http://www.vantek.net/pages/mbrownfield/index.html From majordom Tue Apr 2 20:54:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12602; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:54:25 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:56:29 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes Content-Length: 417 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I sense that we are drifting off into a discussion that caused a lot of flame throwing a few weeks back on the b-greek list. (I threw my share.) May we get back to the Greek and Hebrew text that we can all have before us and leave these discussions to other lists. Please. Carlton Winbery END Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From majordom Tue Apr 2 20:55:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12630; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:55:59 +0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:52:53 -0600 Message-Id: <9604030152.AA07049@felix> X-Sender: crockett@teclink.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: crockett@felix.TECLink.Net (crockett) Subject: Autographs Content-Length: 3386 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On 2 April 1996, Richard K. Moore wrote: >Here indeed is a double standard: to accept that everyone else makes >(unintentional) errors when composing longer documents, but not the NT >authors! The view that the autographs themselves were completely free >of (unintentional) errors is itself a faith statement. ... As I think you affirm, most--if not all--propositional statements include an element of faith. I agree that the proposition "the biblical authors committed no intentional errors" is a faith statement, which cannot be demonstrated hypothetically apart from a priori assumptions. Existentially, such a statement could never be demonstrated due to the apparent fact that there are no autographs. However, if an autograph were to be discovered, who would have the authority to claim that it would be such? Furthermore, if such a discovery were made and agreed upon (a theoretical possibility, but a practical impossibility), who would be willing to admit "unintentional errors" were present (at this point, theological gymnastics undoubtedly would consume many interpreters)? I suppose such unintentionality is an important concept for some non-empirical theories of human experience or biblical inspiration, but I can't see what unintentionality yields now in light of the ms evidence available. ... Richard K. Moore further wrote: >(This situation, indeed the whole history of the transmission of the text >of the NT, far from being a threat to a committed Christian, beautifully >illustrates how God, in his grace, delights to use the weak and foolish >things of this world to shame the strong and the wise; it is not just the >copyists and modern scholars who are involved here, but the original >authors). ..... This certainly qualifies as a faith statement, and I quickly would cite 2 Cor. 4.7a as a primary source for such a view. Aren't "the weak and foolish" integral to all human experience? Assuming God created human rationality with limitations in the first place certainly would agree with your view of the authors/editors, the copyists, modern critical editors, and publishers. In this context, I fear that some people unknowingly assume a Cartesian epistemological discourse to excuse or condemn the innate human experience of rational limitation for writing, reading, copying, and interpreting. When this kind of dogmatic discourse is applied to the NT texts (or any other), one erects barriers against any hope for a glimpse of the author's original intent. So, to respond to the question about what working hypothesis one should have about a biblical autograph's "unintentional errors," I would start with 2 Cor. 4.7a and Lk 1.1-4. Although 2 Cor. 4.7a does not specifically address biblical autographs, it may inform the question as to Paul's view of the human knowledge process. And, Lk 1.1-4 seems not to invest any "autograph" (if such were known to the writer) with additional hypothetical value; hence, once might argue that Lk 1.1-4 reveals a lack of interest in (or ignorance of) the kind of exactitude assumed achievable by some positivistically minded interpreters and text critics. ============================================================================ ====== Bennie R. Crockett, Jr. Professor of Religion and Philosophy Assoc. VP, Academic Programs William Carey College Hattiesburg, MS USA Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14546; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:25:47 +0500 Errors-To: jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:25:48 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: beale@q.continuum.net (Jim Beale) Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes Content-Length: 2426 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu At 2:46 PM 4/2/96, HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 96-04-02 12:35:27 EST, you write: > >>This is interesting indeed and from a purely human point of view would be >>accepted without reservation. BUT...doesn't this theory necessarily >>presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS? > >The notion that the Biblical writers were somehow possessed by the Divine >Spirit, losing their humanity and becoming automatons drives against the >grain of serious Biblical interpretation. To inisit that God emptied them of >their humanity (which is the logical conclusion of your implication) is to >repeat the error of Docetism- this time not in the area of Christology, but >in the area of something far less. Sorry, to intrude on this thread, but I couldn't resist ;-) What you wrote (Jim West) is simply not true! The doctrine of inspiration doesn't at all imply that the Biblical writers were "automatons" any more than the doctrine of predestination implies that people are not free agents. God's providence in assuring that the Biblical writings would be free from error works in and through the human consciousness. I challenge you to find a single theologian (aside from those represented at the Council of Trent - which is the only place I know that the dictation theory is really taught) who has held a position such as you outline above. Otherwise the charge of setting up a strawman lies waiting at your doorstep;) Or, perhaps you might attempt to support your claim that "losing their humanity and becoming automatons [...] is the logical conclusion" of the doctrine of inspiration. I'd welcome that! :) >The Biblical writers did not know they were writing Scripture- they were just >writing theology, like Barth or Schleiermacher or Schaffer, or the like. > Their works were and are treasured because they are meaningful, not because >they are inhuman. Evidently Peter knew that Paul was writing Scripture! And surely Jeremiah knew that the writing of his book was the revelation of God, since it was at God's command that it was written. And even if some of them didn't know they were writing Scripture, how does that preclude that they weren't? And how is it that the Bible can't be both the writings of men and the inspired revelation from God? I just don't see this as necessarily a true disjunction (at least not without some _argument_ to support it). In Christ, Jim Beale From majordom Wed Apr 3 12:11:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16397; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:11:12 +0500 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:08:15 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960403120814_183915080@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes Content-Length: 233 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Jim Beal, I regret that I must decline your invitation to offer "prrof" for something which has none. I feel compelled to acquiesce to the wishes of Dr. Winberry and stick to purely textual issues in this forum. Yours, Jim West From majordom Wed Apr 3 20:19:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19322; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:19:18 +0500 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:16:20 -0600 Message-Id: <9604040116.AA02603@felix> X-Sender: crockett@teclink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: crockett@felix.TECLink.Net (Bennie R. Crockett, Jr.) Subject: Jn 9.38 Text Content-Length: 855 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In the UBS 4th ed., an alternate reading for Jn 9.38 occurs that is not cited in the UBS 1st ed., UBS 3rd ed., UBS 3rd corr. ed., N-A, 26th ed., and N-A, 27th ed. [I do not have the UBS 2nd ed. at hand] Although this eleventh century lectionary reading certainly is secondary, I am wondering _why_ the UBS editors might have chosen to include this variant, especially in light of the fact that it is absent from the editions cited above. Dr. Metzger does not address this issue in his _Textual Commentary_. Also, does anyone know if this reading is included in other critical editions as an alternate reading? If so, which ones? ================================================================================ Bennie R. Crockett, Jr. Professor of Religion and Philosophy Assoc. VP, Academic Programs William Carey College Hattiesburg, MS USA From majordom Wed Apr 3 22:18:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19812; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:18:45 +0500 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:15:52 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960403221552_505176096@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Text decisions Content-Length: 848 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a recent posting (which I failed to save!) there was mention made of decisions made as to which variants to include in the various editions of the GNT. (Or this, it seemed to me, was the gist of the posting). I wrote Kurt Aland some years ago and he was kind enough to respond with some anecdotal material concerning the process of selection. I don't know if the writer of the aforementioned post is looking for that kind of info or not. But I would be happy to supply what Dr. Aland wrote me. (its in German, however, which is why I haven't just transcribed it and saved everyone the trouble of reading this!; as I do not know if it is wanted or if it is of interest to those with facility in German). If you want me to, I will post the letter. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI From majordom Wed Apr 3 23:06:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19959; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:06:38 +0500 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:03:46 -0500 From: WFWarren@aol.com Message-Id: <960403230344_505216782@mail04> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Jn 9.38 Text Content-Length: 896 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Regarding the posting by Bennie Crockett on John 9:38, perhaps the following will help. New collations of the lectionaries cited in UBS 4th were made, as noted in the intro material (UBS 4th, 19*ff), whereas in previous UBS editions, many lectionaries, including lectionary 253, were cited based on prior Gk. New Testament citations, and therein were "sporadically used" (see UBS 3rd, xxix f). One might surmise that in USB 4th, the fresh collation yielded the new reading, but while logical, that part is conjecture on my part. But if correct, the inclusion would be automatic based on the statements in the introductory material (UBS 4th, 20*: >In all the passages where they are read, the evidence of the lectionaries is cited in the critical apparatus along with that of the text manuscripts.<) Bill Warren Professor of New Testament and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From majordom Thu Apr 4 00:47:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20242; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:47:42 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:44:40 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: subscribers reach 200! In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1167 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > A recent flood of subscribers after I made an announcement about this > list on the b-greek list has pushed the number of people on the tc-list > over the 200 mark. Now if we can only get more of you to participate, so > it doesn't look like I set up the list for Maurice and me to debate > text-critical theory! >From my side also: please join in. > Also, let me remind you that you can subscribe to a digest version of the > list. Simply send the message > > subscribe tc-list-digest > unsubscribe tc-list Jimmy, is there any need or benefit for those on the main TC-list to receive the digest? Or is this only for those who want a quick overview without having to read all of the lengthy posts? It is a "reader's digest" type condensation, or merely a selection from what was posted in a given week? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 01:23:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20357; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:23:15 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:20:19 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1082 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > I sense that we are drifting off into a discussion that caused a lot of > flame throwing a few weeks back on the b-greek list. (I threw my share.) > May we get back to the Greek and Hebrew text that we can all have before us > and leave these discussions to other lists. Please. > Carlton Winbery I concur with Carlton, and I intend to avoid further discussion on the inspiration/inerrancy/autographs theme, even though from differing theological persepctives this will affect one's view of and approach to NT textual criticism in varying degrees, as does all theological opinion. Discussion of various theological perspectives simply is NOT the substance of NT text-critical views, regardless of the vehemence of the advocacy. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 01:26:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20378; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:26:24 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:26:17 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: digests and archives In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2894 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > Jimmy, is there any need or benefit for those on the main TC-list to > receive the digest? Or is this only for those who want a quick overview > without having to read all of the lengthy posts? It is a "reader's > digest" type condensation, or merely a selection from what was posted in > a given week? There is no reason for anyone on the tc-list to subscribe separately to the tc-list-digest. The latter simply contains several postings to the tc-list concatenated together, with a list of subjects at the top. It is all done automatically by the majordomo mailing list software, so there is no condensation of data (in that sense, "digest" is really a misnomer). A digest is automatically created whenever the postings to tc-list that have accumulated since the last digest was created exceed 40,000 bytes. Digests are also created automatically every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings, early in the morning (Eastern Standard or Daylight Time, U.S.). In another post off-list, Maurice also asked about access to archives of tc-list discussions. Majordomo has the ability to send the archived discussions by e-mail. This is how it works. Every month a new archive file for tc-list is created, and messages are appended to the file during the month. Archive files can be identified by year and month; for example, tc-list.9603 contains all the postings for March of 1996. Be aware that if you request this archive file, you will receive all of the mail messages for March as separate messages in your mailbox. You can identify them by their dates, which are the original dates the messages were posted. To get the archived messages for a particular month, send a message like this to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu (_not_ to tc-list!): get tc-list tc-list.9603 Soon you will receive the archived messages. The first archive file is tc-list.9511. We're looking at the possibility of archiving the list on a World Wide Web site, and we'll probably also put it on our FTP site. One more note that is somewhat related: because of the traffic on this list, our other mailing lists, and TELA (especially after we announced the electronic membership directories of the SBL et al.), our Internet server has just about reached its full capacity. As a short-term measure we will install some more memory, but we hope to upgrade to a more powerful computer within a few months. If you experience difficulties from time to time with this list or with TELA (refused connections, server not available, etc.), please realize that this is probably the reason, and try again a little later. Thanks. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Thu Apr 4 02:00:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20466; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:00:59 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:58:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Jn 9.38 Text In-Reply-To: <9604040116.AA02603@felix> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1658 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 crockett@felix.TECLink.Net wrote: > In the UBS 4th ed., an alternate reading for Jn 9.38 occurs that is > not cited in the UBS 1st ed., UBS 3rd ed., UBS 3rd corr. ed., > N-A, 26th ed., and N-A, 27th ed. [I do not have the UBS 2nd ed. at hand] Since I do not have the UBS4 (a protest against the horrendous typeface selected for the main text), could you inform us as to the reading of this sole eleventh-century lectionary so that we might be able to evaluate the editors' choice in this matter? > Although this eleventh century lectionary reading certainly is secondary, > I am wondering _why_ the UBS editors might have chosen to include this > variant, especially in light of the fact that it is absent from the > editions cited above. Dr. Metzger does not address this issue in his > _Textual Commentary_. I am wondering also, unless one of the members of the UBS4 committee might have a specific interest from the point of view of rigorous eclecticism, or unless a recent article dealt with such reading (a pity Keith Elliott is not on the internet!). > Also, does anyone know if this reading is included in other critical > editions as an alternate reading? If so, which ones? It might be in Tischendorf or Von Soden, but I would first have to know precisely which reading it is before I look up those references. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 02:07:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20497; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:07:02 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:04:09 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Text decisions In-Reply-To: <960403221552_505176096@emout08.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1576 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > I wrote Kurt Aland some years ago and he was kind enough to respond with some > anecdotal material concerning the process of selection. I don't know if the > writer of the aforementioned post is looking for that kind of info or not. > But I would be happy to supply what Dr. Aland wrote me. (its in German, > however, which is why I haven't just transcribed it and saved everyone the > trouble of reading this!; as I do not know if it is wanted or if it is of > interest to those with facility in German). > If you want me to, I will post the letter. Please do, either translated or in the original German. Knowing that the UBS edition claimed its variants were considered to be those "of significance to translators", I would be especially interested if Prof.Aland had other reasons to mention in addition, since some of the criticisms of the UBS edition were in regard to the "insignificant" nature of some of the variants selected while other more significant readings were totally omitted. I also would be interested in any comments he may have offered regarding the selection of variants included in N26/27, though I suspect there only a broad compendium was in view (the Munster people can help out on that one). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 05:06:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21042; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 05:06:57 +0500 Message-Id: <3163308F.4F6@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 02:14:39 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Text decisions References: <960403221552_505176096@emout08.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 157 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Jim, I for one would like to see the letter; I'm sure it is interesting and I need to refresh my German from time to time anyway. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Thu Apr 4 08:37:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21434; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:37:10 +0500 X-Snapmail: 2.0.2 Message-Id: <000019DA.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Re: "canonical" text Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:00:54 CST From: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, gjw@wnetc.com (Gregory J. Woodhouse) Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-Hologate: 1.1.7c Lines: 819 Content-Length: 864 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Original message sent on Mon, Mar 25 11:42 PM by gjw@wnetc.com (Gregory J. Woodhouse) : > Another complication I see is that there seems to be a distinction > between the Text and specific texts. I often explain to people, for > example, that there is no such thing as an original manuscript of the > Bible. (Okay, maybe it's too obvious to say in this forum!) > Nevertheless, I consider the Bible to be scripture. But what I consider > to be scripture is not just one manuscript, fragment, or compendium. This is an interesting point you make, and immediately raises in my mind the question of how do you classify variants then? Are all variants, in your opinion, inspired? This is the tricky question for those of us who would like to hold to any kind of verbal inspiration or inerrancy. Regards, Mark O'Brien Grad. student, Dallas Seminary From majordom Thu Apr 4 11:45:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22423; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:45:13 +0500 Message-Id: <199604041644.JAA00303@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:39:08 -7 Subject: Re: Text decisions Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Content-Length: 313 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Jim, > I for one would like to see the letter; I'm sure it is interesting and I > need to refresh my German from time to time anyway. > > Don Wilkins > UC Riverside What he said. Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I get back, please keep me here." From majordom Thu Apr 4 12:05:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22526; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:05:29 +0500 Message-Id: <199604041614.LAA25410@r02n06.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 11:05:00 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Jn 9.38 Text Content-Length: 3859 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Bennie Crockett, Jr. asked: >In the UBS 4th ed., an alternate reading for Jn 9.38 occurs that is >not cited in the UBS 1st ed., UBS 3rd ed., UBS 3rd corr. ed., >N-A, 26th ed., and N-A, 27th ed. [I do not have the UBS 2nd ed. at hand] > >Although this eleventh century lectionary reading certainly is secondary, >I am wondering _why_ the UBS editors might have chosen to include this >variant, especially in light of the fact that it is absent from the >editions cited above. Dr. Metzger does not address this issue in his >_Textual Commentary_. > >Also, does anyone know if this reading is included in other critical >editions as an alternate reading? If so, which ones? > >=========================================================================== ===== >Bennie R. Crockett, Jr. >Professor of Religion and Philosophy >Assoc. VP, Academic Programs >William Carey College >Hattiesburg, MS >USA > > > Several points. First, everyone should remember that both NA (all editions) and UBS (all editions) are merely _pocket editions_ (in German: Handausgabe), intended to be the equivalent of a single-volume desk dictionary, as compared with the Oxford English unabridged (in however many volumes: 20 or more?). It is intended for students, for scholars to take with them to the MS rooms in the major libraries, for use in the classroom. Its apparatus is, therefore, always utterly incomplete and inadequate for serious textual study of the NT. As a precis (or abstract) of the known variants (the fullest lists of which are found in Tischendorf, von Soden, and the volumes of the IGNT), a selection process has been employed. In conversations with Barbara Aland and others, the main lines seem to be these: "significant" variants from the uncials, from the minuscules and papyri, as well as lectionaries (were available); significant _and supporting_ (for the Gk) variants from the versions; and variants which are of intrinsic interest on theological or textual grounds. Second, in this instance (at John 9.38), I suspect that the reading was included for two reasons. (1) As already suggested in a post, a new collation of the lectionary may have become available; (2) the variant seems to be of interest from a textual point of view, for it echoes John 11.27 and is, therefore, an example of "harmonization"/assimilation/"transposition" (the latter not in the technical sense of an inversion, but in the sense of taking something from 11.27 and droping it into 9.38). Third, the variant given in UBS4, from Lectionary 253 (date 1020: 46 years before Wm. the Conqueror...), _IS_ (in a very similar--but not identical--form) found elsewhere, although you'd never know it from UBS or NA. And this very similar variant _IS_ given in an earlier edition, namely that of von Soden, on p. 438, where it is found in MS (v.S.) Ir 1083, which, in Gregory numbers is MS 1187. 1187 is an XI cent. MS now in St. Catherines (Mt. Sinai); Lectionary 253 is in St. Petersburg. One wonders if, because of this distinctive link between the two and their origin in the same century, they are not privy to the same tradition, either textual or liturgical. It would be interesting to learn of the provenance of L-253. Fourth, this example shows, once again, the necessity of NEVER ignoring von Soden, Tischendorf or the IGNT. I am constantly amazed at the haste with which so many look at a pocket edition (NA or UBS), and then think they have the "full picture." Not so. Study von Soden or Tischendorf first; then take your pocket edition with you. You will then be amazed how many times you realize, when using just these pocket editions: "Oh, yes, but there are lots of other variants here, and much more MS/versional support for these readings... Let me get all the facts together; then I'll get back to you..." Petersen--Penn State Univ. From majordom Thu Apr 4 12:38:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22705; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:38:34 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:35:41 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960404123539_368989843@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Aland Letter Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.494.emout09.mail.aol.com.828639339" Content-Length: 2090 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu --PART.BOUNDARY.0.494.emout09.mail.aol.com.828639339 Content-ID: <0_494_828639339@emout09.mail.aol.com.13581> Content-type: text/plain Attached you will find the Aland letter I mentioned in an earlier posting. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN 37845 --PART.BOUNDARY.0.494.emout09.mail.aol.com.828639339 Content-ID: <0_494_828639339@emout09.mail.aol.com.13582> Content-type: text/plain; name="ALAND.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (Perhaps it would be of value to place this letter in its =93Sitz im Lebe= n=94; While finishing a ThM thesis on =93Explicit Quotations of Isaiah i= n the Gospel of John=94 (which, I believe, will soon be made into a movie= , with Tom Cruise playing me! :) ), I wrote Herrn Aland concerning his c= ommitee=92s work on the OT quotes in the NT. I wanted to know how they r= eached the decisions they did- so I wrote and asked. What follows was hi= s response): =0D Herrn Jim West (address) =0D Sehr geehrter Herr West, =0D verbindlichen Dan fuer Ihren Brief vom 17. Juli. Ich antowrte Ihnen, da = die zustaendigen Mitarbeiter in Urlaub sind. Die alttestamentlichen Zita= te im Nestle-Aland 26 sind in einem langwierigen und schwierigen Arbeitsg= ang festgelegt worden. Bekanntlich werden sie in den verschiedenen Ausga= ben des Neuen Testaments verschieden abgegrentzt. Wir haben in zahlreich= en Arbeitssitzungen aufgrund des gesamten Materials einschliesslich des h= ebraeischen Textes von Fall zu Fall je nach den verschiedenen Voraussetzu= ngen entscheiden. Das war vor ueber 20 Jahren. Ich weiss nicht einmal, = ob die umfangreiche Materialkartei im Archiv noch vorhanden ist. Selbst = wenn das der Fall ist, ist es unmoeglich, alle dabei geltend gemachten Ge= sichtspunkte zu wiederholen. Ich kann nur sagen, dass die Abgrenzung nac= h unserer Meinung sachgemaess ist. Dass ich Ihnen nicht mehr sagen kann,= tut mir leid. =0D Mit den besten Gruessen =0D Ihr =0D K. Aland (signature) =0D --PART.BOUNDARY.0.494.emout09.mail.aol.com.828639339-- From majordom Thu Apr 4 14:27:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23379; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:27:31 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:24:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 9264 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [long -- part 1 of 2] On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: I'm just trying to examine a few presuppositions, in order to see how they affect the resulting positions we take. >> it is only a peculiarly biased viewpoint which would not >> think the abundance of evidence would bring us closer to . . . >> that goal. >Abundance of evidence is certainly preferable to paucity of evidence. >I would agree that it's possible to get closer to the original with >more evidence, but as we approach the "100% original" limit, the >diversity of the evidence shows us that this limit cannot really be >reached. I agree with this statement, worded as it is; I differ only regarding the previous claim that, in spite of the amount of evidence we possess, conjecture cannot be ruled out as the ultimate solution in certain variant units. Even within a Byzantine-priority method there still remain numerous variant units where the external data are divided and the text basically becomes established by internal evidence. In those cases (especially in the book of Revelation), no claim of 100% certainty can be made, and I obviously do not in my own edition, nor do Hodges and Farstad in their edition. >> re: Hort's "primitive corruptions" >> There seems to be a presumption of non-authenticity. . . . >> Why not a presumption that, unless . . . inauthenticity can be >> _proven_, the text should be considered basically "authentic" . . . > There is no presumption of non-authenticity. My presumption is > non-certainty. Your term is more precise, and I accept the semantic correction. However, at whatever point you invoke the non-certainty principle in favor of conjecture, non-authenticity is being proclaimed regardless. I too have a non-certainty principle, as mentioned above, yet I rule out conjecture altogether, due to the quantity of evidence we possess. Under your principle, conjecture can _never_ be ruled out, and could in theory be applied to any known variant unit where decisions or interpretation are difficult, or even to difficult readings in places where NO textual variation occurs at all, e.g. the "Enoch" conjecture in 1Pet.3:19 which has been mentioned. I simply consider it illegitimate to presume the "non-certainty" principle as an initial factor which then allows a departure from the evidence whenever the whim of conjecture may happen to strike the interpreter. Of course, neither the "Enoch" nor any other conjecture was printed as the main text in any Greek NT edition until UBS3/N26 conjectured their reading of Ac.16:12 -- and even this must have been embarrassing, since some stray vulgate MSS have now been found which are cited to "justify" that conjecture in N27 (Erasmus and the Johannine Comma incident should not be forgotten when such occurs -- at least the Comma had some limited _Greek_ evidence). >Textual critics can only work with the data they have, and NT text >critics certainly do have good data in comparison with, say, >classical text critics, but assuming that the reading of the autograph >has been preserved in _every_ case is quite a presumption. If the number of extant MSS, versions, and fathers were but 10, there would certainly be a great potential for conjecture. If the number of extant witnesses increased to 100, the potential would be significantly reduced. If statistical theory is now applied to the entire the quantity of data we currently posses, I doubt that any statistician would suggest a theoretical degree of error more than about 1/10000 of a percent. If so, then simply rejecting conjecture as a legitimate methodology is hardly "quite a presumption" -- note also that the issue of "100% certainty" is _not_ being claimed merely because conjecture has been properly ejected from the text-critical toolbox. >If I had said that primitive corruption >is definitely behind certain readings in our NT text, this would be a >faith presumption. To say that we cannot be certain that _every_ >autograph reading is preserved in one or more extant witnesses is a >statement of caution. The presumption of possible primitive corruption which transcends our extant evidence is still a presupposition based on a faith (or doubt) assumption. There are limits beyond which caution turns into paranoia, and I think that conjecture in the face of massive extant evidence simply crosses that line. > It might not even be too much to say, from a >purely logical standpoint, that it is a statement of fact, which could >only be disproved if we had all of the autographs. Of course, as others have mentioned, even if we did discover them, how would we know? On the other hand, had the autographs been preserved from their original era, then textual criticism would no longer be needed. A vicious hypothetical circle from which postulating conjectures is the only escape? I think not. >>Only some NT textual critics make a place for conjecture within the >>text of the NT. Most handbooks rule such a practice out entirely. >I don't deny that many, maybe most (I haven't checked all of them), >handbooks rule out conjecture; certainly all caution against its >overuse. But let me quote Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_: > "One must admit the theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New > Testament a process which has so often been found essential in the > restoration of the right text in classical authors. Granted in theory, but Metzger immediately counters this theoretical presumption by appealing to the quantity of evidence which, even in his opinion, basically rules out conjecture as a working principle for NT textual criticism. > ... the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament, ... > is so much greater than that available for any > classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is > reduced to the smallest dimensions. > It is perhaps chiefly in the > Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, where the early manuscript > evidence is more limited than for any other part of the New > Testament, that the need for attempting conjectural emendation may > arise with any degree of urgency" (p. 185). Metzger is correct that in those particular books we have less data than in the remainder of the NT. He still hedges with "perhaps", however, and I would still urge that the quantity of evidence preserved even in the Apocalypse (with around 275 MSS, a few versions, and a few fathers) is wholly sufficient by which to establish the text without having a need to appeal to conjecture. Again, I would urge a statistician to calculate the likelihood of error existing in over 300 Greek MSS of the Apocalypse with at least three competing types of text (Andreas, Q, and Egyptian) existing. I suspect even here about 1/1000 of a percent likelihood of error. > Again, I am _not_ > advocating wholesale emendation of the text; I am only saying that > emendation cannot be theoretically ruled out as a tool of the > textual critic. Granting the above in theory, is there any place in _practice_ where you are convinced that all extant witnesses are corrupt and conjecture is needed to resolve the difficulty? Ac.16:12 of course immediately springs to mind, since UBS3/4 and N26/27 have adopted the conjecture there -- but is even that case necessary in your opinion? And if so, what other places would you maintain are hopelessly corrupt in our extant data? >> Further, as mentioned above, if primitive error can be suspected in _some_ >> places where variation occurs, what is there to prevent suspicion of >> primitive error even in places where _no_ variation occurs? There is no >> legitimate boundary which restricts such a presupposition from being >> applied anywhere once one does not happen to agree with or understand the >> text. >This is the famous "slippery slope" argument, popularly used by many >people on all sides of many debates, but logically of no value to the >argument. But this is precisely what _did_ occur in the case of the "Enoch" reading in 1Pet., and, if all the conjectures noted in the various critical editions are listed, I will suspect that the majority of them in fact occur in places where there is _no_ substantial textual variation -- no "slippery slope" there; rather, a willingness to presume "primitive error" even in places where no variant readings exist. >the real questions is whether other scholars will agree with their >assessment. Which, except for the Ac.16:12 matter, has not occurred in the printed Greek NT editions as regards their main text. >All in all, >I doubt that admitting that conjecture is a legitimate tool of the NT >textual critic will lead to a stampede of new emendations in future >critical editions of the text. I definitely agree with this statement; however, I still do not think the door needs to be opened even a crack here. There simply is too much data with which to work. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 14:29:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23426; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:29:43 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:26:49 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 12145 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [long - part 2 of 2] On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: >Granting for the moment the assumption that text-type archetypes could be >reconstructed (and I'm not sure that they can, except perhaps for the >Byzantine, as Maurice said), Clark and Colwell tried to reconstruct the Alexandrian archetype of Mark, and gave up. The Western archetype is even more ephemeral. However, I claimed only that _some_ form of primitive archetype could be constructed for the leading texttypes. Hort, following his own principles, claimed that "genealogy" would lead us back to the archetype of the "neutral" text, which was that most closely approaching the autograph. Even though no one follows Hort's patterns or method anymore, there is nothing wrong with the principle of arguing back from the extant evidence to various primitive archetypes and from there to the autograph -- there _had_ to be an underlying text which gave rise to the extant data and their hypothetical archetypes. It therefore is not difficult to seek that underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph. As I said before, to do otherwise is "highly illogical, and inconsistent with the data preserved to us in the extant witnesses." Jimmy basically agrees on this point when he says: >nothing I have said would prohibit the postulation of the archetype >that lay behind the text-type archetypes. Yet he continues: >However, it would only be a _postulate_, not a _certainty_, and it begs >the question to say that it would of necessity be identical with the >autograph. I fail to see how the question is getting begged on this point. The "non-certainty" principle still seems to dominate, but to what statistical degree? Even from an eclectic standpoint, if all three major texttypes are agreed, there should be a high degree of certainty that such is the autograph text. Even where two out of three texttypes agree, most modern eclectics would consider that a presumption of certainty. To me it seems peculiar continually to postulate the "uncertainty principle" when virtually all of the text found in all witnesses is already 100% certain, except in those 10% of places where variation occurs. Even if I cannot guarantee or "prove" 100% certainty as to the autograph text in a small number of variant units, this does not mean that I must allow the uncertainty principle to dominate the remainder of my text-critical theory or praxis, and continually to leave the door open for suspicion of "primitive error" or conjecture. >by their nature, conjectures are unscientific. >That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, only that they rely on >reasoned argument rather than extant textual data to make their case. I concur that conjectures are unscientific. But if so, what place do they have within the _science_ of textual criticism? (Metzger's answer was to proclaim textual criticism an "art" rather than a "science"; I thoroughly disagree). The "reasoned argument" approach of conjecture differs little from the rigorous eclectic methodology practiced by Kilpatrick and Elliot. The latter, however, attempt first to seek out at least one witness to support their conjecture before applying the identical "reasoned arguments." Since most other eclectics (Epp's "reasoned eclectics" as opposed to the "rigorous eclectics") strongly oppose the method of Kilpatrick and Elliott, I would expect the same degree of opposition to conjectural emendation. >I don't agree that every text-type can be reconstructed with 100% >assurance, especially the Western text-type. My position as well, including the Byzantine texttype (though to a lesser degree of uncertainty than the Alexandrian or Western). _Of course_ my conclusions are derived to a large extent from my >presuppositions, as are Maurice's. He has stated that one of his >presuppositions is that the autographs were viewed with such high regard >by their initial recipients that each was copied more than once (or the >first copy was copied more than once). This is plausible within my own theoretical outlook; however, any theological argument concerning "high regard" of those autographs as either scripture or canonical, let alone inspired or inerrant is _not_ necessary to support my theory, and I do not advocate that as an essential postulate. Allow merely that at _some_ point of time Christians or even non-Christians considered the NT books worth perpetuating, and that at such a time copies finally began to be copied more frequently. My theory still functions quite well in that scenario. The fallacy in not assuming that (for whatever reason) the autograph was not copied multiple times lies in the nature of scribal practice. Unless one is prepared to assume that all single copies made from single copies of the autograph remained error-free (which no one would maintain), then it also is to be assumed that early errors in copies of the autograph would continue to prevail in all or almost all MSS which eventually descended from those single copies. Scribally-intuitive correction might eliminate some of these errors, but they would not eliminate most or even all of them; plus there would be no diverging textual lines whereby cross-comparison and correction would be able to function. So, under the scenario of only single copies being made from the autograph for some time, Jimmy's "primitive corruption" hypothesis would presumably take form. However, since in no case in the Greek NT as we have it can any primitive corruption be demonstrated, wherein all extant readings are totally nonsensical or misleading (including Ac.16.12!), the presumption must be that the scribes somehow managed on their own, without MS data, to eliminate all or almost all vestiges of such primitive corruption. This is highly unlikely, given the nature of scribal textual transmission. The alternative hypothesis is that there were in fact varying lines of transmission which stemmed directly from the autograph which then became the basis for cross-comparison and correction, whether used frequently in the early "popular text" era or not. Under the scientific method, the best hypothesis remains that which requires the least amount of postulates in order to be fulfilled. In this case, the easiest and most plausible solution is to see the autograph as the source from which a number of copies were made, each of which were themselves copied a varying number of times, eventually diversifying into both the "uncontrolled popular text" MSS and the "local text" MSS which we see emerging as texttypes by at least the end of the second century. >He has further indicated that one >reason for thinking this is his "view of apostolic authority and the >evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of >the autograph MSS." Fine. I can see why he concludes that every reading >of the autographs has been preserved. I must again restate that my own view of canonicity, inerrancy, inspiration, and apostolic authority does _not_ drive the theory. The issue is historically- and not theologically-based, and the question is whether those living in the era of the autographs themselves considered the works sufficiently important (for whatever reasons) to perpetuate them, and then how to explain their perpetuation en masse in numerous copies. Alternate scenarios, such as Jimmy's suggestion of only one copy being made from the autograph, and one copy from the copy, for a given period of time can certainly be suggested; but it still devolves down to which hypothetical scenario is more plausible, given the known facts of history, with the expansion of the church during the first three centuries and the known multiplication of scripture and its differentiation into "mixed texts" and texttypes within 150 years. I suggest the extant data can most readily be explained by presuming multiple copying of the autograph. That is all. My own theological views do not affect this hypothesis of transmission; and even an atheistic scholar could come to the same conclusions, even if he did not believe the text thereby transmitted. >I, however, am not as convinced that every NT autograph was so fortunate. >We know that other early gospels existed, and many scholars think that >other letters of Paul have been lost (e.g., Laodiceans, other letters to >the Corinthians). These works did exist, but many were not perpetuated, or exist only in fragments such as the "Uncanonical Gospel" fragment P.Oxy.840. Others, like the Shepherd of Hermas, which was quite popular in the early church, exist, but were not preserved and perpetuated as with the canonical NT literature. Without getting back into the argument over canonicity, one still can argue that literature which was considered more theologically "significant" (or "canonical" or whatever) would be more likely to be perpetuated in large numbers than works which were not viewed in the same manner. >This suggests to me that _some_ works that made it into >the NT may not have been copied as early or as frequently as others, such >as the gospels and the major Pauline letters. As Metzger noted, there are fewer MSS of the General Epistles and Revelation than other NT books. Revelation especially, since it was not only "disputed", but also was never read in the Greek lections. The smaller number of MSS of the General Epistles also reflect some dispute over their canonicity as well as limited lectionary use. Obviously the Gospels and Pauline Epistles predominated in usage and popularity. This did not, however, result in the remaining NT books being excluded from ultimate canonicity. >After all, the early >Christians didn't have the luxury of knowing which books would ultimately >be in the NT (this gets into the issue of the NT canon). For which see the handbooks, whether Metzger, Bruce, von Campenhausen, or Westcott. I will abstain from discussing the general theory of this aspect within a text-critical forum. >Further evidence for this presumption is the sparsity of early >mss of books like James and 2 Peter. All this leads me to question >whether the autographs of these books, or their immediate textual >descendants, were copied more than once, or, if two or three copies were >made, whether these lines of textual descent might not have completely died >out without leaving a trace on the preserved ms tradition. I do not think the sparsity of evidence in the General Epistles or Revelation implies anything regarding the number of copies made from the autograph. It does reflect the popularity or frequency of use made of those NT books within the Orthodox Church (nascent or as ultimately developed), and even the canonical disputes concerning such books; but I seriously doubt that any claim can be made as to how often such books were initially copied from the autograph. That more than one copy was made from the autograph, I will maintain, since it is that scenario which best explains the extant data, diversified as it is into the various texttype alignments we currently possess. >I'm not as certain as Maurice that all of the readings of >the autographs have been preserved in the extant mss. Maybe they have >been, but I suspect that they haven't in every case. At whichever >conclusion the text critic arrives, presuppositions play a large role in >his or her decision. This is absolutely true. My own presuppositions, however, stem from a working hypothesis of textual transmission and a reconstructed history of that transmission. This is a major difference from the approach of the modern eclectic school, and explains why I see no need for conjecture or suspicion of "primitive error" while they (at least Jimmy and in Ac.16.12 the N27/UBS4 editors) do. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 14:47:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23584; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:47:28 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:44:34 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "canonical" text In-Reply-To: <000019DA.sm@dts.