From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 00:48:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA03222; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:48:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:49:12 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 16123 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >Since I believe I have provided a reasonable response to the example, I > >would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view. > > It's a strong point, too -- Colwell showed that harmonization to > immediate context is very common. > > I think, to finally settle the matter, we would have to determine > how often the "fruits of the spirit" phrase in Galatians was quoted. > If it is frequently cited in ancient times, then harmonization could > have occurred. (I would point out that harmonization need not > even apply to parallels within scripture. Harmonization generally > applies to *the most familiar text,* scriptural or otherwise.) Which is why so many people are 100% certain that "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible, even though they aren't sure where. :-) Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. However, I would not claim that frequency of citation in patristic writers would settle the issue, since scribes in and of themselves may not have been devout readers of technical patristic theological treatises, but would be more drawn to sermonic or devotional material (remember Codex Ephraemi is "rescriptus" because a scribe deemed the _sermons_ of Ephraem more important than the uncial biblical text, and who knows what scribes may have thought about patristic treatises, except when they were directed to copy such. I suspect we would not easily find a treatise of Tertullian overwriting biblical documents or sermonic/devotional material). Since most sermons were not written down in antiquity, who knows how often such a passage may have been cited beyond whatever appearance it may have had in the annual lectionary cycle. Scripture memorization among monks would have been primarily in the Psalms and the Gospels (some monks of course did memorize the entire NT or even the Bible). Familiarity with recurring passages in the lectionary cycle _could_ make a passage or phrase more familiar. Regarding lectionary usage, I would have to check Gregory's or Scrivener's lists to see whether the Galatians or Ephesians passages were read more than once during the liturgical year; I suspect no more than one reading of either passage, however, and, since no special mention was made in N26 of the lectionary readings in Eph.5:9, I suspect it agrees with the Byzantine reading there. As a parallel, it would also be interesting to see whether the peculiar phrase "fruit of light" was ever quoted in any context by the lectionaries or patristic writers or any extra-biblical source. From my limited reading in the fathers and non-biblical sources, I confess that I have _never_ encountered the phrase. My own inclination is that such a phrase was never so quoted, but of course I could be wrong.... > >I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation. > Why? If you refuse to examine the matter, then we cannot take you > seriously. Of course, you can examine a list of examples, and say, > "No, this is not a harmonization." But if you refuse in advance to > consider the question, then your results *have no meaning.* This is not a refusal to consider the question, but a matter of the entire view of transmissional history which underlies a Byzantine-priority theory. Should a parallel passage in Matthew and Mark happen to agree in wording with _no_ variation in any texttype, that (as all scholars know) is _not_ something caused by the scribes, but by the original writers of each respective gospel, and is a matter for higher critical investigation. If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. It is fully to be expected that the claim of Byzantine-priority would _have_ to maintain that its text has _not_ been "harmonized" in any way, especially not in a direction supposedly _away from_ a non-harmonistic Alexandrian or Western alternative, since that would then obliterate any Byzantine-priority claim and make something else the archetype reading, and if the Byzantine text is not the archetype, the theory is dead and we are back at square one. In a similar manner, the places where the Alexandrian and Western texttypes present a harmonizing text differing from the non-harmonizing Byzantine Textform are considered (under the view of Byzantine priority) to in fact be _real_ harmonizations which departed from the non-harmonizing Byzantine original. All this goes part and parcel with what a theory of Byzantine-priority implies, and is in no way intended to be a refusal to examine the question. On the contrary, _every_ alleged harmonization within the Byzantine Textform is a reading which needs to be examined and defended, just as with any other reading in any other unit of variation. > >Certainly _some_ MSS within the Byzantine MSS _did_ harmonize from time to > >time, but I still maintain that wholesale harmonization, adopted and > >perpetuated by virtually all MSS of the Byzantine Textform, simply did > >_not_ occur. The reason is simple: if the Byzantine Textform indeed > >reflects the overarching "original archetype", then it would not be > >expected to hold harmonizations in common unless such apparent > >harmonizations were the intent of the original authors. > > This is assuming the solution. You *may* be correct. But you are not > offering evidence. Certainly, the evidence can readily be offered on a case-by-case basis, with the cumulative effect of the defense of the Byzantine reading leading to the desired conclusion. However, there really is _no_ difference between the claim made in regard to my own position and that of the modern eclectics, who in almost all cases claim (from within their perspective) that the Byzantine text continually harmonizes, while all those places where the Alexandrian text happens to agree with parallel passages in other gospels and the Byzantine text differs are quietly ignored and their "harmonizing" variant text remains _accepted and intact_ within their own editions (one need only look at the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum to see this very point illustrated repeatedly in parallel columns). It of course would be absurd to suggest that a rule such as "prefer every non-harmonizing reading, regardless of texttype" be imposed, else we take the criterion of dissimilarity to a ridiculous level and end up with a horrible text, regardless of theory or preference. Yet to suggest that the need to remain consistent within one's theoretical perspective is somehow a "refusal" to consider the evidence simply crosses the proper bounds of logic and scientific method. _All_ theories have to function properly within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. We can look at any cases of alleged "Byzantine harmonization" all you want, and evaluate the data on the basis of external and internal criteria, just as with any variant unit; such examination in no way refuses the fair and just examination of all the evidence. However, _if_ a Byzantine-priority model is correct, then it is only to be expected that the conclusion drawn by its advocates from those external and internal criteria, especially when viewed from within a solid transmissional-historical theory, will _have_ to conclude that the Byzantine reading is original and will need to successfully defend that position on the basis of the evidence. This seems to me no different than what any modern eclectic claim to originality would have to do. I am not surprised that the interpretation of the data in such cases by modern eclectics is designed precisely to support their own intended end; no one should be surprised that my own Byzantine defense will similarly fall in line with the complete overarching theory which underlies that case. > >Also, if the Byzantine scribes had such a "harmonistic bent" (Fee's > >words), then we should expect to find parallel passages among at least the > >synoptic gospels in near-total harmony among the Byzantine MSS, since to > >allow disharmony to remain would be contrary to their supposed "usual" > >practice; this of course is not the case, and in itself demonstrates that > >there was no major tendency among Byzantine-era scribes to harmonize > >parallel passages, but if any did so, the normal processes of comparison > >and correction against other exemplars would weed out the harmonistic > >corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. > > This is false logic. For one thing, the *primary* characteristic of the > Byzantine scribes was conservatism; they did their best to preserve the > readings before them. This is precisely my own point in defending the readings found in the Byzantine Textform -- if they indeed _were_ so conservative, then they would _not_ en masse have harmonized, would _not_ en masse have accepted the "easier" readings, would _not_ en masse have conflated, etc., etc. If they in fact did precisely what you said, and _preserved_ the readings before them at almost all times and places and in every copying generation, then the _only_ result to be expected would be a near-total uniformity of text in those Byzantine MSS -- a uniformity which would stem from the autograph (Hort's "theoretical presumption once more). So with this statement regarding Byzantine "conservatism", I am in wholehearted agreement. Thank you. Now in light of this excellent statement, _please_ explain how my preceding quoted statement in any way is "false logic", since what I say in that preceding paragraph seems to tally precisely with what you have just said.... > Occasionally the urge to harmonization might > overwhelm them -- but certainly not always. Besides, nobody could > possibly remember all the texts to harmonize them. Even if they could, > they might harmonize in different directions. Fully agreed, especially if you are talking about the Byzantine Textform. Harmonization, whether in individual Byzantine MSS or in the Alexandrian or Western MSS was _sporadic_, as I stated above. Harmonizing readings _did_ occur in individual MSS and even spread among localized texttypes to various degrees (i.e. the Alexandrian, Western or Caesarean); but such harmonizations did _not_ gain a dominant foothold among the vast majority of MSS in any copying generation. Presuming a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, passages in the Byzantine Textform which reflect identity of reading in parallel places are no more harmonizations than similar parallels between the gospels where _no_ variation otherwise occurs. > This process has actually been observed in oral tradition. I can't > place my hands on the example at the moment, but I know it's there. We of course are not dealing with oral tradition in the case of manuscript transmission, though I will agree that oral tradition, especially in regard to the sayings of Jesus, _did_ play a part in maintaining a certain identity of reading among the synoptic gospels -- but again, this is a matter of higher criticism, and not directly related to the actual transmission of the written text per se. > Two siblings had learned the same song from their father. They both > also knew a related song. Both "harmonized" the two slightly. One > harmonized it more than the other; neither harmonized completely. > But in neither instance did they produce a fully harmonized version. > "Lizie Wan" was still "Lizie Wan," not "Edward." (And don't ask > about those songs, folks. They're both about murder, and one of > them involves incest as well....) And this obviously helps to explain Matthew, Mark, and Luke as (to some degree) "theme and variations". To return to the song analogy, "Lizzie Wan" never (so far as I suspect) had to deal with an "Edward" variant, so it is no surprise that "Lizzie Wan" won out. However, what if a song like "De Camptown Races" gets established in oral and written tradition? It will be _exceedingly_ difficult to ever find anyone singing "Hoo Hah" instead of "Doo Dah" -- yet Alan Sherman did just that, for those who remember "My Son the Folk Singer. But even though Sherman sang "Hoo Hah", it did _not_ replace the original form of the text, since there is far too much oral and written tradition opposing such a change. This is a similar conservatism to what obtains in the transmission of the biblical documents, so far as I can see. > >Should I _like_ the word "ilk"? Or does it have a certain degree of > >negative connotation like "brood"? > > I simply meant it to refer to those who accept Byzantine priority. Perhaps > it means something different to you, but in my Midwestern-influenced- > by-Medieval-English vocabulary, it implies "a typical but upstanding > example." I guess that's the difference down here in the South (Doo Dah Doo Dah). We usually use "ilk" in the sense of not liking someone of his ilk -- nothing upstanding about such a fellow....Regional Semantics! > I'd need to see the results before I can accept them blindly. Most definitely Wisselink should be read, and his 4-volumes of data if possible. > Frankly, > too much textual criticism is done by following the dogmatic results of > earlier scholars. (There, at least, Maurice Robinson and I agree fully.) > Is there any hope of commercial publication (read: Something a non- > professional in this field can afford)? Commercial publication of _what_? Wisselink's 4 volumes of data? Other "new" material or reprints of older material? Prices already are too high for books for the non-professional (not to mention us "professionals"), but electronic media do offer a less expensive method and might reflect the wave of the future if commercialism and proprietariness don't get in the way. > >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most > >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this > >is not the result you were expecting. > > If true and verifiable, it is not the result I was expecting. And, > if true, I at least would have to significantly re-think my position. I am certain someone else on this list has examined Wisselink and could confirm some of my claims (e.g. Keith Elliott?). The problem once more is that Wisselink's work has not been printed in quantity and few there are that find it. I have his one-volume edition and could quote conclusions from it if desired. > With the footnote, of course, that the results must be broad spectrum. > Examples are *not* sufficient. I thought that the broad spectrum was what you were initially criticizing in my approach at the beginning of this post. If examples are not sufficient, then what is? -- the transmissional theory presumed? Suffice it to say that Wisselink's published volume deals with examples and theory, but the full listing of all examples is only to be found in those unpublished supplementary volumes (and Wisselink _does_ cover the synoptic gospels in exceedingly minute detail). You're still getting better, Bob....agreeing with me ever so slightly more often, and probably enjoying it less. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 02:35:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA03303; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 02:35:29 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 02:36:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970401023610_-1403359549@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 397 In a message dated 97-03-27 16:56:47 EST, you write: << (Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.) >> Sorry if this is redundant, but according to Metzger (Textual Commentary p. 748) "The Textus Receptus, following P, 046, 051 most minuscules syr p h, cop sa bo, al reads kai estaqhn..." The Syriac Peshitta and Harclean Syriac are both listed, so who is correct? Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 04:37:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA03423; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 04:37:17 -0500 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704010937.LAA31674@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 15:38:47 +0100 Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 987 On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson brought forth a vivid defence of the majority reading ESTAQHN over the competing minority reading ESTAQH in Rev 12:18. In this post I do not wish to opt for one or the other reading. I simply wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right. The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the following "eidon". The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 07:54:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03834; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:54:44 -0500 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011255.OAA66990@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 15:09:40 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2001 On Mon 31 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): [quoting Waltz:] >>And even if NA27, etc. had complete apparati (sic), we cannot rely on >>impressions. What is needed is a precise study of the rate of >>harmonizations, etc. I don't think that has ever been done. >Wisselink once more is suggested, but not his published volume (which >contains only the text portion of his doctoral research in the >Netherlands), but the four large volumes of data which Wisselink also has >made available in photocopied form for sale, but at great expense. I don't >even have them myself, but was able to spend some time with them while in >Kampen in 1989, and was greatly impressed with his statistics on this >matter. I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for the establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another unpublished (or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: *Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen 1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. [quoting Waltz:] >>I feel fairly sure I know the results. But they have not been >>proved. >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this >is not the result you were expecting. Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's published dissertation displaying THIS result? I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 07:57:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03851; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:57:26 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011258.OAA43022@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 15:12:26 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 143 Sorry, again I did not check the correct return address for my previous post. Please, IGNORE willrut@uni.muenster.de Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 09:30:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04253; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:30:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199704011428.IAA08065@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: , Subject: p64+67 available on net? Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:12:08 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 726 A question: is there a transcription or .gif of p64+67 available anywhere on the net? (I'd certainly prefer a transcription, given the choice.) I've looked at the Duke collection on Perseus--it's possible that p64+67 is there, and I've just missed it. Or is it somewhere else? Grace and peace, Perry L. Stepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b *********************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:04:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06114; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:04:35 -0500 Message-Id: <9704011604.AA01316@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 17:08:38 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1182 > ><< (Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.) >> >Sorry if this is redundant, but according to Metzger (Textual Commentary p. >748) "The Textus Receptus, following P, 046, 051 most minuscules syr p h, cop >sa bo, al reads kai estaqhn..." The Syriac Peshitta and Harclean Syriac are >both listed, so who is correct? >Rich Elliott > You'll notice that there's no space or point or comma between the p and the h that are put above the abbreviation syr. So you must read, not "p and h" but "ph" which is the abbreviation for "philoxenian". Greetings, Jean V. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. ________________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:14:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06143; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:14:11 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:20:47 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 15278 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> >Since I believe I have provided a reasonable response to the example, I >> >would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view. >> >> It's a strong point, too -- Colwell showed that harmonization to >> immediate context is very common. >> >> I think, to finally settle the matter, we would have to determine >> how often the "fruits of the spirit" phrase in Galatians was quoted. >> If it is frequently cited in ancient times, then harmonization could >> have occurred. (I would point out that harmonization need not >> even apply to parallels within scripture. Harmonization generally >> applies to *the most familiar text,* scriptural or otherwise.) > >Which is why so many people are 100% certain that "God helps those who >help themselves" is in the Bible, even though they aren't sure where. :-) I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. >Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in >the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no >variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. But this is the fact we need: How often did people cite that passage? Only by knowing how familiar it is can we determine whether people would harmonize to it. I concede Robinson's argument (omitted) that it is hard to tell how well-known a passage is. But it is a crucial question here. [ ... ] >As a parallel, it would also be interesting to see whether the peculiar >phrase "fruit of light" was ever quoted in any context by the lectionaries >or patristic writers or any extra-biblical source. From my limited >reading in the fathers and non-biblical sources, I confess that I have >_never_ encountered the phrase. My own inclination is that such a phrase >was never so quoted, but of course I could be wrong.... I agree, for whatever it's worth. >> >I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation. > >> Why? If you refuse to examine the matter, then we cannot take you >> seriously. Of course, you can examine a list of examples, and say, >> "No, this is not a harmonization." But if you refuse in advance to >> consider the question, then your results *have no meaning.* > >This is not a refusal to consider the question, but a matter of the entire >view of transmissional history which underlies a Byzantine-priority >theory. Should a parallel passage in Matthew and Mark happen to agree in >wording with _no_ variation in any texttype, that (as all scholars know) >is _not_ something caused by the scribes, but by the original writers of >each respective gospel, and is a matter for higher critical investigation. Agreed. >If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the >autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear >in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. >Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read >identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may >happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate >harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. Agreed again, but it's *still* assuming the solution. The matter cannot be investigated from that standpoint. [ ... ] >It of course would be absurd to suggest that a rule such as "prefer every >non-harmonizing reading, regardless of texttype" be imposed, else we take >the criterion of dissimilarity to a ridiculous level and end up with a >horrible text, regardless of theory or preference. Yet to suggest that the >need to remain consistent within one's theoretical perspective is somehow >a "refusal" to consider the evidence simply crosses the proper bounds of >logic and scientific method. _All_ theories have to function properly >within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to >maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority >method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be >admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. I see what you are saying. And I do not argue that we must always accept the least harmonious reading. I am simply saying (and this criticism applies just as much to blind followers of Hort as to followers of the Byzantine text) that *wherever* there is a variant involving one or more harmonized readings, and one or more disharmonized readings, we must initially evaluate the readings without examining the text-types they belong to. Note that I am working at the very lowest level here. I am *not* trying to determine the original text. I am trying to determine the age and value of the Byzantine text (and the other text-types). Only once that investigation is completed can we start on the original text. To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels. He has reached a conclusion about the original text type. I had reached a different conclusion about that text-type. I am now offering to go back one level, and assume *ignorance* about the text-types. I am not willing to go back and then blindly come over to his side. [ ... ] >> >Also, if the Byzantine scribes had such a "harmonistic bent" (Fee's >> >words), then we should expect to find parallel passages among at least the >> >synoptic gospels in near-total harmony among the Byzantine MSS, since to >> >allow disharmony to remain would be contrary to their supposed "usual" >> >practice; this of course is not the case, and in itself demonstrates that >> >there was no major tendency among Byzantine-era scribes to harmonize >> >parallel passages, but if any did so, the normal processes of comparison >> >and correction against other exemplars would weed out the harmonistic >> >corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. >> >> This is false logic. For one thing, the *primary* characteristic of the >> Byzantine scribes was conservatism; they did their best to preserve the >> readings before them. > >This is precisely my own point in defending the readings found in the >Byzantine Textform -- if they indeed _were_ so conservative, then they >would _not_ en masse have harmonized, would _not_ en masse have accepted >the "easier" readings, would _not_ en masse have conflated, etc., etc. > >If they in fact did precisely what you said, and _preserved_ the readings >before them at almost all times and places and in every copying >generation, then the _only_ result to be expected would be a near-total >uniformity of text in those Byzantine MSS -- a uniformity which would stem >from the autograph (Hort's "theoretical presumption once more). > >So with this statement regarding Byzantine "conservatism", I am in >wholehearted agreement. Thank you. Now in light of this excellent >statement, _please_ explain how my preceding quoted statement in any way >is "false logic", since what I say in that preceding paragraph seems to >tally precisely with what you have just said.... I said *primarily* conservative. They did not set out to create variants. That doesn't mean they *never* did so. We all know that no copyist is perfect. Also, when I refer to the Byzantine copyists as "conservative," I refer to them during the periods during which their actions are visible (which starts in the fourth/fifth century for the gospels, and later in the rest of the NT). We do not know the shape of the materials they worked with prior to that time. Of course, the same statement applies, with differences in date, to all text-types. We know, e.g., that the copyist who produced B, and probably its immediate predecessors, were conservative, because they kept its text close to p75. But we do not know what happened prior to the creation of p75. Most scholars think the forerunners of that manuscript were also conservative and careful. But we *cannot* prove it. [ ... ] >> This process has actually been observed in oral tradition. I can't >> place my hands on the example at the moment, but I know it's there. > >We of course are not dealing with oral tradition in the case of manuscript >transmission, though I will agree that oral tradition, especially in >regard to the sayings of Jesus, _did_ play a part in maintaining a certain >identity of reading among the synoptic gospels -- but again, this is a >matter of higher criticism, and not directly related to the actual >transmission of the written text per se. Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition display *identical behaviors*. They are both phenomena of the written memory. The difference is simply that in oral tradition the evolution (or devolution) takes place faster, because it is harder to refer back to the "original." But I would bet that I can find examples of *any* textual phenomenon you care to name in Bronson's "Traditional Tunes of the Child Ballads." (Or could, if I had all four volumes, which I don't.) I could probably find all of them just in "Barbara Allen" or "Lord Thomas and Fair Ellen." >> Two siblings had learned the same song from their father. They both >> also knew a related song. Both "harmonized" the two slightly. One >> harmonized it more than the other; neither harmonized completely. >> But in neither instance did they produce a fully harmonized version. >> "Lizie Wan" was still "Lizie Wan," not "Edward." (And don't ask >> about those songs, folks. They're both about murder, and one of >> them involves incest as well....) > >And this obviously helps to explain Matthew, Mark, and Luke as (to some >degree) "theme and variations". To return to the song analogy, "Lizzie >Wan" never (so far as I suspect) had to deal with an "Edward" variant, so >it is no surprise that "Lizzie Wan" won out. However, what if a song like >"De Camptown Races" gets established in oral and written tradition? It >will be _exceedingly_ difficult to ever find anyone singing "Hoo Hah" >instead of "Doo Dah" -- yet Alan Sherman did just that, for those who >remember "My Son the Folk Singer. You'd be amazed at what happens. A collector in Australia found a text which consisted of equal parts of "Marching Through Georgia" and "The Battle Cry of Freedom," using both textual and melodic phrases from both. And yet *both* songs are still sung widely, and *both* are still in print. Errors of the mind are infinite. [ ... ] >> I'd need to see the results before I can accept them blindly. > >Most definitely Wisselink should be read, and his 4-volumes of data if >possible. > >> Frankly, >> too much textual criticism is done by following the dogmatic results of >> earlier scholars. (There, at least, Maurice Robinson and I agree fully.) >> Is there any hope of commercial publication (read: Something a non- >> professional in this field can afford)? > >Commercial publication of _what_? Wisselink's 4 volumes of data? Other >"new" material or reprints of older material? Prices already are too high >for books for the non-professional (not to mention us "professionals"), >but electronic media do offer a less expensive method and might reflect >the wave of the future if commercialism and proprietariness don't get in >the way. Anything. Everything. Electronic publication would be fine. :-) >> >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most >> >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this >> >is not the result you were expecting. >> >> If true and verifiable, it is not the result I was expecting. And, >> if true, I at least would have to significantly re-think my position. > >I am certain someone else on this list has examined Wisselink and could >confirm some of my claims (e.g. Keith Elliott?). The problem once more is >that Wisselink's work has not been printed in quantity and few there are >that find it. The eternal problem of textual criticism. Something needs to be done about this... even if it just means more electronic publication. >I have his one-volume edition and could quote conclusions >from it if desired. I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what Daniel Wallace had to say abour Wisselink. He did raise one *very* strong point. He observes that Wisselink compares the Byzantine *text* with individual Alexandrian *witnesses.