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1901 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Mark O'Brien wrote: [addressed to Gregory J. Woodhouse] > This is an interesting point you make, and immediately raises in my mind the > question of how do you classify variants then? Are all variants, in your > opinion, inspired? This is the tricky question for those of us who would like > to hold to any kind of verbal inspiration or inerrancy. Quite interesting as a hypothesis, though I would not attempt it in practice. Theoretically (and theologically) only the readings which comprise the autograph should be considered "inspired"; however, I am perfectly willing to admit the accuracy of statements in certain variant readings, such as the seven steps in the Western text of Acts. Even some of the non-canonical sayings of Jesus, such as those inserted into Matt.20.28 and Lk.6:4 may be "authentic", though non-canonical and not to be considered "inspired" as with the autograph text (the insertion in Mk.16 in W is not considered as likely for an "authentic" saying of Jesus, and I exclude that one). If "authentic," though not inspired and non-canonical, such statements nevertheless can be "inerrant", just as any historical fact could be "inerrant" within the secular realm. But this brings up the further (legitimate) issue of utilizing textual criticism to illustrate and illuminate the varying and developing views of the Christian church in different eras, as Bart Ehrman mentioned some time back. This line of argument also falls under the category of theology and not textual criticism per se, so I will eschew further comment on this point. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 16:56:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24541; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:56:57 +0500 Message-Id: <3163D6F4.2B8E@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 14:04:36 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: textual criticism list Subject: Gergesenes and tc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1373 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I'm very new to the list. One of the hats I wear is that of a Bible translator, and recently I discussed the issue of the Gergesenes vs. Gadarenes vs. Gerasenes with a good friend who does archaeology in the Holy Land. In the process he sent me a copy of Mendel Num's new pamphlet on _The Land of the Gadarenes_. Nun seems to think that the disciples' boat must have landed on the northeast Galilean shore (Kursi, land of the Gergesenes), and that Matthew's Gadarenes was a mistaken reference to the southeast shore, over which (he argues) the Gadarenes truly did have control. My problem of course is that I see no way to reject Gadarenes/Gerasenes using good tc principles, so that the temptation is to assume there must have been a territory on the shore that was known as the land of the Gerasenes, which overlapped that of the Gadarenes. I should add that I hold to inerrancy, so I cannot accept Dalman's conclusions that the synoptic writers were mistaken. Does anyone have any thoughts about this particular problem, and about the more general problem of reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism? I don't see how we could simply let current archaeological research dictate our choices for readings in relevant passages. (By the way, please forgive me if I happen to be covering some old ground.) Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Thu Apr 4 17:05:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24593; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:05:10 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:02:13 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960404170212_369129833@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Mk 3:32 Content-Length: 389 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu "kai hai adelphai sou" is omitted by a good range of Alexandrian, Byzantine and Western (!) mss. in Mark 3:32. It is found in a few mss of different families (!). So, would the participants of this forum describe this as a theological omission, or a simple case of parablepsis? Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN 37845 From majordom Thu Apr 4 17:06:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24618; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:06:16 +0500 Message-Id: <9604042023.AA26535@prodpyr2.us.oracle.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 12:23:16 PST From: "JAKUHN.US.ORACLE.COM" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes X-Orcl-Application: In-Reply-To: UNX03.US.ORACLE.COM:owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu's message of 04-Apr-96 11:34 X-Orcl-Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Boundary-18441371-0-0 Content-Length: 12880 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu --Boundary-18441371-0-0 >hypothetical archetypes. It therefore is not difficult to seek that >underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph. Is this true? "_does_ equal" doesn't mean 100% does it? j --Boundary-18441371-0-0 X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822 Sent: 04 Apr 1996 11:34:37 From:"Maurice Robinson " To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes Reply-to: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Orcl-Application: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Orcl-Application: Precedence: bulk [long - part 2 of 2] On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: >Granting for the moment the assumption that text-type archetypes could be >reconstructed (and I'm not sure that they can, except perhaps for the >Byzantine, as Maurice said), Clark and Colwell tried to reconstruct the Alexandrian archetype of Mark, and gave up. The Western archetype is even more ephemeral. However, I claimed only that _some_ form of primitive archetype could be constructed for the leading texttypes. Hort, following his own principles, claimed that "genealogy" would lead us back to the archetype of the "neutral" text, which was that most closely approaching the autograph. Even though no one follows Hort's patterns or method anymore, there is nothing wrong with the principle of arguing back from the extant evidence to various primitive archetypes and from there to the autograph -- there _had_ to be an underlying text which gave rise to the extant data and their hypothetical archetypes. It therefore is not difficult to seek that underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph. As I said before, to do otherwise is "highly illogical, and inconsistent with the data preserved to us in the extant witnesses." Jimmy basically agrees on this point when he says: >nothing I have said would prohibit the postulation of the archetype >that lay behind the text-type archetypes. Yet he continues: >However, it would only be a _postulate_, not a _certainty_, and it begs >the question to say that it would of necessity be identical with the >autograph. I fail to see how the question is getting begged on this point. The "non-certainty" principle still seems to dominate, but to what statistical degree? Even from an eclectic standpoint, if all three major texttypes are agreed, there should be a high degree of certainty that such is the autograph text. Even where two out of three texttypes agree, most modern eclectics would consider that a presumption of certainty. To me it seems peculiar continually to postulate the "uncertainty principle" when virtually all of the text found in all witnesses is already 100% certain, except in those 10% of places where variation occurs. Even if I cannot guarantee or "prove" 100% certainty as to the autograph text in a small number of variant units, this does not mean that I must allow the uncertainty principle to dominate the remainder of my text-critical theory or praxis, and continually to leave the door open for suspicion of "primitive error" or conjecture. >by their nature, conjectures are unscientific. >That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, only that they rely on >reasoned argument rather than extant textual data to make their case. I concur that conjectures are unscientific. But if so, what place do they have within the _science_ of textual criticism? (Metzger's answer was to proclaim textual criticism an "art" rather than a "science"; I thoroughly disagree). The "reasoned argument" approach of conjecture differs little from the rigorous eclectic methodology practiced by Kilpatrick and Elliot. The latter, however, attempt first to seek out at least one witness to support their conjecture before applying the identical "reasoned arguments." Since most other eclectics (Epp's "reasoned eclectics" as opposed to the "rigorous eclectics") strongly oppose the method of Kilpatrick and Elliott, I would expect the same degree of opposition to conjectural emendation. >I don't agree that every text-type can be reconstructed with 100% >assurance, especially the Western text-type. My position as well, including the Byzantine texttype (though to a lesser degree of uncertainty than the Alexandrian or Western). _Of course_ my conclusions are derived to a large extent from my >presuppositions, as are Maurice's. He has stated that one of his >presuppositions is that the autographs were viewed with such high regard >by their initial recipients that each was copied more than once (or the >first copy was copied more than once). This is plausible within my own theoretical outlook; however, any theological argument concerning "high regard" of those autographs as either scripture or canonical, let alone inspired or inerrant is _not_ necessary to support my theory, and I do not advocate that as an essential postulate. Allow merely that at _some_ point of time Christians or even non-Christians considered the NT books worth perpetuating, and that at such a time copies finally began to be copied more frequently. My theory still functions quite well in that scenario. The fallacy in not assuming that (for whatever reason) the autograph was not copied multiple times lies in the nature of scribal practice. Unless one is prepared to assume that all single copies made from single copies of the autograph remained error-free (which no one would maintain), then it also is to be assumed that early errors in copies of the autograph would continue to prevail in all or almost all MSS which eventually descended from those single copies. Scribally-intuitive correction might eliminate some of these errors, but they would not eliminate most or even all of them; plus there would be no diverging textual lines whereby cross-comparison and correction would be able to function. So, under the scenario of only single copies being made from the autograph for some time, Jimmy's "primitive corruption" hypothesis would presumably take form. However, since in no case in the Greek NT as we have it can any primitive corruption be demonstrated, wherein all extant readings are totally nonsensical or misleading (including Ac.16.12!), the presumption must be that the scribes somehow managed on their own, without MS data, to eliminate all or almost all vestiges of such primitive corruption. This is highly unlikely, given the nature of scribal textual transmission. The alternative hypothesis is that there were in fact varying lines of transmission which stemmed directly from the autograph which then became the basis for cross-comparison and correction, whether used frequently in the early "popular text" era or not. Under the scientific method, the best hypothesis remains that which requires the least amount of postulates in order to be fulfilled. In this case, the easiest and most plausible solution is to see the autograph as the source from which a number of copies were made, each of which were themselves copied a varying number of times, eventually diversifying into both the "uncontrolled popular text" MSS and the "local text" MSS which we see emerging as texttypes by at least the end of the second century. >He has further indicated that one >reason for thinking this is his "view of apostolic authority and the >evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of >the autograph MSS." Fine. I can see why he concludes that every reading >of the autographs has been preserved. I must again restate that my own view of canonicity, inerrancy, inspiration, and apostolic authority does _not_ drive the theory. The issue is historically- and not theologically-based, and the question is whether those living in the era of the autographs themselves considered the works sufficiently important (for whatever reasons) to perpetuate them, and then how to explain their perpetuation en masse in numerous copies. Alternate scenarios, such as Jimmy's suggestion of only one copy being made from the autograph, and one copy from the copy, for a given period of time can certainly be suggested; but it still devolves down to which hypothetical scenario is more plausible, given the known facts of history, with the expansion of the church during the first three centuries and the known multiplication of scripture and its differentiation into "mixed texts" and texttypes within 150 years. I suggest the extant data can most readily be explained by presuming multiple copying of the autograph. That is all. My own theological views do not affect this hypothesis of transmission; and even an atheistic scholar could come to the same conclusions, even if he did not believe the text thereby transmitted. >I, however, am not as convinced that every NT autograph was so fortunate. >We know that other early gospels existed, and many scholars think that >other letters of Paul have been lost (e.g., Laodiceans, other letters to >the Corinthians). These works did exist, but many were not perpetuated, or exist only in fragments such as the "Uncanonical Gospel" fragment P.Oxy.840. Others, like the Shepherd of Hermas, which was quite popular in the early church, exist, but were not preserved and perpetuated as with the canonical NT literature. Without getting back into the argument over canonicity, one still can argue that literature which was considered more theologically "significant" (or "canonical" or whatever) would be more likely to be perpetuated in large numbers than works which were not viewed in the same manner. >This suggests to me that _some_ works that made it into >the NT may not have been copied as early or as frequently as others, such >as the gospels and the major Pauline letters. As Metzger noted, there are fewer MSS of the General Epistles and Revelation than other NT books. Revelation especially, since it was not only "disputed", but also was never read in the Greek lections. The smaller number of MSS of the General Epistles also reflect some dispute over their canonicity as well as limited lectionary use. Obviously the Gospels and Pauline Epistles predominated in usage and popularity. This did not, however, result in the remaining NT books being excluded from ultimate canonicity. >After all, the early >Christians didn't have the luxury of knowing which books would ultimately >be in the NT (this gets into the issue of the NT canon). For which see the handbooks, whether Metzger, Bruce, von Campenhausen, or Westcott. I will abstain from discussing the general theory of this aspect within a text-critical forum. >Further evidence for this presumption is the sparsity of early >mss of books like James and 2 Peter. All this leads me to question >whether the autographs of these books, or their immediate textual >descendants, were copied more than once, or, if two or three copies were >made, whether these lines of textual descent might not have completely died >out without leaving a trace on the preserved ms tradition. I do not think the sparsity of evidence in the General Epistles or Revelation implies anything regarding the number of copies made from the autograph. It does reflect the popularity or frequency of use made of those NT books within the Orthodox Church (nascent or as ultimately developed), and even the canonical disputes concerning such books; but I seriously doubt that any claim can be made as to how often such books were initially copied from the autograph. That more than one copy was made from the autograph, I will maintain, since it is that scenario which best explains the extant data, diversified as it is into the various texttype alignments we currently possess. >I'm not as certain as Maurice that all of the readings of >the autographs have been preserved in the extant mss. Maybe they have >been, but I suspect that they haven't in every case. At whichever >conclusion the text critic arrives, presuppositions play a large role in >his or her decision. This is absolutely true. My own presuppositions, however, stem from a working hypothesis of textual transmission and a reconstructed history of that transmission. This is a major difference from the approach of the modern eclectic school, and explains why I see no need for conjecture or suspicion of "primitive error" while they (at least Jimmy and in Ac.16.12 the N27/UBS4 editors) do. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --Boundary-18441371-0-0-- From majordom Thu Apr 4 18:32:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24957; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:32:49 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:29:54 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Luke 12,58 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 6785 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [Long again -- Part 1 of 2] Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96: >First, I have to apologize my late dealing with this subject again. >It's due to some days of vacancies. Myself also -- Easter break is upon us. >On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [regarding the future tense in the Alexandrian MSS as opposed to the subjunctive in the Byzantine MSS in Lk.12:58; most of Robinson's discussion of Blass-Debrunner grammar sec. 369-370 omitted] >> Bl-D. sec.370 note that MH "is combined in classical with the >> subjunctive if the anxiety is directed towards warding off something >> still dependent on the will, with the indicative of all tenses if >> directed toward something which has already taken place or is >> entirely independent of the will....(1)...This construction is >> evidently literary and not a part of the vernacular." >Since I do not know exactly which edition/translation of this tool of >reference you are referring to, Maurice, My edition is that published in English around 1970-72 or so. I don't have it with me so cannot give the reference. It may well have been translated from an earlier German edition. >(Ergaenzungsheft zu Blass-Debrunner, 12th edition, Goettingen 1970). >Note, the reference to "the act of the will" is completaly abandonned, >supposedly due to its inappropriatness. The opinions of grammarians certainly can change, and different editions will reflect those changing opinions. Grammar after all is not a set of hard and fast rules, but an attempt to analyze usage. Since my citing of Bl.-Debr. was to offer some possible justification for the reading of the Alexandrian text, which departs from the more classical model reflected in the Byzantine text, it seems that if the "will" distinction is abandoned, then there is even less ground to prefer the Alexandrian reading. >1) If, "within the context of Lk. 12:58, the act of will appears to be >lacking in the final clauses", then the indicative tense and _not_ the >Byzantine subjunctive ought to be judged as reflecting "the literary, >if not the classical perspective". Not at all. The classical use of the subjunctive occurs "if the anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent on the will" say Bl.-Debr., but this strictly applies only to the initial KATASURH _if_ settlement is not made with the adversary. All further clauses remain subjunctive under normal grammatical patterns, since they remain dependent upon the initial condition not being fulfilled (MHPOTE). This is classical usage and the normal grammatical pattern one encounters in the NT. The case is clearly conditional, and requires the normal use of the subjunctive throughout the clauses (like the mathematical distributive law). On the other hand, if Bl.-Debr. are correct, the indicative found in the Alexandrian text is used if the scribes considered the following clauses to have "already taken place or is entirely independent of the will," which latter the scribes theoretically could have reasoned to be the case once once has been dragged before the magistrate and an adverse decision handed down. If the act of the will is not in view (according to the other Bl.-Debr. edition), then there is less justification to favor the indicative readings over the "normal" and classical distributive subjunctive. >2) If the Alexandrian scribes are so conscious with regard to the act >of the will in Lk 12,58, what about the first verb KATASURH? And what >about the indicative in Heb 3,12 where the subjunctive is so >desperately required? I really do not know what may have motivated a small group of scribes in any given situation, so all here is speculation. I do suspect that the use of the indicative here by the Alexandrian MSS may reflect a recensional mindset aligned in some way with the classical restorations performed in Alexandria, which mindset may well focus on peculiar items like the indicative vs. subjunctive situation. There may also be a reflection as to the way Greek grammar was practiced in Egypt as opposed to elsewhere in the Roman world; also perhaps some influence from Coptic grammatical structure. The situation with KATASURH is normal under all circumstances since the subjunctive required by MHPOTE would assume potentiality. The only question is whether "proper" grammarians or scribes would consider the form of the latter clauses not to be controlled by the subjunctive of KATASURH. The Byzantine scribes may have followed "good grammar," but I still maintain that, had the "peculiar" forms with the indicative been original, they similarly would have preserved the indicatives without question. The points of grammar under discussion here are in my opinion far too fine for the scribal fraternity to have concerned themselves with in any large numbers. Hebrews 3:12 of course is by a different author, and the question of different style and grammar must come into question. Here, however, there are no variants (not even in von Soden or Tischendorf). I presume you are not going to assume "primitive error" and propose conjectural emendation to the subjunctive because it is so "desperately required"; so what then? Here is the case in point: the Byzantine-era scribes did NOT have a tendency to correct fine points of grammar like this, not even to the smallest degree, since there are NO corrections to the indicative ESTAI here. Reasoning de majorem ad minorem, it thus is more likely that in a situation like Lk.12.58, where the abnormal reading appears in the minority text that the minority text is that which is non-original and the Byzantine scribes, just as in Heb.3:12, preserved the original text unaltered. >3) Given the fact that in Lk 12,58 the "Byzantine reading reflects the >literary, if not the classical perspective", what about the argument >from lectio difficilior? I may refer to your case on 1.Cor 13,3, the >so-called "future subjunctive" of the Byzantine tradition. This is twisting the Bl.-Debr. comment around: the "literary" as opposed to the "vernacular" regards those constructions such as are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, where a fine line is drawn between matters dependent on the will and those not dependent on such. The Byzantine text is the one which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely the normal vernacular which subsumes all elements of a clause under the leading subjunctive. Am I being misunderstood on this point? [continued in part 2] _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 18:33:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24976; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:33:52 +0500 Message-Id: <199604042330.SAA18886@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 18:21:50 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Gergesenes and tc Content-Length: 1532 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On April 4, Don Wilkins asked: >My problem of course is that I see no way to reject >Gadarenes/Gerasenes using good tc principles, so that the >temptation is to assume there must have been a territory on the >shore that was known as the land of the Gerasenes, which >overlapped that of the Gadarenes. I should add that I hold to >inerrancy, so I cannot accept Dalman's conclusions that the synoptic >writers were mistaken. Does anyone have any thoughts about this >particular problem, and about the more general problem of >reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism? I >don't see how we could simply let current archaeological research >dictate our choices for readings in relevant passages. Without getting into the various issues which you raise, which might direct your selection in a certain direction, you might find an article by Tjitze Baarda useful: "Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes and the 'Diatessaron' Traditions". It first appeared in _Neotestamentica et Semitica_ (FS Matthew Black), edd. E. Ellis & M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969), pp. 181-197; it is reprinted in Baarda's own book of collected articles, titled _Early Transmission of Words of Jesus. Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the New Testament_ (Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel/Uitgeverij, 1983), pp. 85-101. Baarda is one of the preeminent textual critics at work today; he is Dean of Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam, and took his doctorate in Semitic languages. Petersen--Penn State University From majordom Thu Apr 4 18:37:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24996; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:37:13 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:34:19 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Luke 12,58 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 10409 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [Long again -- Part 2 of 2] On 1 April 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote: >On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, you wrote: [regarding 1 Cor 13.3] >> The bigger problem is that it not only is 'not good Greek' but it >> blatantly appears to be erroneus by suggesting a non-existent >> future subjunctive. I fail to see how scribes in the main would >> simply allow such an anomalous reading to stand. That above quote was not mine, but a portion from Carlton, I believe. The further comments below need to be taken with that in mind. >Here in 1.Cor 13,3 you pushed the argument from lectio difficilior so >far that it results in suggesting an erroneus reading in the autograph >in order to defend the authenticity of the Byzantine text. If my own comments are carefully read vis-a-vis that discussion, I did not claim the Byzantine KAUQHSWMAI reading was "erroneous" in any degree. Nor did I claim such was in fact a "future subjunctive," though I did note that a small handful of Byzantine scribes thought there was a problem there and corrected it into a "normal" future indicative (KAUQHSOMAI). My point there was identical to my point in Heb.3.12 -- if scribes, when faced with a peculiar or anomalous reading in their exemplars, did NOT significantly alter the reading, when their supposed tendency was to do so, such a reading has every presumptive right to be considered original, even if today we cannot understand the reading from our own lexical or grammatical ability to analyze. The case of DEUTEROPRWTW in Lk.6:1 stands as another example of the same situation -- a term which no one of us can interpret with certainty, yet a term which gave only a small number of scribes any difficulty. The lectio difficilior principle applies there as well as in 1Cor.13.3 and Heb.3.12 (where there is no variation at all). However, it is NOT legitimate to argue the lectio difficilior principle in places where the variation is not widely supported and (especially, as in the case of Lk.12.58) where phonetic/itacistic or transpositional readings may well be argued as the nascent cause of such minority readings. Griesbach's original canon of the lectio difficilior principle included the assumption "all things being equal," and, were the MSS nearly evenly divided over such readings, I would be the first to argue the more difficult principle as a deciding factor. When the more difficult reading is supported by a proportion of 9:1 or greater, I have little hesitation in agreeing with the scribes; if the more difficult reading is found in a small handful of MSS, I similarly have little problem in rejecting it, as do most textual critics most of the time, save when such appears in their favorite MSS or texttype. >In Lk 12,58 on the other hand, you feel comfortable with a Byzantine >reading that "reflects the literary, if not the classical perspective". >For someone who does not a priori know which reading is "the original" >it is not easy to follow your arguments. Again this reverses my contention: I am comfortable with a reading supported by nearly all MSS and scribes which reflects "normal" Koine grammatical patterns, and see no need to adopt a reading which (depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a more "classical" and literary approach as opposed to the usual vernacular. I also do not claim to know a priori which reading is "the original"; my decision in favor of the Byzantine Textform came about only by a long chain of theoretical analysis and hypothesizing, since I previously was a dedicated partisan of the eclectic position. The pro-Byzantine position does not come about by fiat, but by means of examining scribal habits and proclivities, analysis of the MS, versional, and patristic data, and the reconstruction of a history of textual transmission. Any pro-Byzantine partisan who takes a simpler route than this has not practiced text-critical research. Since I have been within the eclectic fold, I also find it relatively simple to understand the arguments from both sides. >4) You wrote: >I would further suggest, in light of certain MSS having altered the >order of the text from SE PARADW into PARADW SE that this may well have >given impetus for other scribes coming upon such in their exemplars to >simply create PARADWSEI from that latter combination. >I simply fail to see how one single minusule (1071, 12th century) can >be referred to as "certain MSS". Note, versions and (Latin) fathers are >usually no secure witnesses to alterations in word order of that >limited effect. I agree that word order in versions and non-Greek fathers is less relevant. Nevertheless, the editors of the Lk IGNTP seemed to consider these readings indicative. As for 1071, certainly I put little stock in readings of a single MS, especially a late one; but 1071 is often linked with the latin witnesses, and, when in combination with them, at least allows a presumption regarding the displacement of words as an impetus for phonetically-based alteration in a minority of MSS. Of course, as you well know, transcriptional considerations do not require MS evidence in their support, as witness Metzger's convoluted defense of the omission of DEUTEROPRWTW in Lk.6.1 -- all of the hypothetical intermediate transcriptional steps urged by Metzger are wholly without manuscript support. Q.E.D., my appeal to MS 1071 plus the latin witnesses is even a more compelling argument. >5) You wrote (quoting Robertson): >"Both subj. and fut.ind. likewise occur in Mt 13:15 MH POTE IDWSIN -- >KAI IASOMAI" [Byz and Alex here agree]. >I'm afraid that your assertion in brackets is somehow ambiguous. Only >the vast majority of von Sodens K 1 agrees here with Alex. K x is >divided, 15 manuscripts out of 50, K r in total, and Chrysostomos give >the subj. IASWMAI. True, all but one MS of the K1 group supports the Alex/Byz "majority" reading. The majority (35) of the Kx group supports the majority reading, while a minority (15) does not (whether von Soden's 15:35 really means 15 out of 50, or something else remains unclear, since his proportions of, e.g., 3:2 hardly refer to a total of only 5 MSS examined). The Kr group is the only Byzantine sub-group which reads the subjunctive in toto. Chrysostom does likewise, of course. I was assuming too much, and was talking in my own jargon when speaking of "Alex" and "Byz". My intention was that "Byz" = my own edition of the Byzantine/Majority text (so too Hodges/Farstad); and "Alex" = the UBS4/N27 text. More precisely, I was only stating that the respective Byzantine/Majority Text editions here _agree_ with the modern critical editions (the TR reads IASWMAI). I note also that the K1 group departs from the majority consensus in reading EPISTREYOUSIN instead of EPISTREYWSIN; plus it has varied support from other non-Byzantine witnesses. Why should you not here argue as in Lk.12.58 that this indicative likewise should be considered "original" as opposed to the subjunctive? >Even more interesting is the fact that Mt 13,15 is a >quotation from Is 6,10 (the LXX MSS are divided too), and most >interesting is the fact that this quotation is also given in John 12,40 >where 89 manuscripts out of 158 of von Sodens K x and K r in total, and >also some K 1 manuscripts give the subj. IASWMAI (For the sake of >completeness should be added that the subj. IASWMAI in Acts 28,27 is >supported by von Sodens K c and K r). When checking your own edition I >feel deeply in need of some explanation, for in Mt 13,15 and in Acts >28,27 you give ind. IASOMAI, but in John 12,40 you give subj. IASWMAI. Luke and John of course are different writers and may have different styles as regards the use of a subjunctive versus indicative following MHPOTE. No requirement exists that either Luke or John reflect the consensus LXX text (which you note is itself divided), so that is no help. However, there is no real clue to Johannine "style" on this matter in his gospel: the only other Johannine case of a -SOMAI or -SWMAI ending occurs in Jn.8:55 (ESOMAI), and there it is indicative (no instances of -SOMAI or -SWMAI occur in the Johannine Epistles). In regard to my own edition in Jn.12:40 (also in Hodges/Farstad), we will be the first to admit that this is a judgment call, and is highly tentative. The Byzantine manuscript evidence is obviously divided, far more so than in Mt.13.15. (At least I'm glad my edition made it to Munster *;-) So why did we choose IASOMAI in Matt. and IASWMAI in John? Merely because the slight (89:69) balance of external evidence in John tips toward IASWMAI within the Kx group. There is _no_ other reason, and I could as easily argue that IASOMAI might be the more likely reading in John, based upon ESOMAI in 8:55. However, since the author's "style" cannot be judged from solitary examples, the slight imbalance in the Kx evidence had to be the deciding factor. On that particular reading, our text may well be in error, but the extant evidence does not allow any certain or final decision (Jimmy, please take note *;-). Note also that the division between -W- and -O- in Jn.12:40, Mt.13.15, and even Ac.28.27 is clearly itacistic, and not likely grammatical. I am not claiming that scribes in any of these places were making grammatical changes any more than I would suggest the -O-/-W- variation in the spelling of "Jason" in Ac.17:5,6,9 is due to any special scribal concern with correct orthography (and the Hodges/Farstad text and my own take opposite spellings in regard to Jason). >6) To sum up from my viewpoint: I would strongly suggest that in Lk >12,58 the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) are assimilations in tense and >mood to the first KATASURH. Together they "reflect the literary, if not >the classical perspective", and therefor in this peculiar instance the >Byzantine text has to be judged as secondary. And I still maintain that the minority indicatives in the same passage reflect either a transcriptional blunder or a deliberate stylistic decision to imitate a more strictly classical style or at least the Alexandrian equivalent of such. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 18:46:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25057; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:46:30 +0500 Message-Id: <9604042343.AA06613@prodpyr2.us.oracle.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 15:43:32 PST From: "JAKUHN.US.ORACLE.COM" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: oops Content-Length: 129 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu please ignore my dumb question on my last post. I hit the wrong key. Unless of course you want to discuss it. jay kuhn From majordom Thu Apr 4 18:56:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25112; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:56:32 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:53:38 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Jn 9.38 Text In-Reply-To: <199604041614.LAA25410@r02n06.cac.psu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2622 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > First, everyone should remember that both NA (all editions) and UBS (all > editions) are merely _pocket editions_ . . . Its apparatus is, therefore, > always utterly incomplete and inadequate for serious textual study of the > NT. . . . > this example shows, once again, the necessity of NEVER ignoring von > Soden, Tischendorf or the IGNT. . . . You will then be amazed how many times > you realize, when using just these pocket editions: "Oh, yes, but there are > lots of other variants here, and much more MS/versional support for these > readings. Mr. Petersen is absolutely correct on these points. I try to keep my Tischendorf and Von Soden with me as much as possible because of these factors. In regard to the John 9.38 reading, now that I know which one it was, I am still somewhat surprised that UBS4 would bother including it, since it is so obviously secondary, and reflects an "orthodox corruption" which harmonizes to a parallel passage, plus is so limited in its support. > (2) the variant seems to be of interest from a textual point of view, > for it echoes John 11.27 The variant also echoes Jn.1:9, and it may have been that more familiar passage which triggered the scribe to initiate the harmonization and to leap ahead to the parallel in 11.27 (which may well have been known from memory). > it is [also] found in MS (v.S.) Ir 1083, which, > in Gregory numbers is MS 1187. 1187 is an XI cent. MS now in St. Catherines > (Mt. Sinai); Lectionary 253 is in St. Petersburg. One wonders if, because > of this distinctive link between the two and their origin in the same > century, they are not privy to the same tradition, either textual or > liturgical. I would not think this likely, but due to the nature of the phrase (being a confessional statement), it probably ended up in both MSS as the incorporation of a gloss from memory. That any liturgical tradition seriously utilized this confession as part of the lection beyond the solitary lectionary cited and MS 1187 (which like most minuscules was probably rubricated for lectionary use) is not very likely, given the paucity of evidence. I'll bet that in the churches which used those two MSS, however, the extended confessional statement was read regularly. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 19:06:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25204; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:06:40 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:03:43 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960404190342_505919328@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Gergesenes and tc Content-Length: 279 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a message dated 96-04-04 16:56:49 EST, you write: >reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism? Why do the two need to be reconciled? Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN 37845 From majordom Thu Apr 4 21:32:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25614; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:32:33 +0500 Message-Id: <3164173A.5032@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 18:38:50 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Gergesenes and tc References: <960404190342_505919328@emout10.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1047 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 96-04-04 16:56:49 EST, you write: > > >reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism? > > Why do the two need to be reconciled? > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI > Petros TN 37845 It of course depends on one's viewpoint whether there is any need for reconciliation. If one puts little faith in traditional (if I may use that term) textual criticism and, e.g., assumes that there is no reason to prefer one manuscript or text tradition over another, then archaeological/geographical evidence can be considered decisive. Or, if one agrees that the autographs can be mistaken about such geographical details, then contradictions are of no concern. I accept (by faith) the accuracy of the autographs and prefer the criteria of sound textual criticism (as stated by Metzger et al.) to the arguments of Burgon and Hodges, so I am left with a more difficult problem. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Thu Apr 4 21:40:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25651; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:40:53 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:37:59 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: autographs versus archetypes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2383 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Richard K. Moore wrote on 2 Apr 1996: >What working hypothesis ought a textual critic have for any 'autograph' >of a NT writing? . . . It would be surprising if there were >absolutley no errors in any of the original compositions of the NT, and >naturally, the possibility of error increases with the increase in >length of a document. The textual critic has to proceed under a double burden: the natural process of composition and production of an "autograph" of any work, and (in the case of the biblical books) the theological issue of divine inspiration and whatever that may entail. My intention is to keep those two issues separate in the praxis of textual criticism, even though I obviously have a faith presupposition regarding the autograph. As I noted before, I do not desire to enter into a theological debate on inspiration and what it may or may not entail, for the simple reason that this will in no way help to restore an archetypical "autograph" text. The only point textual critics need to hold is that they are pressing toward a goal or restoring an "autograph," whether that be an inerrant and perfect composition, or whether that be whatever underlies the quest for "autograph authenticity," including a document which (as Mr. Moore suggests) may have had at least scribal errors in the original document. For me, there is no problem whatever in pursuing the text-critical quest of the autograph without allowing the theological considerations to control the nature or appearance of what that autograph "must" look like. >The view that the autographs themselves were completely free of >(unintentional) errors is itself a faith statement. Which usually is answered by the glib remark that no one has ever seen or restored the "errant autographs" either. *;-) I for one have never had a problem crop up in textual criticism which had to be resolved by appeal to the theological argument of inspiration or inerrancy. The data speak well enough for themselves to allow autograph restoration with an extremely high degree of certainty. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 21:42:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25665; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:42:31 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:39:36 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Archetype and autograph Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 11164 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Timothy John Finney wrote on 2 Apr 1996: >Zuntz points out in his _Disquisition on the Corpus Paulinum_ that every >MS of Paul's letters is a collection. Zuntz was speaking of extensive papyri and not of fragments. P10 is a clear example of a simple schoolboy practice scrawl on the back of a piece of secular papyrus, with no intent to complete even the book of Romans with which it begins. >agreement that Paul's letters and Hebrews were in circulation as a >collection by 100 AD. This is now basically granted. >When I mentioned archtype rather than autograph in my initial post, it >was with this in mind. No one knows what happened between the original >composition of these writings and their collection into one corpus, but >here is a possible scenario (the usual arguments about dating etc. aside): The historical transmission reconstruction is appreciated, even though I differ from it significantly. >1) 55 - 70 AD Paul's letters and Hebrews written and sent (copies may have >been made for other churches, especially where the letter was addressed >to one but instructions were given for it to be read in others). Certainly, though I and most conservatives will put the dates earlier, from about 49-64, presuming Pauline authenticity of the entire corpus (some however excluding Hebrews, which nevertheless circulated among that corpus). >2) Some enterprising early believer, probably while being reprimanded for >wasting time on trifles, decided to collect Paul's writings. Who was it? Why could it not have been the churches themselves, exchanging documents and slowly building up a corpus collection? Certainly Colossians was read across the river in Laodicea, as well as a lost Pauline letter (or Ephesians as some think) being read in Colossae. This situation would readily be repeated as churches which had Pauline contact would want to know what he had written to their sister churches. >As others have pointed out, this would most practically have been >achieved by writing to the various letters' custodian churches asking for >copies (aside from letters already at hand). Such would be the case, but once more there is no reason to suspect a single individual doing this any more than a given church writing to another church requesting a copy of what the apostle wrote. Economically, it would make more sense even in the era of papyrus for a church to make copies which it then could read or circulate to its parishoners, rather than for an individual to assemble such a collection. Remember Tertullian's appeal in his Prescription against Heretics -- you are to go to the various churches to which the apostles themselves wrote, and from there to assemble the "authenticae litterae" in order to refute heretical corruption. The evidence certainly seems to point to church archives as the basis for the Pauline corpus rather than individuals. >3) Copies of letters not already at hand would be made (with varying >accuracy, I dare say) and sent to the intrepid collector. This person >then copied all of the letters into a single collection which is the >archtype on which all subsequent copies of the Pauline collection are >based. Where a copy of the collection was sent back to a church holding >one of the originals, it could have been cross-checked. I appreciate the implication that cross-checking against the autographs could be made, though the "varying" degrees of "accuracy" in the existing early copies would seem to suggest that this was not done on any frequent or systematic basis. My main argument against the single-corpus = archetype scenario is again transmissional: if errors existed in the corpus-archetype, why do they not exist among the extant MSS in significant quantity, transcending the various texttype limits? Cross-comparison and correction can only go far enough to restore the ultimate archetype postulated, and if that archetype is not the actual autograph copy of a work, then error held in common by all MSS of all texttypes should result. I suspect that even the collected Pauline corpus was subject to cross-comparison and correction from other freely circulating MSS which were not part of such a corpus. Only in this way would the initial errors which may have affected the corpus-as-a-whole be eliminated (unless one wanted to postulate a complete correction of the corpus against the autograph of each of the individual letters, which I think unlikely). >Many implications spring from this possible scenario: >1) The autographs are (at least) one copy distant from the archtype for all >letters in the Pauline collection, except those that were already in the >possession of the original collector. Agreed that the autographs preceded the corpus archetype by at least one generation. However, it remains debatable whether the corpus archetype is a single document as postulated, or whether there were _many_ corpus-archetypes, each reflecting a slightly different text of the collection as assembled and compared by various churches. I opt for the latter. >2) Production of the archtype introduced another copying step. The same holds for multiple "corpus archetypes." >3) Nevertheless, the collection archetype could be compared with the >autographs whenever a copy of the collection archtype was sent to a custodian >of an autograph. Possible, but I suspect unlikely, since I do not see the single corpus archetype being sent from church to church like a college yearbook to be autographed, nor do I see the various churches which each may have assembled their own "Pauline corpuses" circulating them in this manner, but instead simply using them within their own local church contexts. (This is still in the era of persecution and the uncontrolled popular text). >4) These primary copying steps are a possible source of the primitive >corruptions that have been discussed by Maurice Robinson and James Adair. I'll let Jimmy handle that one, since I don't think we have any "primitive corruptions" which transcend all our extant evidence. >Aspects of this theory may even be testable: if certain members of the >collection have significantly less of what seem to be primitive >corruptions than would be expected from the overall average then this may >be due to those members having been copied less before incorporation into >the archtype collection. First problem: what are the "primitive corruptions" and how does one authoritatively recognize them? You cannot test a hypothesis without a standard of comparison, and I doubt any two textual critics would agree on a list of primitive corruptions for even Romans, let alone the entire Pauline corpus. The better way to test such a theory is genealogical, based upon collation data. Evaluation of scribal tendencies must first be determined by examining singular readings (as did Colwell) on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis. Following this, one needs to search for readings shared by only two, three, or even four MSS in order to attempt a stemma for what appear to be closely-related MSS. If, having done all that, certain MSS appear to share readings in common with great frequency, they are likely related. If shared errors begin to transcend all or nearly all MSS of the extant tradition, one can then and only then presuppose descent from a common archetype of the corpus or the autograph, whichever one might prefer. My presumption is that the result of such a test will be no errors held in the common degree necessary to postulate the intermediate archetype which stands between the autograph and the existing texttypes. >(What a shame that there are no papyri which have >the two letters to Timothy.) There always is hope. (I hope when such are discovered, their text will be Byzantine *;-) >On a related matter, a couple of years ago I wrote a C program that >simulates copying. It starts off with a row of zeroes, then introduces >'variants' by incrementing zeroes at random with a certain (low) >probability. There are parameters included which give the 'manuscripts' >(i.e. rows of numbers) chances of dying of old age or by violent death. >This is a funny program. Sometimes it seems to not work. That's because no >copies get made because the autograph dies or is killed before it gets >copied. This is likely a flaw in the program based upon a faulty assumption. If related to all documents ever written, secular, theological, grocery lists, etc., then certainly the disappearance of the autograph might well occur in the majority of instances. For literary works, however, this is not likely the case, and especially for theological works, which intensifies with the issue of canonicity and authority being assigned to those works. Adjust the program to remove that possibility, and I would be interested to see what might result. >One outcome which I found interesting was that once a sample of the set of >copies produced was taken, it was quite common (depending on the >probabilities put into the program at the start) for a number besides zero >(the original 'reading') to predominate at a particular 'variation unit'. Did you have a parameter included which would allow for a regular or almost regular process of cross-comparison and correction to occur, including a proviso that when the exemplar differed from the second MS used for correction, a third copy might be sought out in at least 50% of the cases. If you can reprogram with that scenario included, I again would be interested in the results. >Modeling of early copying might produce some clues to help us in our >attempt to reconstruct the development of the New Testament text. This principle is valid, which is why I urge you to rework your C program and input different parameters to see what other possibilities might arise. >One phenomenon which happens in other populations is that conditions >which adversely affect a first population but favour or don't affect a >second, lead to a predomination of the varieties in the second >population. On the face of it, this could explain why the Byzantine >text became dominant after the Moslem conquest of Egypt. Whether or not >the Egyptian or Byzantine variety is closest to the original is another >question. I don't think this will apply to the situation of the Moslem conquest for reasons stated quite a while back. Destruction of a local text will not cause ramifications which overwhelm the dominant text, and conversely, if the Alexandrian text were the dominant text, the Moslem conquest would not overwhelm its continued promulgation in the remainder of the Empire. Removal of the influence of the Alexandrian text elsewhere in the Empire MIGHT speed up the time necessary for the dominance of the Byzantine Textform, but the process as a whole would not be altered or adversely affected. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 4 22:33:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25784; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:33:38 +0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:30:44 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mk 3:32 In-Reply-To: <960404170212_369129833@emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3374 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > "kai hai adelphai sou" is omitted by a good range of Alexandrian, Byzantine > and Western (!) mss. in Mark 3:32. It is found in a few mss of different > families (!). It is not included by a very broad range of witnesses from all texttypes. Its inclusion (UBS3) in 2 uncials, 9 minuscules, a divided old latin community and a few lectionaries and minor versions does not exactly commend itself, especially when one of the uncials which include it (A) is a normally Byzantine entity which has departed from the fold. The second uncial (D) is a Western entity which reflects about half of the Western tradition, but no more. One thing is certain: the longer reading cannot reflect harmonization to the Matthean or Lukan parallels, since those parallels similarly omit the mention of sisters, even within the same MSS which in Mark contain the sister reference. > So, would the participants of this forum describe this as a theological > omission, or a simple case of parablepsis? A presumptive case can indeed be made for omission of the clause "and your sisters" by simple parablepsis aggravated by homoioteleuton. Indeed, were the external evidence reversed, that is precisely how I would argue the case. However, since the vast majority of MSS (comprising the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Caesarean and even Western texttypes) are the ones containing the shorter text as opposed to the longer reading, I cannot use the transcriptional argument here to suggest accidental omission. Since no parallels occur which include the words, deliberate copying from a parallel passage is similarly ruled out. I can only suggest the possibility that the addition of this clause was made for balance, in order to make the mention of sisters coincide with Jesus' later statement in verse 35 which includes the mention of sisters. This is "harmonization to the immediate context" and likely explains why no similar addition occurs among the MSS in the Matthean parallel, the addition being peculiar to Mark. That the uncials A and D as well as the 9 minuscules mentioned owe their common reading here to one or more lost archetypes seems certain. I suspect that those archetypes stem from the old latin, and that this type of reading is symptomatic of the "uncontrolled popular text" of the early centuries, which has left its sporadic traces through the centuries and has infected a small number of surviving MSS which are otherwise more normally Byzantine in character. I note also that Mk's v.35 also concurs with the final statement in the Matthean pericope, since both includes sisters. Luke's closing statement, on the other hand, has no mention of sisters, which agrees with his former statement. I see no theological bias or other outside reason for the deliberate addition of the clause in Mark; only a harmonization to the immediate context. I do presume that the longer reading is secondary and that the shorter reading in this situation is original; I doubt that many eclectic critics will argue otherwise. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Fri Apr 5 11:13:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27804; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:13:29 +0500 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:10:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: autographs and archetypes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4307 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 2 Apr 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote: [first quoting Robinson:] >> No other work of antiquity has such a wealth of support, and no >> classical scholar would suggest that primitive error were likely >> in such a situation. >It is quite an other thing, to be sure, if one has to accept every >single conjectural emendation, but it is simply a fact that most, if >not all classical scholars never totally rule out the need for >divinatio even in the New Testament. Most classical scholars are not dabbling in NT matters; however, if any would do so and still claim conjecture as a necessary principle, they are carrying baggage left over from the usual paucity of documentary evidence which prevails among the classics. I still maintain that any responsible classical editor, were he or she faced with an abundance of evidence for, say, Euripides, which approached that of the NT, would suddenly shrink back dramatically from any need for "divinatio". >I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the so-called >'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' (author >unknown, composed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The text is >conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th centuries. They >all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including >corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of leaves, >etc.). . . . >We know that the corruption goes back at least >to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at the >textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different >situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are today. What >makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source. This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical literature, and already begs for emendation. There is no parallel here to the NT situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and fathers, make a world of difference in regard to what praxis should be followed in relation to the NT data. >Personally I would opt for extreme caution with >respect to conjectural emendation. So would all eclectic critics, and in practice (save for Ac.16.12 in the current critical text) the consensus of even the eclectic critics is that conjectural emendation has no legitimate _necessity_ in regard to the text of the NT. So why is this point being so strongly maintained? Is there some compelling reason why the "uncertainty principle" needs to be held, even in light of the mass of evidence we possess? >On the other hand there >is the very crucial point that the New Testament is not just one book, >but in fact a _collection_ of books consisting of different >_subcollections_. With respect to this problem conjectural emendation >is never to be ruled out. The individual nature of the NT books is granted, but there is still no need for conjecture even in the books with the least amount of MS support. This also seems to be the opinion of the UBS/Nestle editors, since they do NOT adopt any conjectures into their main text of either the General Epp. or Revelation. The critical edition makes a conjecture but once, and that in Acts. So again, why is there a necessity to argue for the legitimacy of conjecture in relation to the NT data? >Because, what can be reconstructed as >archetype of the textual transmission may not be identical with what >was written down for example by Tertius (c.f. the doxology and the >ending of Pauls letter to the Romans). This depends upon the theory of the archetype, and whether it it is considered to equal the autograph. In the case of the doxology to Romans, I have no problem with placing that doxology where it properly (and rhetorically) belongs, viz. at the end of chapter 14; the epistle then properly (and rhetorically) ends with the shorter doxology of 16.24 (which verse is omitted in the critical text due to the obvious recensional activity which led to the relocation of the doxology to that final location, Harry Gamble to the contrary). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Fri Apr 5 14:19:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00219; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:19:18 +0500 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:16:25 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960405141624_506574820@mail06> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: The long ending of Mark Content-Length: 342 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu It seems to me that the long ending of Mark has been virtually abandoned by text critics. Are there any today who still believe it to be authentic? (I ask because I learned today that F.D.E. Schleiermacher accepted it as authentic!!!). Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI From majordom Fri Apr 5 16:33:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01030; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:33:43 +0500 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:30:52 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960405163051_185456939@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Von Soden Content-Length: 278 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In an earlier posting it was mentioned that one should look at von Soden and Tischendorf first, and then the "handbooks". Are these still available somewhere? If so, where? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI From majordom Fri Apr 5 18:03:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01433; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:03:18 +0500 Message-Id: <199604052300.SAA22336@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 17:50:22 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Von Soden Content-Length: 4320 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On April 5, Jim West asked: >In an earlier posting it was mentioned that one should look at von Soden and >Tischendorf first, and then the "handbooks". Are these still available >somewhere? If so, where? > The earlier post was mine. >From your question, it is unclear if your "these" references von Soden and Tischendorf, or the "pocket editions" (in German "Handausgaben"; this is the expression I used, not "handbooks"...). By "pocket editions," I meant any of the editions of the NT which have abbreviated apparatuses: this would include all editions of Nestle-Aland, all the UBS editions, Souter, Bover, Merk, etc., etc. These all have wretchedly incomplete apparatuses--understadably, however, because they are the "Reader's Digest" version of the apparatus. One should ALWAYS consult an "editio maior"--full/large edition--of the NT, which has a full/complete apparatus (that is, as full or as complete as is/was available at the time of publication; NO edition gives ALL the evidence, for it has not yet been assembled...). The three most useful and complete are: 1) C. von Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum Graece_; the 8th edition ("editio octava critica maior") of 1894 is the best, with the fullest apparatus and fewest printing errors. The _Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_ describes it as "by reason of the abundance of its data a standard book of reference for the text of the NT." 2) H.F. von Soden, __Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer aeltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte_ (in two part [three volumes]). The dates of publication vary slightly, as the first part went through two editions (the second in 1911); the text, in part 2, appeared in 1913. Of it Metzger says, "The most monumental edition of the Greek New Testament that has appeared thus far in the twentieth century is von Soden's [title as above]...." 3) The three parts (in four volumes) of the _New Testament in Greek_, published by the British and American committees of the International Greek NT Project. Vol. 1, _Nouum Testamentum Graece_, edited by SCE Legg (Oxford 1935), was followed by Legg's edition of Matthew (Oxford 1940). The text of Luke appeared in two volumes (Oxford 1984 and 1987). On the Luke volumes, you can see my review in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_ 107 (1988), 758-762. All of these should be available in any serious (= major) university library; I have them all two feet behind me in my office--within arm's reach. All are OP (out of print), although Tischendorf's 8th was reprinted in Graz (?) in 1972 or so. All are described in any handbook (_sic_!) of textual criticism: Metzger, etc. One additional note: If one is REALLY serious, one should also always check A. Juelicher's edition of the gospels in the Vetus Latina version (4 volumes), and one of the editions of the Old Syriac gospels (F.C. Burkitt's is probably most useful, for it combines both Syr-s and Syr-c, and offers an English translation--which is usually pretty accurate). The reason for this is three-fold: (1) UBS4 dates the two MSS of the "Old Syriac" to the "third/fourth century" (see p. 26*). This would make Syr-s, the older of these MSS, the OLDEST FULL TEXT OF THE GOSPELS, antedating both Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (alaph). (2) Even Westcott (followed by Eberhard Nestle, Alexander Souter, FC Burkitt, Voeoebus, etc.) admitted that the combination of _k_ [afra from the Vetus Latina] and the Old Syriac offers a text which is superior to that of alaph+B. (The actual quotations are all presented in my _Tatian's Diatessaron_ [1994], pp. 20-22; the Westcott citation is from the second edition of the Intro to Westcott & Hort's _NT in the original Greek_ [1896], p. 328.) (3) Most importantly, all of the "pocket editions" cite these versions only occasionally, not consistently. Therefore, one can easily be misled about the true depth and breadth of evidence by assuming that "since they cited _d_ and _a_ and the Old Syriac two verses ago, but not in this verse, there must not be any evidence from these versions in this verse..." You will be surprised what you find if you look at the actual editions of these versions. N.B.: The "e"s in Juelich- and Voeoebus are the German umlaut. Petersen--Penn State University From majordom Fri Apr 5 22:23:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02106; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:23:40 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:25:50 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark Content-Length: 705 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Jim West wrote; >It seems to me that the long ending of Mark has been virtually abandoned by >text critics. Are there any today who still believe it to be authentic? (I >ask because I learned today that F.D.E. Schleiermacher accepted it as >authentic!!!). > W.R. Farmer of SMU several years back published an article arguing for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. It's obviously conflate nature fits well with the contention that all of Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke. I still consider the ending to have been constructed in the second century before the time of Tatian. Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From majordom Sat Apr 6 02:21:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02802; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 02:21:38 +0500 Message-Id: <9604060719.AA24122@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 09:19:53 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: Luke 12,58 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 8218 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > (Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96)... >> Given the fact, that in Lk 12,58 the "Byzantine reading reflects >> the literary, if not the classical perspective what about the >> argument from lectio difficilior? I may refer to your case on >> 1.Cor 13,3, the so-called "future subjunctive" of the Byzantine >> tradition. > This is twisting the Bl.-Debr. comment around: the "literary" as > opposed to the "vernacular" regards those constructions such as > are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, where a fine line > is drawn between matters dependent on the will and those not > dependent on such. The Byzantine text is the one which does NOT > reflect the classical perspective, but merely the normal > vernacular which subsumes all elements of a clause under the > leading subjunctive. Am I being misunderstood on this point? I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the classical > perspective. > The use of the fut.indic. in Lk.12:58 appears thus to be a late > variant created within the Alexandrian texttype, and an > alteration reflecting common vernacular rather than normal > literary style. I was only quoting. On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson further wrote: > The classical use of the subjunctive occurs "if the > anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent > on the will" say Bl.-Debr., but this strictly applies only to the > initial KATASURH _if_ settlement is not made with the adversary. > All further clauses remain subjunctive under normal grammatical > patterns, since they remain dependent upon the initial condition > not being fulfilled (MHPOTE). This is classical usage and the > normal grammatical pattern one encounters in the NT. The case is > clearly conditional, and requires the normal use of the > subjunctive throughout the clauses (like the mathematical > distributive law). Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical usage, and which side the more common vernacular? >From my point of view I may suggest how the misunderstanding possibly arose. Therefor, I would like to give the main outline of the arguments (to be shure, from my perspective) without quoting too much (additions, corrections, etc. are required). 1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern. 2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He, on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex. future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than normal literary style". 3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern. 4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely the normal vernacular...". He achieved this twist by supposing that "the 'litterary' as opposed to the 'vernacular' regards those constructions such as are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, where a fine line is drawn between matters dependent on the will and those not dependent on such". Again, this reasoning is dependent on Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.). But nevertheless, what was initially labled to be "common vernacular" (i.e. Alex. indicatives) has now turned out to be a grammatically sophisticated construction which "(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a more 'classical' and literary approach". On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like to comment: a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication on the Alexandrian side. With this example in mind the overall agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no sense at all. Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, they simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated. b) The whole situation becomes even more puzzling if I may take into account what Maurice further wrote: > I really do not know what may have motivated a small group of > scribes in any given situation, so all here is speculation. > I do suspect that the use of the indicative here by the > Alexandrian MSS may reflect a recensional mindset aligned in some > way with the classical restorations performed in Alexandria, > which mindset may well focus on peculiar items like the > indicative vs. subjunctive situation. There may also be a > reflection as to the way Greek grammar was practiced in Egypt as > opposed to elsewhere in the Roman world; also perhaps some > influence from Coptic grammatical structure. These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12). c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts: Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. On the other hand we have undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do _not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. It is precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than the other way round. Note, this is only a rule of thumb, but to my mind it fits perfectly well to the data involved in this discussion (cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk 14,2; Lk 12,58; John 12,40; Act 28,27; Heb 3,12). The evidence I reviewed up to now points to only one conclusion: The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical features under discussion, than the other witnesses. A preliminary glance at the INA clauses seems to point in the same direction. d) To hopefully avoid some misconception I should add that I don't want to even the data. I shurely will not blame the Byzantine scribes for not having "corrected" all the indicatives, nor do I wish to propose conjectural emendation where a subjunctive might be "desperatly required". (This I stated with referrence to Heb 3,12 only because I commented on Maurice introducing the notion of will. I think, the overall agreed future indicative in Heb 3,12 confirms my suggestion that the notion of will is not at work when speculating on reasons for scribes altering the text.) I just wished to have as many data as possible from as many manuscripts as possible to assess grammatical features like that in order to get a comprehensive picture of shifts in a _historical_ perspective. The data which are up to now under discussion are in favour of my position: The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical features under discussion, than the other witnesses. Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of speculations like the above mentioned. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Sat Apr 6 06:31:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03273; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:31:27 +0500 Message-Id: <9604061129.AA23580@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 13:29:44 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: Luke 12,58 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 6081 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [Long message -- Part 2 of 2] >From my point of view I may suggest how the misunderstanding possibly arose. Therefor, I would like to give the main outline of the arguments (to be shure, from my perspective) without quoting too much (additions, corrections, etc. are required). 1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern. 2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He, on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex. future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than normal literary style". 3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern. 4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely the normal vernacular...". He achieved this twist by supposing that "the 'litterary' as opposed to the 'vernacular' regards those constructions such as are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, where a fine line is drawn between matters dependent on the will and those not dependent on such". Again, this reasoning is dependent on Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.). But nevertheless, what was initially labled to be "common vernacular" (i.e. Alex. indicatives) has now turned out to be a grammatically sophisticated construction which "(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a more 'classical' and literary approach". On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like to comment: a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication on the Alexandrian side. With this example in mind the overall agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no sense at all. Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, they simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated. b) The whole situation becomes even more puzzling if I may take into account what Maurice further wrote: > I really do not know what may have motivated a small group of > scribes in any given situation, so all here is speculation. > I do suspect that the use of the indicative here by the > Alexandrian MSS may reflect a recensional mindset aligned in some > way with the classical restorations performed in Alexandria, > which mindset may well focus on peculiar items like the > indicative vs. subjunctive situation. There may also be a > reflection as to the way Greek grammar was practiced in Egypt as > opposed to elsewhere in the Roman world; also perhaps some > influence from Coptic grammatical structure. These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12). c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts: Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. On the other hand we have undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do _not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. It is precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than the other way round. Note, this is only a rule of thumb, but to my mind it fits perfectly well to the data involved in this discussion (cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk 14,2; Lk 12,58; John 12,40; Act 28,27; Heb 3,12). The evidence I reviewed up to now points to only one conclusion: The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical features under discussion, than the other witnesses. A preliminary glance at the INA clauses seems to point in the same direction. d) To hopefully avoid some misconception I should add that I don't want to even the data. I shurely will not blame the Byzantine scribes for not having "corrected" all the indicatives, nor do I wish to propose conjectural emendation where a subjunctive might be "desperatly required". (This I stated with referrence to Heb 3,12 only because I commented on Maurice introducing the notion of will. I think, the overall agreed future indicative in Heb 3,12 confirms my suggestion that the notion of will is not at work when speculating on reasons for scribes altering the text.) I just wished to have as many data as possible from as many manuscripts as possible to assess grammatical features like that in order to get a comprehensive picture of shifts in a _historical_ perspective. The data which are up to now under discussion are in favour of my position: The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical features under discussion, than the other witnesses. Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of speculations like the above mentioned. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Sat Apr 6 06:39:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03296; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:39:47 +0500 Message-Id: <9604061137.AA23944@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 13:38:05 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: autographs and archetypes To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 5697 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 5 Arr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [first quoting Schmid:] >>I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the >>so-called 'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' >>(author unknown, composed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The >>text is >>>conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th >>centuries. They >>all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including >>corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of >>leaves, >>etc.). . . . >>We know that the corruption goes back at least >>to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at >>the >>textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different >>situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are >>today. What >>makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source. >This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical >literature, and >already begs for emendation. There is no parallel here to the NT >situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and fathers, >make a world of difference in regard to what praxis should be >followed in relation to the NT data. May be I should have stated the parallel more clearly. In New Testament textual transmission there is only one manuscript which is near the mark "40 to 70 years after the date of composition" of the New Testament writing that it testifies to, the famous P52. This manuscript consists in its actual state of less then a quarter of a single papyrus sheet. On the other hand, the textual transmission of the dialogue, allthough going back to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition, already contained a fair number of textual corruptions. The restoration of the original reading of at least one of these corruptions would have been virtually impossible, if we did not have access to the dialogues's source. I mentioned this example only to illustrate the possibility of scribal error creeping in textual transmissions at a very early stage, and _not_ being removable within the textual transmission itself. Personally, I can not see what the constant appeal to the "wealth of support" really meens, if _only_ to indicate that the sheer amount of data involved can be seen as the greatest challange to editorial enterprise ever to be found on this planet. Precisely therefor, I would opt for extreme caution with respect to conjectural emendation. I may refer to Hort's famous statement: KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGMENT UPON READINGS. But, looking from a theoretical perspective on the amount of data, there is nothing within this situation that can completely rule out conjectural emendation. To assess the "wealth of support" notion from a slightly different angle I may refer to what Maurice Robinson wrote on Wed, 20 Mar 1996: [first quoting Klaus Wachtel:] >>What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then? > Without going into a very extended discussion here, I would > suggest that at the time of the switch from uncial to minuscule > (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were selected as archetypes > for the primary minuscule copies. In the case of 1John, the key > MS which was selected apparently had omitted the clauses in > question by homoioteleuton, and the later MSS which were copied > therefrom followed suit in the omission. > If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity > during the very initial period of minuscule distribution, the > _omission_ of those two readings would dominate and (through the > cross-correction process) would eliminate whatever vestiges > remained of the longer reading which had previously dominated > transmissional history before the radical change of script. > I.e., the cross-comparison and correcting process would work > normally, but the minuscule would form a new "archetype" which > would dominate the tradition from that point... > This does not invalidate the former hypothesis, but in fact > confirms it, given that a "new" archetype situation has come into > existence. A "'new' archetype situation" in fact makes our work much easier. Because, once an archetype, or hyparchetype situation is settled the whole bulk of MSS belonging to that part of the transmission can be subsumed under one, or at least very few MS(S). MSS belonging to an archetype, or hyparchetype are by defintion no independent witnesses. They usually only testify to the textual transmission that started with the archetype, or hyparchetype. If in the archetype, or hyparchetype corruption occured in some instances then the bulk of dependent MSS normally would faithfully render the corruption (especially homoioteleuton like stuff). I am not particulary unhappy to get the opportunity with respect to 1John 2,23, and 3,1 to reduce the amount of data in the Catholic Epistles due to the "'new' archetype situation", though I would rather call it a new _hyparchetype_ situation. I may give the data as follows (c.f. _Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, I. Die Katholischen Briefe, Bd.1: Das Material [ed. K. Aland], DeGruyter: 1987_ l.c.) a) In 1John 2,23 a total of 402 MSS give the homoioteleuton corruption (= h.c.), whereas a total of 115 MSS lack the h.c. b) In 1John 3,1 a total of 426 MSS give the h.c., whereas a total of 78 MSS lack the h.c. To conclude from these data I may state that around 75 per cent of the MSS can be subsumed under just one, or only very few leading MS(S). This reduces the amount of data tremendously, and we are left with around 25 per cent of the MSS which is still a lot but not threatening at all. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Sat Apr 6 06:54:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03328; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:54:47 +0500 Message-Id: <9604061125.AA15362@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 13:25:42 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: Luke 12,58 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 2417 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Due to some mail delivery subsystem complain I may divide my last message. I never thought that this would happen. Sorry, but I am a real beginner in the e-mail world. (Long message -- Part 1 of 2) On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > (Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96)... >> Given the fact, that in Lk 12,58 the "Byzantine reading reflects >> the literary, if not the classical perspective what about the >> argument from lectio difficilior? I may refer to your case on >> 1.Cor 13,3, the so-called "future subjunctive" of the Byzantine >> tradition. > This is twisting the Bl.-Debr. comment around: the "literary" as > opposed to the "vernacular" regards those constructions such as > are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, where a fine line > is drawn between matters dependent on the will and those not > dependent on such. The Byzantine text is the one which does NOT > reflect the classical perspective, but merely the normal > vernacular which subsumes all elements of a clause under the > leading subjunctive. Am I being misunderstood on this point? I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the classical > perspective. > The use of the fut.indic. in Lk.12:58 appears thus to be a late > variant created within the Alexandrian texttype, and an > alteration reflecting common vernacular rather than normal > literary style. I was only quoting. On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson further wrote: > The classical use of the subjunctive occurs "if the > anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent > on the will" say Bl.-Debr., but this strictly applies only to the > initial KATASURH _if_ settlement is not made with the adversary. > All further clauses remain subjunctive under normal grammatical > patterns, since they remain dependent upon the initial condition > not being fulfilled (MHPOTE). This is classical usage and the > normal grammatical pattern one encounters in the NT. The case is > clearly conditional, and requires the normal use of the > subjunctive throughout the clauses (like the mathematical > distributive law). Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical usage, and which side the more common vernacular? [continued in Part 2] Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Sat Apr 6 15:00:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04676; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:00:48 +0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:57:55 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark In-Reply-To: <960405141624_506574820@mail06> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1791 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > It seems to me that the long ending of Mark has been virtually abandoned by > text critics. Are there any today who still believe it to be authentic? (I > ask because I learned today that F.D.E. Schleiermacher accepted it as > authentic!!!). Those who favor the Byzantine Textform fully support the long ending of Mark, and will follow the reading found among approximately 2000 continuous text Greek MSS, which reflects _all_ known texttypes as opposed to the joint reading of _only_ Aleph, B, and the 12th century MS 304 among Greek MS witnesses. William Farmer also considers the longer reading to be authentic, even though he does not favor Markan authorship for the passage. Most eclectics will also likely choose to include the passage, albeit in brackets. I suspect those who consider the true ending of Mark to actually occur at 16:8 will be in the minority among scholars today. Many eclectics will espouse a "lost" original ending which has been supplemented by either the longer or shorter ending, though in view of merely three MSS which happen to omit the long ending plus a few more which contain it with obeli, I suspect (as Colwell stated) the dead hand of Hort still weighs heavily upon modern eclectics. Were Aleph and B not imbued with such decisive authority, more attention might be paid to the fact that sy-c contained the longer ending, even when sy-s did not, and both those texts antedate Aleph and B. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sat Apr 6 18:17:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04852; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:17:20 +0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 16:25:34 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Luke 12,58 In-Reply-To: <9604060719.AA24122@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 10846 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >> leading subjunctive. Am I being misunderstood on this point? > I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this > statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >> The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the classical >> perspective. Oops!...If I wrote that, it was a "lapsus manus", and I must have typed "Byzantine" instead of "Alexandrian"; I confess scribal error in that case (or maybe I became totally confused and discombobulated). Please correct any assumptions based upon this error. My position _should_ have stated that, following what I read in Bl.-D., it was the _Alexandrian_ text which followed the literary perspective, while the Byzantine followed the normal "popular" or "normally grammatical" framework. >> All further clauses remain subjunctive under normal grammatical >> patterns, since they remain dependent upon the initial condition >> not being fulfilled (MHPOTE). This is classical usage and the >> normal grammatical pattern one encounters in the NT. The case is >> clearly conditional, and requires the normal use of the >> subjunctive throughout the clauses (like the mathematical >> distributive law). > Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical > usage, and which side the more common vernacular? I intend to state that the Koine of the Byztxt gives the "normal" classical usage, in which all verbs subsumed under a subjunctive clause remain subjunctive; this is also the "popular" usage. The switch to non-subjunctive verbal forms in the clause would reflect the "literary classical" form as opposed to either the "normal" or "popular" form. I suspect that the error noted above or my own confused writing has caused all this confusion; please adjust accordingly *;-) Let me help reconstruct the scenario also: > 1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as > assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern. > > 2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but > disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He, > on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical > grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex. > future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged > the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than > normal literary style". This is the opposite of what I intended. The Alex readings would reflect the peculiar "literary style" rather than what would normally appear in popular Koine or in normal classical style. > 3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to > call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do > not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using > the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that > these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I > judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as > secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern. I agree that these readings do not reflect "normal" classical usage, but only the ephemeral "literary" usage suggested by Bl.-D. If Bl.-D. have later abandoned their suggestion on this point, then the variant unit devolves into transcriptional rather than grammatical issues (which is where I suspect it belongs in the first place). > 4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to > rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine > text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely > the normal vernacular...". Correction again, the Byz reflects the "normal vernacular" which also coincides with the normal "classical" approach, but not with the artificial "literary" approach. I am not intending to twist the matters, but I believe this stems from an initial misunderstanding of what I intended as I cited Bl.-D., plus the error of reading "Byzantine" when it should have been "Alexandrian." I again apologize for the confusion. Did I write that at 3AM?! I think that even _I_ have to go back and re-read my own posts! *;-) > On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like > to comment: > a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication > on the Alexandrian side. I actually consider the Alexandrian text to exhibit numerous cases of stylistic sophistication which are not present in the Byzantine text. I would suggest the likelihood of an Alexandrian local-text recension (contra Fee) which proceeded more on literary than upon vernacular grounds, and which also may have been affected by Coptic grammatical influences. > With this example in mind the overall > agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no > sense at all. Nor from a Byzantine mindset. So why did not one scribe alter the text there to a subjunctive? Simply because the text was held to be acceptable, for whatever reasons (grammatical, theological, etc.). If that reading simply "cried out" for a subjunctive, some scribe at least should have made the alteration. Maybe a "primitive error" exists? *;-) > Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three > finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first > and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, > they simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated. This is again supposing that Bl.-D. are correct on the notion of will being involved. I do not think the "fine line" distinction in Lk can hold, since the initial subjunctive remained such in Lk -- in Heb, what should have been the initial subjunctive simply wasn't, and even the Alexandrian scribes should have thought such peculiar; yet no attempts to correct the "problem." I suspect we know far less about how scribes perceived points of grammar than we think. > > Alexandrian MSS may reflect a recensional mindset aligned in some > > way with the classical restorations performed in Alexandria, > > which mindset may well focus on peculiar items like the > > indicative vs. subjunctive situation. There may also be a > > reflection as to the way Greek grammar was practiced in Egypt as > > opposed to elsewhere in the Roman world; also perhaps some > > influence from Coptic grammatical structure. > These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the > Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive > situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12). I do not see it that way at all. Most recensional activity would be practices on the gospels. The disputed nature of the book of Hebrews may have called for less activity. However, my claim in regard to Heb.3.12 is that such _is_ "grammatical", and obviously, since it caused no problems to scribes of _any_ textual tradition, we have to rethink some of our notions on NT Greek grammar. In Lk.12.58 on the other hand, if transcriptional reasons alone do not account for the alterations (which I think primarily the case), then there well may have been some fine points of literary style which may have influenced the change. I only bring up the grammatical possibilities in an attempt to possibly explain the reason for alteration, even though I consider transcriptional cause primary. > c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts: > Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can > be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. The issue is not with the normal use of a subjunctive following MHPOTE, but whether all remaining verbs in a subjunctive clause will remain subjunctive as well. > On the other hand we have > undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do > _not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under > discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some > later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. Once more, I do not consider either Mk.14.2 or Heb.3.12 as ungrammatical or as not reflecting classical usage. The scribes themselves did not so consider, and it is erroneous for us to make those specific cases using the irregular verb "to be" as normative for what will take place in every case where MHPOTE appears. I brought up those two cases only to demonstrate that, even in the Byzantine text of the NT, there is no scribal proclivity to alter indicatives following MHPOTE into subjunctives, which is what Ulrich claimed occurred in Lk.12.58. > It is > precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior > becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of > transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than the > other way round. But again, following Bl.-D. it appears that a peculiar _literary_ variety of grammar is reflected in allowing remaining verbs in a subjunctive clause to be indicatives. Both "normal" classical and Koine vernacular would have the verbs within the clause totally in the subjunctive (the verb "to be" perhaps being the only exception?). > The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) > gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical > features under discussion, than the other witnesses. A preliminary glance at the > INA clauses seems to point in the same direction. Kilpatrick in his article on Atticism in the Greek NT would differ strongly from that conclusion, since he finds the primary problem in that regard within the Alexandrian rather than the Byzantine text. > Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of > speculations like the above mentioned. Since so much of what is done in text-critical theory is speculation (including my own hypothesis), it seems difficult to think anyone from any text-critical school will soon change his or her mind while following the normal patterns. I acknowledge that my own opinion changed radically from eclecticism to Byzantine-priority after carefully studying all the data and developing a history of transmission which takes all known data into account. Is there anyone out there who has come to a _modern eclectic_ position who was not initially trained in such and accepted such from the beginning? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sat Apr 6 18:17:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04854; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:17:24 +0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:12:18 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Von Soden In-Reply-To: <960405163051_185456939@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1340 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > In an earlier posting it was mentioned that one should look at von Soden and > Tischendorf first, and then the "handbooks". Are these still available > somewhere? If so, where? Tischendorf's 1869 two text + apparatus volumes were reprinted in 1965 by Akademische Druck -u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria. I suspect some of those still remain in print, though I do not know at what cost. Von Soden's Greek NT was never reprinted, though some of the original prolegomena volumes from 1911-1913 can still be had from the original publisher, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Goettingen, Germany (sorry --the last copy of Von Soden's text + apparatus volume was sold to my co-editor in 1975; even my own copy of von Soden is a xerox). I know the Munster Institut has von Soden's own copy of his text + apparatus with corrections and supplements noted in the margins in anticipation of a second edition, but his death in a 1919 subway accident precluded that edition from ever coming into print. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sat Apr 6 18:17:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04853; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:17:21 +0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:27:59 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Syriac + it-k In-Reply-To: <199604052300.SAA22336@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1940 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > One additional note: If one is REALLY serious, one should also always check > A. Juelicher's edition of the gospels in the Vetus Latina version (4 > volumes), and one of the editions of the Old Syriac gospels (F.C. Burkitt's > is probably most useful, for it combines both Syr-s and Syr-c, and offers an > English translation--which is usually pretty accurate). The reason for this > is three-fold: (1) UBS4 dates the two MSS of the "Old Syriac" to the > "third/fourth century" (see p. 26*). This would make Syr-s, the older of > these MSS, the OLDEST FULL TEXT OF THE GOSPELS, antedating both Vaticanus > (B) and Sinaiticus (alaph). (2) Even Westcott (followed by Eberhard Nestle, > Alexander Souter, FC Burkitt, Voeoebus, etc.) admitted that the combination > of _k_ [afra from the Vetus Latina] and the Old Syriac offers a text which > is superior to that of alaph+B. (The actual quotations are all presented in > my _Tatian's Diatessaron_ [1994], pp. 20-22; the Westcott citation is from > the second edition of the Intro to Westcott & Hort's _NT in the original > Greek_ [1896], p. 328.) In regard to assuming that sy-s + it-k or any other combination of versions presents a superior text -- whatever happened to the principle that the _Greek_ MSS are or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ NT text? Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance, and appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never become primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sat Apr 6 18:43:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04990; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:43:07 +0500 Message-Id: <316692E4.13B4@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 15:51:00 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 616 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > W.R. Farmer of SMU several years back published an article arguing for the > authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. It's obviously conflate nature fits well > with the contention that all of Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke. Carlton, I am very weary of the so-called "assured result" of Marcan priority, so it's refreshing to see such a remark as this. Two questions: do you agree with this conflation theory (I infer that you do), and are there many other textual critics that would agree with it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Sat Apr 6 19:03:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05094; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 19:03:11 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:05:23 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark Content-Length: 1026 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Don Wilkens wrote; >Carlton, I am very weary of the so-called "assured result" of Marcan >priority, so it's refreshing to see such a remark as this. Two >questions: do you agree with this conflation theory (I infer that you >do), and are there many other textual critics that would agree with >it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise. > Sorry to disappoint you, but I was giving Farmer's view. He goes back to the Greisbach thesis which I consider untenable. There was a time when I was influenced by Farmer's book, The Synoptic Problem, but I took a year to work through and translate the triple and double traditions from the Greek verse by verse. I am thoroughly convinced that Matthew had a copy of Mark essentially as we have it. And also that Matthew and Luke shared some written sources for at least part of what we call "Q." material. Grace & Peace, Carlton Winbery END Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From majordom Sat Apr 6 19:06:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05112; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 19:06:39 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:08:52 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark Content-Length: 427 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Don, I might add that I later worked through Mann's commentary on Mark in the Anchor Bible written from the perspective of the Greisback hypothesis. His difficulty in making sense of the text and laborous efforts to explain Mark's method convinced me that his was a wasted interprize. Grace, Carlton END Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From majordom Sat Apr 6 19:57:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05265; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 19:57:40 +0500 Message-Id: <3166A45A.7BEB@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:05:30 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Luke 12,58 References: <9604061125.AA15362@mail.uni-muenster.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 966 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Gentlemen, I am very new to the tc list and have picked up some ongoing threads only recently. Having said that, I wonder if you have already discussed the fact that the future indicative is not unattested in classical literature in clauses of fearing and caution? Notably, in book 4.1.18 of Xenophon's _Cyropaedia_ one finds the future indicative used after MH in a caution clause cited in a speech given by Cyaxares: hORA MH POLLWN hEKASTWi hHMWN XEIRWN DEHSEI KAI OFQALMWN (...see to it that that each of us does not have need of many hands and eyes.). There may be other examples, and I suspect what we have is a clause of fearing using the future indicative in the sense of warning as was typical of "future emotional" conditions in classical Greek. Perhaps this is why Heb 3.12 apparently passed muster with the scribes. It does not necessarily cry out for a subjunctive. Again, I apologize if I am covering old ground. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Sat Apr 6 20:13:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05367; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 20:13:37 +0500 Message-Id: <3166A818.186B@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:21:28 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes References: <9604061137.AA23944@mail.uni-muenster.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1055 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I've mentioned before that I am new to this list, and I'm finding this and other threads most interesting. I share the feeling that emendation is not approriate to NT text criticism. As a classicist who started with NT studies, my experience has been that classicists do not really take into account the advantage of having abundant valuable mss for NT, and prefer to go about NT criticism in the same way they do for classical texts, where emendation is a necessity at times. The only real defense I have ever seen for this approach to the NT by classicists (other than the arguments I have been seeing in this thread) is that one should always start from scratch and give every ms equal weight with every other (i.e. ignore text type arguments etc.). I doubt very much that they would apply this technique to classical texts if there were an abundance of materials there as well (I for one would be overjoyed to find abundant classical mss, and would in that case immediately reevaluate the role of emendation). Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Sat Apr 6 20:21:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05422; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 20:21:48 +0500 Message-Id: <3166AA05.EE6@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:29:41 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1235 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > > Don Wilkens wrote; > >Carlton, I am very weary of the so-called "assured result" of Marcan > >priority, so it's refreshing to see such a remark as this. Two > >questions: do you agree with this conflation theory (I infer that you > >do), and are there many other textual critics that would agree with > >it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise. > > > Sorry to disappoint you, but I was giving Farmer's view. He goes back to > the Greisbach thesis which I consider untenable. There was a time when I > was influenced by Farmer's book, The Synoptic Problem, but I took a year to > work through and translate the triple and double traditions from the Greek > verse by verse. I am thoroughly convinced that Matthew had a copy of Mark > essentially as we have it. And also that Matthew and Luke shared some > written sources for at least part of what we call "Q." material. Thanks. I don't mean to continue this discussion and don't expect you to, but I should simply add that I would not agree with Farmer either. I was just pleasantly surprised to hear of someone espousing a non-Markan priority view in recent years. Grace & Peace to you as well, Dr. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Sat Apr 6 20:34:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05471; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 20:34:31 +0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 20:31:39 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960406203050_370486175@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Luke 12,58 Content-Length: 896 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Don, In a message dated 96-04-06 19:56:00 EST, you write: >I suspect what we have is a clause of fearing using the future >indicative in the sense of warning as was typical of "future >emotional" conditions in classical Greek. Perhaps this is why Heb >3.12 apparently passed muster with the scribes I don't know about Xenophon; but I would suggest that the grammar of the Greek NT follows much looser rules than you are intimating. If there is one thing that can be counted on, it is that the rules of grammar will be broken by the writers of the NT. You are liable to find anything grammatically (for instance the grammatically dreadful book of Revelation). Thus it is somewhat hazardous to press grammatical rules too far- they are guidelines, not stone inscribed dictum. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN 37845 From majordom Sat Apr 6 20:35:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05503; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 20:35:51 +0500 Message-Id: <3166AD50.2BAE@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:43:44 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1014 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > > Don, > I might add that I later worked through Mann's commentary on Mark in the > Anchor Bible written from the perspective of the Greisback hypothesis. His > difficulty in making sense of the text and laborous efforts to explain > Mark's method convinced me that his was a wasted interprize. Thanks, Carlton. I also want to apologize if my last message seemed a bit abrupt; it was only because I thought your "END" closing was meant to let me know that you did not want to discuss the matter further, and I see that I probably misconstrued. I do a lot of research with computer programming, and one thing I would like to explore is stylometric computer analysis. I'm not sure that it would have value for the synoptic problem, but it has been used a good deal for evaluating authorship problems etc. in classical literature. Thanks again. It's a pleasure to follow your discussions and I will continue to do so, hopefully getting up to speed in the process. Don Wilkins From majordom Sat Apr 6 21:56:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05667; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:56:07 +0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:56:01 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: H-e-l-p! Need DJD volumes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1903 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu List-owner's note: Make sure to avoid the word "help" in the subject line of messages to the tc-list. Majordomo, our automated mail program, thinks they are requests for information about the list. They will end up in my mailbox, but in no one else's! - Jimmy Adair ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:07:55 +0000 From: Dave Washburn To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I have a problem. I'm out here in some of the most gorgeous country on Earth, northwestern Wyoming, trying to update my book "A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Some of you may have seen this book listed in some Eisenbrauns catalogs a while back as part of the ETS Monograph Series. The long and short of it is, ETS had the ms for 10 years and didn't get it into print, so I have pulled it from them and am looking for another publisher. But a lot can happen in 10 years, especially in this field. So I need to update it. I have managed to keep somewhat current, but the recent appearance of 3 new volumes of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (volumes 10, 11 and 13, I believe) have put me miles behind. The problem: there isn't a library within a gazillion miles of me that has these volumes. The nearest decent theological library, at CBTS in Denver, only has through volume 9. I can't get the volumes by ILL from anywhere else that my local library is able to contact. If anybody on the TC list can help me find a way to borrow these books, please drop me an email directly at dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us. Wyoming is a great place to live and raise kids, and a lousy place to try and do this kind of research. I'd be willing to borrow the books one at a time, and would only need each one for about 3 weeks. I would also be willing to pay a small borrowing fee if necessary. Thanks for any help anybody can give! Dave From majordom Sun Apr 7 00:21:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06142; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:21:36 +0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:18:44 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes In-Reply-To: <9604061137.AA23944@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 8863 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Fri, 5 Arr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >>This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical >>literature, and already begs for emendation. There is no parallel >>here to the NT situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and >> fathers, make a world of difference in regard to what praxis should be >>followed in relation to the NT data. > May be I should have stated the parallel more clearly. In New > Testament textual transmission there is only one manuscript which > is near the mark "40 to 70 years after the date of composition" of > the New Testament writing that it testifies to, the famous P52. > This manuscript consists in its actual state of less then a quarter > of a single papyrus sheet. This in itself is irrelevant, since classical literature, with far fewer MSS is considered to have a basically secure text even though the oldest copies we possess are hundreds of years removed from the originals. Few if any classical works are considered to all stem from a corrupted archetype, and the same applies to the books of the NT. (P52 also is text-critically insignificant in proving or suggesting any early "corruption"). > On the other hand, the textual > transmission of the dialogue, allthough going back to 40 to 70 > years after the date of composition, already contained a fair > number of textual corruptions. This fact is certainly of significance when attempting to restore the text of that Dialogue. It clearly indicates that there was no great scribal concern for the text of that work in its earliest stages, but one cannot carry this over to the NT MSS themselves, since, even without bringing in issues of inspiration and canonicity, I think a very strong case can be made for a greater scribal concern with the NT documents than with minor theological treatises. But even so, the parallel exists: the second century MSS are far more "corrupt" than is the case with later MSS, and the whole concept of the "uncontrolled popular text" and Colwell's suggestion that all significant variants were created before AD 200 reflects a similar situation. However, the parallel breaks down as soon as it is presumed that all NT books somehow devolved into a "corrupt archetype" which then became the mother of all subsequent copies, as was clearly the case in regard to the anonymous Dialogue. > I mentioned this example only to illustrate the possibility of > scribal error creeping in textual transmissions at a very early > stage, and _not_ being removable within the textual transmission > itself. But if this were the case in regard to the transmission of the NT, one would have to show numerous or repeated instances of plain and clear error which permeated all MSS of all texttypes. In the case of the NT MSS, this simply cannot be done. > Personally, I can not see what the constant appeal to the "wealth > of support" really meens, if _only_ to indicate that the sheer > amount of data involved can be seen as the greatest challange to > editorial enterprise ever to be found on this planet. The challenge _is_ massive if the intended goal is to present an absolutely complete text + apparatus. However, if the goal is only to establish the original text of the NT documents, the amount of evidence we possess is more than adequate to the task. Any appeal to the "wealth of support" is with the latter goal in mind. > But, looking from a theoretical perspective on the amount of data, > there is nothing within this situation that can completely rule out > conjectural emendation. But within the "wealth of support" concept, the need for such is reduced to how many thousandths of a percent or less? All critics agree that the amount is so minimal as to be almost non-extant (as noted Ac.16.12 is the first and only conjecture ever to have made it into the pages of a critical NT Greek text). So why is it an absolute necessity to continue to postulate a presumption of primitive error which transcends all known MSS? This sounds like the old physics claim that if all electrons of a brick should suddenly align in the same direction, the brick would shoot through the roof -- nice in theory, but in practice such simply does not occur. > To assess the "wealth of support" notion from a slightly different > angle I may refer to what Maurice Robinson wrote on Wed, 20 Mar > 1996: >> Without going into a very extended discussion here, I would >> suggest that at the time of the switch from uncial to minuscule >> (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were selected as archetypes >> for the primary minuscule copies.... >> If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity >> during the very initial period of minuscule distribution, the >> _omission_ of those two readings would dominate and (through the >> cross-correction process) would eliminate whatever vestiges >> remained of the longer reading which had previously dominated >> transmissional history before the radical change of script. > A "'new' archetype situation" in fact makes our work much > easier. Because, once an archetype, or hyparchetype situation is > settled the whole bulk of MSS belonging to that part of the > transmission can be subsumed under one, or at least very few MS(S). The problem in regard to my own hypothesis applied to 1Jn.2.23 and 3.1 is that there is no evidence which strongly supports such a scenario. I maintain the hypothesis primarily on the basis of the strong internal considerations (homoioteleuton and Johannine style) which apply to the longer readings in those situations. If the internal grounds are indeed sufficiently strong, then the "new archetype(s)" situation, created in the initial stages of the minuscule era, might apply. Of course, if my hypothesis is wrong here (and my co-editor will be the first to declare such), then the shorter reading would remain defensible, but so also would the non-existence of a new archetype hypothesis. Keep in mind, however, that my "new archetype" suggestion is not made with the intention that a _single_ new archetype was ever created, but that during the conversion to minuscule form, the MS(S) which got the earliest start would have a _tendency_ to slowly overwhelm the upcoming tradition. A key problem with this hypothesis is that the change apparently did not happen "slowly," and this implies either that all minuscules descended from a single archetype (which seems unlikely in the extreme) or that a large number of early minuscules coincidentally omitted just those passages by homoioteleuton (which is possible, but still problematic). These considerations remain a primary reason for placing those longer readings in brackets, even if my hypothesis were to be implemented in our printed Greek text. That the longer readings do not now appear there (even in brackets) is due to the insistence of my co-editor at that point, who was working on textual matters before I was born, and to whose preference I deferred in the initial publication of our text. > a) In 1John 2,23 a total of 402 MSS give the homoioteleuton > corruption (= h.c.), whereas a total of 115 MSS lack the h.c. > b) In 1John 3,1 a total of 426 MSS give the h.c., whereas a total > of 78 MSS lack the h.c. This proportion of support to me seems sufficient on its face to include the longer reading within brackets. Had the shorter reading support been in an 8:1 or greater proportion, I would not be suggesting the same possibilities. > To conclude from these data I may state that around 75 per cent of > the MSS can be subsumed under just one, or only very few leading > MS(S). I would not claim that the "hyperarchetype" scenario would continue beyond the Johannine Epistles, or even beyond 1 Jn. Among the Gospels and Praxapostoloi there does not seem to be evidence tending in that same direction. The General Epistles as a whole have a different textual history, and it is likely that the Johannine Epistles within that group have their own peculiar history. > This reduces the amount of data tremendously, and we are > left with around 25 per cent of the MSS which is still a lot but > not threatening at all. My own suggestion of following Scrivener and eliminating all MSS beyond the tenth century would similarly reduce the amount of evidence to manageable proportions, and would not be dependent upon any secondary archetype hypothesis. I would prefer to go that route first. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sun Apr 7 00:26:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06164; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:26:14 +0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:23:23 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark In-Reply-To: <316692E4.13B4@ucr.campus.mci.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 862 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Don Wilkins wrote to Carlton Winbery: > Carlton, I am very weary of the so-called "assured result" of Marcan > priority, so it's refreshing to see such a remark as this. Two > questions: do you agree with this conflation theory (I infer that you > do), and are there many other textual critics that would agree with > it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise. Like the early fathers, I happen to hold to Matthean priority, but this does not mean that I consider Mark a mere conflation or abridgment of Matt and Lk. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sun Apr 7 00:30:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06184; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:30:16 +0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:27:25 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1134 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > I might add that I later worked through Mann's commentary on Mark in the > Anchor Bible written from the perspective of the Greisback hypothesis. His > difficulty in making sense of the text and laborous efforts to explain > Mark's method convinced me that his was a wasted interprize. Carlton, have you also worked through and evaluated Eta Linnemann's and John Wenham's current claims regarding the issue of eyewitness testimony as opposed to literary dependency? Even though Linnemann is theologically driven, she nevertheless presents a mass of data with which scholars must deal if they are to hold to Markan priority and the Q hypothesis. (I realize this discussion is getting off the track of textual criticism, so I will forego further discussion on these matters). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sun Apr 7 00:35:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06222; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:35:47 +0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:32:50 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Luke 12,58 In-Reply-To: <3166A45A.7BEB@ucr.campus.mci.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1704 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Don Wilkins wrote: > the future indicative is not > unattested in classical literature in clauses of fearing and caution? > Notably, in book 4.1.18 of Xenophon's _Cyropaedia_ one finds the > future indicative used after MH in a caution clause cited in a speech > given by Cyaxares: hORA MH POLLWN hEKASTWi hHMWN XEIRWN > DEHSEI KAI OFQALMWN (...see to it that that each of us does not > have need of many hands and eyes.). There may be other examples, > and I suspect what we have is a clause of fearing using the future > indicative in the sense of warning as was typical of "future > emotional" conditions in classical Greek. Perhaps this is why Heb > 3.12 apparently passed muster with the scribes. Don, thank you for this contribution. While I am not convinced that this construction would occur only with verbs of fearing and testing, it at least does provide an example from classical literature of what I would be terming the "literary" style mentioned by Bl.-D. as opposed to what normally obtained in the Koine of the NT era and in "normal" classical usage. However, I would also be interested to know whether scribes of Xenophon thought this future indicative in any way problematic, i.e., are there variant readings in the MSS of Xenophon which change the construction to a "normal" subjunctive, or is this untouched, as is the case in Heb.3.12 ? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sun Apr 7 15:21:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07500; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:21:09 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:23:16 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark Content-Length: 1568 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson wrote; >Carlton, have you also worked through and evaluated Eta Linnemann's and >John Wenham's current claims regarding the issue of eyewitness testimony >as opposed to literary dependency? Even though Linnemann is >theologically driven, she nevertheless presents a mass of data with which >scholars must deal if they are to hold to Markan priority and the Q >hypothesis. > Without going into all the evidence, I will say that I have worked thru Linnemann's book in great detail. I am convinced that her "amassing" such evidence was theologically driven and at points very imaginative. I had the privilege of "eating tea" often with John Wenham in Oxford and attending many debates with Wenham in 1983/84. He and I discussed what he was working on at the time _The Easter Enigma_ and I find his work in many places is controled by his desire to "harmonize" all the sources. Any historian will do some harmonizing but at places must admit that the records cannot be completely reconciled. At the time that I was meeting with Wenham, I also met fortnightly with G.D. Kilpatrick and attended G.B. Caird's lectures on the Synoptics and Caird's NT research seminar. In that very rich invironment I also translated the entire Synoptic tradition verse by verse from the Aland, Synopsis. I now say that the documentary (no one can say just two) hypothesis is still my working hypothesis, but it is not totally proven. Sincerely, Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From majordom Sun Apr 7 19:44:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08260; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:44:16 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 07:44:28 +0800 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: rmoore@central.murdoch.edu.au (Richard K. Moore) Subject: von Soden Content-Length: 577 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Especially for William L. Petersen (5 Apr 1996: tc-list digest IV # 47 1/2): I have been surprised at the high value placed on the apparatus of Von Soden's text by various contributors to this list. The Alands, with abundant resources for checking its accuracy, have claimed it is extremely inaccurate. What is the point of having it a few feet behind you if you have no way of verifying the notoriously inaccurate apparatus it contains? Richard K. Moore, Head of New Testament Department, Baptist Theological College of Western Australia; Lecturer, Murdoch University. From majordom Sun Apr 7 20:05:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08324; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:05:32 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:05:46 +0800 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: rmoore@central.murdoch.edu.au (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Synoptic source criticism Content-Length: 714 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Writing re. the Longer Ending of Mark, Maurice Robinson (7 April 1996: tc-list digest IV # 48 2/2) remarked that he was taking us off the track of textual criticism. Certainly this list ought not to degenerate into mere theorizing concerning textual criticism and needs to keep concrete cases before it both for their own value and as illustrative of the nature of the data. Let us not forget, however, that by their own admission, one of the principles guiding the editors of the NA26/NA27 text in the decisions they took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority. Richard K. Moore, Head of New Testament Department, Baptist Theological College of Western Australia; Lecturer, Murdoch University. From majordom Sun Apr 7 20:08:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08342; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:08:30 +0500 Message-Id: <199604080008.SAA22885@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:05:48 -7 Subject: Re: von Soden Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Content-Length: 879 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu rmoore@central.murdoch.edu.au (Richard K. Moore) wrote: > Especially for William L. Petersen (5 Apr 1996: tc-list digest IV # 47 1/2): > > I have been surprised at the high value placed on the apparatus of Von > Soden's text by various contributors to this list. The Alands, with > abundant resources for checking its accuracy, have claimed it is extremely > inaccurate. What is the point of having it a few feet behind you if you > have no way of verifying the notoriously inaccurate apparatus it contains? It's been a long time since I read the Alands, but I seem to recall that their beef wasn't necessarily with the accuracy of the data in his apparatus, but with his interpretations and groupings of the data. Is my memory faulty here? Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I get back, please keep me here." From majordom Sun Apr 7 21:48:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08643; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 21:48:53 +0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 21:46:00 -0400 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960407214559_371047569@mail06> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: von Soden Content-Length: 605 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a message dated 96-04-07 19:43:26 EDT, you write: >I have been surprised at the high value placed on the apparatus of Von >Soden's text by various contributors to this list. The Alands, with >abundant resources for checking its accuracy, have claimed it is extremely >inaccurate. What is the point of having it a few feet behind you if you >have no way of verifying the notoriously inaccurate apparatus it contains? Excellent point. If von Soden is in fact inaccurate, what exactly is its value? Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI From majordom Sun Apr 7 23:00:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08926; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:00:41 +0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 22:57:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: von Soden In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2768 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Richard K. Moore wrote: > I have been surprised at the high value placed on the apparatus of Von > Soden's text by various contributors to this list. The Alands, with > abundant resources for checking its accuracy, have claimed it is extremely > inaccurate. What is the point of having it a few feet behind you if you > have no way of verifying the notoriously inaccurate apparatus it contains? Von Soden remains the largest repository of readings and evidence yet amassed, and should not be ignored. Also, the claim that the apparatus is "positively honeycombed with errors" is not as bad as it sounds, given the typography and potential for error in its format. In a seminar paper I prepared 20 years ago, I did a test evaluation of Von Soden in 1 Thessalonians, and found but two verifiable errors within that book; I also checked his citation of Vaticanus therein with my own collation data and found von Soden perfectly correct. Most of the claims to error in von Soden stem from Hoskier's and Souter's bad reviews in the period before 1920 (Lake paraphrased Souter and Metzger paraphrased Lake). If anyone will take the time to look up those reviews and compare the claims of error against what von Soden's text actually said (being extremely careful to interpret his apparatuses properly) one will find that Souter simply could not understand von Soden's manner of presentation (Souter's example in Eph.1 is a case in point, where he totally misinterprets von Soden, who is precisely correct there), and Hoskier apparently never read von Soden's introduction, since many of Hoskier's claims of error stem from a misunderstanding of von Soden's use of "f" "ff" "fff" etc., where Hoskier positively thinks that MSS in ascending numerical sequence are intended as opposed to the special order of presentation von Soden intended. (I have all these documented, of course). Wisse's study shows that, at the very least, von Soden _can_ be trusted in most of his group evidence, even though there are some errors in individual MS citation. I still suspect that many of these are merely matters of confusion in interpreting von Soden rather than definite error, but I certainly have found scattered errors in von Soden. Bottom line, von Soden as well as Tischendorf should still be consulted, though corrected where possible against Tischendorf, Legg's Mt. or Mk., IGNTP Luke, or the selected readings in the Text und Textwert series. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Apr 8 00:18:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09320; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:18:41 +0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:18:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Coptic influence on Alexandrian mss Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 535 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson wrote: > I would suggest the likelihood of an Alexandrian local-text recension > (contra Fee) which proceeded more on literary than upon vernacular > grounds, and which also may have been affected by Coptic grammatical > influences. Can you give us some examples of possible Coptic grammatical influences? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Apr 8 00:51:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09373; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:51:17 +0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:51:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Heb 3:12 future ind. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1247 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu There has been some discussion about the appropriateness of the future indicative in Heb 3:12. The question was raised whether the aorist subjunctive rather than the future indicative shouldn't have been expected, despite the fact that no mss (that I am aware of) contain the subjunctive. Herbert Weir Smyth, _Greek Grammar_ (classical), provides what seems to me to be a reasonable explanation. He notes that object clauses after verbs of effort or warning normally take the future indicative. His examples offer a striking comparison with Heb 3:12; e.g., SKOPEISQE TOUTO, OPWS MH LOGOUS EROUSIN MONON ... ALLA KAI ERGON TI DEIKNUEIN EXOUSIN (see to this, that they not only make speeches but are also able to show some proof) (Smyth:498). He gives other examples of the same construction with the verb SKOPEW and ORAW. It appears that the MHPOTE clause following BLEPETE fits this pattern, thus negating the value of Heb 3:12 as an argument in the discussion over future indicatives and subjunctives in Lk 12:58 and elsewhere. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Apr 8 03:05:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09645; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 03:05:09 +0500 Message-Id: <31684BEA.314E@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:12:42 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Luke 12,58 References: <960406203050_370486175@emout07.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2327 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > > Don, > > In a message dated 96-04-06 19:56:00 EST, you write: > > >I suspect what we have is a clause of fearing using the future > >indicative in the sense of warning as was typical of "future > >emotional" conditions in classical Greek. Perhaps this is why Heb > >3.12 apparently passed muster with the scribes > > I don't know about Xenophon; but I would suggest that the grammar of the > Greek NT follows much looser rules than you are intimating. If there is one > thing that can be counted on, it is that the rules of grammar will be broken > by the writers of the NT. You are liable to find anything grammatically (for > instance the grammatically dreadful book of Revelation). Thus it is somewhat > hazardous to press grammatical rules too far- they are guidelines, not stone > inscribed dictum. > > Jim Jim, there are two points I'd like to make in response. First, my original comment was mainly intended to point out that the future indicative in a clause of fearing/caution was not unknown in classical texts (Xenophon is an important example because he uses good Attic Greek), and therefore it would be short-sighted to say that the NT passages in question cry out for the subjunctive. After all, the "rule" being appealed to is taken from classical Greek in the first place. Second, I am of course aware of the exceptions and apparent violations of classical Greek (I assume that we are talking about Attic Greek when we speak of rules, as is usually the case), but I think we generally fail to give the NT writers credit for what they do right. In fact, in the vast majority of passages the writers hold to classical grammar--note that I do not say classical *style*, as one finds exceptionally in Luke's prologue--, which suggests the possibility that the "errors" are intentional departures from more or less standard style. On the other side of the coin, we should naturally expect to see some differences and some degeneration of the language due to time and colloquial usage; but my experience is that the NT writers are remarkably close to classical standards, except when they choose not to be (e.g. in translational Greek). I certainly do agree with you, though, that the rules are guidelines, even in classical Greek. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Mon Apr 8 03:15:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09681; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 03:15:52 +0500 Message-Id: <31684E81.E77@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:23:45 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 755 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Don Wilkins wrote to Carlton Winbery: > > > Carlton, I am very weary of the so-called "assured result" of Marcan > > priority, so it's refreshing to see such a remark as this. Two > > questions: do you agree with this conflation theory (I infer that you > > do), and are there many other textual critics that would agree with > > it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise. > > Like the early fathers, I happen to hold to Matthean priority, but this > does not mean that I consider Mark a mere conflation or abridgment of Matt > and Lk. This is very interesting. I would be grateful if you would explain your view of Mark, as briefly (or fully) as you like. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Mon Apr 8 03:25:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09700; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 03:25:26 +0500 Message-Id: <316850C0.387B@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:33:20 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Luke 12,58 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1870 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Don Wilkins wrote: > > > the future indicative is not > > unattested in classical literature in clauses of fearing and caution? > > Notably, in book 4.1.18 of Xenophon's _Cyropaedia_ one finds the > > future indicative used after MH in a caution clause cited in a speech > > given by Cyaxares: hORA MH POLLWN hEKASTWi hHMWN XEIRWN > > DEHSEI KAI OFQALMWN (...see to it that that each of us does not > > have need of many hands and eyes.). There may be other examples, > > and I suspect what we have is a clause of fearing using the future > > indicative in the sense of warning as was typical of "future > > emotional" conditions in classical Greek. Perhaps this is why Heb > > 3.12 apparently passed muster with the scribes. > > Don, thank you for this contribution. While I am not convinced that this > construction would occur only with verbs of fearing and testing, it at > least does provide an example from classical literature of what I would > be terming the "literary" style mentioned by Bl.-D. as opposed to what > normally obtained in the Koine of the NT era and in "normal" classical > usage. > > However, I would also be interested to know whether scribes of Xenophon > thought this future indicative in any way problematic, i.e., are there > variant readings in the MSS of Xenophon which change the construction to > a "normal" subjunctive, or is this untouched, as is the case in Heb.3.12 ? > This is a good question, Maurice. I'll try to research it and get back to you; unfortunately, the TLG (my primary source) does not include textual apparati yet. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the future indicative as an exception to the subjunctive only occurs in fear or caution contexts; I just didn't research it further than that, and don't know otherwise at this point. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From majordom Mon Apr 8 10:53:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10556; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:53:27 +0500 Message-Id: <9604081359.AA01366@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:59:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Richard K. Moore" at Apr 8, 96 08:05:46 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 600 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Richard K. Moore wrote: >Let us not forget, however, that by their own admission, one of the >principles guiding the editors of the NA26/NA27 text in the decisions they >took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority. I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any particular reading. Does anyone have an example? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Mon Apr 8 10:53:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10547; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:53:15 +0500 Message-Id: <199604081438.KAA56322@r02n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 10:38:46 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: von Soden Content-Length: 4232 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On April 8, 1996, R.K. Moore asked: >Especially for William L. Petersen (5 Apr 1996: tc-list digest IV # 47 1/2): > >I have been surprised at the high value placed on the apparatus of Von >Soden's text by various contributors to this list. The Alands, with >abundant resources for checking its accuracy, have claimed it is extremely >inaccurate. What is the point of having it a few feet behind you if you >have no way of verifying the notoriously inaccurate apparatus it contains? > Answer: While Maurice Robinson has already offered evidence to defend the accuracy of von Soden's edition, permit me to offer the following to supplement his empirical examination of its text and apparatus: 1) Editing the NT is a business. Saying bad things about competitors is not confined to automobile salesmen or appliance hawkers. On more than one occasion, I have been asked about the marketability of a NT edition of such-and-such a format or size, or with such a size font, with the introduction to the discussion being, "How well do you think it will sell? Before doing it, our publishers want to get a read on the market." 2) As Robinson points out, vod Soden's apparatus is very complex, but it is also very accurate--at least in my experience. (I should point out that at the [1993?] Milan SNTS meeting Prof. Graham Stanton [Kings College, U of London] drew attention in his presidential address [so my memory as for the paper] to an error in the apparatus of brand new NA27. Moral: NO edition is without errors, and the more evidence [and here v.S. trounces NA by a factor of about 3:1], the more errors in raw numbers, even though the PERCENTAGE may remain the same...). One must also recall that v.S. was working on material collected a century ago, and using the editions available then for Fathers, etc. Therefore, what may seem an "error" today (based on newer editions or more recent collations) may not have been one in 1890. 3) Why v.S. is so useful AND ACCURATE has been demonstrated time and again in my own work on the versions or Patristic sources. When I find an interesting variant in the Syriac, or Vetus Latina, or a Father, the question arises: Is it a "one off" variant (for whatever reason), or is it a variant with a history and other support? NA/UBS is of no help, for its apparatus is so incomplete and inconsistent in citation. But if I turn to v.S. (or the IGNT/Legg volumes, or Tischendorf), I often find support for the variant in question. This demonstrates that (1) v.S. is NOT in error at this point, for he has found the exact variant in ANOTHER source, and (2) v.S. remains invaluable for the depth and breadth of his material. I would note that this whole exchange began with a question over a "singular" reading in lectionary 253 at John 9.38-39. It appeared to have no other support. I simply turned to my bookcase two feet behind my desk [ :)], pulled out v.S., and noted (as I posted last week) that a virtually identical reading was to be found in another MS from the same century, MS 1187. On the basis of that, I suggested that the two MSS might be related, either textually or stem from the same geographic location where this variant was in use liturgically. I can multiply this example many-fold. NA/UBS simply are too skimpy to serve this purpose. Isn't that one of the reasons for textual criticism? Doesn't one first have to find MSS with the same (or very similar) variant readings? THEN, and only AFTER that, can one begin to study the variants, and reach any intelligent conclusion about their genesis. FINALLY, after all this has been done, THEN one might wish to conjecture which might have been the most ancient. If one agrees, then ONLY v.S. (or another "editio maior") is suitable for the task of textual criticism, at a fundamental level. UBS and NA are merely "Handausgaben", pocket editions, or, as I put it before, the "Reader's Digest" edition--good for taking to class, for showing students that things are not quite as simple as they thought, but absolutely incapable of giving a serious researcher what he or she needs to gather evidence. (A semi-related post follows on the it + syr [k + syr] matter...) Petersen--Penn State University. From majordom Mon Apr 8 10:54:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10596; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:54:54 +0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:47:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Coptic influence on Alexandrian mss In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 467 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > > I would suggest the likelihood of an Alexandrian local-text recension > > (contra Fee) which proceeded more on literary than upon vernacular > > grounds, and which also may have been affected by Coptic grammatical > > influences. > > Can you give us some examples of possible Coptic grammatical influences? One which immediately comes to mind is the presence of absence of definite articles with proper names. From majordom Mon Apr 8 11:01:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10665; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:01:59 +0500 From: "Prof Ferdinand E Deist" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 16:45:37 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: Signing off for a while Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.30) Message-Id: <140FED70C18@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Content-Length: 210 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu A humble request: please sign me off from the list until further notice. I am leaving for Europe tomorrow and shall be away for quite a while: fed@maties.sun.ac.za. Thank you, Ferdinand Deist (Stellenbosch) From majordom Mon Apr 8 11:05:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10704; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:05:46 +0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:02:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Heb 3:12 future ind. In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1795 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > Herbert Weir Smyth, _Greek Grammar_ (classical), ... notes that object > clauses after verbs of effort or warning normally take the future > indicative. > It appears that the > MHPOTE clause following BLEPETE fits this pattern, thus negating the value > of Heb 3:12 as an argument in the discussion over future indicatives and > subjunctives in Lk 12:58 and elsewhere. This would also apply to Mk.14:2, since ESTAI occurs there as well, and a warning/caution is also given. However, since MHPOTE ("lest") is used, it seems that the intention of the following clause in any case remains a warning or a caution. Therefore, if a strict rule really applied, then most MSS in Lk.12.58 should also have the indicative, which they do not. My own suspicion remains that the use of the indicative following MHPOTE with EIMI is a special case due to the nature of EIMI as the irregular verb substantive, and that the specific types or nature of verbs following really do not impact the grammatical construction, which normally would require the subjunctive. I.e., I likewise am suggesting with Jimmy that the Heb.3.12 and Mk.14.2 passages probably have no application in relation to Lk.12.58, but for different reasons. Yet without those apparent NT "exceptions", I see even less reason to allow the Alexandrian indicatives in Lk.12.58 merely on the ground of their being more "difficult", since now they have no real grammatical justification. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Apr 8 11:14:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10748; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:14:29 +0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:11:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark In-Reply-To: <31684E81.E77@ucr.campus.mci.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 959 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, Don Wilkins wrote: > Maurice Robinson wrote: > > Like the early fathers, I happen to hold to Matthean priority, but this > > does not mean that I consider Mark a mere conflation or abridgment of Matt > > and Lk. > This is very interesting. I would be grateful if you would explain > your view of Mark, as briefly (or fully) as you like. This is not pertinent to textual criticism, but briefly, I accept the early tradition of Mark as Peter's interpreter, and that we basically find in Mark a reflection of Petrine preaching, probably written from Rome. (Once Matthean priority is granted, the Q hypothesis is generally abandoned). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Apr 8 11:31:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10872; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:31:34 +0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:28:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism In-Reply-To: <9604081359.AA01366@osf1.gmu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1148 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > Richard K. Moore wrote: > >Let us not forget, however, that by their own admission, one of the > >principles guiding the editors of the NA26/NA27 text in the decisions they > >took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority. > > I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any > particular reading. Does anyone have an example? The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most popular gospel in the early church. The real reflection of the Markan hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents itself. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Apr 8 11:54:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11047; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:54:31 +0500 Message-Id: <199604081551.LAA05516@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 11:51:30 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k Content-Length: 6049 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On April 6, 1996, Maurice Robinson responded to my post of 5 April by stating: >In regard to assuming that sy-s + it-k or any other combination of >versions presents a superior text -- whatever happened to the principle >that the _Greek_ MSS are or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ >NT text? > >Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance, and >appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never become >primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and >quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess. > It appears that Robinson has a preset view of how things are ("should never become primary evidence or even suggested to be such"); I never say never, for I am far too ignorant. In passing I would note that, against Robinson, one finds arrayed the names I listed in the 5 April post: Westcott, Eb. Nestle, Souter, Burkitt, C.H. Turner, A. Voeoebus. Such a list is not exactly bad company.... But of course, one should be concerned with evidence, not who supports what position.... Robinson also gives his reason as to why one should not turn to the versions; it is because of the "quantity and quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess." But numbers mean little, as we all know: two copies are made from an archetype, one with an error, and the other without the error. From the copy with the error, a thousand copies are made; from the copy without the error, no copies are made. Of what use are numbers? See Paul Maas on the issue. As to "quality," that, of course, is a judgement call, upon which few will agree. I agree that there is "quality" in the Greek tradition: look at Justin, Clement of Al., etc., if you want early Greek citations.... Robinson asks "whatever happened to the principle that the _Greek_ MSS are or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ NT text?" Answer: Nothing--except in those cases, here and there, where the versions may preserve an ancient reading. Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews 10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23 (1922), p. 135: "...there is a salutary lesson for all those who neglect the early versions. _A reading may be right, even if no single extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics). Whether Souter is correct in this instance from Heb. 10.29 or not is not the issue; the issue is whether, as a principle, he _could_ be right. I would always like to consider the evidence--_all_ the evidence--before making up my mind.... Of course, if one _begins_ with the _a priori_ assumption that the versions "never" (to quote Robinson) can preserve a reading anterior to the extant Greek witnesses, then all this is irrelevant. The logic behind paying attention to the versions (and the Fathers...) turns not only on issues of weighing individual readings, but also on the _dates_ of their origin. If our oldest full Greek MS of the NT is alaph, dating from about 350, it must be pointed out (as I already have...) that UBS4 dates the two Vetus Syra MSS to the "third/fourth century" (p. 26*). That means they ANTEDATE alaph. Even if one takes the traditional dating of Syr-s as fourth cent., then it is co-equal with alaph in date. In the Vetus Latina, Codex Vercellinsis (_a_) is dated to the fourth cent., also a date co-equal with alaph. Then the question arises: from what Greek base were these versions translated? Only one answer can be admitted: from a Greek exemplar OLDER than they are, i.e., from the early fourth or late third cent. I close with three examples: (1) at Jn. 4.27, the Greek reads "kai epi toutwi"; the 4th cent.+ Syr-c[s]p reads instead "and while they were speaking", as does Vetus Latina MS _r1_ (7th cent.): "et in hoc sermone". I pass no judgement on originality, but note that this reading must have existed in a Greek MS before the 4th cent., although none preserves it now. (2) at Jn. 13.9, Vetus Latina MS _a_ (4th cent.) interpolates post "caput" "+ et totum corpus". The same interpolation is found in both Oriental as well as Western witnesses to the Diatessaron of Tatian (composed c. 170). Now, while I have no position on baptism by immersion or by affusion (sprinkling), there is evidence here in the non-Greek MS tradition that, at one time, "and the whole body" (= immersion?) was in a Greek MS before the fourth cent., and possibily as early as the middle of the second century (= Tatian's source). (3) at Mk. 12.14, the Greek reads "kenson" ("tribute/tax"). This is the usual Greek word. However, Greek Bezae (05, D; 5th cent.), Koridethi (038, theta; 9th cent.), and MS 565 (9th cent.) read, in Greek "epikephalaion"--"on [the] head", another word for "tax", given in BAG as "poll tax", only in the NT here, and in these MSS. Hmmm. Then there is MS _k_ in the Vetus Latina (4th [!!] or 5th cent.) which reads--against all the other Latins (which read "tributum")-- "capitularium" ("caput" is "head"...). And then there is the Old Syriac Syr-s[c]p which read (in Syriac) "kespha de-resha", or, literally, "money of the head". Gee. This is a Semitism... And we know it is from the 4th cent., at the _latest_, because of Syr-s. And it has survived in _later_ Greek MSS, but is _also_ present in a 4th cent. _Latin_ (!!) MS as well. So the Greek exemplar from which it came must have been from the 3rd cent. And here, in this instance, I _would_ argue that the main Greek tradition has been "cleaned up," with the idiomatic Greek word ("kenson") being substituted for the more ancient Semitism ("epikephalaion"). But this only becomes apparent when one looks at the versions--and beyond the abbreviated and inconsistently-cited apparatus of NA/UBS. The text of the NT becomes significantly more complex if one takes seriously the evidence of the Fathers and the versions. Note the rhetoric against them ("never", etc.). Because I know so little, and am so ignorant, I perfer to be guided by the evidence, not by rhetoric. Collect the evidence first, THEN come to conclusions. Petersen--Penn State University From majordom Mon Apr 8 14:40:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12065; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:40:04 +0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:37:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 13552 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On April 8, 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: [quoting Robinson] >> whatever happened to the principle that the _Greek_ MSS are or should >> be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ NT text? >> Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance, >> and appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never >> become primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the >> quantity and quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess. >It appears that Robinson has a preset view of how things are Robinson's view may be "definite" and even "rigid," but it did not come about as a mere _a priori_ notion. His view as quoted above reflects a definite conclusion consistent with what most textual critics long have held when considering the relationship between versional and patristic testimony as opposed to that of the Greek MSS, even though others may freely disagree. I certainly utilize(and would be expected to utilize) my own principles in a definite sense when applying my own praxis to textual criticism. Every other textual critic does this when following his or her own principles. My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also reflects such an application of my own principles. > In passing I would note that, against Robinson, > one finds arrayed the names I listed in the 5 April post: Westcott, > Eb. Nestle, Souter, Burkitt, C.H. Turner, A. Voeoebus. Such a list > is not exactly bad company.... But of course, one should be > concerned with evidence, not who supports what position.... I would also note in passing that to quote or cite those who reflect a view of textual criticism which basically favors an Alexandrian text (Voobus slightly to the contrary) is not germane to the position of those who might favor a Byzantine-priority position. This is a text-critical substitution of apples for oranges, and I could just as easily add in Scholz, Birks, Scrivener, Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Hugh Pope, Bover, Hodges, Farstad, Pickering, etc. All these names, however, are irrelevant to the issue of how any single person chooses to practice or theorize about NT textual criticism. >Robinson also gives his reason as to why one should not turn to the >versions; it is because of the "quantity and quality of the Greek MS >evidence we possess." But numbers mean little, as we all know: two copies >are made from an archetype, one with an error, and the other without the >error. From the copy with the error, a thousand copies are made; from the >copy without the error, no copies are made. Of what use are numbers? See >Paul Maas on the issue. This is purely a red herring. The quantity issue regarding Greek MSS is cited only to demonstrate that in view of the wealth of Greek MS evidence there is no need to make versions primary; the mentioned issue of quantity is not brought up with a view toward determining the original text by genealogical methods but only to draw a parallel with the resources available to classical scholars who _are_ highly dependent on versional sources as well as conjectural emendation. See Paul Maas again. Further, the scenario mentioned becomes absurd in the extreme, and is like the arguments which favor conjecture: the assumption is that all or nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have "lost" the original reading, but somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy + it-k) mysteriously escaped the otherwise universal corruption which affected almost the entire Greek text as well as every other version and father. The genealogical hypothesis Petersen states is the same as was claimed by Westcott and Hort when discrediting the Byzantine text -- but as Colwell long ago noted, _no one_ has ever stemmatically demonstrated that such "errors" ever occurred so as to permeate the thousands of Greek MS copies while only a very few Greek or versional or patristic sources preserve the "original" text. I prefer to stick with _normal_ probabilities, based upon _normal_ patterns of transmission, rather than extreme cases of supposition. In this light, the quantity of Greek MS evidence we possess remains eminently suitable for establishing the text of the NT. Versional and patristic data remain important, but their role is subsidiary and confirmatory, and is not intended to overthrow Greek testimony. This position is basically that of most textual critics, so I do not stand alone on this matter. >Robinson asks "whatever happened to the principle that the _Greek_ MSS are >or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ NT text?" Answer: >Nothing--except in those cases, here and there, where the versions may >preserve an ancient reading. Since Colwell seems to be quite correct that virtually all sensible readings were created before AD 200, then _all_ readings are "ancient," and I would not disparage the versions or fathers in this regard. Whether a given "ancient" reading is original, on the other hand, remains an open matter. >Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews 10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23 >(1922), p. 135: "...there is a salutary lesson for all those who >neglect the early versions. _A reading may be right, even if no single >extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics). Since Souter can be dogmatic in his stance without being faulted, then I too should be allowed to be just as dogmatic, declaring Souter to be dead wrong in light of the converse: "A reading _cannot_ be right if it is not contained in any single extant Greek MS." Dogmatism cuts both ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused. >I would always >like to consider the evidence--_all_ the evidence--before making up my >mind.... Of course, if one _begins_ with the _a priori_ assumption that the >versions "never" (to quote Robinson) can preserve a reading anterior to the >extant Greek witnesses, then all this is irrelevant. On the contrary, I _do_ consult the versions regularly in order to seek out their degree of support for one reading over another. They have a significant usefulness in supplementing the Greek MS data. I only contend that, when the versions read something apart from the Greek MS data, the presumption is that they are unlikely to be correct, and thus that their influence becomes virtually nil at such points. >UBS4 dates the two Vetus Syra MSS to the "third/fourth century" >(p. 26*). That means they ANTEDATE alaph. The date of the MSS is not as significant as the date of the text they contain. I believe all will agree that the text of sy-s and sy-c stems from at least the mid-second-century. A text similar to that of Aleph also probably goes back that far; and the text of B is basically second-century as reflected in P75. That the material on which the old Syriac MSS themselves were written may antedate the material on which Aleph or B was written does not in itself grant them any higher textual antiquity or authority. >Then the question arises: from what Greek base were these versions >translated? Only one answer can be admitted: from a Greek exemplar >OLDER than they are, i.e., from the early fourth or late third cent. This is fully granted, but the same question has to be asked regarding the old uncials -- Aleph did not miraculously spring into existence in the mid-4th century, but itself was copied from an earlier exemplar. The same can be said for B or A or D (which with its 5th-century date but a second-century text exemplifies the principle well). I thus see no need why the old Syriac or it-a or it-k should be granted any text-critical preeminence over Greek MSS of identical or nearly identical date, or even over later Greek MSS which demonstrably reflect an earlier text, such as Theta and 565 to which Petersen appeals below. >I close with three examples: >(1) at Jn. 4.27, the Greek reads "kai epi toutwi"; the 4th cent.+ Syr-c[s]p >reads instead "and while they were speaking", as does Vetus Latina MS _r1_ >(7th cent.): "et in hoc sermone". I pass no judgement on originality, but >note that this reading must have existed in a Greek MS before the 4th cent., >although none preserves it now. (Not in N27, so don't bother looking; this well illustrates the point of moving beyond UBS and Nestle when serious text-critical work needs to be done). The Latin reading _could_ have been rendered from a possible genitive absolute in a now non-extant Greek MS, and I would be the first to allow this possibility, though I would declare against originality since it is not found in extant Greek MS data, and also since the genitive absolute form is not common in John. However, the Syriac and Latin rendering could also reflect a smoother _interpretation_ of "kai epi toutw" as they rendered the more abrupt Greek into their own language -- this is another key reason why I would not give much credence to versional readings otherwise unsupported by Greek evidence. >(2) at Jn. 13.9, Vetus Latina MS _a_ (4th cent.) interpolates post "caput" >"+ et totum corpus". The same interpolation is found in both Oriental as >well as Western witnesses to the Diatessaron of Tatian (composed c. 170). (Also not in N27). This addition I see as an obvious gloss which merely expands on Peter's already-exaggerated wish. I see no reference or allusion to either immersion or baptism by any mode intimated by this addition, but merely hyberbole to emphasize the apostle's wish. This gloss, though interesting, is obviously very early, but it enjoys no Greek MS support, and therefore would not be regarded as authentic by most textual critics. >(3) at Mk. 12.14, the Greek reads "kenson" ("tribute/tax"). This is the >usual Greek word. However, Greek Bezae (05, D; 5th cent.), Koridethi (038, >theta; 9th cent.), and MS 565 (9th cent.) read, in Greek >"epikephalaion"--"on [the] head", another word for "tax", given in BAG as >"poll tax", only in the NT here, and in these MSS. Hmmm. Is "kenson" (Mt/Mk) the usual Greek word, or is "foron" (Lk)? Or are both interchangeable? It is interesting that scribes did not attempt to harmonize Lk with Mt or Mk regarding this word. I have no problem in seeing D, which is tied to the Western Latinized text having a Latin-based interpretation of "kenson" attached for smoothness. It-d reads "tributum" with most other OL witnesses, but the Greek D is not always tied to its parallel companion, even though both appear in the same document. Theta and 565, though late, are leading representatives of the Caesarean text in Mark, and their reading is presumed to be early, stemming from a common exemplar which nevertheless seems to be different from either D, it-k, or sy. It-k does offer a direct interpretation with "capitulum," as noted, but even this may not reflect anything genealogical or stemmatic; rather, both it-k and D may reflect the action of a scribe substituting a synonymous (though more precise) term for the more general term. Note also that in context, Roman taxes in general were the referent, and not one specific type of tax which might parallel the Jewish temple tax. >And then there is the Old Syriac Syr-s[c]p which read (in Syriac) >"kespha de-resha", or, literally, "money of the head". Gee. This is a >Semitism... Since Syriac is a Semitic language, I am not surprised that the translators of that tradition may have rendered it semitically. But the Syriac tradition similarly may reflect merely a reasonable interpretation of "khnson" rather than any genealogical connection to D or it-k, just as the Caesarean witnesses may independently have arisen from an archetypical interpretative rendering in a common exemplar. >And here, in this instance, >I _would_ argue that the main Greek tradition has been "cleaned up," with >the idiomatic Greek word ("kenson") being substituted for the more ancient >Semitism ("epikephalaion"). But this only becomes apparent when one looks >at the versions--and beyond the abbreviated and inconsistently-cited >apparatus of NA/UBS. Although these examples are interesting, I doubt whether anyone will see a reason in any of the preceding instances to abandon the common text preferred by _all_ schools of NT textual criticism. The final case of course, does have some Greek authority behind it, which differentiates it in my opinion from the preceding two cases, but I nevertheless find the case far less than compelling, since I simply do not imbue even D or the Caesarean text with that great a degree of authority when arrayed against the complete Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions. Since no other Greek NT editions follow in this regard either, I can only that good reasons were held by other editors as well to stay with the general consensus text rather than swiftly to adopt seeming Semitisms in the manner of Matthew Black and C.C.Torrey. >Because I know so little, and am so ignorant, I prefer to be guided by >the evidence, not by rhetoric. Collect the evidence first, THEN come >to conclusions. Since I consider myself even _more_ ignorant, I prefer in my simplicity to follow most textual critics on this point and to allow myself to be guided by the _Greek_ evidence first, with the versional and patristic data as secondary resources. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Apr 8 19:19:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13626; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:19:59 +0500 Message-Id: <31693077.6B42@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 15:27:51 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism References: <9604081359.AA01366@osf1.gmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 860 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Stephen C Carlson wrote: > > Richard K. Moore wrote: > >Let us not forget, however, that by their own admission, one of the > >principles guiding the editors of the NA26/NA27 text in the decisions they > >took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority. > > I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any > particular reading. Does anyone have an example? I did a quick-and-dirty browse of Metzger's commentary and came up with POLLA in Matt 9.14, which is absent from the Markan parallel (2.18). The question was whether POLLA was added by Matthew or by subsequent copyists, and the committee preferred the first option, while granting that POLLA does not occur in Aleph (original hand) or B. Without the assumption of Markan priority, it would appear that the committee would have selected the second option. From majordom Tue Apr 9 11:50:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16478; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:50:59 +0500 Message-Id: <9604091548.AA24360@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 17:48:34 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: Luke 12,58 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 3260 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [quoting Schmid, quoting Robinson] >>> The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the >>>classical perspective. >Oops!...If I wrote that, it was a "lapsus manus", and I must have >typed "Byzantine" instead of "Alexandrian"; I confess scribal >error in that case (or maybe I became totally confused and >discombobulated). Please correct any assumptions based upon this >error... > I think that even _I_ have to go back and re-read my own posts. So happily the _source variant_ of the misunderstanding is identified which set off a chain reaction of misunderstandings. Maurice Robinson further wrote: [quoting Schmid] >> The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) >> gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to >> the grammatical features under discussion, than the other >> witnesses. A preliminary glance at the >> INA clauses seems to point in the same direction. >Kilpatrick in his article on Atticism in the Greek NT would differ >strongly from that conclusion, since he finds the primary problem >in that regard within the Alexandrian rather than the Byzantine >text. The referrence to Kilpattrick's article on Atticism in the Greek NT is totally misleading here. Note, I referred to "the grammatical features under discussion", i.e. MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind., and to the "INA clauses" with the same variation. Kilpattrick did _not_ deal with this particular features in his article. Nevertheless, Kilpattrick reviewed in his article (inter alia) the use of the optative. Since his reasoning on the optative subject can be paralleld with my own reasoning on the MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind. subject, I may quote Kilpattrick (c.f. _Neutestamentliche Aufsaetze. Festschrift Josef Schmid, Regensburg 1963_, p. 135): "In Ephesians there is fluctuation at these passages between DWI, DWH and DOI (i.17 DWI B 1739 Cyr, DWH cet., iii.16 DWI P46 aleph ABCFG,DWH DKLP psi, iv.29 DWI P46 aleph AB(K)LP, DOI D*FG). All these forms occur in hINA clauses and it is extremely unlikely that the writers intended an optative in any of them. This being so DWI seems to be the original reading and the variants to this may be attempts mistakenly to introduce an optative." Note, in two out of three instances in Ephesians the _Byzantine text_ seems to display a tendency "mistakenly to introduce an optative". Therefor, my own reasoning on the MH(POTE) + sub. vs ind. subject (cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk14,2; Lk 12,58; John 12,40; Act 28,27; Heb 3,12): "The evidence I reviewed up to now points to only one conclusion: The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical features under discussion, than the other witnesses", not only still holds water, but is paralled by an other strikingly compelling "classical" feature of the Byzantine text. Note, I do _not_ blame the Byzantine tradition for _not_ having altered every single reading where the subj. vs ind. and/or optative subjects are involved. I only try to assemble as many data as possible in order to get a most comprehensive picture. And, the data assembled up to now point to the conclusion I drew thereof. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Tue Apr 9 15:01:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00505; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:01:08 +0500 Message-Id: <9604091857.AA32016@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:57:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <31693077.6B42@ucr.campus.mci.net> from "Don Wilkins" at Apr 8, 96 03:27:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1821 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Don Wilkins wrote: >Stephen C Carlson wrote: >> I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any >> particular reading. Does anyone have an example? > >I did a quick-and-dirty browse of Metzger's commentary and came >up with POLLA in Matt 9.14, which is absent from the Markan >parallel (2.18). The question was whether POLLA was added by >Matthew or by subsequent copyists, and the committee preferred >the first option, while granting that POLLA does not occur in Aleph >(original hand) or B. Without the assumption of Markan priority, it >would appear that the committee would have selected the second >option. Thanks for the example. Upon reading this over, I just don't understand how Markan priority fits into this. The issue, it seems, that Aleph and B are alone in lacking POLLA against the witness of the Byzantine, Italic, Syriac, etc. In order words, it looks like one of those places where the joint testimony of Aleph and B could be wrong. What I can't get is how the assumption of Markan priority helps to confirm this over the other option that everyone else is incorrect. Furthermore, I noticed that Lk5:33 has a synonym, PUKNA. What about the possibility that it could be some kind of a harmonization to the meaning of Luke? If POLLA is original to Matthew, then the presence of PUKNA in the Lukan parallel would tend to undercut one of the foundational arguments for Markan priority: that Matthew and Luke do not know each other in Triple Tradition except through Mark. POLLA // PUKNA could be a counter-example. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Tue Apr 9 15:12:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00535; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:12:18 +0500 Message-Id: <9604091909.AA12635@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:08:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Maurice Robinson" at Apr 8, 96 11:28:41 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1090 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson wrote: >The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more >harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption >of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most >popular gospel in the early church. The real reflection of the Markan >hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a >non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents >itself. If this is true, then I don't see why Markan priority (as opposed to harmonizing tendencies) would be a good reason. If we *knew* that Mark was first, how does that help us establish which competing claim to the text of Mark is stronger? What Matthew may or may not have changed is not relevant, because we don't know if Matthew followed or departed from Mark in the first place. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Tue Apr 9 15:49:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00707; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:49:28 +0500 Message-Id: <199604091945.PAA31380@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:45:52 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k Content-Length: 10619 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In response to Maurice Robinson's post of yesterday (8 Apr, at 14:37): Since it is so long, I shall not reproduce his text (or my text to which he was responding), save in quotations for reference. This response addresses only what I see as our main points of disagreement. (1) As to whether Robinson begins with an _a priori_ assumption, that I leave to the readers of the list. His assertion, to which I took exception, was that "versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance,...but such should never become primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess." There are ONLY two ways I can see of arriving at a conclusion that one "should never" use certain evidence as primary. One is by having examined every version at every variant, and having found NO single instance where they might preserve a text superior to extant Greek witnesses. Has this been done? If not, then the assertion is an _a priori_. The second way in which one might arrive at this conclusion is by doing a sampling, and then, finding none, conclude that NOWEHRE in these traditions is there a reading superior to the Greek. This second way is obvious fallible, and is, to my way of thinking, still an _a priori_. The equivalent would be to say that the Byzantine text should _never_ be used to reconstruct the most ancient version of a text; I would call that an _a priori_ as well--and one with which I would disagree--for here and there it _might_. Quite frankly, since Robinson has several other _a prioris_ later in his post ("My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also reflects such an application of my own principles", and at #3 below), I don't see why he should claim his absolute rejection of the evidence of the versions ("never") should not also be read as an _a priori_. (2) Robinson states that the idea of a single MS preserving the original is "absurd in the extreme." He holds up for ridicule the idea that "all or nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have 'lost' the original reading, but somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy + it-k) mysteriously escaped the otherwise universal corruption." The problem is that textual criticism is full of examples where one MS has preserved the "original" reading, while the many have erred. While this cannot be demonstrated on the basis of the Biblical text (for no one knows what the original text was--_pace_ those who think they do...), it can be observed in Classical and other texts by looking at any apparatus. I offer a single example, from the Diatessaron. At Lk. 24.37, the canonical text reads "pneuma". We can, however, reconstruct the reading of Tatian's Diatessaron through the conjunction of Eastern and Western witnesses. In the East, Romanos the Melodist and the Persian Harmony read the equivalent of "fantasma", as does MS R of the Venetian Harmony (in Middle Italian). What is striking, however, is that MS R is the ONLY MS of the 26 extant MSS of the Venetian Harmony which reads "fantasima". The other 25 read the canonical "spirito". Only MS R--that is 1 MS out of 26--has preserved the Diatessron's reading. The empirical evidence shows that the phenomenon of a single MS offering the original text DOES occur. (3) Robinson's logic appears faulty--and appears to err in a manner which is self-serving--in the following, which I reproduce directly. My original text is first, followed by Robinson's reply: >>Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews 10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23 >>(1922), p. 135: "...there is a salutary lesson for all those who >>neglect the early versions. _A reading may be right, even if no single >>extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics). > >Since Souter can be dogmatic in his stance without being faulted, then >I too should be allowed to be just as dogmatic, declaring Souter to be >dead wrong in light of the converse: "A reading _cannot_ be right if it >is not contained in any single extant Greek MS." Dogmatism cuts both >ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused. > The parallel Robinson seeks to create, and the charge of "dogmatism" he levels against Souter, do not withstand examination. Note: Souter said, "A reading MAY be right, even if no single extant Greek MS. contains it." He does not claim exclusivity (that ONLY readings in the versions, or SUPPORTED by the versions, are "right"). Yet this is what Robinson would attribute to him when he attempts to offer the "converse" of Souter: "A reading _cannot_ be right..." But, dear readers, that is NOT the "converse" of what Souter said! If one WERE to posit the converse of what Souter said, then one would have to write, "A reading MAY NOT be right if it is not contained in any single extant Greek MS." That statement--like Souter's original statement--is one to which I can assent. (Souter is NOT dogmatic or exclusivist; whence comes this dogmatism in the inversion of his statement??? It certainly doesn't come from Souter--or myself... "Cannot" and "never" are not found in my or Souter's statements...) (3) Robinson continues with another _a priori_: "...the quantity of Greek MS evidence we possess remains eminently suitable for establishing the text of the NT." In general, I tend to agree, but would not exclude either the Fathers or the versions, as Robinson would. Note--lest I be treated as Souter--I do not claim that the original text IS ALWAYS in the Fathers or versions, much less ONLY in the Fathers or versions. I say only that one errs if one _commences_ by saying that they can "never" provide evidence anterior to the extant Greek MSS. (4) Later, Robinson makes a statement with which I, in general, agree--although it contradicts his own "never" assertion. He states "I only contend that, when the versions read something apart from the Greek MS data, the presumption is that they are UNLIKELY to be correct, and thus that their influence becomes virtually nil at such points." His word "unlikely" shows what I consider appropriate caution: "unlikely" does not mean "never" or "cannot", and, indeed, allows that possibility that they MAY. Thank you for the concession! (5) As to the examples I gave, of course Robinson must disagree that any one of them might preserve the most ancient form of the text. (If one subscribes to Byzantine priority, then it is all q.e.d.). Of the three, as I indicated, I would be inclined to argue only one as having greater antiquity and "authenticity" than our present text, and that is the third reading (re: Mk. 12.14, over "kenson" ["tribute/tax"] versus "epikephalaion"/"kespha de-resha"). There are two points which--and here I am not at all dogmatic--commend the reading _to me_. First is its obvious "roughness", harkening back to a Semitism. This, then, is later replaced with the "standard" Greek expression. It seems to me (but perhaps not to others...) that the rough, non-standard, Semitic diction precedes the normal, standard expression. The inverse seems highly unlikely. Second is that I cannot imagine how this IDENTICAL variant should show up in Greek, Latin, and Syriac sources of the 4th cent. UNLESS it were part of a primitive Greek tradition. Because of the large numbers of "tri-lateral" agreements (Greek, Syriac, Latin), the theory that the IDENTICAL variant should have popped up "spontaneously" and "independently" in each, seems very unlikely--at least to me. This suggests to me that _in this instance_ the Syriac and Latin (and three Greek MSS) have preserved the most ancient version of this passage, and that it has been lost in the vast majority of Greek MSS. I would also be inclined to view _sympathetically_ the second of the readings I presented (re: Jn. 13.9, "+ and the whole body"). Here I am not quite as inclined to write it off simply as an "obvious gloss," as Robinson would (indeed, as he must, for otherwise Greek and Byzantine priority goes out the window). The reasons I am "sympathetic" to this variant are not tied up in any grand scheme of NT textual priority, but are based on the history of the early church and the variants offered in this single variation unit. Those who know me, know that I have a general preference for the shorter reading. That is one thing which hobbles me from embracing this variant. Nevertheless, two reasons give me pause, and leave me uncertain: First, the reading occurs in diverse, early sources. The likelihood that the identical variant arose "spontaneously" and "independently" in the Diatessaronic tradition and MS _a_ seems unlikely. If it stood in the Diatessaron, as the evidence of Romanos, the Pepysian Harmony, and the _Vita Rhythmica_ suggests, then we can date the variant to c. 170. Its presence in MS _a_ shows that it circulated in the canonical text, and that it must have been known before the 4th cent. Second, it was precisely during this period that immerson was the standard form of baptism (see, e.g., the _Didache_ 7). (N.B.: Incidentlaly, this passage is frequently cited in association with baptism by the early Fathers...THEY understood it as being linked with baptism; I am not concerned with what we might think of such a link today....) Now, while I am most certainly not a Baptist, and while immerson was NOT the standard for the main Christian tradition after this early period (until the Reformation, when it reasserted itself in certain circles), I am not surprised to read in an early Christian text that someone would have "no part in" Jesus, unless their "whole body" were washed. This fits with the historical practices of primitive Christianity, NOT later Christianity; the excision of this phrase, however, agrees with later Christian practice. Texts are always being "massaged" (read, "corrupted") by well-intentioned people often seek to bring them into conformity with the theology/practices of their own time (I think it is the so-called "Living Bible" which translates John 1.1 as "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was God..."). Might the same have happened here? I think it is possible--but, because of the fragile nature of the evidence, I would not give this reading the same weight I would the "kenson"/"epikephalaion" reading. The text of the NT is a mysterious, complex beast which, in my experience (but perhaps not in that of others...) defies quick, dogmatic solutions. And certainty is the rarest of commodities in this endeavor. Petersen--Penn State University From majordom Tue Apr 9 20:32:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01853; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:32:53 +0500 Message-Id: <316A9EDE.457C@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:31:10 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism References: <9604091857.AA32016@osf1.gmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3094 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Stephen C Carlson wrote: > > Don Wilkins wrote: > >I did a quick-and-dirty browse of Metzger's commentary and came > >up with POLLA in Matt 9.14, which is absent from the Markan > >parallel (2.18). The question was whether POLLA was added by > >Matthew or by subsequent copyists, and the committee preferred > >the first option, while granting that POLLA does not occur in Aleph > >(original hand) or B. Without the assumption of Markan priority, it > >would appear that the committee would have selected the second > >option. > > Thanks for the example. Upon reading this over, I just don't understand > how Markan priority fits into this. The issue, it seems, that Aleph > and B are alone in lacking POLLA against the witness of the Byzantine, > Italic, Syriac, etc. In order words, it looks like one of those places > where the joint testimony of Aleph and B could be wrong. While the committee's view of the weight of Aleph and B against the numbers of other mss has certainly shifted (it now seems to be politically incorrect to say anything good about Westcott and Hort), they still assign a very high value to the Aleph/B combination. So when you say "it looks like one of those places..." you are still suggesting a pretty remote possibility; indeed, that is why POLLA is bracketed. >What I can't get > is how the assumption of Markan priority helps to confirm this over the > other option that everyone else is incorrect. I'm not sure who you mean by "everyone else," but you may be misunderstanding me if you are referring to the group that includes the byz mss. The committee is cautiously preferring this group and conceding that Aleph/B may be wrong. This means that in the committee's reasoning (given the basic assumption that POLLA was "added"), it is more likely that Matthew is adding POLLA than later copyists, and therefore Matthew is choosing to modify Mark's text. One could of course argue that this reasoning begs the question of Markan priority by favoring it either way--since if Matthew agrees with Mark (and does not "add" POLLA) he is merely copying Mark--but then the reply will probably be that Markan priority has previously been established, so the logic used in determining the reading here is legitimate. > Furthermore, I noticed that Lk5:33 has a synonym, PUKNA. What about the > possibility that it could be some kind of a harmonization to the meaning > of Luke? If POLLA is original to Matthew, then the presence of PUKNA in > the Lukan parallel would tend to undercut one of the foundational arguments > for Markan priority: that Matthew and Luke do not know each other in Triple > Tradition except through Mark. POLLA // PUKNA could be a counter-example. As tempting as it would be to me to make such an argument, the fatal flaw is in your phrase "some kind of a harmonization". While PUKNA is somewhat synonomous, it is an unexpected word for the context and far too different from POLLA to be termed a harmonization at this level. If Matthew is really trying to agree with Luke, he should use Luke's vocabulary. From majordom Tue Apr 9 22:23:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02210; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:23:41 +0500 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:07:51 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Message-Id: <960409200617_187925831@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: AV readings Content-Length: 336 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Does anyone know of any Greek MSS that support the following readings in the Authorized Version? Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (Greek) 2 Tim 1:18--"ministered unto me" (AV) vs. "ministered" (Greek) Heb 10:23--"profession of our faith" (AV) vs. "profession of our hope" (Greek) Thanks, James D. Price From majordom Tue Apr 9 23:57:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02590; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:57:44 +0500 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:28 -0500 (EST) From: Wayne_Leman@sil.org Subject: Re: AV readings To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, DrJDPrice@aol.com Message-Id: <01I3CRWVD9LY001XE5@SIL.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Length: 1301 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu James, I'll simply pass on to you what is in my UBS3 and NA27: Does anyone know of any Greek MSS that support the following readings in the Authorized Version? (YES) Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (Gr= eek) the word of God: E, 88, 436, it(ar,c,e,gig,p) vg, cop(sa): that i= s, not the greatest textual support, but some. The UBS3 committee gave "= the word of the Lord" a C rating. Hopefully, someone with a UBS4 will chim= e in. BTW, "the faith of God" is also attested in D, it(d) and syr(p). 2 Tim 1:18--"ministered unto me" (AV) vs. "ministered" (Greek) UBS3: no mss listed for the AV reading. NA27: moi ("to me") is fo= und in mss 104, 365, pc, it, vg(cl), and sy. Very poor textual support, = indeed. Heb 10:23--"profession of our faith" (AV) vs. "profession of our = hope" (Greek) UBS3: no mss listed for the AV reading. NA27: no mss listed for A= V reading. Even Jay Green's TR doesn't give any ms support for the = AV reading. Ellingworth's NIGTC commentary briefly notes that pistew= s "of the faith" is supported by mss =ED (Psi, if it doesn't show up on= your screen, a late uncial, located at Athos), 1245, and 1898. Very sl= im support. --Wayne Thanks, James D. Price From majordom Wed Apr 10 00:41:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02770; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:41:17 +0500 Message-Id: <9604100438.AA09889@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: AV readings To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:38:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <01I3CRWVD9LY001XE5@SIL.ORG> from "Wayne_Leman@sil.org" at Apr 9, 96 08:28:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 805 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Wayne_Leman@sil.org wrote: > Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (Greek) > > the word of God: E, 88, 436, it(ar,c,e,gig,p) vg, cop(sa): that is, not > the greatest textual support, but some. The UBS3 committee gave " the word > of the Lord" a C rating. Hopefully, someone with a UBS4 will chime in. > BTW, "the faith of God" is also attested in D, it(d) and syr(p). In UBS4, it is now a B rating. The evidence it presents is unchanged from what you gave. (Same for 2Tm1:18 & Hb10:23 examples: nothing new in UBS4.) Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Wed Apr 10 08:38:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03907; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:38:29 +0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199604101235.IAA26199@utc-01.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: AV readings Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu;DrJDprice@aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1672 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the reading "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23 At 08:28 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >James, > > I'll simply pass on to you what is in my UBS3 and NA27: > >Does anyone know of any Greek MSS that support the following >readings in the Authorized Version? (YES) > > Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (Greek= ) > > the word of God: E, 88, 436, it(ar,c,e,gig,p) vg, cop(sa): that is, = not > the greatest textual support, but some. The UBS3 committee gave "the= word > of the Lord" a C rating. Hopefully, someone with a UBS4 will chime i= n. > BTW, "the faith of God" is also attested in D, it(d) and syr(p). > > 2 Tim 1:18--"ministered unto me" (AV) vs. "ministered" (Greek) > > UBS3: no mss listed for the AV reading. NA27: moi ("to me") is found= in > mss 104, 365, pc, it, vg(cl), and sy. Very poor textual support, ind= eed. > > Heb 10:23--"profession of our faith" (AV) vs. "profession of our hop= e" > (Greek) > > UBS3: no mss listed for the AV reading. NA27: no mss listed for AV > reading. Even Jay Green's TR doesn't give any ms support for the AV > reading. Ellingworth's NIGTC commentary briefly notes that pistews "= of > the faith" is supported by mss =ED (Psi, if it doesn't show up on yo= ur > screen, a late uncial, located at Athos), 1245, and 1898. Very slim > support. > > --Wayne > >Thanks, >James D. Price > > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From majordom Wed Apr 10 10:47:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04526; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:47:50 +0500 Message-Id: <9604101444.AA04812@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:44:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <316A9EDE.457C@ucr.campus.mci.net> from "Don Wilkins" at Apr 9, 96 05:31:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3679 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Thank you so much for your patient response. I hope you (or someone else) will indulge me one more time, because I'm still finding it difficult to understand how Markan priority fits into Mt9:14. Don Wilkins wrote: >Stephen C Carlson wrote: >>What I can't get >> is how the assumption of Markan priority helps to confirm this over the >> other option that everyone else is incorrect. > >I'm not sure who you mean by "everyone else," but you may be >misunderstanding me if you are referring to the group that includes >the byz mss. What I meant by "everyone else" is the plethora or witnesses for POLLA as opposed to its absence, according to my UBS4 is only 01* B, a Coptic, a Georgian, and Cyril. The POLLA reading is supported by Byzantines, the Western text, the Syriacs, some Old Latins, and families f1 and f13. > The committee is cautiously preferring this group and >conceding that Aleph/B may be wrong. This means that in the >committee's reasoning (given the basic assumption that POLLA was >"added"), it is more likely that Matthew is adding POLLA than later >copyists, and therefore Matthew is choosing to modify Mark's text. Here's the point I don't get: if POLLA stood in the autograph of Matthew, then it is not "added": it was always there. It would be "omitted" by 01* and B. If, on the other hand, POLLA did not stand in the autograph, then it was added by almost every other witness. >One could of course argue that this reasoning begs the question of >Markan priority by favoring it either way--since if Matthew agrees >with Mark (and does not "add" POLLA) he is merely copying >Mark--but then the reply will probably be that Markan priority has >previously been established, so the logic used in determining the >reading here is legitimate. To me, Markan priority is of almost no help in establishing the text of Matthew, because by definition Mark, being prior, does not know the text of Matthew. Perhaps, Markan priority can establish typical Matthean redactions of its text, but POLLA in Mt9:12 does not appear to be one of them. POLLA is generally a Markan feature (almost 2/3 of the occurrences in the synoptics). The assumption of Markan priority would seem to be the most useful in establishing the text of Mark, for Matthew and Luke can be considered two additional witnesses to it. Except for modifications that can be determined on redaction critical grounds, one doesn't know whether a Matthean (or Lukan) reading in Mark is due to harmonization (not original) or to Markan priority (original). >> Furthermore, I noticed that Lk5:33 has a synonym, PUKNA. What about the >> possibility that it could be some kind of a harmonization to the meaning >> of Luke? > >As tempting as it would be to me to make such an argument, the >fatal flaw is in your phrase "some kind of a harmonization". While >PUKNA is somewhat synonomous, it is an unexpected word for the >context and far too different from POLLA to be termed a >harmonization at this level. If Matthew is really trying to agree >with Luke, he should use Luke's vocabulary. I noticed last night that the first corrector to Aleph has PUKNA in Mt9:12 as well as some Old Latins (how they can differentiate between Greek synonyms or translation variants is beyond me). I was surprised that the apparatus to my UBS4 did not indicate any possible harmonization to the Lukan parallel in the case of Aleph 1. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Wed Apr 10 11:36:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04855; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:36:44 +0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 07:53 -0500 (EST) From: Wayne_Leman@sil.org Subject: Re: AV readings To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net Message-Id: <01I3DG87SEQY00209O@SIL.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Length: 2096 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu James, I also noted the Sinaiticus reading in the NA27 apparatus, but, a= s far as I can see, it only refers to the inclusion of the Greek pronoun e= :mwn "our", *not* the alternate "faith", rather than the strongly supp= orted textual reading of "hope". It makes sense to me that a scribe wo= uld have added "our" to make the phrase read more smoothly. Blessings, Wayne According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the rea= ding "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23 At 08:28 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >James, > > I'll simply pass on to you what is in my UBS3 and NA27: > >Does anyone know of any Greek MSS that support the following >readings in the Authorized Version? (YES) > > Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (G= reek) > > the word of God: E, 88, 436, it(ar,c,e,gig,p) vg, cop(sa): that = is, not > the greatest textual support, but some. The UBS3 committee gave = "the word > of the Lord" a C rating. Hopefully, someone with a UBS4 will chi= me in. > BTW, "the faith of God" is also attested in D, it(d) and syr(p). > > 2 Tim 1:18--"ministered unto me" (AV) vs. "ministered" (Greek) > > UBS3: no mss listed for the AV reading. NA27: moi ("to me") is f= ound in > mss 104, 365, pc, it, vg(cl), and sy. Very poor textual support,= indeed. > > Heb 10:23--"profession of our faith" (AV) vs. "profession of our= hope" > (Greek) > > UBS3: no mss listed for the AV reading. NA27: no mss listed for = AV > reading. Even Jay Green's TR doesn't give any ms support for the= AV > reading. Ellingworth's NIGTC commentary briefly notes that piste= ws "of > the faith" is supported by mss =ED (Psi, if it doesn't show up o= n your > screen, a late uncial, located at Athos), 1245, and 1898. Very s= lim > support. > > --Wayne > >Thanks, >James D. Price > > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From majordom Wed Apr 10 11:42:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04916; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:42:06 +0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:39:14 -0400 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960410113909_372721886@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Hebrew Bible TC Content-Length: 284 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Micah 1:1 in the MT reads "devar YHWH asher hayah"; while the LXX has "kai egeneto logos kuriou". Is it my imagination, or does the LXX seem to be stressing the idea that the word of the Lord happened, while MT seems to stress to whom it happened? Thanks for your help. Jim West From majordom Wed Apr 10 11:42:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04923; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:42:13 +0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:39:19 -0400 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960410113910_372721893@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Mic 1:2 Content-Length: 273 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu The MT of Micah 1:2b has "wihi adonay YHWH" while the Qumran text has "YHWH adonay yihyeh". It seems that this variant could easily arise from one or the other scribe misreading his "waw" for a "yod" and vice-versa. IS this likely, in your opinion(s)? Thanks, Jim West From majordom Wed Apr 10 12:08:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05170; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:08:09 +0500 Message-Id: <199604101507.JAA22288@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:05:26 -7 Subject: Re: AV readings Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Content-Length: 771 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Wayne Leman wrote: > I also noted the Sinaiticus reading in the NA27 apparatus, but, as far as > I can see, it only refers to the inclusion of the Greek pronoun e:mwn > "our", *not* the alternate "faith", rather than the strongly supported > textual reading of "hope". It makes sense to me that a scribe would have > added "our" to make the phrase read more smoothly. Correct. I have a photocopy of Lake's photographic edition of Sinaiticus for this passage, and it reads "hope" (ELPIDOS) without variant; but "our" (HMWN) has been edited out in the usual way, i.e. with a dot placed over each of the four letters. Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I get back, please keep me here." From majordom Wed Apr 10 12:16:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05216; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:16:09 +0500 Message-Id: <199604101515.JAA22457@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:13:27 -7 Subject: Re: Mic 1:2 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Content-Length: 1075 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Jim West wrote: > The MT of Micah 1:2b has "wihi adonay YHWH" while the Qumran text has "YHWH > adonay yihyeh". > It seems that this variant could easily arise from one or the other scribe > misreading his "waw" for a "yod" and vice-versa. > > IS this likely, in your opinion(s)? Which Qumran text are you looking at? Though actually I only know of one, 1QpMic, published in DJD 1. According to my records it pretty much follows the MT and most of the variants cited are based on proposed reconstructions. Can you toss out a little more info? To reply to your question, from what I have seen of WAW and YOD in the majority of the DSS, it's very possible. The letters are written virtually identically, and in some instances they are absolutely identical (the Great Isaiah Scroll is a notable exception). Considering this, it's equally possible that the Qumran document actually reads the same as the MT and an editor mis-read it! Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I get back, please keep me here." From majordom Wed Apr 10 12:18:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05237; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:18:39 +0500 Message-Id: <199604101518.JAA22515@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:15:51 -7 Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Content-Length: 597 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Jim West wrote: > Micah 1:1 in the MT reads "devar YHWH asher hayah"; while the LXX has "kai > egeneto logos kuriou". Is it my imagination, or does the LXX seem to be > stressing the idea that the word of the Lord happened, while MT seems to > stress to whom it happened? I don't do much with LXX, but I think I would start by looking at how it translates similar phrases elsewhere to try and discover whether the translation was motivated by exegesis or grammar. Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I get back, please keep me here." From majordom Wed Apr 10 14:28:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06271; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:28:42 +0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:25:49 -0400 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960410142544_188433328@mail04> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mic 1:2 Content-Length: 394 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a message dated 96-04-10 12:14:37 EDT, you write: >Which Qumran text are you looking at? Though actually I only know of >one, 1QpMic, published in DJD 1. According to my records it pretty >much follows the MT and most of the variants cited are based on >proposed reconstructions. Can you toss out a little more info? I am relying on the apparatus of BHS. I do not have DJD 1. Jim From majordom Wed Apr 10 14:53:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06521; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:53:59 +0500 Message-Id: <199604101753.LAA03770@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:51:14 -7 Subject: Re: Mic 1:2 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Content-Length: 574 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I wrote then Jim wrote: > >Which Qumran text are you looking at? Though actually I only know of > >one, 1QpMic, published in DJD 1. According to my records it pretty > >much follows the MT and most of the variants cited are based on > >proposed reconstructions. Can you toss out a little more info? > > I am relying on the apparatus of BHS. I do not have DJD 1. Foo. Neither do I. Can anybody else help us out here? It's page 77. Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I get back, please keep me here." From majordom Wed Apr 10 15:19:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06761; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:19:08 +0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 15:12:17 EDT From: george howard Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:15:51 -7 from X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000 Message-Id: <960410.151448.EDT.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Content-Length: 117 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I don't think there is any significant difference in MT and LXX for Micah 1:1. George Howard UGA From majordom Wed Apr 10 18:40:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07826; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:40:05 +0500 Message-Id: <199604102237.SAA06686@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: rweis@rci.rutgers.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:37:26 +0000 Subject: Re: Mic 1:2 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22) Content-Length: 3232 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu David Washburn wrote: > Jim West wrote: > > The MT of Micah 1:2b has "wihi adonay YHWH" while the Qumran text has "YHWH > > adonay yihyeh". > > It seems that this variant could easily arise from one or the other scribe > > misreading his "waw" for a "yod" and vice-versa. > > > > IS this likely, in your opinion(s)? > > Which Qumran text are you looking at? Though actually I only know of > one, 1QpMic, published in DJD 1. According to my records it pretty > much follows the MT and most of the variants cited are based on > proposed reconstructions. Can you toss out a little more info? Subsequent to this message it was clarified that we're talking about1QpMic. Here's a report on what is to be found in DJD 1: The reading yhwh )dny yhyh exists only in fragmentary form in the ms. The first yod of the divine name is in a lacuna, as are the entirety of )dny and the first three letters, i.e., yhy, of yhyh. Thus apart from the divine name most of the reading is a reconstruction. There is a problem in relying on this reconstruction since the surviving letters of the divine name and the he from yhyh are on two entirely separate, small fragments. Moreover, there is nowhere a physical join between the two fragments, and no intervening fragment to bridge the gap. The fragment containing the divine name has characters in a line below it. The only clear characters are the first two letters of a second occurrence of the divine name. This is a reasonable reading since the letters are in archaic script. The editor doubtless placed the fragment based on a calculation of line length and a realization that using Mic 1:2-3 to reconstruct the text would fit the constraints. On the other fragment, the one containing the he from yhyh, there is a following word, bkm. Thus if the divine name in this ms is written in archaic script, bkm probably does not follow the divine name, making the reconstruction yhwh )dny yhyh bkm reasonable. The difficulty comes in the weak link for the fragment containing the divine name. Since the divine name occurs nowhere else in the extant fragments for 1QpMic, we do not know with certainty whether the document used archaic script for the divine name or not. What would I conclude about this variant? Well, I can see where the editors got their reconstruction, and they may have had some reason for associating the fragment with 1QpMic that we are now unaware of. Nevertheless, it seems a very weak basis for saying we even have a variant. By the way, in this particular instance those with DJD 1 will want to consult the plates. There is good reason to disagree with the editor's proposals about the boundaries of lacunae and the degrees of certainty in reading damaged letters. Hope this helps. All the best, Rich Weis ******************************************************************************* Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-908-246-5591 17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-908-937-8185 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA ******************************************************************************* From majordom Wed Apr 10 22:17:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08414; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:17:26 +0500 Message-Id: <199604110116.TAA15697@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:14:20 -7 Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Mic 1:2 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Content-Length: 3055 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Richard Weis wrote: > Here's a report on what is to be found in DJD 1: > > The reading yhwh )dny yhyh exists only in fragmentary form in the ms. > The first yod of the divine name is in a lacuna, as are the entirety > of )dny and the first three letters, i.e., yhy, of yhyh. Thus apart > from the divine name most of the reading is a reconstruction. There > is a problem in relying on this reconstruction since the surviving > letters of the divine name and the he from yhyh are on two entirely > separate, small fragments. Moreover, there is nowhere a physical > join between the two fragments, and no intervening fragment to bridge > the gap. > > The fragment containing the divine name has characters in a line below > it. The only clear characters are the first two letters of a second > occurrence of the divine name. This is a reasonable reading since > the letters are in archaic script. The editor doubtless placed the > fragment based on a calculation of line length and a realization that > using Mic 1:2-3 to reconstruct the text would fit the constraints. > On the other fragment, the one containing the he from yhyh, there is > a following word, bkm. Thus if the divine name in this ms is written > in archaic script, bkm probably does not follow the divine name, > making the reconstruction yhwh )dny yhyh bkm reasonable. That makes sense. BKM does follow yhwh in the MT, and the divine name occurs in verse 3, in about the right place to show up where you've described, based on a rough stichometry for the Cave 1 scrolls. > The difficulty comes in the weak link for the fragment containing the > divine name. Since the divine name occurs nowhere else in the > extant fragments for 1QpMic, we do not know with certainty whether > the document used archaic script for the divine name or not. Since it's possible to establish that it's also a Pesher (commentary), there may be no way to know if the apparent occurrence in archaic script is part of the biblical text or the commentary, either. > What would I conclude about this variant? Well, I can see where the > editors got their reconstruction, and they may have had some reason > for associating the fragment with 1QpMic that we are now unaware of. > Nevertheless, it seems a very weak basis for saying we even have a > variant. It would be interesting to know whether anyone has done any more reconstructive work on this fragment since DJD1 was published. > By the way, in this particular instance those with DJD 1 will want to > consult the plates. There is good reason to disagree with the > editor's proposals about the boundaries of lacunae and the degrees of > certainty in reading damaged letters. I found this to be true of the entire DJD corpus. Of course, the fact that there *are* plates makes the series well worth dealing with. > Hope this helps. Definitely a keeper. Thanks much! Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I've gone to find myself. If I get back before I get back, please keep me here." From majordom Thu Apr 11 00:09:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08738; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:09:35 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:06:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 12361 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [long -- part 1 of 2] William L. Petersen wrote on Tue, 09 Apr 1996: >This response addresses only what I see as our main points of >disagreement. >(1) As to whether Robinson begins with an _a priori_ assumption, that I >leave to the readers of the list. His assertion, to which I took >exception, was that "versional and patristic evidence certainly can be >of significance,...but such should never become primary evidence or >even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and quality of the >Greek MS evidence we possess." Since other scholars follow this methodological principle, though differing in text-critical theory and practice, I fail to see that the supposition of _a priori_ is even addressed. One need not "examine every version at every variant" before determining a basic working methodology. I doubt that most eclectic scholars have examined even all known _Greek_ MS variants at every point before proclaiming originality or at least a strong probability of originality for a text within a given variant unit or for their overall NT text as a whole. One does not make _a priori_ assumptions in either case, but merely draws conclusions based upon a sufficiently adequate examination of a reasonable database of evidence. It is as much of an _a priori_ claim to presume that in some unknown and as-yet uncited case there is a likelihood that versional testimony will be original over the vastness of Greek MS data we possess, even though the evidence continually points in the opposite direction. What benefit therefore comes from working within a framework like that as opposed simply to maintaining its converse? >The equivalent would be to say that the Byzantine text should _never_ >be used to reconstruct the most ancient version of a text; I would >call that an _a priori_ as well--and one with which I would >disagree--for here and there it _might_. Westcott and Hort basically held to that very position, and were rigid in their application of it. Further, their theory was based upon a tightly reasoned argument regarding the age of MSS, the development of early texttypes, and the issues of conflation and harmonization as indications of the secondary nature of the Byzantine texttype. Their theory as stated did not proceed from an _a priori_ basis (though their initial motives may have been a distrust of and opposition to the TR, as Colwell pointed out), and such a claim should NOT be alleged against their theory any more than against my own (note that I continue to regard their theory as superior to that of modern eclecticism, even if I do not accept their premises or conclusion, since they followed what I consider a proper methodology and strenuously worked out a history of transmission of the text before proceeding). >Quite frankly, since Robinson has several other _a prioris_ later in >his post ("My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also >reflects such an application of my own principles", and at #3 below), I >don't see why he should claim his absolute rejection of the evidence of >the versions ("never") should not also be read as an _a priori_. By definition, arguments made _a priori_ are axioms made in the absence of evidence, with no need of proof, and without taking data or probabilities into account. Were I merely to declare "MS B is the best MS in the Gospels, and should be followed implicitly except in cases of obvious scribal error," that would be a true _a priori_ statement. If I give _reasons_ for making such a claim, based upon a reasonable amount of examination of the data and drawing conclusions therefrom, the case is no longer _a priori_, but reflects the normal application of a hypothetical theory and implementation procedure. On the specific issue at hand, from my own perspective, after looking long and hard at as much of the evidence I have been able to examine for over 25 years, I still see nothing therein which would move me to claim versional superiority over the Greek data, especially when the versions stand wholly apart from the Greek data. Why this is somehow _a priori_, I do not know, since no claim is made without having fairly examined the extant evidence. >(2) Robinson states that the idea of a single MS preserving the >original is "absurd in the extreme." He holds up for ridicule the idea >that "all or nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have 'lost' the >original reading, but somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy >+ it-k) mysteriously escaped the otherwise universal corruption." My statement of course is based upon a presumption regarding basic transmissional history within which, apart from an extremely radical dislocation (of which no record exists), the expected survival of the autograph reading among the MS copies in the original language would under all "normal" circumstances be expected. For any piece of literature, the probability that this is true statistically increases as the original language database increases. Since the quantity of original language MSS is exceedingly large, there would be little opportunity for _all_ such original-language witnesses to mysteriously "lose" such an original reading, and this simply need not be postulated or expected as part of a working hypothesis for textual restoration. There is nothing illogical in maintaining such a presumption when compelling evidence to the contrary does not exist. >The problem is that textual criticism is full of examples where one MS >has preserved the "original" reading, while the many have erred. While >this cannot be demonstrated on the basis of the Biblical text...it can >be observed in Classical and other texts by looking at any apparatus. Which makes my point precisely. Those other traditions in secular, classical or other theological works are beset with innumerable text-critical problems, not merely reflected in a paucity of MSS in the original language, but in some cases restricted to works known only in versional translation. Even Homer in Greek, with its approximately 600 or so MSS, reflects problems unknown within NT text-critical circles, including multiple recensions, a continuing "uncontrolled popular text", and more text-types and sub-types than ever graced the MSS of the Greek NT. In order for the principle to even begin to approach validity in the NT situation, compelling examples of versional or patristic originality when unsupported by the Greek MSS must be put forth and argued favorably in a manner more sufficient and convincing than can the reading(s) of the extant Greek MSS. (Kilpatrick and Elliott on occasion have argued _contra mundi_ in favor of readings in even a 13th-century Old Latin MS, but few if any have accepted their conclusions in such cases). >I offer a single example, from the Diatessaron....[discussion >omitted]... Only MS R--that is 1 MS out of 26--has preserved the >Diatessron's reading. The empirical evidence shows that the phenomenon >of a single MS offering the original text DOES occur. But once more, this does not apply to the NT MSS, but is related to the reconstruction of the Diatessaron -- a totally different work with its own transmissional history (aggravated by the declaration of Tatian to be a heretic and the forced suppression of his works). Tatian's text basically has to be reconstructed almost entirely from versional evidence due to its history. (And I willingly defer to Petersen's expertise in Diatessaron-related matters). >(3) Robinson's logic appears faulty--and appears to err in a manner >which is self-serving--in the following, which I reproduce directly. >My original text is first, followed by Robinson's reply: >>>Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews 10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23 >>>(1922), p. 135: "...there is a salutary lesson for all those who >>>neglect the early versions. _A reading may be right, even if no single >>>extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics). >>Since Souter can be dogmatic in his stance without being faulted, then >>I too should be allowed to be just as dogmatic, declaring Souter to be >>dead wrong in light of the converse: "A reading _cannot_ be right if it >>is not contained in any single extant Greek MS." Dogmatism cuts both >>ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused. I admittedly _was_ self-serving in that statement, merely to take the point to a _reductio ad absurdum_. Not much is altered even if my statement should be more cautiously rephrased as Petersen suggests, i.e., "A reading is _not likely_ to be right if it is not contained in any single extant Greek MS." The only item missing in the "cautionary" form of the statement is a probability claim. Since I have argued that probability to be basically nil, then the stronger statement is no different from the more guarded statement, and that is all I intended. >He [Souter] does not claim exclusivity (that ONLY readings in the >versions, or SUPPORTED by the versions, are "right"). >Souter is NOT dogmatic or exclusivist; whence comes this dogmatism in >the inversion of his statement??? It certainly doesn't come from >Souter--or myself... "Cannot" and "never" are not found in my or >Souter's statements... Souter nevertheless remains dogmatic, even though "may" appears in his original statement: when a hypothesis is expressed which is based upon an uncertainty principle, the word "may" utterly and dogmatically opposes any opposite notion that such could _not_ be the case. To express uncertainty in any given situation is to dogmatically claim that statements to the contrary are to be considered erroneous. E.g., "Scholars who agree with my views _may_ be right, even if no other scholar should agree." Neither I nor most of the "reasoned eclectic" scholars would argue against the weight proffered by strong or united versional testimony _in addition to_ their Greek support. I know of no scholars who would ever claim in a blanket manner that versional testimony standing utterly alone should be the norm for determining the NT Greek text, and even Petersen would not claim such. >(3) Robinson continues with another _a priori_: "...the quantity of >Greek MS evidence we possess remains eminently suitable for >establishing the text of the NT." In general, I tend to agree, but >would not exclude either the Fathers or the versions, as Robinson >would. Please take note that I do _not_ exclude either versional or patristic testimony, and such is often quite useful in determining the original text where the Greek witnesses are divided. My objection is _only_ to a claim that -- just as with conjectural emendation -- in light of the amount of data we possess, _all_ Greek witnesses should be suspected of "primitive error" to such a degree as to render either conjecture or the testimony of versional or patristic data standing alone as superior to the Greek MS evidence we possess. There is nothing implausible or unreasonable in holding to that type of objection, and it is not a mere _a priori_ declaration. >I do not claim that the original text IS ALWAYS in the Fathers or >versions, much less ONLY in the Fathers or versions. I say only that >one errs if one _commences_ by saying that they can "never" provide >evidence anterior to the extant Greek MSS. This is completely granted on your part, and I too will agree that a very large number of readings "anterior to the extant Greek MSS" can be provided by versional and patristic testimony. This is _not_ the same as claiming that there are cases where versional and/or patristic testimony standing alone against the Greek MSS must be right and that all the Greek MSS must of necessity be wrong. I say only that one errs in a different direction when he or she commences with a presumption of possible unreliability regarding the Greek MS data we possess, despite the quantity of available Greek MS evidence. Two different theories, two different perspectives. [continued in part 2] _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 00:10:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08745; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:10:57 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:08:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 10885 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [long -- continued from part 1] William L. Petersen continued writing on 9 Apr 1996: >(4) Later, Robinson makes a statement with which I, in general, >agree--although it contradicts his own "never" assertion. He states "I >only contend that, when the versions read something apart from the >Greek MS data, the presumption is that they are UNLIKELY to be correct, >and thus that their influence becomes virtually nil at such points." >His word "unlikely" shows what I consider appropriate caution: >"unlikely" does not mean "never" or "cannot", and, indeed, allows that >possibility that they MAY. Thank you for the concession! I do not consider it a concession at all. If one for the sake of argument begins with that presumption, but after examining the versional and patristic evidence and finding it wanting in regard to any significant examples of such, the matter of "becoming nil" takes precedence, and from then on functions as the working principle. A dogmatic opposition to the likelihood of versional or patristic testimony being original when opposed entirely to the Greek evidence is merely a logical conclusion which follows from testing the original hypothesis. I am still waiting to see the _first_ versional or patristic readings which _must_ be considered original in opposition to the united testimony of the Greek MSS, just as I am waiting to see the first conjecture which _must_ be original in a similar situation. In every case yet proposed, I still see a more reasonable explanation in support of readings found in Greek MSS as opposed to the isolated versional, patristic, or conjectural testimonies. The "uncertainty principle" might appear nice in theory, but it is severely wanting in practice. >(5) As to the examples I gave, of course Robinson must disagree that >any one of them might preserve the most ancient form of the text. I did disagree, but so do all other Greek text editions; therefore it is NOT a matter of merely "subscribing to Byzantine priority" and having all else follow "Q.E.D." Rather, at each of those points my own position merely falls into line with what most modern eclectics themselves would state in the given situation. The particular reading of the Byzantine Textform is not the issue in such places, but the reading of virtually _all_ Greek NT MSS of all texttypes at a given point versus some isolated versional, patristic or conjectural readings. >Of the three, as I indicated, I would be inclined to argue only one as >having greater antiquity and "authenticity" than our present text, and >that is the third reading (re: Mk. 12.14, over "kenson" ["tribute/tax"] >versus "epikephalaion"/"kespha de-resha"). That reading also is the only one which possesses Greek support (D Theta 565 besides it-k sy) and therefore is not properly illustrative of the point under debate, viz., instances where versional and patristic testimony have NO Greek MS support. I still reject there the minority reading (as do the UBS/Nestle editors), but on grounds other than my "dogmatic" rejection of versional or patristic testimony when standing alone. >There are two points which...commend the reading _to me_. First is its >obvious "roughness", harkening back to a Semitism. The seeming semitism of course may have been _created_ within the Syriac version. EPIKEFALAION is a common Greek term for poll-tax or head-tax, seen in the Oxyrynchus papyri and elsewhere (cf. Liddell and Scott or Moulton/Milligan), and no necessary suggestion of a semitism should be made for the reading of the Greek witnesses (D Theta 565) in such a case. That the Syriac could render the phrase as it did _may_ indicate that EPIKEFALAION was the reading in the Greek MS used as the basis of that version, but this is not necessarily the case, since, as I mentioned before, the Syriac phrasing may simply reflect a translator's interpretation of KHNSON, just as I suspect occurred independently in the case of D on the one hand and Theta 565 on the other hand. >Second is that I cannot imagine how this IDENTICAL variant should show >up in Greek, Latin, and Syriac sources of the 4th cent. UNLESS it were >part of a primitive Greek tradition. Were the reading EPIKEFALAION widespread among the Greek MSS and versions, I would acknowledge some genealogical connection. For it to appear so infrequently among our extant data and among witnesses which cannot otherwise be demonstrated to have true genealogical connections, I cannot help but suspect independent creation of such a variant rather than any intimate link. I obviously do not think there is a sufficient quantity of tri-lateral agreements between Greek, Syriac, and Latin, beyond what normally appears within the bulk of the text itself. The Greek-Syriac-Latin principle of course somewhat reflects Hoskier's thesis, viz. that the autographs (or initial "canonical forms" of such) were originally tri-lingual: this according to Hoskier would then explain what I and others may see as "coincidences" as due to cross-contamination rather than genealogy or descent; I don't buy Hoskier's hypothesis either. >I would also be inclined to view _sympathetically_ the second of the >readings I presented (re: Jn. 13.9, "+ and the whole body"). Here I am >not quite as inclined to write it off simply as an "obvious gloss," as >Robinson would (indeed, as he must, for otherwise Greek and Byzantine >priority goes out the window). Once more I object that in this case also my view merely accords with that of the UBS/Nestle editors and most modern eclectics. There is no need to object that a conclusion here is biased merely due to a Byzantine-priority viewpoint. Only in those cases where there is a distinct difference between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texttypes will my particular transmissional views and theoretical application differ from that of most modern eclectics. >The reasons I am "sympathetic" to this variant are not tied up in any >grand scheme of NT textual priority, but are based on the history of >the early church and the variants offered in this single variation >unit. And I and most eclectics oppose the reading on the same historical basis as being what appears to be an obvious gloss, typical of orthodox pious expansion. >The likelihood that the identical variant arose "spontaneously" and >"independently" in the Diatessaronic tradition and MS _a_ seems >unlikely. I do not doubt that the reading had its origin in some Old Latin "western" MSS like it-a; nor do I doubt that the Diatessaron was strongly influenced by "western" readings (its text had to come from somewhere!). I would not argue independent development in the Diatessaron in this particular case, though I perhaps suspect that the added words might merely have been floating around in oral or sporadic liturgical tradition. >we can date the variant to c. 170. Its presence in MS _a_ shows that >it circulated in the canonical text, and that it must have been known >before the 4th cent. No problem with the dating, nor with a supposition that it was likely present and circulating apart from the Diatessaron during the second century, just as Colwell claimed for most all sensible readings, being created before AD 200. >Second, it was precisely during this period that immersion was the >standard form of baptism (see, e.g., the _Didache_ 7). We Baptists have no problem agreeing with that *;-) >(N.B.: Incidentally, this passage is frequently cited in association >with baptism by the early Fathers...THEY understood it as being linked >with baptism; I am not concerned with what we might think of such a >link today....) Tertullian appears to be the only ante-Nicene father who cites Jn.13:9, where it does make up part of a baptismal discussion (_De Bapt_.11). Peter desires to be "thoroughly bathed," and Tertullian makes the point that John the Baptist's original baptism of Peter was sufficient. However, 13:9 with its Greek text mention of washing the hands and head in addition to the feet is specifically contrasted to the following verse (13:10) which speaks of those who have been _thoroughly_ bathed not needing to wash again. I suspect that the wording of Jesus' response in 13:10 may itself readily account for why a scribe or two might think it necessary for Peter himself to request a washing of his _complete_ body rather than stopping only with the head. In other words, I see this as a very "logical" gloss, as well as an obviously secondary reading, regardless of whether baptism in any form might here be in view by any interpreters (and I note also the distinction in 13:10 between LOUW and the preceding uses of NIPTW, which might open the door for such interpretation). >I am most certainly not a Baptist, and while immersion was NOT the >standard for the main Christian tradition after this early period >(until the Reformation, when it reasserted itself in certain circles), And some of us got hung out in cages in Munster (how ironically fitting within the context of this discussion!) for asserting such. >the excision of this phrase, however, agrees with later Christian >practice. Texts are always being "massaged" (read, "corrupted") by >well-intentioned people often seek to bring them into conformity with >the theology/practices of their own time In view of the more likely situation of the statement being thought necessary by one or two scribes as a logical consequence of Jesus' remarks concerning the "whole body" in 13:10, I totally fail to see the plausibility of this reconstruction. What the various modern eclectics saw as they constructed the UBS/Nestle or other critical texts, I do not know, but certainly they and I are on the same side in regard to the rejection of this variant. >(I think it is the so-called "Living Bible" which translates John 1.1 >as "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was God..."). The infamous "Living Bible" which is not fit for either the church or the refuse heap as a decent paraphrase or representation of the word of God (IMHO), renders John.1.1-2 as a unit, and far _worse_ than what you quoted: "Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God." [Ouch! to the rendering] >The text of the NT is a mysterious, complex beast which, in my >experience (but perhaps not in that of others...) defies quick, >dogmatic solutions. And certainty is the rarest of commodities in this >endeavor. Believe it or not, I completely agree with that statement. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 00:18:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08804; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:18:39 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:15:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism In-Reply-To: <9604091909.AA12635@osf1.gmu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1767 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > Maurice Robinson wrote: > >The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more > >harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption > >of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most > >popular gospel in the early church. The real reflection of the Markan > >hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a > >non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents > >itself. > If this is true, then I don't see why Markan priority (as opposed > to harmonizing tendencies) would be a good reason. If we *knew* that > Mark was first, how does that help us establish which competing claim > to the text of Mark is stronger? What Matthew may or may not have > changed is not relevant, because we don't know if Matthew followed or > departed from Mark in the first place. Which from my perspective is a good reason not to make too much of either Matthean or Markan priority principles as I approach the text. Presumed literary dependence can be a bane rather than a blessing, as the contradictory claims of various two-source scholars come to the forefront. Those who postulate a Mk + Q source for both Mt and Lk presumably will view certain variants in light of their hypothesis to the exclusion of others, and their text-critical decisions at certain points will therefore reflect those underlying hypotheses. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 00:36:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08901; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:36:19 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:33:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gross To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC In-Reply-To: <960410113909_372721886@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1400 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > Micah 1:1 in the MT reads "devar YHWH asher hayah"; while the LXX has "kai > egeneto logos kuriou". Is it my imagination, or does the LXX seem to be > stressing the idea that the word of the Lord happened, while MT seems to > stress to whom it happened? You are quite right in noticing the discrepency. These represent two common introduction formulae used for prophecies. For a few examples, compare the MT of Hosea 1:1, Zephaniah 1:1, and Joel 1:1, and you will see that they are all identical to Micah 1:1. However for each of these three, the LXX reads, "logos kuriou, hos egeneithei pros PN". Now, if we look at the MT of Haggai 1:1, Ezekiel 1:3, and Ezekiel 3:16, we see "hayah dvar YHWH" (or something close to it), and in every case it is rendered in LXX by "egeneto logos kuriou". You're probably right to assume that the LXX translator had a different Vorlage of Micah before him than what we have in MT. I'm not sure if I am entirely answering your question, because you also seem to be asking whether or not these two varying formulae each had a different force of meaning. To be perfectly honest, I could see them occuring in free variation with very little difference in nuance, but I have not surveyed the uses of these formulae sufficiently to assert anything one way or the other. Hope this helps, andrew gross From majordom Thu Apr 11 01:01:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08986; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:01:33 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:58:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: AV readings In-Reply-To: <960409200617_187925831@emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1823 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 DrJDPrice@aol.com wrote: > Does anyone know of any Greek MSS that support the following > readings in the Authorized Version? > Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (Greek) > 2 Tim 1:18--"ministered unto me" (AV) vs. "ministered" (Greek) > Heb 10:23--"profession of our faith" (AV) vs. "profession of our hope" > (Greek) Von Soden gives the following for "God" in Ac.19:20 -- (Ia1 group) d5f 382 (ia2 group) 173 252-d459 (Ia3 group) d507, old latin (european, african in hiatus). Following Kraft, this translates to the Gregory-Aland MSS D E 915 623 1873 489 and 241. There may be others, since p.1979 in the prolegomena is also referenced by VS. Tischendorf gives in his own numbering scheme (D) E 21 73 106** k-scr vg sah-txt. I do not have the minuscule conversion key for Tisch here, but I suspect some of the same minuscules are indicated. In 2Tim.1.18, VS gives for the addition of MOI: (Ia1 group) 65; (Ia3) 64 216 d259 d505f bohairic Theodotion, and reading "EN MOI" is (Ic1) 1436 and sy-h. The Greek MSS here translate into 1836 1845 256 330 69 and 462, with EN MOI in 2005. Tischendorf gives (again in his numbering), 31 37 46 73 109 116 it-f it-g vg-cl ... syr-utr cop arm eth Theodoret Ambrosiaster and Pelagius, the Greek MSS of which may be identical to VS. In Heb.10:23, PISTEWS is read in (H group) d6 (Ia1 group) 70 (Ic1 group) 158, which translates to MSS Psi, 1898, and 1245. Tisch. gives nothing on this point. Hope this helps somewhat. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 01:24:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09059; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:24:57 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:21:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: AV readings In-Reply-To: <199604101235.IAA26199@utc-01.campus.mci.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 586 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the reading > "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23 Not correct -- the original hand of Aleph does add "our", but the main text reading is ELPIDOS, which is "hope" and not "faith". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 03:27:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09353; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:27:34 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:24:20 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: MS copying simulation program In-Reply-To: <9604081841.AA12092@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3203 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I am putting the source code (named simmss.c) for the copying simulation program I mentioned during the discussion on archetype and autographs on the tc ftp site: ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads To make it run you need to download it to your area of the machine you use with ftp. Then compile it (type cc simmss.c on a unix machine) then run it (type a.out on a unix machine). Lots of the machines through which you get your email will do this. Sometimes you will just get a line of ones, which means that the original MS was killed or died before it got copied. Other times you will get about ten rows of numbers, which needs some explanation. For now, ignore the first row. The other rows are manuscripts. The first five numbers in each manuscript are: 1) /* Is daughter MS alive? 1 = yes, 0 = no */ 2) /* Year copy made */ 3) /* MS lifespan */ 4) /* Parent MS number */ 5) /* Daughter MS number */ Notes on these numbers: 1) This number will always be 1 in the mss the program selects at the end of its run because it finishes by selecting 10 (or some other number you can choose) living mss. 4) and 5) These are unique numbers consecutively assigned to each copy as the program makes it, starting with 1 for the original. The other numbers are the variants. The original was a line of ones, but the copies can have other numbers besides one. The way this happens is that there is a probability (which you can set) that any particular variation unit will change to a different variant. All the program does is increments the existing variant by one. The heart of the program is a random number generator which determines whether a variant is incremented, whether a ms dies or is killed in a particular year or whether a copy is made of a particular ms, which must be living to be copied. Now for the explanation of the first row: the first five numbers are always 1. The rest are the maximum numbers that the respective variants were incremented to in each variation unit by the end of the program's run. You can change the parameters the program runs with by using a text editor to change them in the source program, then compiling and running it again. A number of the parameters are inverse probabilities. An inverse probability of 20 variants copied means that the likelihood of a variant being changed (i.e. incremented) is one in twenty variants copied. Every time the program runs it should do something different (except for when the original is killed before copies are made). Two files will be found in the same directory as the compiled program (a.out) after the program has run. One is called Extant, and is a copy of the mss chosen at random from those still living when the program has run its course. The other is History which is a running history of the copying as it happened. You can look at these and edit the source code (to change the parameters) using a text editor. If your machine has pine as a mail program, it may also have pico, which is a text editor. If so, type pico simmss.c to edit the source code or pico History or pico Extant to look at those two files. Tim Finney Baptist Theological College 20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102 Australia From majordom Thu Apr 11 03:37:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09402; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:37:54 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:34:49 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: archetype and autographs In-Reply-To: <9604081841.AA12092@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Length: 3778 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996 concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an archetype of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following:=20 It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the multiple collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single collection model which I reiterated (someone else must have already said it). The difference is that the multiple model gives multiple independent early witnesses to each component (i.e. autograph or copy of autograph), whereas the single model does not. Therefore, the multiple model would, all other things being equal, give a greater chance of recovering the autographs than the single model, which would only allow recovery of its own archetype which is the collection and not the autographs. So to answer the question of the extent to which the autographs of the Pauline collection are recoverable, it is necessary to decide between these models, if we can.