* Now it is true that the Byzantine text is fairly coherent, and the Alexandrian text is not, so this is the easiest sort of comparison. But it is also a *false* comparison. An individual manuscript will almost certainly have more harmonizations than its text-type. We must compare types against types. >> With the footnote, of course, that the results must be broad spectrum. >> Examples are *not* sufficient. > >I thought that the broad spectrum was what you were initially criticizing >in my approach at the beginning of this post. If examples are not >sufficient, then what is? -- the transmissional theory presumed? Suffice >it to say that Wisselink's published volume deals with examples and >theory, but the full listing of all examples is only to be found in those >unpublished supplementary volumes (and Wisselink _does_ cover the synoptic >gospels in exceedingly minute detail). Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. My point is, one *cannot* quote isolated examples. One must sit down with *some* section of continuous text and examine every reading. In fact, I made a small experiment of that sort last night. I started from Hodges & Farstad (the only text with a reasonably relevant critical apparatus). Taking two sample chapters (from Mark and John), I compared the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." The majority of readings were ambiguous. In instances where one reading seemed preferable to the others, it seemed about an even split as to which was preferable, Byzantine or Alexandrian. However, many of these readings were cases where one reading was only slightly preferable. In the handful of cases where one was *clearly* preferable (I think there were five that I noticed before I had to stop), *all five of the preferable readings were Alexandrian.* This is an interesting caution, in that it says that both sides have some of the truth. It also says that we need to study the matter further; I didn't check enough readings to be decisive. But it also says that we need a rigid control procedure; what I think is certainly original may not be what Wisselink thinks is certainly original. It's a problem. But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. The difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian is certainly not as clearcut as I thought. >You're still getting better, Bob....agreeing with me ever so slightly more >often, and probably enjoying it less. :-) True on both counts. Although -- even if the process continues -- my resultant theory is likely to resemble Von Soden's or Sturz's. I doubt I will abandon non-Byzantine text-types entirely. Just great... already half the people on this list don't listen to me. Now I'm going to get the other half ignoring me. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:14:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06151; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:14:12 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970401023610_-1403359549@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:19:39 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 899 >In a message dated 97-03-27 16:56:47 EST, you write: > ><< (Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.) >> >Sorry if this is redundant, but according to Metzger (Textual Commentary p. >748) "The Textus Receptus, following P, 046, 051 most minuscules syr p h, cop >sa bo, al reads kai estaqhn..." The Syriac Peshitta and Harclean Syriac are >both listed, so who is correct? p h ph The reading in the commentary is not "syr " but "syr ." That is, it refers to the Philoxenian Syriac. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:18:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06190; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:18:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 10:18:23 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: p64+67 available on net? X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970401101803.19974032@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 584 At 07:12 AM 4/1/97 -0600, you wrote: >A question: is there a transcription or .gif of p64+67 available anywhere >on the net? (I'd certainly prefer a transcription, given the choice.) >I've looked at the Duke collection on Perseus--it's possible that p64+67 is >there, and I've just missed it. Or is it somewhere else? > Check out http://www.entmp.org. They are an excellent source for such. >Grace and peace, > >Perry L. Stepp > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:25:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06231; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:25:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:25:45 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 In-Reply-To: <199704010937.LAA31674@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1485 On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 willrut@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson brought forth a vivid defence of the > majority reading ESTAQHN over the competing minority reading ESTAQH in Rev > 12:18. In this post I do not wish to opt for one or the other reading. I simply > wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right. [eclectic view from Metzger:] > The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when > copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the > following "eidon". [Robinson's comment:] > The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he > stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and > flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of > alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely > to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular > ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first > person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made > sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. This seems accurate to me. Is there a particular point, Ulrich? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:36:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06262; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:36:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:37:13 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <199704011255.OAA66990@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2596 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 willrut@uni-muenster.de wrote: > I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he > reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of > Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for the > establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from > Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another unpublished > (or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: > *Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen > 1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, > *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. > Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three > annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the _unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was bound similarly to the other three volumes of data so as to make four identical volumes. > >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most > >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this > >is not the result you were expecting. > > Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's published > dissertation displaying THIS result? > I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. I will have to search Wisselink's single published volume for what I confessedly remember from when I first read it some time ago. I was certain that he made a claim to the effect that the Byzantine Textform _may_ have as many _alleged_ harmonizations as have been claimed for it, but that upon examination the alleged harmonizations were generally invalid, and that the other major texttypes in contrast possessed valid harmonizations. This of course by default makes the Byzantine Textform "less harmonized" than the other texttypes. Were you not able to find something of that sort in the book? I know that from talking with Wisselink while in Kampen (he is a Reformed Church pastor living about 2 hours away from Kampen) that we specifically discussed that conclusion as a major result of his research. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:58:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06362; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:58:28 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011559.RAA51968@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 18:13:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1611 On Tu, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 willrut@uni-muenster.de wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson brought forth a vivid defence of the >> majority reading ESTAQHN over the competing minority reading ESTAQH in Rev >> 12:18. In this post I do not wish to opt for one or the other reading. I >>simply >> wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right. >[eclectic view from Metzger:] >> The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when >> copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the >> following "eidon". >[Robinson's comment:] >> The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he >> stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and >> flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of >> alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely >> to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular >> ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first >> person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made >> sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. >This seems accurate to me. Is there a particular point, Ulrich? No. Sorry, but this was a distorted message. I started to compse one, then all of a sudden it dissappeared. I tried to figure out where it went, but I did not succeed. Then I had to leave. Being now back in Muenster, and after checking my mailbox, I have to face the sad truth that I can hardly handle the computer. My apologize. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 11:03:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06384; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:03:01 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011603.SAA25306@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 18:17:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2247 > I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he > reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of > Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for the > establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from > Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another unpublished > (or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: > *Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen > 1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, > *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. > Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three > annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the _unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was bound similarly to the other three volumes of data so as to make four identical volumes. > >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most > >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this > >is not the result you were expecting. > > Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's published > dissertation displaying THIS result? > I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. I will have to search Wisselink's single published volume for what I confessedly remember from when I first read it some time ago. I was certain that he made a claim to the effect that the Byzantine Textform _may_ have as many _alleged_ harmonizations as have been claimed for it, but that upon examination the alleged harmonizations were generally invalid, and that the other major texttypes in contrast possessed valid harmonizations. This of course by default makes the Byzantine Textform "less harmonized" than the other texttypes. Were you not able to find something of that sort in the book? I know that from talking with Wisselink while in Kampen (he is a Reformed Church pastor living about 2 hours away from Kampen) that we specifically discussed that conclusion as a major result of his research. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:20:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06687; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:20:15 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011720.TAA50646@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 19:35:14 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5049 Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. Back to what I initially planned. On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: [quoting Schmid:] >> I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he >> reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of >> Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for >>the >> establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from >> Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another >>unpublished > >(or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: > >*Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen > >1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, >> *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. >> Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three >> annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. >You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the >_unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was >bound similarly to the other three volumes of data so as to make four >identical volumes. We finally settled that case, I assume. >> >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most >> >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this >> >is not the result you were expecting. >> >> Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's >>published >> dissertation displaying THIS result? > >I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. >I will have to search Wisselink's single published volume for what I >confessedly remember from when I first read it some time ago. I was >certain that he made a claim to the effect that the Byzantine Textform >_may_ have as many _alleged_ harmonizations as have been claimed for it, >but that upon examination the alleged harmonizations were generally >invalid, and that the other major texttypes in contrast possessed valid >harmonizations. This of course by default makes the Byzantine Textform >"less harmonized" than the other texttypes. Were you not able to find >something of that sort in the book? I know that from talking with >Wisselink while in Kampen (he is a Reformed Church pastor living about 2 >hours away from Kampen) that we specifically discussed that conclusion as >a major result of his research. Here is Wisselink's final conclusion: "Assimilation is not restricted to a single group of manuscripts, neither to a single gospel; assimilation has not taken place to any one gospel to a strikingly high degree. So if an assimilation is signalized, nothing can be concluded from that regarding the age of any variant or the value of any text-type. The current thesis, that the Byzantine text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). Noone (at least noone familiar with some MSS) ever assumed that assimilation _only_ occured within the Byzantine text-type. Therefore, Wisselink's conclusion oversimplificates the whole issue. We should not neglect another of Wisselink's conclusions: "D especially has been assimilated. The degree of assimilation in B and P45 is strikingly small. 33, Theta and the Byzantine text-type stand midway between the others" (p. 87). Now this is interesting. Even a scholar so heavily devoted to unearth the crucial problem of assimilation, and at the same time to fight for the reputation of the Byzantine text-type had to concede the fact that B proportionally contains the smallest amount of assimilation (slightly less than P45). In contrast to D which after all contains most of the _big_ assimilations (including transpositions of more than one vers of Mark into Luke) it is no surprise that the rest is somewhere in between B and D. These are the facts drawn from Wisselink's data. In itself the data simply do _not_ point to the "Byzantine Textform as being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels". Maurice's conclusion only fits the data, if one judges the Byzantine Textform on other grounds as being original. I prefer to approach Wisselink's data from a more inductive perspective: Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels (including P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a constant threat on every level of textual transmission of the (united) Gospels, I simply have greater confidence in those witnesses who contain proportionally less assimilations. This is not to say that I will follow them slavishly in every instance. They just attracted my interest and partly my confidence. This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:24:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06722; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:24:35 -0500 Date: 1 Apr 1997 17:24:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19970401172440.264.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (waltzmn@skypoint.com) Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 676 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- waltzmn@skypoint.com said: > ... I compared > the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the > internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." > ... > But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. I say Amen to that. Quite educational. Vincent Broman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM0FEuGCU4mTNq7IdAQFCeQP8DwaiRZZ/o87CsgErrEE3ElFlui9wn0mM gVqVizIVMdzvUOBXgSPa8fuAlwIkcF5T+rruHoXT9yCVwDS6wjUzvm+fVmHpBin5 VEVF2i03qNhCHh6mZFtRJuasb23IbGiuM0LoDLZicNWgzQL0e5DsHj3A2CF3eZrk QUHwjJUMeAw= =nQL3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:44:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06748; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:44:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:44:49 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Wesley on 1 John 5 To: TC-List Message-ID: <199704011244_MC2-1393-587E@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 590 Robert Waltz commented: >I always though it was ironic, though, that Wesley's changes did not >include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5 Ironic, indeed, but here he also follows Bengel. In his _Explanatory Notes_ at 1 John 5.7, Wesley says, "What Bengelius has advanced, both concerning the transposition of these two verses, and the authority of the controverted verse, partly in his "Gnomon," and partly in his "Apparatus Criticus," will abundantly satisfy any impartial person." Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:57:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06785; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:56:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:57:35 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970401125734.42775d30@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1226 Just as a gloss on Ulrich Schmid's remark about Codex Bezae (D) and its high number of harmonizations/assimilations (as per Wisselink's research) relative to other (Greek) MSS: this high number is thought to be the result of (1) Codex Bezae's having been influenced in some manner by the Diatessaronic tradition (which is, of course, a gospel harmony...), or (2) Codex Bezae's being related to the Vetus Syra, which has numerous cross-gospel harmonizations because *it* was influenced by the Diatessaron, or (3) both of the above (1 *and* 2). See, among others, the work of F.H. Chase. It should be recalled that harmonization began in the *first* century, when "Matthew" and "Luke" began weaving together portions of "Mark" and "Q" (regardless of what theory of synoptic origins one may subscribe to, the same applies: e.g., for Griesbachians: "Mark" harmonized material from "Matthew" and "Luke"). In the *early-second* century we have Justin's harmony, and the Judaic-Christian harmony quoted by Epiphanius in Pan. 30.13, etc., which Vielhauer labelled the "Gospel according to the Ebionites"--although Epiphanius calls it "the Hebrew gospel" (= the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" ?). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 14:49:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07195; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:49:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:49:51 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <199704011720.TAA50646@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7978 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's > post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for I > now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the electronic age? :-) > Here is Wisselink's final conclusion: "Assimilation is not restricted to a > single group of manuscripts, neither to a single gospel; assimilation has not > taken place to any one gospel to a strikingly high degree. So if an assimilation > is signalized, nothing can be concluded from that regarding the age of any > variant or the value of any text-type. The current thesis, that the Byzantine > text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating > character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). This, at least in part, accords with what I was saying. However, I still think that Wisselink examines certain alleged Byzantine harmonizations (which he terms "assimilations") and finds reasons to consider that certain of such more likely stem from the autograph or archetype than that they were subsequently introduced. I do not recall that he excuses any of the Alexandrian or Western harmonizations as possibly stemming from the autograph when the Byzantine MSS differ with a non-harmonizing reading. > Noone (at least noone familiar with some MSS) ever assumed that assimilation > _only_ occured within the Byzantine text-type. Therefore, Wisselink's conclusion > oversimplificates the whole issue. Since even I do not deny assimilation in various MSS reflecting all texttypes, this should be a given. What we are dealing with in particular are assimilations (real or alleged) which transcend individual MSS and go back to either the archetype of a texttype or the autograph itself (which latter would then _not_ be "assimilation", except on a higher critical level regarding the development of the canonical text in a pre-transmissional era). > We should not neglect another of Wisselink's conclusions: "D especially has > been assimilated. The degree of assimilation in B and P45 is strikingly > small. 33, Theta and the Byzantine text-type stand midway between the > others" (p. 87). > Now this is interesting. Even a scholar so heavily devoted to unearth the > crucial problem of assimilation, and at the same time to fight for the > reputation of the Byzantine text-type had to concede the fact that B > proportionally contains the smallest amount of assimilation (slightly less than > P45). In contrast to D which after all contains most of the _big_ assimilations > (including transpositions of more than one vers of Mark into Luke) it is no > surprise that the rest is somewhere in between B and D. These are the facts > drawn from Wisselink's data. These judgements are made on the basis of their singular or subsingular readings in the individual MSS cited. I too acknowledge the careful and generally "conservative" nature of the scribe of B, as well as what Wisselink reports regarding the other individual MSS. The comparison with a texttype is a different matter however, and can only be used as a point of reference. Where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations which would be endemic to the Alexandrian text as a separate entity might be quite different from where he places B, for example. The Byzantine Textform stands at a certain point relative to those individual MSS with its possible or alleged harmonizations. Such placement does _not_ admit nor declare that those possible harmonizations are in fact true harmonizations rather than reflections of the autograph; they are only there for comparative purposes. > In itself the data simply do _not_ point to the "Byzantine Textform as > being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels". Maurice's > conclusion only fits the data, if one judges the Byzantine Textform on > other grounds as being original. And certainly Wisselink's own perspective follows the same course. For the purposes of neutrality, Wisselink had to allow that any alleged assimilation is either a real assimilation or stems from the archetype of a texttype or from the autograph. I would expect no less from an impartial analysis. But the matter still comes up within Wisselink as to whether there are good grounds or valid criteria for determining whether an assimilation is "real" or whether such reflects the original text, and these all deal with theory. Wisselink does make suggestions regarding the lack of "real" assimilation in the Byzantine Textform, and his statement quoted at the head of this post seems to make the point fairly clear, at least to me: "The current thesis, that the Byzantine text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). One must recall that a key complaint made against the Byzantine Textform for the past century has been its "harmonizing" character. If I read Wisselink correctly, he is clearly saying that (a) the Byzantine Textform has fewer harmonizations alleged to itself than can be alleged to at least the combined Alexandrian and Western texttypes; (b) the Byzantine Textform has far fewer harmonizations than the Western texttype; (c) those harmonizations found in the Western texttype are clearly "true" harmonizations and decidedly secondary; (d) the Alexandrian texttype has a large number of harmonizations which can be alleged against it (whether these alone outnumber the Byzantine, I am not certain, and would have to tabulate Wisselink's data to be sure); (e) there are more "real" harmonizations among the MSS of the non-Byzantine texttypes than can be proven to exist within the Byzantine Textform (and this might depend on both Wisselink's and my own textual theories, but this was basically Wisselink's position as I understood it from him). > Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels (including > P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a constant threat on > every level of textual transmission of the (united) Gospels, I simply have > greater confidence in those witnesses who contain proportionally less > assimilations. I don't think assimilation/harmonization was as much of a "constant threat" as you imagine, Ulrich, since the evidence of the MSS show that harmonizing readings tended _not_ to be perpetuated beyond a few copying generations. The real problem is to deal with alleged harmonizations which are endemic to a texttype as a whole, and to determine whether these reflect the autograph or not (they certainly reflect the archetype of the texttype, whether that be the autograph is a matter for debate). Merely to take the witnesses which in singular or sub-singular readings have the fewest number of true assimilations still says nothing about the other alleged assimilations in such MSS which are reflective of the texttype to which such MSS belong. There are a number of Byzantine MSS which are, on the basis of singular and subsingular readings, also _not_ given to much assimilation; why cannot these be followed as well and a "greater confidence" placed in them? > This is not to say that I will follow them slavishly in every > instance. They just attracted my interest and partly my confidence. > This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it? Ulrich, I am pleased to say that you act very much like a typical eclectic. :-) I suppose that is a left-handed compliment (and I am left-handed).... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 15:39:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA07390; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:39:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 15:38:41 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970401153808.2eef7c7e@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1553 It seems to me that the assimilation to the immediate context argument won't hold water. Lots of evidence has been offered, but the explanations are so complex that they disguise the real issue. The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has replaced a more unusual one "fruit of the light". The reasons a scribe in the early middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to denominate the 8th century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for a well known one are simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation. Sometimes the simple answer is the best one. A scribe, copying happily (or not) along in a cold european monastary, towards the end of the day, read a line which began with the words "fruit of the..." and instead of looking back at his manuscript he simply filled in the blank with the more common word- "spirit". As far as historical probability goes, this seems more probable than that a scribe would read "fruit of the spirit" and replace it with "fruit of the light". It is also more probable than suggesting that a scribe let his eye slip, how many line up? and saw "light" in another section of the text and bent back over to his page and put it in there. (though I do admit the possibility- of course, since it is evident that it happened a number of times). Again, perhaps our fine logic and expertise causes us to overlook the simple answers. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 16:20:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07524; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:20:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:21:22 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970401153808.2eef7c7e@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5949 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > It seems to me that the assimilation to the immediate context argument won't > hold water. Lots of evidence has been offered, but the explanations are so > complex that they disguise the real issue. What exactly is complex about assimilation to the immediate context when scribes are known to have done precisely that far more than harmonization to remote parallels? It is hardly a complicated explanation to suggest that the influence of various forms of "fws" in close context, and especially "the identical form fwtos" immediately preceding influenced the judgment of a small minority of scribes at various times. It is far more complex to presume harmonization to a remote parallel than to the immediate context. > The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has > replaced a more unusual one "fruit of the light". Since "fruit of light" appears _nowhere_ else, it is likely not even less common or unusual, but a plain and clear error. But (I have to repeat myself and ask), _why_ is "fruit of the spirit", which itself appears _only ONE other time_ in the biblical text, suddenly the "more common" phrase? On what basis is such a judgment made? The only thing that would make it even slightly "more common" would be to have it also occur as genuine in Eph.5:9, which then would become an argument even more against the "fruit of light" phrase, which otherwise is totally undocumented as a Christian expression. As Bob Waltz has pointed out, there needs to be some evidence (patristic or otherwise) that _either_ phrase was even "common" in the early church, and the silence of everything but the MSS seems to suggest that neither was particularly used. Certainly modern-day Christians might refer more to the "fruit of the spirit" in various contexts, but that also may be because there is more emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the present century. What is common today says nothing about what may or may not have been common in the past. > The reasons a scribe > in the early middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to > denominate the 8th century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for > a well known one are simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation. > Sometimes the simple answer is the best one. Precisely why I offered the simplest answer and claimed harmonization to the immediate context as an explanation for the phenomenon found in a minority of MSS. No convoluted arguments here. > A scribe, copying happily (or not) along in a cold european monastary, > towards the end of the day, read a line which began with the words "fruit of > the..." and instead of looking back at his manuscript he simply filled in > the blank with the more common word- "spirit". This is assuming (a) the scribe was lazy or careless (and then you have to include the vast majority of scribes and correctors who remained so careless that except in a very few cases they never restored the original reading); (b) the scribe had been familiar with "fruit of the spirit" as a commonly used phrase (of which there is no proof); or (c) the scribe remembered what he had just copied in Galatians perhaps a day or two before and mentally made a connection; or (d) the scribe actually looked up the phrase in Galatians and decided it would somehow fit the context better in the Eph.5:9 passage. My scenario #2, on the other hand, is far less difficult: same scribe, same cold European monastery (maybe a Greek one would be preferable), also tired near the end of the day, read "fruit of the...." in his exemplar, wrote that down, then either looked back erroneously at the exemplar and picked up "fwtos" from the preceding verse, and never noticed a problem; or (more likely) simply remembered the contrast of light and darkness and the occcurence of "fwtos" in the expression "children of light" in the verse immediately preceding, and wrote "light" in place of "spirit. The scribe then continued copying the text without a clue that any error had transpired. > As far as historical probability goes, this seems more probable than that a > scribe would read "fruit of the spirit" and replace it with "fruit of the > light". Are you aware of how frequently scribes _did_ make precisely that type of error and _did_ harmonize to the immediate context, whether accidentally or deliberately? The weight of probability rests on that supposition far more than on harmonization to a remote parallel, especially to a phrase which occurs only _one_ time biblically (if Eph.5:9 is not original with "spirit"). > It is also more probable than suggesting that a scribe let his eye > slip, how many lines up? No more than two lines up, assuming normal line lengths in MSS. But the eye does not necessarily have to slip -- the _mind_ can slip and recall the phrase from the previous verse and write a key word from that phrase into another pertinent place. A scribe easily could be impressed with the concept of "children of light" and unconsciously write "fruit of light" so as to remain in harmony with the context of light vs. darkness which prevails in that entire passage. > Again, perhaps our fine logic and expertise causes us to overlook the simple > answers. Precisely my point. I opt for the simpler answer, and wonder that anyone thinks that other possibilities could be simpler than that. This again is another typical case where, had the external evidence been reversed, virtually everyone would have been defending the "spirit" reading over "light" on precisely the grounds which I have advocated. Those Hortian blinders _do_ get in the way..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 16:47:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07624; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:47:47 -0500 Message-Id: <9704012248.AA02759@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 23:51:57 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2773 >thing but the MSS seems to suggest that neither Hello Maurice! You just wrote this : >was particularly used. Certainly modern-day Christians might refer more >to the "fruit of the spirit" in various contexts, but that also may be >because there is more emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the present century. I understand this point, but in this you might also be conditioned by _western_ (and protestant) theological history. If it's true that there's a renewal in interest for the Holy Spirit in our century, this argumentation is pointless when we consider the eastern churches, of which the Greek church is part. All that appears "new" in the west has always been "normal" in the East, as monastic communities in the Greek church have always been charismatic and prophetic, in an intense way that has never been known in the West (remember : the (some very early) texts that constitute the Philocalia, or palamism, or closer to us, the "starets" movements of the Russian church). For example, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom begins with an invocation to the Holy Spirit, something quite extraordinary to western christians : "Heavenly King, Consolator, Spirit of Truth, present everywhere and filling everything, treasure of good things and giver of life, come and abide in us, and purify us from all uncleanness, and save, o Good One, our souls" This is just to show you that the "emphasis" you discover in the present century is just the rediscovery of something that has always existed in the East. Remember also that in the eastern tradition, the consecration of the body and blood of Christ is thought to take place at the "epiclesis" (invocation of the Holy Spirit in the anaphora of the liturgy). This is of course just a little contribution and I don't think it will revolutionize your approach of this text and its variant :-) , but I just mention it for the sake of giving you a little insight as to what the thological context of the scribes was. Very different from ours indeed. And, again, as I mentioned that point already, some familiarity with liturgy can be interesting for working in the field of textual criticism... ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. ________________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 17:39:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07736; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:39:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:40:15 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: Textual Criticism list Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1027 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in > >Paul's epistles. > I'm not sure I see what the UBS text has to do with this... I mentioned it because it is the most common Gk. NT used in the USA and influences more people than any other. Also, their variants are supposed to be the significant ones for translators. I am basically lazy and the variants are easy to count there :) > There's a good reason Aleph and B often disagree in Paul: They *don't > belong to the same text-type.* This was first pointed out by Zuntz, > and my researches clearly confirm it. > Aleph belongs to a text-type that also contains A, C, 33, and the > Bohairic Coptic, with 81, 1175, etc. as lesser witnesses. > > B goes with p46 and the Sahidic in a separate text-type.... What text-type name do Aleph and B go with? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 17:50:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07777; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:50:10 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704012253.PAA23378@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:48:09 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1213 Jim West wrote: > It seems to me that the assimilation to the immediate context argument won't > hold water. Lots of evidence has been offered, but the explanations are so > complex that they disguise the real issue. > > The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has replaced a > more unusual one "fruit of the light". The reasons a scribe in the early > middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to denominate the 8th > century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for a well known one are > simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation. Sometimes the simple > answer is the best one. [snip] This assumes that the phrase was as "common" then as it is now. How certain are we that this was the case? As far as I know, Galatians is the only biblical place where the phrase occurs. In the 20th century it has been propagated ad nauseam in self-help books and such, but I'm not convinced that it was as well-worn or "common" in the 8th century as it is in the 20th. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 18:16:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07828; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:16:50 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:22:05 -0700 To: "Ronald L. Minton" From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3060 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> >Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in >> >Paul's epistles. > >> I'm not sure I see what the UBS text has to do with this... > >I mentioned it because it is the most common Gk. NT used in the USA and >influences more people than any other. Also, their variants are supposed >to be the significant ones for translators. I am basically lazy and the >variants are easy to count there :) Actually, I would think there would be comparatively *more* disagreements between B and Aleph in the UBS apparatus than in the ordinary run of text. Yes, the UBS apparatus includes variants that are relevant for translators -- but it also includes a lot of variants where the editors are not sure of the original reading. Since the editors of UBS generally worshipped the Alexandrian text, they would be much less sure of the reading if B and Aleph disagreed. So more of these variants would appear in the apparatus. >> There's a good reason Aleph and B often disagree in Paul: They *don't >> belong to the same text-type.* This was first pointed out by Zuntz, >> and my researches clearly confirm it. >> Aleph belongs to a text-type that also contains A, C, 33, and the >> Bohairic Coptic, with 81, 1175, etc. as lesser witnesses. >> >> B goes with p46 and the Sahidic in a separate text-type.... > >What text-type name do Aleph and B go with? There is no clear answer to this, since so few people follow Zuntz. Zuntz called the p46/B/1739/sa/bo group "Proto-Alexandrian," and the Aleph/A/C/I/33 group Alexandrian. I think this is bad terminology; the p46/B text may be older than the Aleph/A/C/I/33 text, but it is not an ancestor. The two are clearly independent. Also, as I mentioned, I do not think 1739 and the Bohairic go with p46 and B. I have sought in vain for a father whose text agrees with p46 and B. So I cannot localize this text. So I just call this type "p46/B." Similarly, I call the 1739 text "Family 1739." This gives us the following text-types in Paul, with their primary witnesses: p46/B -- p46, B, sa; probably also p13 Alexandrian -- Aleph, A, C, I, 33, bo; mixed witnesses include 81, 1175, family 2127, etc. family 1739 -- 1739 0243; also 0121, 1881, 6, 424**, 630 (in part) Western -- D F G Old Latin (629 in part) Byzantine -- K L 049 056 0142 etc. For more details of my opinions, see the relevant files at my encyclopedia site. (Really, folks, if you want to know how I feel, that's the place to go. I am generally much more coherent there, where I took time to think about what I'm saying, than here, where I generally don't. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 18:52:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07908; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:52:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3341BBA8.50D3@usinternet.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:51:36 -0800 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 References: <199703302315_MC2-137A-4A9A@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1474 > the "standard" KJV's. Incidentally, this may be a good context to mention > one of my pet peves: there are several electronic KJV's, but they generally > get distributed without any information on which KJV they were based on. The Online Bible claims to be based on the 1769 text, the Project Guttenberg text is based on a Majority Text from several previous electronic texts. Beyond that I have no idea, (I share the same frustration you mentioned). It would intresting to see what kind of lessons in textual criticism could be learned by trying to restore the KJV text from the existing electronic editions. > > For information on the 1769 "establishment" (I purposely avoid the use of > "revision") see the note in Herbert's published update of the English > section of Darlow and Moule's Catalog of the BFBS Bible collection. > Herbert generally includes notes on major efforts at reestablishing the KJV > text. For similar notes on US editions, including Webster 1833, see > Margaret Hills's published catalog of the ABS Bible collection. Where can I get these works and what is the full bibliographic info. > > Pardon ths rambling on, but I think the whole history of textual variants > in printed editons is relevant to the practice of textual criticism in > general. This same point was made in a very interesting round of list > discussions a few months back. > > Harold P. Scanlin > United Bible Societies > 1865 Broadway > New York, NY 10023 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 18:56:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07926; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:56:06 -0500 Message-ID: <3341BC86.3DF1@usinternet.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:55:18 -0800 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 323 ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > The "Online Bible" CD-ROM (I have version 6.12, dated Oct. '94) has both > the 1769 and the 1833 KJV texts, and allows one to compare them side by > side. Not exactly true, the 1833 Webster text in the Online Bible has been "cleaned up" and does not accurately reflect Webster's printed version. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 21:10:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08148; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:10:39 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970402021332.21671f5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 21:13:32 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: p64+67 available on net? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1074 At 07:12 4/1/97 -0600, Perry L. Stepp wrote: >A question: is there a transcription or .gif of p64+67 available anywhere >on the net? (I'd certainly prefer a transcription, given the choice.) >I've looked at the Duke collection on Perseus--it's possible that p64+67 is >there, and I've just missed it. Or is it somewhere else? These are not on-line resources, but there is a black-and-white picture of P64 (verso) and P67 (one side) in the latest issue of New Testament Studies. See T.C. Skeat "The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?", NTS 43 (1997): 1, 10. A transcription of P64 (both sides) within a reconstruction of whole pages is found on pp.11-12. Also, Tiede & D'Ancona, EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS? Amazing New Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1996), have a B&W photographic plate of P64 verso and recto. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 21:25:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08215; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:25:13 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970402022807.2167857e@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 21:28:07 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 723 I've noticed that the PNEUMATOS (Spirit) reading is found in P46, which is quite old. However, P49, also old, has FWTOS. Given the age of the variants, I'm wondering if they could come from misreading the handwriting of an uncial exemplar. If Spirit is written as a nomen sacrum, it takes up about the same amount of space and the cross bar of the tau may be confused with the horizontal line. I.e., ---- PNOC vs FWTOC In which direction is a misreading of the examplar more likely? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 22:00:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA08271; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 22:00:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:00:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Papyri pieces In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970402022807.2167857e@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 660 For those who may not have read about this, I noticed that Gannett News carried an article on papyri. It is from Umich and says in part "six American papyrus collections are being brought together on the WWW with a grant from the NEH...next fall the Advanced Papyrological Information System will feature about 30,000 items and include translations, bibliography and links to related texts. Portions of the Michigan collection are already on line and can be accessed at http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/ " -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 00:54:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA08452; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 00:54:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 00:55:18 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970402022807.2167857e@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1838 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Stephen C. Carlson wrote: > I've noticed that the PNEUMATOS (Spirit) reading is found in P46, which > is quite old. However, P49, also old, has FWTOS. > > Given the age of the variants, I'm wondering if they could come from > misreading the handwriting of an uncial exemplar. If Spirit is written > as a nomen sacrum, it takes up about the same amount of space and the > cross bar of the tau may be confused with the horizontal line. I.e., > > ---- > PNOC vs FWTOC > > In which direction is a misreading of the examplar more likely? Consider also that the nomen sacrum might have been the more usual PNC, though certainly the case is helped by the longer form as given above. Also, both P and F are of the same phonetic class (Labials) which could also cause some confusion. However, I still prefer a simple influence from the close context to cause accidental error in writing FWTOS in this place as the more likely possibility rather than confusion of letters. Also, the age of the variants in a case like this should not be taken to imply that all subsequent readings of FWTOS derive from P49 or its archetype and that all readings of PNEUMATOS derive from P46 or its archetype (depending from which side one wishes to view the erroneous reading as having come). In a case of accidental error such as I have proposed, there are sufficient grounds to presuppose independent recurrences of the identical error in MSS of varied type rather than direct genealogical descent, save within normal texttype patterns. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 01:00:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA08473; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:00:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:01:42 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <9704012248.AA02759@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1305 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > which the Greek church is part. All that appears "new" in the west has > always been "normal" in the East, as monastic communities in the Greek > church have always been charismatic and prophetic, in an intense way that > has never been known in the West I did not mean to say that the Eastern Church has not had an emphasis on the Holy Spirit, and your point is well taken. The question is whether the phrase "fruit of the spirit" is one that was _common_ and _familiar_ in that era, or whether it is western Protestantism of the current century which has popularized the phrase into the "more familiar" concept. > And, again, as I mentioned that point already, some familiarity with > liturgy can be interesting for working in the field of textual > criticism... Fully agreed. Now, if someone can find liturgical or other citations of either "fruit of the spirit" or "fruit of light" in early Orthodox liturgy or literature, this will be helpful. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 02:08:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA08538; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 02:08:45 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 02:09:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970402020932_-1068244899@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 498 In a message dated 97-04-01 10:15:51 EST, you (correctly) wrote: << p,h ph The reading in the commentary is not "syr " but "syr ." That is, it refers to the Philoxenian Syriac. >> Yes, of course! My late night oversight. I was looking in my 1st Ed UBSGNT, not my newer 3rd Ed. The 1st Ed does not list the Philoxenian, but at least the 3rd (and probably 4th do), NA26 does also. Sorry for the confusion :-} Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 06:43:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08747; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 06:43:04 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 13:57:11 +0100 Subject: EASE (Electronic Age Scribal Errors) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2530 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: >> Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's >> post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. >Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the >electronic age? :-) As far as I can see there are slightly distinct types of scribal errors related to all sorts of human text producing activities of all times. Some modern times scribal errors, e.g., seem to be directly linked to the arrangement of the letters on keyboards. At least in a text of mine I was confronted with a highly instructive example: At university, the very first paper I had to deliver was on some pages of Karl Barth in comparison to some pages of Martin Luther. I recall that I dictated my manuscript to my mother, a former secretary, in order to shorten the time that I would have spent to do this job. The time ran out, so I only hastily proof-read what she had typed. One expression in my paper should read "Die Freiheit des goettlichen Logos..." (the liberty of the divine WORD). When the professor handed my paper back, he pointed to a strange reading: "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). This is a perfect example of a finger slip on the keyboard having z directly above h. It's also a perfect example of a "nonsense in context reading", for the finger slip caused a morphologically correct reading (Freizeit) that renders the whole expression, at least the whole sentence, practically senseless. However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later my paper might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a minority of "experts" would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking for a deeper meaning of "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". When looking at the arsenal of highly effective exegetical and hermeneutical tools, not to mention post-modern literary strategies, the possibility can not be ruled out that the advocats of the "reading of the text" would portrait my text as the product of one of the most creative theological/ philosophical thinkers of the early 1980s. BTW-- On the psychological level one might even suspect a direct link between the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my present occupation (obsession?) with NT TC. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 11:04:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00920; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:04:37 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:10:20 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: EASE (Electronic Age Scribal Errors) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2697 On Wed, 02 Apr 97, schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote, in part: >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): > >>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > >>> Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's >>> post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for >>>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. > >>Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the >>electronic age? :-) > >As far as I can see there are slightly distinct types of scribal errors related >to all sorts of human text producing activities of all times. Some modern times >scribal errors, e.g., seem to be directly linked to the arrangement of the >letters on keyboards. I have made the sort of error described many times. Another error that I make *only* when typing at a keyboard is transposition of letters -- usually when a "strong" finger manages to depress a key faster than a "weak" finger. These are actual mechanical errors. There are also errors that seem to be quite common which are not mechanical. For instance, people don't proofread their work as fully as they once did; they rely on the computer's spelling checkers. Does this have any effect on NT textual criticism? Obviously not. But it is a good demonstration that the sorts of errors copyists will make will depend very much on their circumstances. We all know of errors of seeing versus errors of hearing. But we might want to consider other possible sorts of errors -- e.g. (and I am just wildly speculating here) errors of sitting versus errors of standing, errors of cold climates versus errors of warm climates, errors of those who do not speak a language well (e.g. those found in Theta, L, 28?) versus those who do, errors of monks versus professional scribes, etc. I repeat, I am just speculating. I don't know if any of these circumstances produce different spectra of errors. But it might be worth thinking about. >BTW-- On the psychological level one might even suspect a direct link between >the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my present >occupation (obsession?) with NT TC. If yours is an obsession, what does that make my situation? I'm not even a professional textual critic, yet I am one of the most active members of this list.