=20 I am indebted to Maurice for his quote of Tertullian (who was writing a=20 full century after the collection seems to have been made) which favours=20 the multiple model. Nevertheless, I venture to say that Occam's razor=20 favours the single model. (Occam's razor: The hypothesis which explains the given evidence with the least (in number and difficulty) assumptions is best.) I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the=20 collection than a number of people or churches acting simultaneously. A=20 kind of early canon would also be required for the multiple model,=20 otherwise one would expect different sets of Pauline Letters in different= =20 MSS. > My main argument against the single-corpus =3D archetype scenario is > again transmissional: if errors existed in the corpus-archetype, why do > they not exist among the extant MSS in significant quantity, > transcending the various texttype limits? Perhaps obvious primitive errors do not exist because they were corrected by copyists who were used to correcting transcription errors. What happens at the site of corruption is either a seamless correction, where the intended text obvious, or =D4an explosion of variants=D5, to paraphrase the Alands, where not it is not so. How did you correct my errors? The "=D4text is obvious" in the first case, but did I intend to write "where not so"=20 or "where it is not" or "where it is not so"? (Actually, I intended to write what I did.) > First problem: what are the "primitive corruptions" and how does one=20 > authoritatively recognize them? You cannot test a hypothesis without a= =20 > standard of comparison, and I doubt any two textual critics would agree= =20 > on a list of primitive corruptions for even Romans, let alone the=20 > entire Pauline corpus. Yes, this is a problem. Yet F.F. Bruce was bold enough to list what he=20 thought may be a number of primitive corruptions in Hebrews. Concerning the C program: > Did you have a parameter included which would allow for a regular or=20 > almost regular process of cross-comparison and correction to occur,=20 > including a proviso that when the exemplar differed from the second MS=20 > used for correction, a third copy might be sought out in at least 50%=20 > of the cases. If you can reprogram with that scenario included, I=20 > again would be interested in the results. I a=D5m about to put the program on the tc ftp site. It is as I wrote it without the suggested changes. There is a parameter that allows for =D4correctins=D5 to be made, but not by comparison with otherMSS. The suggestion to include a facility for MS correction by comparison is duly noted, but will have to wait for more leisurely times.=20 Tim Finney Baptist Theological College 20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102 Australia From majordom Thu Apr 11 07:01:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10117; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:01:52 +0500 Message-Id: <9604111059.AA48616@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:00:05 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Length: 2786 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy J. Finney wrote: >In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996 > concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an > archetype of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following: >It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the > multiple collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single > collection model which I reiterated (someone else must have > already said it)... > So to answer the question of the extent to which the autographs > of the Pauline collection are recoverable, it is necessary to > decide between these models, if we can... > I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the >collection than a number of people or churches acting > simultaneously. A kind of early canon would also be required for > the multiple model, otherwise one would expect different sets of > Pauline Letters in different MSS. [quoting Robinson:] >> My main argument against the single-corpus = archetype scenario >> is again transmissional: if errors existed in the >> corpus-archetype, why do they not exist among the extant MSS in >> significant quantity, transcending the various texttype limits? I would like to comment on Timothy's argument concerning the "different sets of Pauline Letters in different MSS". Our extant Greek MSS display three points where there are differences with respect to the set of the Pauline Letters. a) The first and major point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the position of Hebrews: partly after 2.Thess, partly after Philemon, at least once after both (minuscule 794), once after Romans (P46), two times totally absent (F G). b) A minor point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the changing position of Eph Phil Col: only two times the position Eph Col Phil can be found (D minuscule 5). c) Only P46 displays a canging sequence with respect to the position of Gal: Eph Gal Phil Col. What conclusions can be drawn therof? 1) Should we take it this way: There are _only_ three points of difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the multiple collections model, more points of difference should have been expected. 2) Or, should we take it that way: There are _at least_ three points of difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the single collection model, even three points of difference should not have been expected. 3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive error" with respect to the single collection model? 4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From majordom Thu Apr 11 07:39:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10211; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:39:17 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:36:25 -0400 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960411073624_188990766@mail04> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mic 1:2 Content-Length: 2342 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a message dated 96-04-10 18:48:19 EDT, you write: >Here's a report on what is to be found in DJD 1: > >The reading yhwh )dny yhyh exists only in fragmentary form in the ms. > The first yod of the divine name is in a lacuna, as are the entirety >of )dny and the first three letters, i.e., yhy, of yhyh. Thus apart >from the divine name most of the reading is a reconstruction. There >is a problem in relying on this reconstruction since the surviving >letters of the divine name and the he from yhyh are on two entirely >separate, small fragments. Moreover, there is nowhere a physical >join between the two fragments, and no intervening fragment to bridge >the gap. > >The fragment containing the divine name has characters in a line below >it. The only clear characters are the first two letters of a second >occurrence of the divine name. This is a reasonable reading since >the letters are in archaic script. The editor doubtless placed the >fragment based on a calculation of line length and a realization that > using Mic 1:2-3 to reconstruct the text would fit the constraints. > >On the other fragment, the one containing the he from yhyh, there is >a following word, bkm. Thus if the divine name in this ms is written >in archaic script, bkm probably does not follow the divine name, >making the reconstruction yhwh )dny yhyh bkm reasonable. > >The difficulty comes in the weak link for the fragment containing the >divine name. Since the divine name occurs nowhere else in the >extant fragments for 1QpMic, we do not know with certainty whether >the document used archaic script for the divine name or not. > >What would I conclude about this variant? Well, I can see where the >editors got their reconstruction, and they may have had some reason >for associating the fragment with 1QpMic that we are now unaware of. >Nevertheless, it seems a very weak basis for saying we even have a >variant. > >By the way, in this particular instance those with DJD 1 will want to >consult the plates. There is good reason to disagree with the >editor's proposals about the boundaries of lacunae and the degrees of >certainty in reading damaged letters. > >Hope this helps. > >All the best, >Rich Weis Sir, It helps a great deal. Your efforts on my behalf are genuinely appreciated. Yours, Jim West From majordom Thu Apr 11 09:39:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10694; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:39:46 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:39:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: ms identification schemes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1113 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of recent posts to the list. Is there a single reference work that relates the various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a list? Maurice Robinson mentioned Bob Kraft in regard to Von Soden's numbers--can you give us more details, Maurice? If there are different numbering schemes in use for Syriac, Latin, or other versions, I would also appreciate information on these as well. I would like to create a single reference list that ties them all together. It would also be nice if the contents of each ms were included in the description, so maybe this could tie in with what James Tauber and others are doing with the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Thu Apr 11 09:50:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10824; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:50:31 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:50:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MS copying simulation program In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 779 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Tim Finney has supplied us with the source code for his ms copying simulation program. Thanks, Tim! I need to correct the URL, however. The program can be downloaded from ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/simmss.c (it is not possible to download from the uploads directory that Tim mentioned). If anyone else on the list has material related to textual criticism that they would like to share with others, feel free to upload it ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads. Then let me (or the list) know that it is there, and I will move it to the /pub/TC directory. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Thu Apr 11 10:42:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11235; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:42:06 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199604111439.KAA04189@utc-01.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: AV readings Content-Length: 977 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu My mistake, sorry about that! I only looked for the sigla indicating an insertion. At 1:30 AM I was sleep and careless. Mea maxima culpa! At 01:21 AM 4/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > >> According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the reading >> "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23 > >Not correct -- the original hand of Aleph does add "our", but the main >text reading is ELPIDOS, which is "hope" and not "faith". > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament >Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From majordom Thu Apr 11 10:49:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11286; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:49:34 +0500 Message-Id: <199604111446.OAA24076@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:46:38 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Syriac + it-k Content-Length: 1437 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Regarding Maurice Robinson's two long posts in response to my reply to him, I leave it to list readers to examine the evidence and decide. I must, however, take exception to one point in his post, namely that >the word "may" utterly and dogmatically >opposes any opposite notion that such could _not_ be the case. To >express uncertainty in any given situation is to dogmatically claim >that statements to the contrary are to be considered erroneous. E.g., >"Scholars who agree with my views _may_ be right, even if no other >scholar should agree." Robinson has failed, in my view, to make a distinction here between known situations and unknown situations. "May" is certainly inappropriate where we have absolute knowledge to the contrary ("Trees _may_ not need oxygen or light to live."). But where we do NOT have absolute knowledge--and Robinson admits that this is the case in the instance of the text of the NT (see the last paragraph of his second post)--then _may_ is not dogmatic on Souter's part, but is entirely appropriate, for _neither_ side can speak with absolute certainty ("The time-space continuum _may_ be infinite."). While this is a subtle distinction, I'm sure it is not lost on this erudite audience. P.S.: As for being hung in cages in that beautiful university city of Muenster, I would guess that those who _did_ the hanging _also_ had an aversion to "may"... [ :-)] Petersen--Penn State University. From majordom Thu Apr 11 12:29:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11996; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:29:49 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 09:26:31 PDT From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9604111626.AA16093@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: (jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu) Subject: Re: ms identification schemes Content-Length: 1029 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu asked: > Is there a single reference work that relates the > various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big > LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a > list? The Aland Kurzgefasste Liste has tables matching up Gregory-Aland numbers with Von Soden numbers and Tischendorf numbers. The IGNTP Luke volumes have a table with these three nomenclatures for the MSS cited therein. I have a table of Von Soden <-> Gregory numbers I found in Gregory's Textkritik. I am not aware of any such list in machine-readable form. The IfNTTF in Muenster might have such lists, but I doubt they would make such available to the public. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ From majordom Thu Apr 11 15:11:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12850; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:11:24 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:28:11 -0400 From: James.Tauber@East.Sun.COM (James Tauber SunLabs - SML) Message-Id: <199604111428.KAA25819@torino.East.Sun.COM> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: ms identification schemes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Md5: a+gu65likjS5tCPJ4ZV1Vg== Content-Length: 859 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use > different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of = recent > posts to the list. Is there a single reference work that relates the > various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two = big > LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of = such a > list? [...] > I would like to create a single reference list that ties them all = together. > It would also be nice if the contents of each ms were included in the > description, so maybe this could tie in with what James Tauber and = others are > doing with the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project.=20 If you or someone else could produce even a partial list, I'd be more = than happy=20 to incorporate the information in the ENTMP's manuscript database. James K. Tauber From majordom Thu Apr 11 16:12:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13265; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:12:50 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:09:58 -0400 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960411160957_269560800@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Jn 2:1 Content-Length: 213 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu The text of this verse seems fairly straightforward. Why, then, do some translations have "on the second day"; or something like it. There are no variants which read "second day" are there? Thanks, Jim West From majordom Thu Apr 11 18:59:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13919; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:59:52 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:57:00 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Message-Id: <960411185659_189355821@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: AV readings Content-Length: 115 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Dear Maurice: Thanks for the textual data from von Soden and Tischendorf. That's what I was looking for. Jim Price From majordom Thu Apr 11 19:23:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14010; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:23:29 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:20:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Luke 12,58 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4942 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On 9 Apr 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: [quoting Robinson] >>> The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the >>> classical perspective. >>Oops!...If I wrote that, it was a "lapsus manus", and I must have typed >>"Byzantine" instead of "Alexandrian"; I confess scribal error in that >>case (or maybe I became totally confused and discombobulated). >>Please correct any assumptions based upon this error... >So happily the _source variant_ of the misunderstanding is identified >which set off a chain reaction of misunderstandings. Obviously so, and my fingers, which were not coordinated with my mind, accept all blame. >The referrence to Kilpattrick's article on Atticism in the Greek NT is >totally misleading here. Note, I referred to "the grammatical features >under discussion", i.e. MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind., and to the "INA >clauses" with the same variation. Kilpattrick did _not_ deal with this >particular features in his article. This is granted; the issue under discussion was _not_ addressed by Kilpatrick. I cited Kilpatrick only as an example of one case where it is maintained that the Byzantine text maintains a "normal" and "earlier" Koine and does not follow the later revival of Attic classical style whereas the Alexandrian text does. >Nevertheless, Kilpattrick reviewed in his article (inter alia) the use >of the optative. Since his reasoning on the optative subject can be >paralleld with my own reasoning on the MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind. >subject, I may quote Kilpattrick ... [quote omitted, but passages discussed below] >Note, in two out of three instances in Ephesians the _Byzantine text_ >seems to display a tendency "mistakenly to introduce an optative". I suspect the optative is original and reflects an earlier usage and not a later one which would be adopted by Byzantine scribes in a period when the fading optative would be more likely to be replaced by a more current form of expression. I.e., my contention is merely that the Byzantine MSS preserve a more ancient form of text in those optatives, a form which goes back to the original. Despite Kilpatrick's grammatically-based argument, I believe that Eph.1.17, 3.16, and 4.29 can more readily be explained transcriptionally without requiring grammar to be a primary consideration: E.g. in 1.17, the majority DWH is followed by UMIN. The final -H could have dropped out due to the blending of sequential vowels which were pronounced similarly (as in modern Greek where no distinction remains between H and U). The net result of such phonetic error could easily be the minority DW reading. In 3.16 (not in N27, but in Von Soden) we again find the majority DWH followed by UMIN, where the same phenomenon may have repeated itself, and thus DW might appear in a minority of MSS. (It is peculiar that N27 reads DWH in 1.17 and provides variants, but leaves DW without notice of variant in 3.16, even though there the evidence is far more divided) In 4.29 (also not in N27), the fluctuation between the majority DWi, and the Western DOI is probably merely itacistic, and does not really reflect a problem with the optative. Now, one might also suggest that transcriptional probability might cut both ways, and that an original DWi UMIN could phonetically be expanded into DWH UMIN. This is less likely, since to do so would require the H/U sound not only to be phonetically held longer, but also to be differentiated as parts of two separate words by the scribes. It is far easier to presume a phonetic blending and shortening of similar sounds which would result in a single letter dropping out of the text, but still producing a grammatically "correct" reading. One further note which might be of significance regarding the first two examples: since the iota subscript would not likely be written adscript in most papyri and uncials, without the iota subscript, the Optative DWiH otherwise looks like the alternate subjunctive form DWHi which is functionally equivalent to DWi. The potential for grammatical confusion due to alternative form considerations needs also to be taken into account, though I still prefer to suspect phonetic considerations as the root cause of the variants. >Note, I do _not_ blame the Byzantine tradition for _not_ having altered >every single reading where the subj. vs ind. and/or optative subjects >are involved. I only try to assemble as many data as possible in order >to get a most comprehensive picture. And, the data assembled up to now >point to the conclusion I drew thereof. And we still obviously differ in our interpretation of the evidence; but this is only to be expected. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 20:06:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14215; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:06:09 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:03:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: archetype and autographs In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 6380 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: > It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the multiple > collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single collection model > which I reiterated (someone else must have already said it). The > difference is that the multiple model gives multiple independent early > witnesses to each component (i.e. autograph or copy of autograph), whereas > the single model does not. Therefore, the multiple model would, all other > things being equal, give a greater chance of recovering the autographs > than the single model, which would only allow recovery of its own > archetype which is the collection and not the autographs. This much is of course helpful to my own position, and I appreciate the slight nod in that direction. > I am indebted to Maurice for his quote of Tertullian (who was writing a > full century after the collection seems to have been made) which favours > the multiple model. Nevertheless, I venture to say that Occam's razor > favours the single model. (Occam's razor: The hypothesis which explains > the given evidence with the least (in number and difficulty) assumptions > is best.) I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the > collection than a number of people or churches acting simultaneously. A > kind of early canon would also be required for the multiple model, > otherwise one would expect different sets of Pauline Letters in different > MSS. Occam's Razor cuts both ways (a terrible pun), and I have myself argued that the hypothesis which offers the least amount of difficulties is that which should be presumptively favored. I can agree that, in the _absence_ of a recognized "canon" of Paul's letters (disregarding theological or inspirational issues, but dealing only with the primary issue of recognizing a basic "Pauline Corpus" as in some way authoritative), the single model hypothesis would seem more likely, and then the issue would become the date at which the single model was created or collected, and how many intermediate steps may have intervened between the autograph and that initial formation of the corpus collection. However, if (as I obviously believe) the notion existed of some "authority" residing in the letters of Paul from the earliest stages or very close thereto (as noted in e.g., 2Pet.3.15-16), then the multiple model once more becomes the better hypothesis under Occam's razor. If there were an early concept of significance regarding Paul's letters, the Tertullian scenario becomes more likely than the alternatives, and it would be most logical for various churches to each secure their own copies of the Pauline epistles which were so recognized. Although Paul certainly wrote other epistles, e.g. to the Corinthians and to the Laodiceans, either these were lost or destroyed, or for a significant reason they were not considered authoritatively Pauline or Pauline but not authoritative. Even within the single model hypothesis occurring at a later date, there would be no necessary reason why the one creator of the 14-epistle collection would suddenly be imbued with inviolability in the contents of that collection. The text itself differs regarding texttype within the Pauline Corpus -- why could there not be multiple Pauline collections, some of which possessed only the longer epistles, some which contained only the prison epistles, some which included everything but the pastorals, and (especially) some which contained everything except Hebrews? The single-model hypothesis does not prevent any of this from occurring, unless one desires to endow that original collector with infallibility which all churches subsequently recognized. All in all, I still maintain that the multiple model not only best fits the historical situation, but also accords with the spread and development of texttypes within the Pauline Corpus without key errors spread among MSS of all texttypes, which should normally be the result if the archetype were founded at a point remote from the autographs. > Perhaps obvious primitive errors do not exist because they were corrected > by copyists who were used to correcting transcription errors. This once more argues from silence for primitive errors which underlay significant portions of the text but are not present in our extant MSS, versions or fathers (or, alternatively, not in our Greek MSS, but preserved in versional or patristic witnesses alone). Under the single model created remotely from the autograph, it would become highly unlikely that errors which already permeated the later archetype of the corpus would be independently and systematically eliminated by all scribes of all texttypes. Cross-comparison and correction can go so far as to restore the text of the archetype, but would be unlikely to go beyond that archetype (assuming that the archetype and the autograph were unidentical). > How did you correct my errors? The "text > is obvious" in the first case, but did I intend to write "where not so" > or "where it is not" or "where it is not so"? (Actually, I intended to > write what I did.) But in that case, there was _no_ primitive error, but what was actually intended, and which made sense within the context, though still liable to correction by later revisionists. Genealogical study of MSS which are known to be closely related (e.g. f1 f13 f1424, F-G, etc.) always tends to find commonly-held errors among the MSS comprising such a group. It would be asking too much to assume that the case of the Pauline Corpus would be so different from what we see elsewhere. > Yes, this is a problem. Yet F.F. Bruce was bold enough to list what he > thought may be a number of primitive corruptions in Hebrews. Bruce was a pessimist or an optimist, depending upon your point of view. I still want to see a place where _only_ the supposition of a primitive error can make sense out of the text we possess and where the existing text is otherwise incomprehensible or in utter error. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 20:22:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14257; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:22:10 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:19:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus) In-Reply-To: <9604111059.AA48616@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3281 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 11 Apr 1996 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: >I would like to comment on Timothy's argument concerning the "different >sets of Pauline Letters in different MSS". Our extant Greek MSS display >three points where there are differences with respect to the set of the >Pauline Letters. >a) The first and major point of difference with respect to its >dissemination is the position of Hebrews: partly after 2.Thess, partly >after Philemon, at least once after both (minuscule 794), once after >Romans (P46), two times totally absent (F G). >b) A minor point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the >changing position of Eph Phil Col: only two times the position Eph Col >Phil can be found (D minuscule 5). >c) Only P46 displays a canging sequence with respect to the position of >Gal: Eph Gal Phil Col. > What conclusions can be drawn therof? This all is true, but does not necessarily say anything about the nature of the Pauline Corpus as a corpus. It does say much about the manner in which the books within that same corpus might be re-ordered, just as the Gospels themselves may appear in the so-called "Western" order (Mt Jn Mk Lk), but without suggesting that the 4-gospel "corpus" was necessarily shorter or longer once it had come into general acceptance by the end of the first century (which implies that until the completion of John's gospel there probably was a recognized 3-gospel corpus circulating, and before Luke, a 2-gospel corpus, etc.). But the order of placement within a corpus does not imply or indicate partial collections circulating independently at the same time as the 14-epistle collection. > 1) Should we take it this way: There are _only_ three points of >difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek >MSS tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the multiple collections model, >more points of difference should have been expected. I would not think so, since I do not see mere order affecting whether churches would want to possess or distribute "incomplete" collections. > 2) Or, should we take it that way: There are _at least_ three points of >difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek >MSS tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the single collection model, >even three points of difference should not have been expected. Again, probably correct, if differences imply previous partial collections. Since it does not seem that they do, then even the single collection model would continue to preserve the 14 epistles as a single collection, and order would not be an issue. > 3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive > error" with respect to the single collection model? Hebrews may also vary due to the later issues of canonicity applied to that book. > 4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model? This I do not see at all as a logical deduction from the data. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 20:26:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14290; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:26:50 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:23:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: ms identification schemes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Length: 1265 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use > different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of recent > posts to the list. Is there a single reference work that relates the > various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big > LXX editions) Aland's _Kurzgefasste Lis=CB=C6=C2=CEDxl=FB=EA=E7 > and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a > list? Maurice Robinson mentioned Bob Kraft in regard to Von Soden's > numbers--can you give us more details, Maurice? If there are different > numbering schemes in use for Syriac, Latin, or other versions, I would > also appreciate information on these as well. I would like to create a > single reference list that ties them all together. It would also be nice > if the contents of each ms were included in the description, so maybe thi= s > could tie in with what James Tauber and others are doing with the > Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project.=20 >=20 > Jimmy Adair > Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press > and > Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site > ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- >=20 >=20 From majordom Thu Apr 11 20:51:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14375; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:51:17 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:48:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: ms identification schemes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3755 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use > different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of recent > posts to the list. Is there a single reference work that relates the > various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big > LXX editions) Aland's _Kurzgefasste Liste_ (1963) has a conversion section between not only von Soden and Gregory-Aland numbers, but Tischendorf and Greg.-Aland, and Scrivener and Greg.-Aland. (Other very early editions are also included, but are basically no longer relevant). The new edition of the _K.Liste_ will presumably have the same conversion data. Perhaps Ulrich can confirm this? > and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a > list? I'll bet they have one in Muenster *;-) Question is, will they permit uploading it for scholarly purposes to scholar.cc.emory.edu for the benefit of participants of this list? Since the list is factual data which can only convert numbers correctly in one way, it could be legitimately typed in by any enterprising individual and uploaded, but this will entail a good deal of work. Perhaps some of our Muenster friends can help pull some strings in this regard? Otherwise, I probably could enlist a student volunteer or two to accomplish the task; but it would certainly be nicer to obtain this with the blessing of the Aland Institut. > Maurice Robinson mentioned Bob Kraft in regard to Von Soden's > numbers--can you give us more details, Maurice? Benedikt Kraft. _Die Zeichen fuer die wichtigeren Handschriften des griechischen Neuen Testaments_, 3rd ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1955). The actual conversion data from Von Soden to Gregory also appear in that work. Again, the bare factual conversion data could freely be reproduced, since facts themselves are not regarded as copyrightable; also, the groupings of MSS as presented in Kraft are merely following Von Soden's original order, which dates to 1911 and is public domain in this country. There is also Friedrich Krueger's _Schluessel zu Von Soden's Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1927) which does the same as Kraft. I have all of these available to me, as well as von Soden's edition and prolegomena and Tischendorf's 8th edition. All who study textual criticism should have the conversion keys between the numbering systems, and this can be provided if desired, though the best alternative is still to see whether the Aland Institut would make electronic listings available. Otherwise, someone has to type a lot (scanners would be problematic due to Greek letters, italics, and subscripts etc. used in all the lists). > If there are different > numbering schemes in use for Syriac, Latin, or other versions, I would > also appreciate information on these as well. The keys in the various Vetus Latina volumes should provide appropriate lists, I would think. These also could come from Muenster or Beuron perhaps. > I would like to create a > single reference list that ties them all together. It would also be nice > if the contents of each ms were included in the description, so maybe this > could tie in with what James Tauber and others are doing with the > Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project. All this would be very helpful, and I certainly would endorse such to be compiled or supplied. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 21:04:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14442; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:04:02 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:00:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k In-Reply-To: <199604111446.OAA24076@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1667 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > Regarding Maurice Robinson's two long posts in response to my reply to him, > I leave it to list readers to examine the evidence and decide. I too will leave this matter (of whether "may" or the "uncertainty principle" is appropiate) to the readers, who by now have all made up their own minds and who probably think we are making mountains out the the proverbial molehills. We still concur on the _extremely limited_ application of "may" in relation to versions or fathers standing alone (which rarely occurs), or in cases of pure conjecture (also infrequent). Far too much of textual criticism is based upon probabilities and speculation, but there is no alternative. We argue primarily from speculation based upon the extant data, and the results of our arguement become dogmatic. Some will presume the uncertainty principle; others will reject it. I only suggest that one's working methodology continue primarily to reflect the data and not become too far lost in hypothetical speculation. > P.S.: As for being hung in cages in that beautiful university city of > Muenster, I would guess that those who _did_ the hanging _also_ had an > aversion to "may"... [ :-)] When I was over there in 1989, I desperately sought for a t-shirt which read "This Baptist survived Muenster." Didn't find it. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Apr 11 21:33:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14512; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:33:16 +0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:30:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: ms identification schemes In-Reply-To: <9604111626.AA16093@Np.nosc.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1571 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > The Aland Kurzgefasste Liste has tables matching up > Gregory-Aland numbers with Von Soden numbers and Tischendorf numbers. > The IGNTP Luke volumes have a table with these three nomenclatures > for the MSS cited therein. > I have a table of Von Soden <-> Gregory numbers I found in > Gregory's Textkritik. I believe there have been some changes to the Gregory numbers under Aland's administration of them, and therefore would not utilize Gregory directly. The K.Liste is still the best source overall. > I am not aware of any such list in machine-readable form. > The IfNTTF in Muenster might have such lists, > but I doubt they would make such available to the public. I was not so pessimistic on this point, since the conversion list is a simple table of factual data, with no originality concerned, and in this country, under the Supreme Court's "Feist" decision, facts remain non-protected by copyright. Thus, I would hope that Muenster would kindly provide the conversion list for use by the scholars who frequent this list. Otherwise, the list can be compiled (and if one worries about it, the antiquated and now public domain Gregory list can be made the basis, with corrections added in parentheses). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Fri Apr 12 00:12:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14967; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:12:21 +0500 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:09:28 -0400 From: DearPastor@aol.com Message-Id: <960412000927_269969537@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Luke 24.51 and Acts 1.2 Content-Length: 1463 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I recently read a conjecture by a scholar that since Luke and Acts were originally a part of one history when they were separated certain editiorial changes had to be made. This would mean the addition of "and was carried up into heaven" in Luke, and the addition of "was taken up" in Acts 1:2. The only manuscript which omits both passages is D. The original scribe of Aleph leaves out the Luke 24:51 phrase. That appears to sum up the manuscript evidence (a Westcott-Hort non-interpolation). I have a conjecture. Aleph's columns are 12-13 characters in length, and, depending upon whether or not the original's lines were of the same length, the omission of 'and was carried up into heaven' is 25 characters in the Greek. Parablepsis from the kai in "and was carried up into heaven" to the kai at the beginning of line 52 would explain it. The corrector could have easily put it in proofing from the same manuscript, but someone more familiar with the info on the correctors of Aleph and their aproximate dates would have to verify that, since UBS 3 does not give the corrector in this case. If nothing else, someone posting the approximate dates of the correctors of Aleph, as well as which one may have been the responsible party here, would be appreciated. Any comments as to the readings of D being original or not, additional manuscript evidence, or any comments on the correctors of Aleph would be appreciated. Mark Billington Fayetteville, NC From majordom Fri Apr 12 01:58:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15104; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:58:42 +0500 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:58:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 453 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I seem to recall hearing recently (was it on this list?) that additional leaves of Codex Sinaiticus had been discovered at St. Catherine's monastery in the past few years. Can anyone verify or deny this? If true, have they been published? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Fri Apr 12 10:52:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16758; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:52:14 +0500 Message-Id: <9604121449.AA27882@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:49:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <9604111059.AA48616@mail.uni-muenster.de> from "schmiul@uni-muenster.de" at Apr 11, 96 01:00:05 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1091 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: >3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive error" >with respect to the single collection model? >4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model? How about the possibility that Hebrews was later independently added to Paul's letter collection in the single collection (10 or 13) model? I am intrigued by the suggestions of David Trobisch, PAUL'S LETTER COLLECTION: Tracing the Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), who holds that the original collection of Paul's letters Rom-1Cor-2Cor-Gal was actually compiled by Paul, himself. After his lifetime, as parallels to other letter collections in the ancient world show (e.g. Cicero's letters), other letters, both genuine (e.g. Phil.) and spurious (e.g. Heb.), were added to the Pauline corpus. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Sat Apr 13 16:54:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23786; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:54:02 +0500 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Gergesenes and tc Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4160 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In response to Don Wilkins' comment of 4 Apr 96: After spending much time tilting on other topics, I finally can address the Gergesene/Gadarene/Gerasense problem in the gospel text from the pro-Byzantine perspective. Lest anyone presume that the "majority text" or Byzantine-priority viewpoint claims to offer a complete solution to interpretative problems, I note the following: In Mt.8:28 the Byztxt reads Gergesenes, Lect reads Gergesenes In Mk.5:1 the Byztxt reads Gadarenes, Lect reads Gergesenes In Lk.8:26 the Byztxt reads Gadarenes, Lect reads Gadarenes The critical text in each case differs from the Byzantine/Majority reading, giving the following minority preferences: In Mt.8:28 N27 reads Gadarenes, it-pl read Gerasenes In Mk.5:1 N27 reads Gerasenes , Aleph-c L Delta Theta al read Gergesenes In Lk.8:26 N27 (P75 B D it) read Gerasenes; however, UBS3 (following Aleph L X Theta Xi) had read Gergesenes. Certainly the Byzantine text in each parallel does not resolve the problem, and indeed, textual criticism seems unable to determine which reading should be correct in any given case, regardless of the theory underlying each approach. Further, when the Lectionaries differ from the continuous-text Byzantine MSS as in Mk.5:1, the problem is compounded still further. While the actual geographical location is problematic, there are two items which appear most puzzling: (1) in the Byzantine Text of the respective parallels there was _no_ harmonization of names to produce a common locality as is commonly alleged against Byzantine-era scribes; (2) that a similar place-name confusion remains within the minority readings as well as in the critical editors' decisions, but in every case the Alexandrian or Western witnesses preferred a name variation differing from the Byzantine text. While localized dialects, lack of geographical knowledge, and other factors certainly would have caused confusion regard to proper names (cf. place names like Bethzatha/ Bethsaida), it is puzzling that the non-Byzantine witnesses unitedly seem opposed to the Byzantine reading (and vice versa) in every case, even though it is precisely the same combination of names (Gadarenes/Gergesenes/Gerasenses) which are being tossed about in haphazard combinations. I admit perplexity over this situation and what transcriptionally may have caused such ever to come about. Specifically to William Petersen: can you help us sort out the specific reading chosen by Tatian for the Diatessaron? I would assume that the event and the place name only occur once in that work, since it harmonized all the parallels; yet according to UBS3, "Diatessaron-a" agrees with Byz in Lk, "Diatessaron-p" agrees with Byz in Mk, but in Mt there is an apparent split between a general "Diatessaron" favoring the critical text and "Diatessaron-e" there reading with the Byz txt. Please help us sort this out, especially if the Diatessaron only recorded this event once. To Don Wilkins, who wrote: >I accept (by faith) the accuracy of the autographs and prefer the >criteria of sound textual criticism (as stated by Metzger et al.) to >the arguments of Burgon and Hodges, so I am left with a more difficult >problem. I only can ask, Don, in this case, what real difference does it make, or what benefit is derived from following one text-critical theory over another? The problem of different terms being used in the parallels remains in any case, though it certainly would be tempting to resolve the whole thing by preferring the N27 text in Matthew, and the Byztxt in Mk. and Lk., which would make ALL parallels read "Gadarenes"! Of course, neither I nor the critical editors would do such a thing within the perspectives of our own theories, but all of us would probably have been pleased had the scribes simply done so centuries ago. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sun Apr 14 17:46:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00148; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:46:26 +0500 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:43:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Lk.12.58 once more Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2181 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu One more note regarding the Lk.12.58 future vs. subjunctive issue: in the latter portion of the Mt.5.25 parallel to Lk.12.58, Codex Bezae reflects the Byzantine inclusion of SE PARADW following O KRITHS, but has the future PARADWSEI instead of the subjunctive PARADW. Since a claim was made regarding "intrinsic originality" of the futures as opposed to the subjunctives in Lk.12.58, would anyone similarly desire to maintain that Matthew's original text should also retain the the future tense following MHPOTE? Or is Bezae simply to be dismissed as an unreliable witness? On the other hand, if the future of Bezae indeed were to be argued as the presumptive original form of the text in the Matthean parallel, what about the other subjunctives which remain unchanged? Why could not "primitive error" be argued in Mt.5.25 which transcends all Greek MSS and thus allow the future tense to be conjectured where it is deemed necessary? After all, D in one instance _does_ support the future tense. Let me also note in the Matthean parallel the fluctuations regarding the final BLHQHSH: D* there reads BLHQHSEI, D2 reads BLHQHS, and L reads BLHQEIS. It seems that these fluctuations offer a parallel to that occurring in regard to the final word in Lk.12.58, where the variants include BALEI, BALH, BALLH, and BALLEI. After comparing the great number of verbal fluctuations in the Matthean and Lukan parallels, I believe my previous judgement is confirmed: the problem is NOT a grammatical issue, but is purely a transcriptional matter. Once more, I see no reason to depart from the Byzantine/ Majority reading in those places, since itacistic or other transcriptional variation in a minority of witnesses commonly occurs throughout the text of the gospels. The presumptive evidence _still_ remains fully in support of the majority reading in such cases. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Apr 15 09:49:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02577; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:49:20 +0500 Date: 13 Apr 96 16:27:41 EDT From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <73750.2016@CompuServe.COM> To: "\"James R. Adair\"" Subject: Re: Jn 9.37 Message-Id: <960413202741_73750.2016_FHR20-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2174 Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: "James R. Adair" Resent-To: TC List Resent-Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >From my personal experience working for UBS I may be able to shed some light on the background of the Jn 9:38 issue. I agree that, from a general text-critical perspective, this could be considered a trivial variant. But the original purpose of UBS/GNT was to present the evidence for textual variants that may affect translation, as evidenced by existing translations or by translational-exegetical consideratoins likely to be encountered in the translation process. It could be argued, with some justification, that UBS/GNT1 strayed beyond these guidelines. I believe the committee felt (I wasn't around then) that there was an interim need to include some variants that may not have been important to the translator's task but were of general text-critical importance. The evidence was offered here since NA 26 had not yet been published. In prepartion for GNT4, and with the availability of NA26 which was much fuller than earlier hand-editions, it was decided to rigorously apply the basic principles of GNT1. Accordingly, I was asked to go through about a dozen major Bible translation, Protestant and Roman Catholic, in several Indo-European languages, to see what text-critical decisions the translators made. This information helped in the selection of the 270+ items that were added. The items which were dropped were considered translationally trivial, and the student now has avialable NA26-27. In the case of Jn 9:38, this variant enters into the translation of both NAB and JB. (I don't have NAB2 and NJB at hand to see if these revisions have made any changes here.) In practical terms, then, a translation team working on an interconfessional translation and comparing their work with several major Roman Catholic translations will encounter this variant and will benefit from the display of evidence provided in GNT4. The {B} rating provides the translators with a way to measure the degree of conficence of the GNT editors and will probably, thought not inevitably, lead the translators to follow the text and not the variant. Harold P. Scanlin Consultant on Scholarly Editons and Helps United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway NY, NY 10023 From majordom Mon Apr 15 11:40:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03508; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:40:20 +0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:40:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: John TR available Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 713 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Thanks to Bruce Morrill of the International Greek New Testament Project, the electronic files the project uses for collating John are available on the TELA ftp site (ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/john.tr and .../johnnums.tr). These texts reflect the basic text of the 1873 Oxford Textus Receptus, which is the collating base for the IGNTP project. These files and others will soon be accessible from the home page of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (see URL below), as will a number of other new features, including our first articles! Stay tuned. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From majordom Mon Apr 15 17:23:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05271; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:23:32 +0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:20:38 -0400 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960415172037_514352073@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Qoheleth Content-Length: 172 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Friends, I am beginning a study of Qoheleth and am wondering if there are any particularly glaring textual variants that you have noted. Thanks for your help. Jim West From majordom Tue Apr 16 16:39:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10576; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:39:53 +0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:36:59 -0400 From: WFWarren@aol.com Message-Id: <960416163658_515196172@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: TR editions Content-Length: 684 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Tischendorf in his 8th edition used both the TR of the Elzivers and the Stephanus TR. The IGNTP uses the Oxford 1873 TR, while USB 4th uses the Oxford 1889 TR edition. Can someone help me to understand the differences in these editions? Is the Oxford 1873 TR the same as Tischendorf's TR text, and if so, the same as which of his TR texts (he differenciates between the two when they represent different texts, and so it seems that the Oxford 1873 TR is the Stephanus text, but I'm open to help on this one)? Also, how different is the Oxford 1889 TR from the Oxford 1873 TR? Thanks, Bill Warren Professor of Greek and New Testament New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From majordom Tue Apr 16 18:33:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10945; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:33:52 +0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960416223627.00673414@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:36:27 -0700 To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: John 18:2 Content-Length: 953 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I wonder what the reaction of the membership is to the orthography of the first word in John 18:2 in NA26/27 when compared with the same word in UBS3/4. The fact that the NA editors have chosen NOT to put the iota as a subscript with a capital eta makes me blink everytime I see it. Has anyone ever run into an explanation for why they chose to do this (aside from the fact that their font would not support the subscript iota with a capital)? As far as I can tell this is the only time this happens (no capital omegas or alphas which should have iota subscripts). *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Wed Apr 17 14:16:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14485; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:16:44 +0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:16:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: mailing list problems Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 994 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu The tc-list has been experiencing intermittent problems with mail delivery due to network problems at Emory University. Emory is working on the problem, and we at Scholars Press are also doing all we can to ensure that everyone on the list receives every message. If you think (or are sure) that you have missed some recent messages, you can send the message get tc-list tc-list.9604 to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu. This command will send you _all_ of the messages so far posted to the list for the month of April (for March, substitute 9603, etc.). Be aware that you will receive all of the messages separately in your mailbox, although you will be able to identify them by their original sending dates. You can address any questions about the list to me directly. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Wed Apr 17 15:34:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15174; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:34:01 +0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:33:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 629 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Because of the mailing list problems we've been having, I'm re-posting my message from last week. ************************************************************************** I seem to recall hearing recently (was it on this list?) that additional leaves of Codex Sinaiticus had been discovered at St. Catherine's monastery in the past few years. Can anyone verify or deny this? If true, have they been published? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Thu Apr 18 15:19:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21114; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:19:12 +0500 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:19:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: mailing list problems (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2145 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Although I sent this message out yesterday, I suspect that few people actually received it. If you have, I apologize for filling your mailbox with repetitive information. However, I do have an update to the message below. Emory University, unbeknownst to us, decided to do away with the computer that we have been using for the past year as our primary mail server. We only found out about it accidentally, after spending a great deal of time trying to track down the problem. We do think now that the problem may be resolved, so regular delivery of messages to all the subscribers to tc-list and tc-list-digest should resume immediately. I'm sorry for the inconsistent delivery of messages over the past few days. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:16:40 -0400 (EDT) From: James R. Adair To: TC List Subject: mailing list problems The tc-list has been experiencing intermittent problems with mail delivery due to network problems at Emory University. Emory is working on the problem, and we at Scholars Press are also doing all we can to ensure that everyone on the list receives every message. If you think (or are sure) that you have missed some recent messages, you can send the message get tc-list tc-list.9604 to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu. This command will send you _all_ of the messages so far posted to the list for the month of April (for March, substitute 9603, etc.). Be aware that you will receive all of the messages separately in your mailbox, although you will be able to identify them by their original sending dates. You can address any questions about the list to me directly. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Thu Apr 18 15:19:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21128; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:19:44 +0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:33:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: "James R. Adair" Resent-To: TC List Resent-Message-Id: Content-Length: 630 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Because of the mailing list problems we've been having, I'm re-posting my message from last week. ************************************************************************** I seem to recall hearing recently (was it on this list?) that additional leaves of Codex Sinaiticus had been discovered at St. Catherine's monastery in the past few years. Can anyone verify or deny this? If true, have they been published? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Thu Apr 18 17:59:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21917; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:59:45 +0500 Message-Id: <199604182156.RAA34064@r02n08.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:56:47 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus? Content-Length: 1227 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I'm not sure... A missing folio of Syr-cur has, apparently, been found and published: D.L. McConaughy, "A Recently Discovered Folio of the Old Syriac (Syc) Text of Luke 16,13-17,1," in Biblica 68 (1987), 85-88. The folio fits (size, text, paleography, etc.) exactly into a lacuna in Syr-c. It was found by McConaughy in the Deir el Suryan monastery in the Wadi el Natrun in Egypt in November, 1985. Is this what you're thinking of, or does someone else know of lost folia of Codex Sinaiticus, as referenced in Jimmy's original post?? Petersen--Penn State University >Because of the mailing list problems we've been having, I'm re-posting my >message from last week. > >************************************************************************** >I seem to recall hearing recently (was it on this list?) that additional >leaves of Codex Sinaiticus had been discovered at St. Catherine's >monastery in the past few years. Can anyone verify or deny this? If >true, have they been published? > >Jimmy Adair >Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press > and >Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site >---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- > > > > > From majordom Thu Apr 18 19:14:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22197; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:14:27 +0500 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 16:11:02 PDT From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9604182311.AA15658@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199604182156.RAA34064@r02n08.cac.psu.edu> (wlp1@psu.edu) Subject: Re: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus? Content-Length: 1165 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu The following was posted to b-greek a ways back. Charlesworth saw the Sinaiticus leaves more than ten years ago. ______________________________________________________________________ From: "Bart D. Ehrman" To: New Testament Greek Subject: Codex Sinaiticus My recollection of a conversation with Charlesworth from some years ago is that all of the "new" leaves of Sinaiticus are from the Old Testament and that there were no new NT mss discovered at the monastery. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ______________________________________________________________________ The NA26 appendix, I think, lists some MSS as being at Sinai, with unknown contents but numbers assigned. The new Old Syriac leaf was added at the last minute to the IGNTP apparatus. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ From majordom Fri Apr 19 09:28:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24697; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:28:58 +0500 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:26:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199604191326.IAA04819@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus? Content-Length: 1470 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu For the record, the 1975 discovery of MSS at St. Catherine's Monastery was written up by Charlesworth in _The New Discoveries in St. Catherines's Monastery: A Preliminary Report on the Manuscripts_ (ASORMS 3; ASOR, 1981). In this report he reports, among other things, the discovery of at least 8 and perhaps as many as 14 leaves of OT portions of Sinaiticus, and numerous NT, patristic, and other MSS. NA27 lists several MSS from the discovery: 0278, 0279, 0281, 0282, 0285 [connected with 081, interestingly], 0289, 0291, 0292, 0293 [linked with 089, 092a], 0294, 0296. The intervening numbers not listed in NA27 are, apparently, also MSS from the same find, but for one reason or another not worth reporting in NA27. All those listed are dated in NA27 from the 6th to the 9th centuries. Overall, it appears that the patristic MSS were of far more interest than the biblical materials. I suspect that recent queries about "new leaves of Sinaiticus" are an outgrowth of garbled and/or poorly- remembered references to this 1975 discovery? I confess to not having good bibliographic control of material appearing since Charlesworth's 1981 publication. If anyone knows of bibliography relevant to this discovery that has appeared since 1981, perhaps they could post it to the list. Has a catalog of the discoveries ever been published? Also, if our Muenster colleagues can update us in any respect, that would, I am sure, be appreciated by the rest of the list. From majordom Fri Apr 19 11:13:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24993; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:13:17 +0500 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 10:57:59 EDT From: george howard Subject: Re: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus? To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199604191326.IAA04819@homer.bethel.edu> X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000 Message-Id: <960419.110954.EDT.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Content-Length: 307 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu An addendum to Michael's informative post: James Bentley, SECRETS OF MOUNT SINAI. THE STORY OF THE WORLD'S OLDEST BIBLE--CODEX SINAITICUS (New Your: Doubleday, 1986) has a brief section on the 1975 find of mss. George Howard UGA From majordom Fri Apr 19 13:21:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25721; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 13:21:11 +0500 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 13:18:16 -0400 From: WFWarren@aol.com Message-Id: <960419131816_276011867@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: TR editions Content-Length: 932 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Perhaps someone could help with the following regarding TR texts. What is the difference between the 1873 Oxford TR edition and the 1889 Oxford TR edition? Also, is Tischendorf's Stephanus text (I realize he prints both the 1550 Stephanus and 1624 Elzevir texts) the same as the 1873 Oxford text (I suspect it is), or not, and if not, what are the differences? The background of this question relates to the use of collation information from different sources, all supposedly based on the TR. But if the TR texts differ, then the collation information would need to be adjusted accordingly. For example, the IGNTP uses the 1873 Oxford TR text, and so if that text is not the same as the Tischendorf Stephanus text, the use of Tischendorf in conjunction with IGNTP collations would need to take the differences into account. Thanks, Bill Warren Professor of New Testament and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From majordom Fri Apr 19 21:36:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27964; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 21:36:43 +0500 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 21:33:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TR editions In-Reply-To: <960419131816_276011867@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2203 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 19 Apr 1996 WFWarren@aol.com wrote: > Perhaps someone could help with the following regarding TR texts. What is > the difference between the 1873 Oxford TR edition and the 1889 Oxford TR > edition? Probably no significant differences. At the most perhaps some accent or punctuation changes. I would suspect the text itself of any Stephens 1550 TR reprint to remain the same. > Also, is Tischendorf's Stephanus text (I realize he prints both the > 1550 Stephanus and 1624 Elzevir texts) the same as the 1873 Oxford text (I > suspect it is), or not, and if not, what are the differences? Again probably so, though I have never seen a copy of a Tischendorf edition of the TR; only his own edited editions, which differ significantly, of course. > The background of this question relates to the use of collation information > from different sources, all supposedly based on the TR. But if the TR texts > differ, then the collation information would need to be adjusted accordingly. The major collations made in the mid-1800s by Scrivener were against a Stephens 1550 TR, which obviously could not have been against the 1873 Oxford edition which had not yet been published. I, however, would not be overly concerned, so long as the text was specifically a Stephens 1550 reprint, and not one with changes like the Elzevir editions. > For example, the IGNTP uses the 1873 Oxford TR text, and so if that text is > not the same as the Tischendorf Stephanus text, the use of Tischendorf in > conjunction with IGNTP collations would need to take the differences into > account. That would be correct if such were the case. From reading Scrivener's Plain Introduction (1894), which probably goes into more detail about the various TR editions than any more recent source, I noticed no specific suggestion that there were any textual differences among Stephens 1550 editions. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sun Apr 21 17:10:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04288; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 17:10:11 +0500 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 17:09:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Cc: tc-list-digest@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: tc-list digest #53 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 39843 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Because of problems with the computer network, many people did not receive messages from the list for about a week. For this reason, I am sending everyone a copy of digests 53 - 56. I apologize if you have already seen these messages, but I have no way of knowing who has and who hasn't, so please just delete them if they are duplicates. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From: owner-tc-list-digest To: tc-list-digest Subject: tc-list-digest V1 #53 Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Errors-To: owner-tc-list-digest Precedence: bulk Subjects of Messages in this Digest: Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC Subject: Re: AV readings Subject: Re: AV readings Subject: MS copying simulation program Subject: Re: archetype and autographs Subject: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus) Subject: Re: Mic 1:2 Subject: ms identification schemes Subject: Re: MS copying simulation program Subject: Re: AV readings Subject: Syriac + it-k Subject: Re: ms identification schemes Subject: Re: ms identification schemes Subject: Jn 2:1 Subject: Re: AV readings Subject: Luke 12,58 Subject: Re: archetype and autographs tc-list-digest Thursday, 11 April 1996 Volume 01 : Number 053 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maurice Robinson Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > Maurice Robinson wrote: > >The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more > >harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption > >of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most > >popular gospel in the early church. The real reflection of the Markan > >hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a > >non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents > >itself. > If this is true, then I don't see why Markan priority (as opposed > to harmonizing tendencies) would be a good reason. If we *knew* that > Mark was first, how does that help us establish which competing claim > to the text of Mark is stronger? What Matthew may or may not have > changed is not relevant, because we don't know if Matthew followed or > departed from Mark in the first place. Which from my perspective is a good reason not to make too much of either Matthean or Markan priority principles as I approach the text. Presumed literary dependence can be a bane rather than a blessing, as the contradictory claims of various two-source scholars come to the forefront. Those who postulate a Mk + Q source for both Mt and Lk presumably will view certain variants in light of their hypothesis to the exclusion of others, and their text-critical decisions at certain points will therefore reflect those underlying hypotheses. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ From: Andrew Gross Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > Micah 1:1 in the MT reads "devar YHWH asher hayah"; while the LXX has "kai > egeneto logos kuriou". Is it my imagination, or does the LXX seem to be > stressing the idea that the word of the Lord happened, while MT seems to > stress to whom it happened? You are quite right in noticing the discrepency. These represent two common introduction formulae used for prophecies. For a few examples, compare the MT of Hosea 1:1, Zephaniah 1:1, and Joel 1:1, and you will see that they are all identical to Micah 1:1. However for each of these three, the LXX reads, "logos kuriou, hos egeneithei pros PN". Now, if we look at the MT of Haggai 1:1, Ezekiel 1:3, and Ezekiel 3:16, we see "hayah dvar YHWH" (or something close to it), and in every case it is rendered in LXX by "egeneto logos kuriou". You're probably right to assume that the LXX translator had a different Vorlage of Micah before him than what we have in MT. I'm not sure if I am entirely answering your question, because you also seem to be asking whether or not these two varying formulae each had a different force of meaning. To be perfectly honest, I could see them occuring in free variation with very little difference in nuance, but I have not surveyed the uses of these formulae sufficiently to assert anything one way or the other. Hope this helps, andrew gross ------------------------------ From: Maurice Robinson Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:58:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: AV readings On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 DrJDPrice@aol.com wrote: > Does anyone know of any Greek MSS that support the following > readings in the Authorized Version? > Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (Greek) > 2 Tim 1:18--"ministered unto me" (AV) vs. "ministered" (Greek) > Heb 10:23--"profession of our faith" (AV) vs. "profession of our hope" > (Greek) Von Soden gives the following for "God" in Ac.19:20 -- (Ia1 group) d5f 382 (ia2 group) 173 252-d459 (Ia3 group) d507, old latin (european, african in hiatus). Following Kraft, this translates to the Gregory-Aland MSS D E 915 623 1873 489 and 241. There may be others, since p.1979 in the prolegomena is also referenced by VS. Tischendorf gives in his own numbering scheme (D) E 21 73 106** k-scr vg sah-txt. I do not have the minuscule conversion key for Tisch here, but I suspect some of the same minuscules are indicated. In 2Tim.1.18, VS gives for the addition of MOI: (Ia1 group) 65; (Ia3) 64 216 d259 d505f bohairic Theodotion, and reading "EN MOI" is (Ic1) 1436 and sy-h. The Greek MSS here translate into 1836 1845 256 330 69 and 462, with EN MOI in 2005. Tischendorf gives (again in his numbering), 31 37 46 73 109 116 it-f it-g vg-cl ... syr-utr cop arm eth Theodoret Ambrosiaster and Pelagius, the Greek MSS of which may be identical to VS. In Heb.10:23, PISTEWS is read in (H group) d6 (Ia1 group) 70 (Ic1 group) 158, which translates to MSS Psi, 1898, and 1245. Tisch. gives nothing on this point. Hope this helps somewhat. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ From: Maurice Robinson Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: AV readings On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the reading > "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23 Not correct -- the original hand of Aleph does add "our", but the main text reading is ELPIDOS, which is "hope" and not "faith". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ From: Timothy John Finney Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:24:20 +0800 (WST) Subject: MS copying simulation program I am putting the source code (named simmss.c) for the copying simulation program I mentioned during the discussion on archetype and autographs on the tc ftp site: ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads To make it run you need to download it to your area of the machine you use with ftp. Then compile it (type cc simmss.c on a unix machine) then run it (type a.out on a unix machine). Lots of the machines through which you get your email will do this. Sometimes you will just get a line of ones, which means that the original MS was killed or died before it got copied. Other times you will get about ten rows of numbers, which needs some explanation. For now, ignore the first row. The other rows are manuscripts. The first five numbers in each manuscript are: 1) /* Is daughter MS alive? 1 = yes, 0 = no */ 2) /* Year copy made */ 3) /* MS lifespan */ 4) /* Parent MS number */ 5) /* Daughter MS number */ Notes on these numbers: 1) This number will always be 1 in the mss the program selects at the end of its run because it finishes by selecting 10 (or some other number you can choose) living mss. 4) and 5) These are unique numbers consecutively assigned to each copy as the program makes it, starting with 1 for the original. The other numbers are the variants. The original was a line of ones, but the copies can have other numbers besides one. The way this happens is that there is a probability (which you can set) that any particular variation unit will change to a different variant. All the program does is increments the existing variant by one. The heart of the program is a random number generator which determines whether a variant is incremented, whether a ms dies or is killed in a particular year or whether a copy is made of a particular ms, which must be living to be copied. Now for the explanation of the first row: the first five numbers are always 1. The rest are the maximum numbers that the respective variants were incremented to in each variation unit by the end of the program's run. You can change the parameters the program runs with by using a text editor to change them in the source program, then compiling and running it again. A number of the parameters are inverse probabilities. An inverse probability of 20 variants copied means that the likelihood of a variant being changed (i.e. incremented) is one in twenty variants copied. Every time the program runs it should do something different (except for when the original is killed before copies are made). Two files will be found in the same directory as the compiled program (a.out) after the program has run. One is called Extant, and is a copy of the mss chosen at random from those still living when the program has run its course. The other is History which is a running history of the copying as it happened. You can look at these and edit the source code (to change the parameters) using a text editor. If your machine has pine as a mail program, it may also have pico, which is a text editor. If so, type pico simmss.c to edit the source code or pico History or pico Extant to look at those two files. Tim Finney Baptist Theological College 20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102 Australia ------------------------------ From: Timothy John Finney Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:34:49 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: archetype and autographs In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996 concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an archetype of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following:=20 It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the multiple collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single collection model which I reiterated (someone else must have already said it). The difference is that the multiple model gives multiple independent early witnesses to each component (i.e. autograph or copy of autograph), whereas the single model does not. Therefore, the multiple model would, all other things being equal, give a greater chance of recovering the autographs than the single model, which would only allow recovery of its own archetype which is the collection and not the autographs. So to answer the question of the extent to which the autographs of the Pauline collection are recoverable, it is necessary to decide between these models, if we can.=20 I am indebted to Maurice for his quote of Tertullian (who was writing a=20 full century after the collection seems to have been made) which favours=20 the multiple model. Nevertheless, I venture to say that Occam's razor=20 favours the single model. (Occam's razor: The hypothesis which explains the given evidence with the least (in number and difficulty) assumptions is best.) I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the=20 collection than a number of people or churches acting simultaneously. A=20 kind of early canon would also be required for the multiple model,=20 otherwise one would expect different sets of Pauline Letters in different= =20 MSS. > My main argument against the single-corpus =3D archetype scenario is > again transmissional: if errors existed in the corpus-archetype, why do > they not exist among the extant MSS in significant quantity, > transcending the various texttype limits? Perhaps obvious primitive errors do not exist because they were corrected by copyists who were used to correcting transcription errors. What happens at the site of corruption is either a seamless correction, where the intended text obvious, or =D4an explosion of variants=D5, to paraphrase the Alands, where not it is not so. How did you correct my errors? The "=D4text is obvious" in the first case, but did I intend to write "where not so"=20 or "where it is not" or "where it is not so"? (Actually, I intended to write what I did.) > First problem: what are the "primitive corruptions" and how does one=20 > authoritatively recognize them? You cannot test a hypothesis without a= =20 > standard of comparison, and I doubt any two textual critics would agree= =20 > on a list of primitive corruptions for even Romans, let alone the=20 > entire Pauline corpus. Yes, this is a problem. Yet F.F. Bruce was bold enough to list what he=20 thought may be a number of primitive corruptions in Hebrews. Concerning the C program: > Did you have a parameter included which would allow for a regular or=20 > almost regular process of cross-comparison and correction to occur,=20 > including a proviso that when the exemplar differed from the second MS=20 > used for correction, a third copy might be sought out in at least 50%=20 > of the cases. If you can reprogram with that scenario included, I=20 > again would be interested in the results. I a=D5m about to put the program on the tc ftp site. It is as I wrote it without the suggested changes. There is a parameter that allows for =D4correctins=D5 to be made, but not by comparison with otherMSS. The suggestion to include a facility for MS correction by comparison is duly noted, but will have to wait for more leisurely times.=20 Tim Finney Baptist Theological College 20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102 Australia ------------------------------ From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:00:05 +0100 Subject: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus) On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy J. Finney wrote: >In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996 > concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an > archetype of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following: >It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the > multiple collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single > collection model which I reiterated (someone else must have > already said it)... > So to answer the question of the extent to which the autographs > of the Pauline collection are recoverable, it is necessary to > decide between these models, if we can... > I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the >collection than a number of people or churches acting > simultaneously. A kind of early canon would also be required for > the multiple model, otherwise one would expect different sets of > Pauline Letters in different MSS. [quoting Robinson:] >> My main argument against the single-corpus = archetype scenario >> is again transmissional: if errors existed in the >> corpus-archetype, why do they not exist among the extant MSS in >> significant quantity, transcending the various texttype limits? I would like to comment on Timothy's argument concerning the "different sets of Pauline Letters in different MSS". Our extant Greek MSS display three points where there are differences with respect to the set of the Pauline Letters. a) The first and major point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the position of Hebrews: partly after 2.Thess, partly after Philemon, at least once after both (minuscule 794), once after Romans (P46), two times totally absent (F G). b) A minor point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the changing position of Eph Phil Col: only two times the position Eph Col Phil can be found (D minuscule 5). c) Only P46 displays a canging sequence with respect to the position of Gal: Eph Gal Phil Col. What conclusions can be drawn therof? 1) Should we take it this way: There are _only_ three points of difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the multiple collections model, more points of difference should have been expected. 2) Or, should we take it that way: There are _at least_ three points of difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the single collection model, even three points of difference should not have been expected. 3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive error" with respect to the single collection model? 4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster ------------------------------ From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:36:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Mic 1:2 In a message dated 96-04-10 18:48:19 EDT, you write: >Here's a report on what is to be found in DJD 1: > >The reading yhwh )dny yhyh exists only in fragmentary form in the ms. > The first yod of the divine name is in a lacuna, as are the entirety >of )dny and the first three letters, i.e., yhy, of yhyh. Thus apart >from the divine name most of the reading is a reconstruction. There >is a problem in relying on this reconstruction since the surviving >letters of the divine name and the he from yhyh are on two entirely >separate, small fragments. Moreover, there is nowhere a physical >join between the two fragments, and no intervening fragment to bridge >the gap. > >The fragment containing the divine name has characters in a line below >it. The only clear characters are the first two letters of a second >occurrence of the divine name. This is a reasonable reading since >the letters are in archaic script. The editor doubtless placed the >fragment based on a calculation of line length and a realization that > using Mic 1:2-3 to reconstruct the text would fit the constraints. > >On the other fragment, the one containing the he from yhyh, there is >a following word, bkm. Thus if the divine name in this ms is written >in archaic script, bkm probably does not follow the divine name, >making the reconstruction yhwh )dny yhyh bkm reasonable. > >The difficulty comes in the weak link for the fragment containing the >divine name. Since the divine name occurs nowhere else in the >extant fragments for 1QpMic, we do not know with certainty whether >the document used archaic script for the divine name or not. > >What would I conclude about this variant? Well, I can see where the >editors got their reconstruction, and they may have had some reason >for associating the fragment with 1QpMic that we are now unaware of. >Nevertheless, it seems a very weak basis for saying we even have a >variant. > >By the way, in this particular instance those with DJD 1 will want to >consult the plates. There is good reason to disagree with the >editor's proposals about the boundaries of lacunae and the degrees of >certainty in reading damaged letters. > >Hope this helps. > >All the best, >Rich Weis Sir, It helps a great deal. Your efforts on my behalf are genuinely appreciated. Yours, Jim West ------------------------------ From: "James R. Adair" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ms identification schemes The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of recent posts to the list. Is there a single reference work that relates the various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a list? Maurice Robinson mentioned Bob Kraft in regard to Von Soden's numbers--can you give us more details, Maurice? If there are different numbering schemes in use for Syriac, Latin, or other versions, I would also appreciate information on these as well. I would like to create a single reference list that ties them all together. It would also be nice if the contents of each ms were included in the description, so maybe this could tie in with what James Tauber and others are doing with the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site - ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ------------------------------ From: "James R. Adair" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:50:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: MS copying simulation program Tim Finney has supplied us with the source code for his ms copying simulation program. Thanks, Tim! I need to correct the URL, however. The program can be downloaded from ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/simmss.c (it is not possible to download from the uploads directory that Tim mentioned). If anyone else on the list has material related to textual criticism that they would like to share with others, feel free to upload it ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads. Then let me (or the list) know that it is there, and I will move it to the /pub/TC directory. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site - ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ------------------------------ From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: AV readings My mistake, sorry about that! I only looked for the sigla indicating an insertion. At 1:30 AM I was sleep and careless. Mea maxima culpa! At 01:21 AM 4/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > >> According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the reading >> "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23 > >Not correct -- the original hand of Aleph does add "our", but the main >text reading is ELPIDOS, which is "hope" and not "faith". > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament >Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:46:38 -0400 Subject: Syriac + it-k Regarding Maurice Robinson's two long posts in response to my reply to him, I leave it to list readers to examine the evidence and decide. I must, however, take exception to one point in his post, namely that >the word "may" utterly and dogmatically >opposes any opposite notion that such could _not_ be the case. To >express uncertainty in any given situation is to dogmatically claim >that statements to the contrary are to be considered erroneous. E.g., >"Scholars who agree with my views _may_ be right, even if no other >scholar should agree." Robinson has failed, in my view, to make a distinction here between known situations and unknown situations. "May" is certainly inappropriate where we have absolute knowledge to the contrary ("Trees _may_ not need oxygen or light to live."). But where we do NOT have absolute knowledge--and Robinson admits that this is the case in the instance of the text of the NT (see the last paragraph of his second post)--then _may_ is not dogmatic on Souter's part, but is entirely appropriate, for _neither_ side can speak with absolute certainty ("The time-space continuum _may_ be infinite."). While this is a subtle distinction, I'm sure it is not lost on this erudite audience. P.S.: As for being hung in cages in that beautiful university city of Muenster, I would guess that those who _did_ the hanging _also_ had an aversion to "may"... [ :-)] Petersen--Penn State University. ------------------------------ From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 09:26:31 PDT Subject: Re: ms identification schemes jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu asked: > Is there a single reference work that relates the > various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big > LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a > list? The Aland Kurzgefasste Liste has tables matching up Gregory-Aland numbers with Von Soden numbers and Tischendorf numbers. The IGNTP Luke volumes have a table with these three nomenclatures for the MSS cited therein. I have a table of Von Soden <-> Gregory numbers I found in Gregory's Textkritik. I am not aware of any such list in machine-readable form. The IfNTTF in Muenster might have such lists, but I doubt they would make such available to the public. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ ------------------------------ From: James.Tauber@East.Sun.COM (James Tauber SunLabs - SML) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:28:11 -0400 Subject: Re: ms identification schemes > The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use > different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of = recent > posts to the list. Is there a single reference work that relates the > various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two = big > LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of = such a > list? [...] > I would like to create a single reference list that ties them all = together. > It would also be nice if the contents of each ms were included in the > description, so maybe this could tie in with what James Tauber and = others are > doing with the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project.=20 If you or someone else could produce even a partial list, I'd be more = than happy=20 to incorporate the information in the ENTMP's manuscript database. James K. Tauber ------------------------------ From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:09:58 -0400 Subject: Jn 2:1 The text of this verse seems fairly straightforward. Why, then, do some translations have "on the second day"; or something like it. There are no variants which read "second day" are there? Thanks, Jim West ------------------------------ From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:57:00 -0400 Subject: Re: AV readings Dear Maurice: Thanks for the textual data from von Soden and Tischendorf. That's what I was looking for. Jim Price ------------------------------ From: Maurice Robinson Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Luke 12,58 On 9 Apr 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: [quoting Robinson] >>> The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the >>> classical perspective. >>Oops!...If I wrote that, it was a "lapsus manus", and I must have typed >>"Byzantine" instead of "Alexandrian"; I confess scribal error in that >>case (or maybe I became totally confused and discombobulated). >>Please correct any assumptions based upon this error... >So happily the _source variant_ of the misunderstanding is identified >which set off a chain reaction of misunderstandings. Obviously so, and my fingers, which were not coordinated with my mind, accept all blame. >The referrence to Kilpattrick's article on Atticism in the Greek NT is >totally misleading here. Note, I referred to "the grammatical features >under discussion", i.e. MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind., and to the "INA >clauses" with the same variation. Kilpattrick did _not_ deal with this >particular features in his article. This is granted; the issue under discussion was _not_ addressed by Kilpatrick. I cited Kilpatrick only as an example of one case where it is maintained that the Byzantine text maintains a "normal" and "earlier" Koine and does not follow the later revival of Attic classical style whereas the Alexandrian text does. >Nevertheless, Kilpattrick reviewed in his article (inter alia) the use >of the optative. Since his reasoning on the optative subject can be >paralleld with my own reasoning on the MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind. >subject, I may quote Kilpattrick ... [quote omitted, but passages discussed below] >Note, in two out of three instances in Ephesians the _Byzantine text_ >seems to display a tendency "mistakenly to introduce an optative". I suspect the optative is original and reflects an earlier usage and not a later one which would be adopted by Byzantine scribes in a period when the fading optative would be more likely to be replaced by a more current form of expression. I.e., my contention is merely that the Byzantine MSS preserve a more ancient form of text in those optatives, a form which goes back to the original. Despite Kilpatrick's grammatically-based argument, I believe that Eph.1.17, 3.16, and 4.29 can more readily be explained transcriptionally without requiring grammar to be a primary consideration: E.g. in 1.17, the majority DWH is followed by UMIN. The final -H could have dropped out due to the blending of sequential vowels which were pronounced similarly (as in modern Greek where no distinction remains between H and U). The net result of such phonetic error could easily be the minority DW reading. In 3.16 (not in N27, but in Von Soden) we again find the majority DWH followed by UMIN, where the same phenomenon may have repeated itself, and thus DW might appear in a minority of MSS. (It is peculiar that N27 reads DWH in 1.17 and provides variants, but leaves DW without notice of variant in 3.16, even though there the evidence is far more divided) In 4.29 (also not in N27), the fluctuation between the majority DWi, and the Western DOI is probably merely itacistic, and does not really reflect a problem with the optative. Now, one might also suggest that transcriptional probability might cut both ways, and that an original DWi UMIN could phonetically be expanded into DWH UMIN. This is less likely, since to do so would require the H/U sound not only to be phonetically held longer, but also to be differentiated as parts of two separate words by the scribes. It is far easier to presume a phonetic blending and shortening of similar sounds which would result in a single letter dropping out of the text, but still producing a grammatically "correct" reading. One further note which might be of significance regarding the first two examples: since the iota subscript would not likely be written adscript in most papyri and uncials, without the iota subscript, the Optative DWiH otherwise looks like the alternate subjunctive form DWHi which is functionally equivalent to DWi. The potential for grammatical confusion due to alternative form considerations needs also to be taken into account, though I still prefer to suspect phonetic considerations as the root cause of the variants. >Note, I do _not_ blame the Byzantine tradition for _not_ having altered >every single reading where the subj. vs ind. and/or optative subjects >are involved. I only try to assemble as many data as possible in order >to get a most comprehensive picture. And, the data assembled up to now >point to the conclusion I drew thereof. And we still obviously differ in our interpretation of the evidence; but this is only to be expected. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ From: Maurice Robinson Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:03:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: archetype and autographs On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: > It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the multiple > collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single collection model > which I reiterated (someone else must have already said it). The > difference is that the multiple model gives multiple independent early > witnesses to each component (i.e. autograph or copy of autograph), whereas > the single model does not. Therefore, the multiple model would, all other > things being equal, give a greater chance of recovering the autographs > than the single model, which would only allow recovery of its own > archetype which is the collection and not the autographs. This much is of course helpful to my own position, and I appreciate the slight nod in that direction. > I am indebted to Maurice for his quote of Tertullian (who was writing a > full century after the collection seems to have been made) which favours > the multiple model. Nevertheless, I venture to say that Occam's razor > favours the single model. (Occam's razor: The hypothesis which explains > the given evidence with the least (in number and difficulty) assumptions > is best.) I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the > collection than a number of people or churches acting simultaneously. A > kind of early canon would also be required for the multiple model, > otherwise one would expect different sets of Pauline Letters in different > MSS. Occam's Razor cuts both ways (a terrible pun), and I have myself argued that the hypothesis which offers the least amount of difficulties is that which should be presumptively favored. I can agree that, in the _absence_ of a recognized "canon" of Paul's letters (disregarding theological or inspirational issues, but dealing only with the primary issue of recognizing a basic "Pauline Corpus" as in some way authoritative), the single model hypothesis would seem more likely, and then the issue would become the date at which the single model was created or collected, and how many intermediate steps may have intervened between the autograph and that initial formation of the corpus collection. However, if (as I obviously believe) the notion existed of some "authority" residing in the letters of Paul from the earliest stages or very close thereto (as noted in e.g., 2Pet.3.15-16), then the multiple model once more becomes the better hypothesis under Occam's razor. If there were an early concept of significance regarding Paul's letters, the Tertullian scenario becomes more likely than the alternatives, and it w