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 11:13:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00953; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:13:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:14:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: The Leisure of the Divine Word In-Reply-To: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2183 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. This type of error should be termed a "mausfehler", and thus will absolve the human from responsibility. > handed my paper back, he pointed to a strange reading: "Die Freizeit des > goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). Wonderful, Ulrich! This is most defintely how new theological concepts get invented. I think you are on to something, and I see a 400pp book in your future regarding the neo-neo-orthodoxy and the Theology of Leisure. > However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later > my paper might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a > minority of "experts" would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking > for a deeper meaning of "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". He is indeed correct. And it will be the future eclectics who will most strongly maintain that "Freizeit" is the original reading, since "Freiheit des goettlichen Logos" is the more common phrase, and scribes obviously harmonized to the more common rather than leaving the difficult "Freizeit" in place..... > the "reading of the text" would portrait my text as the product of one of the > most creative theological/ philosophical thinkers of the early 1980s. Most definitely you _are_ such -- but you will have to maintain the Theology of "Freizeit" to hold on to that reputation. :-) > BTW-- On the psychological level one might even suspect a direct link between > the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my > present occupation (obsession?) with NT TC. Exactly. Your testimony can be "I never was interested in textual criticism until by a slip of the finger while typing I created a sensible alternate reading by accident, and it changed not only my theology, but my life...." _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 11:53:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01060; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:53:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:59:15 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: The Leisure of the Divine Word Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2228 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > >> >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. > >This type of error should be termed a "mausfehler", and thus will absolve >the human from responsibility. > >> handed my paper back, he pointed to a strange reading: "Die Freizeit des >> goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). > >Wonderful, Ulrich! This is most defintely how new theological concepts >get invented. I think you are on to something, and I see a 400pp book in >your future regarding the neo-neo-orthodoxy and the Theology of Leisure. > >> However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later >> my paper might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a >> minority of "experts" would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking >> for a deeper meaning of "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". > >He is indeed correct. And it will be the future eclectics who will most >strongly maintain that "Freizeit" is the original reading, since "Freiheit >des goettlichen Logos" is the more common phrase, and scribes obviously >harmonized to the more common rather than leaving the difficult "Freizeit" >in place..... And then, of course, another critic will come along and say that, since "Freiheit" is clearly a correction for "Freizeit," and since "Freizeit" clearly cannot be correct, the original must have been lost to a "primitive error." This critic will then propose a conjectural emendation (I'm not sure what; the most appropriate noun listed in my German dictionary is Freibeuter, "Freebooter"!). This then will be taken into all the standard handbooks as an example of why conjectural emendation is necessary. Then some cultist will come along and start robbing people in the name of God. I can see it now.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 12:35:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01148; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:35:52 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704021736.TAA19550@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 19:50:56 +0100 Subject: RE: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 12309 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): [quoting Schmid] >> Here is Wisselink's final conclusion: "Assimilation is not restricted to a >> single group of manuscripts, neither to a single gospel; assimilation has not >> taken place to any one gospel to a strikingly high degree. So if an >>assimilation >> is signalized, nothing can be concluded from that regarding the age of any >> variant or the value of any text-type. The current thesis, that the Byzantine >> text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating >> character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). >This, at least in part, accords with what I was saying. However, I still >think that Wisselink examines certain alleged Byzantine harmonizations >(which he terms "assimilations") and finds reasons to consider that >certain of such more likely stem from the autograph or archetype than that >they were subsequently introduced. I do not recall that he excuses any of >the Alexandrian or Western harmonizations as possibly stemming from the >autograph when the Byzantine MSS differ with a non-harmonizing reading. Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation; the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a dissimilation" (p. 63). Therefrom it may be concluded that Wisselink treats all of the witnesses he uses in his examination very much the same. I simply could not find conclusions drawn from his data where Wisselink "excuses" harmonizations from whatever witness he examined. With respect to his working definition the textus receptus and Hodges-Farstad, which he treated as single witnesses, contain proportionally more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged" to Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS. [snip] >> We should not neglect another of Wisselink's conclusions: "D especially has >> been assimilated. The degree of assimilation in B and P45 is strikingly >> small. 33, Theta and the Byzantine text-type stand midway between the >> others" (p. 87). >> Now this is interesting. Even a scholar so heavily devoted to unearth the >> crucial problem of assimilation, and at the same time to fight for the >> reputation of the Byzantine text-type had to concede the fact that B >> proportionally contains the smallest amount of assimilation (slightly less >>than >> P45). In contrast to D which after all contains most of the _big_ >>assimilations >> (including transpositions of more than one vers of Mark into Luke) it is no >> surprise that the rest is somewhere in between B and D. These are the facts >> drawn from Wisselink's data. >These judgements are made on the basis of their singular or subsingular >readings in the individual MSS cited. I too acknowledge the careful and >generally "conservative" nature of the scribe of B, as well as what >Wisselink reports regarding the other individual MSS. The comparison with >a texttype is a different matter however, and can only be used as a point >of reference. Where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific >assimilations which would be endemic to the Alexandrian text as a separate >entity might be quite different from where he places B, for example. The >Byzantine Textform stands at a certain point relative to those individual >MSS with its possible or alleged harmonizations. Such placement does _not_ >admit nor declare that those possible harmonizations are in fact true >harmonizations rather than reflections of the autograph; they are only >there for comparative purposes. Wisselink simply does not go further as to calculate the number of assimilations found in various selected witnesses when compared to one another. Therefrom he drew the already mentioned overall conclusion. He used the papyri, S, A, B, D, Theta, Omega, W, min 33, and "the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, as summary of many minuscules" (p. 64). When examining and comparing the mentioned witnesses, Wisselink treated them all the same, whether Hodges and Farstad as a MS, or all the MSS as text-types. Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to "where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations" is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS and without any hint on Wisselink's printed results. >> In itself the data simply do _not_ point to the "Byzantine Textform as >> being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels". Maurice's >> conclusion only fits the data, if one judges the Byzantine Textform on >> other grounds as being original. >And certainly Wisselink's own perspective follows the same course. For the >purposes of neutrality, Wisselink had to allow that any alleged >assimilation is either a real assimilation or stems from the archetype of >a texttype or from the autograph. I would expect no less from an impartial >analysis. But the matter still comes up within Wisselink as to whether >there are good grounds or valid criteria for determining whether an >assimilation is "real" or whether such reflects the original text, and >these all deal with theory. Wisselink does make suggestions regarding the >lack of "real" assimilation in the Byzantine Textform, and his statement >quoted at the head of this post seems to make the point fairly clear, at >least to me: >"The current thesis, that the Byzantine text-type is to be called inferior >because of its harmonizing or assimilating character, is methodologically >not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). >One must recall that a key complaint made against the Byzantine Textform >for the past century has been its "harmonizing" character. If I read >Wisselink correctly, he is clearly saying that (a) the Byzantine Textform >has fewer harmonizations alleged to itself than can be alleged to at least >the combined Alexandrian and Western texttypes; (b) the Byzantine Textform >has far fewer harmonizations than the Western texttype; (c) those >harmonizations found in the Western texttype are clearly "true" >harmonizations and decidedly secondary; (d) the Alexandrian texttype has a >large number of harmonizations which can be alleged against it (whether >these alone outnumber the Byzantine, I am not certain, and would have to >tabulate Wisselink's data to be sure); (e) there are more "real" >harmonizations among the MSS of the non-Byzantine texttypes than can be >proven to exist within the Byzantine Textform (and this might depend on >both Wisselink's and my own textual theories, but this was basically >Wisselink's position as I understood it from him). Broad and simple, Maurice, Wisselink "is saying" non of these, at least not in my reading of his work, and certainly not "clearly". He may hold a textual theory similar to your own, he may even argue the way you do (however, I have my doubts on that), but in his book he expresses nothing comparable to your above mentioned conclusions. IMHO, you should verify your conclusions in pointing to Wisselink's published work. Whatever you and Wisselink agreed upon when meeting in Kampen in 1989 we can not know. > Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels (including > P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a constant threat on > every level of textual transmission of the (united) Gospels, I simply have > greater confidence in those witnesses who contain proportionally less > assimilations. >I don't think assimilation/harmonization was as much of a "constant >threat" as you imagine, Ulrich, since the evidence of the MSS show that >harmonizing readings tended _not_ to be perpetuated beyond a few copying >generations. Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky business. I just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall conclusion. Maybe we should have a closer look at various examples. First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type of assimilation. Then we have a second type of assimilation where more than the article is involved, e.g. the various forms of AFIENTAI SOU AI hAMARTIAI in Mat 9:2.5 parr. Here the examination with respect to assimilation might produce more solid results. However, the possibility can not be ruled out, that in this case some assimilations might have been produced independently. Thirdly, we find assimilations of a more complex type, i.e. the transposition of whole sentences from one story (or Logion) into another story (or Logion). For example, within the story of the cleansing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19) at least two very prominent MSS fealt the need to add some sort of expressed healing: D added TEQERAPEUESQE in Luke 17:14 and in the margin of P75 you find QELW KAQARISQHTE KAI EUQEWS EKAQARISQHSAN, which is derieved from the story of the cleansing of the leper in Mat 8:3 parr. Both additions display the same tendency, and one of them is a very complex assimilation. One may say, since P75 is the only witness, that this is a perfect example of an assimilation not perpetuated within textual transmission. That's true. However, what about an even more complex transposition within a whole bunch of Byzantine MSS perpetuated from the 9th to the 14th centuries? Within the collations of 119 Byzantine MSS from three monasteries (Patmos, Jerusalem, Sinai), published by Lake, Blake and New (The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark; in: HThR 4 [1928] pp. 338-357), we find after Mark 11:26 an addition of Mat 7,7-8 in 16 MSS from all three monasteries. Another MS adds these verses after Mark 11:24. That is to say, roughly 15 percent of exclusively Byzantine MSS from three monasteries perpetuate this addition. Some further (unfortunately incomplete) studies revealed another 21 Byzantine MSS with the same addition (including K 017 from the 9th century). After checking most of these MSS, I found at least five reasonably distinct textual forms of this addition (if itacisms and orthographicals are included even more). As far as I can see, it is very unlikely that the addition of Mat 7:7-8 at Mark 11:26 (or 11:24) occured several times independently. It is almost totally restricted to Byzantine text MSS (exception 579) from the 9th century onwards. How many copying generations would you guess, Maurice? Remember, it's only 15 percent. So noone, I suspect, would defend this addition as belonging to the autograph. On the other hand, it is at least 15 percent of the Byzantine MSS from three geographically seperated monasteries. So noone should simply dismiss it's validity as an example of what can happen in NT TC. >From my eclectic viewpoint I may draw the following conclusions: Even, or should I say especially, within the Byzantine text a minority of MSS not easy to neglect perpetuate an obvious and complex addition of two verses from Mat within Mark over a period of some 500 years not restricted to any particular locale. This assimilation was not wiped out through cross-correction, but coexisted in various subtypes over a considerable span of time. Moreover, I only found signs of adding the verses, not of extinguishing them in the MSS. Therefore, the possibility can not be ruled out, that some complex assimilations gained a majority status, especially when they happen to be at the right time at the right place, i.e. early in the history of the Byzantine text. [snip] >> This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it? >Ulrich, I am pleased to say that you act very much like a typical >eclectic. :-) >I suppose that is a left-handed compliment (and I am left-handed).... I know. So I am still not taken over to the other side. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 12:40:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01167; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:40:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:41:27 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970402124128.4e2788f0@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: The "Freizeit" of the "logos" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 719 As a small (but marginally serious) note on Ulrich's wonderful "Freizeit Fehler," note also how the specific error made by his (innocent!) mother is only possible on a *German* set-up keyboard, and *not* on a QWERTY keyboard. Harkening back to Jean Valentine's comments about the Holy Spirit being more common in the East, here too we see how knowledge of the *specific,* *local* keyboard (and two are in use in Germany today) is necessarily to successfully conjecture what the error might have been: working from the QWERTY model (as most would instinctively do) would tend to exclude the supposition of a typing error, for on a QWERTY keyboard the "z" is too far from the "h"... --Petersen, Penn State University From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 14:05:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01463; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:05:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:05:32 -0500 From: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-Id: <199704021905.OAA01463@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 23270 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:11:54 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God >fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. They need to listen to Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side" :-) >>Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in >>the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no >>variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. >But this is the fact we need: How often did people cite that passage? >Only by knowing how familiar it is can we determine whether people >would harmonize to it. I concede Robinson's argument (omitted) that >it is hard to tell how well-known a passage is. But it is a crucial >question here. Yet for the most part in the NT we are at the same loss. Certainly favorite liturgical passages such as the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat would be well known in the early church, but would the various catalogs of virtues all be linked together and called the "fruit of the spirit" by the average person? I think this unlikely. Similarly, while today's evangelical church majors on John 3:16 (as can be seen from almost any sporting event), I suspect this key salvational verse played a very small part in the early liturgical church. The key to familiarity in the early era is more probably liturgy than anything else, and thus the lectionaries and early liturgies are our best source for determining popularity of various verses or phrases, "world without end".... >>If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the >>autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear >>in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. >>Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read >>identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may >>happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate >>harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. >Agreed again, but it's *still* assuming the solution. The matter cannot >be investigated from that standpoint. Certainly it can. Any hypothesis _must_ be tested by first assuming the truth of the hypothesis under consideration and then evaluating its claims and attempting to disprove such. If there is an initial refusal to consider the hypothesis from within its own theoretical framework, then the conclusion is predetermined and such a hypothesis cannot be fairly evaluated. Such a method in no way precludes testing the component parts of the hypothesis by evaluating the data piece by piece. Were I to test the validity of the modern eclectic viewpoint, I would have to allow as an initial working hypothesis their view of transmissional history, the development of variants, and the secondary nature of the Byzantine Textform. I then could test the hypothesis and see whether the modern eclectic theory is self-consistent within its own parameters by making a detailed examination of its presuppositions and testing for a regular and fair application of its own internal and external principles. After such a theory has been tested from within its own parameters, with weaknesses or inconsistencies noted, one can then propose or move on to alternative hypotheses for similar evaluation. Following the scientific method, the hypothesis with the _fewest_ perceived weaknesses should be given the preference (I think this is the scientific method's equivalent to "God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery"). >>_All_ theories have to function properly >>within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to >>maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority >>method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be >>admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. >I see what you are saying. And I do not argue that we must always >accept the least harmonious reading. I am simply saying (and this >criticism applies just as much to blind followers of Hort as to >followers of the Byzantine text) that *wherever* there is a variant >involving one or more harmonized readings, and one or more disharmonized >readings, we must initially evaluate the readings without examining >the text-types they belong to. I agree that any and all harmonizations, whether real or alleged, must be investigated; however, following the method you just described (which disregards the working hypotheses under consideration), I see no way that you can come to any conclusion regarding _any_ alleged harmonization without declaring it to be a true harmonization and therefore secondary. Q.E.D., your suggestion _does_ advocate a principle that "we must always accept the least harmonious reading", so long as you approach the variant units with no theoretical concept from any perspective concerning the nature of transmissional history presupposed by the respective theorists. >Note that I am working at the very lowest level here. I am *not* >trying to determine the original text. I am trying to determine the >age and value of the Byzantine text (and the other text-types). >Only once that investigation is completed can we start on the >original text. I suspect that if that question were totally settled, we would not be having any discussion. Were I convinced that the Byzantine Textform and the transmissional theory which underlies a preference for it were false or unsound, I would be the first to return to either modern eclectic praxis or even to the Westcott-Hort theory. Since, however, the determination of the age and value of the Byzantine Textform as well as that of the other texttypes is bound up part and parcel with the underlying presuppositions and various hypotheses, I suspect no resolution of this problem will come quickly (although apparently many from the opposing side thought the Byzantine Text defense was long ago dead and buried, and liked the thought of keeping it that way). This is why I have maintained (with H.H.Oliver and others) that "textual criticism without a history of the text is impossible." Modern eclecticism proceeds without a real history of the text, and prefers to deal with the history of variants alone, taken from within the isolation of the respective variant units (whether one calls it the "local-genealogical method" or whatever). The net result of such a practice leads (as has been critiqued by Colwell, Clark, Epp, and others from within the eclectic school) to a resultant printed text which has _no_ transmissional heritage nor existence in any known MS, version or texttype. Suffice it to say that a Byzantine-priority method does not share those particular weaknesses, nor do transmissionally- based pro-Alexandrian theories such as that of Westcott and Hort (who would have had a nearly pure Alexandrian text had they not gotten imbued with the "Western non-interpolations" issue); the problem noted is endemic to modern eclecticism in particular. >To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels. Perhaps an understatement..... :-) >He has reached a conclusion about the original text type. I had reached >a different conclusion about that text-type. I am now offering to go >back one level, and assume *ignorance* about the text-types. I am >not willing to go back and then blindly come over to his side. This of course is not expected nor demanded. It must be remembered that my own movement to a pro-Byzantine position was the result _only_ of first analyzing and critiquing the modern eclectic position, as well as those of its predecessors, and only after did I seek a more reasonable explanation to account for the data. Blame Kenneth W. Clark for setting me on the road I have taken; it was his suggestion from the start. >I said *primarily* conservative. They did not set out to create variants. >That doesn't mean they *never* did so. We all know that no copyist is >perfect. Fully agreed. And no two MSS of _any_ texttype agree 100%, so far as I know; but this does not affect texttype-specific readings, which are the primary data to be conservatively preserved in most MSS of any given texttype. Regarding the creation of variants, however, I have suggested that "new" sensible readings, whether accidentally or deliberately created by scribes or revisers at any point subsequent to the autograph, would always be unlikely to gain more than a small foothold within the "primarily conservative" transmissional process, except among small "local text" regions. Most sensible readings so created were weeded out by cross-comparison and correction from other exemplars within a few copying generations; were this not the case, the NT MSS would have degenerated into near-utter chaos among themselves, such as was the case with the Old Latin, and we would not be talking of four major texttypes, but dozens of competing minor texttypes at the very least. The history of NT Greek MS transmission moves toward a final text preserved in the mass of documents which has relatively very few sub-variants among its member MSS. Order coming out of what should have been chaos is a very problematic concept, and it is this very fact which provoked either the Hortian "Syrian Recension" theory or the Colwellian "process" theory to account for the rise and dominance of the basically unified Byzantine Textform. Yet both the recensional and process alternative hypotheses are beset by serious weaknesses, as previously mentioned. >Also, when I refer to the Byzantine copyists as "conservative," I refer >to them during the periods during which their actions are visible >(which starts in the fourth/fifth century for the gospels, and later in >the rest of the NT). Still fully granted. If they essentially reproduced without change that which had been bequeathed to them by scribes of each earlier generation, I would not be surprised to find an essentially unified Textform being preserved from the fourth or fifth century onward in the majority of MSS. I also am willing to grant the relative non-conservative sloppiness of Egyptian scribes from the pre-4th century era in regard to most of the MSS which have been preserved to us from that region. I also grant the concept of the "uncontrolled popular text" existing before AD 200 which likely accounts for most known variant readings and especially the so-called "western" corruptions. My only additional assumption is that not all scribes nor even most scribes were necessarily like those we find in the papyri preserved from Egypt, and that it is a likely extrapolation from those known "conservative" Byzantine-type scribes from the 4th and 5th centuries and onward that similar earlier scribal conservatism also did prevail in the regions of the Empire where Greek had been the primary tongue (Southern Italy through modern Turkey) in the earlier centuries. If this assumption is correct, then the groundwork for a Byzantine- priority theory has a legitimate basis. Since such an assumption cannot be proved one way or the other in view of current data, well, that is why other hypotheses exist, equally unproven. >We do not know the shape of the materials they >worked with prior to that time. Of course, the same statement applies, >with differences in date, to all text-types. Also agreed. >We know, e.g., that the >copyist who produced B, and probably its immediate predecessors, were >conservative, because they kept its text close to p75. That in itself is correct, and shows that there were "conservative" scribes within the other textual traditions as well. Since I presume the Alexandrian texttype to be basically the local text of Egypt, I have no problem with either P75 or B preserving that localized variant with relative accuracy. The wonder is that so many other papyri from the localized region of Egypt did _not_ conservatively copy the text, but fell victim to the "uncontrolled popular text" syndrome. >But we do not >know what happened prior to the creation of p75. Most scholars think >the forerunners of that manuscript were also conservative and careful. >But we *cannot* prove it. Since P75 and B both preserve what Hort called "a very pure line of very ancient text", I think we _have_ to presume that particular line _was_ conservatively and basically carefully preserved over the centuries, and also in any forerunner MSS in a line going back to the archetype of the local Alexandrian texttype (unless one wanted to claim that P75 was "the" original archetype of the Alexandrian text -- I'll leave that one to Theide for his next book :-). >Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition >display *identical behaviors*. I will differ on this point, since -- especially with a religious text which becomes regarded as sacred -- the written and oral tradition tend to become fixed and stabilized in a manner which folkloric or lyrical oral tradition does not; and the passage of time, even centuries, does little to alter the fixed written or oral tradition in such cases. Remember that, even with all of the little sub-variant types among the Byzantine MSS, the basic text of _any_ Byzantine MS from the 15th century will look amazingly like _any_ Byzantine or proto-Byzantine text from the 4th, 5th, or 6th century. The analogy from oral tradition would expect to see continual corruption or alteration occurring and accruing over the centuries, but this simply is not the case with the Byzantine Textform as an entity, even though sub-Byzantine families or types might branch of in small particulars from the vast majority (Von Soden's Kx) which majority would continue to preserve the original and overarching Byzantine Textform in virtually any era. >But I would bet that I can find examples of *any* >textual phenomenon you care to name in Bronson's "Traditional Tunes >of the Child Ballads." (Or could, if I had all four volumes, which >I don't.) I could probably find all of them just in "Barbara Allen" >or "Lord Thomas and Fair Ellen." I will defer to you on the folk song issue. I only play them and attempt to sing them (and not very well). >I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what >Daniel Wallace had to say about Wisselink. He did raise one *very* >strong point. He observes that Wisselink compares the Byzantine *text* >with individual Alexandrian *witnesses.* >Now it is true that the Byzantine text is fairly coherent, and the >Alexandrian text is not, so this is the easiest sort of comparison. >But it is also a *false* comparison. An individual manuscript will >almost certainly have more harmonizations than its text-type. We >must compare types against types. I also grant this point, since obviously any single MS will have more of virtually any type of error (deliberate or accidental) than the members of its texttype. However, I think Wisselink _only_ utilized the frequency of harmonization in individual MSS of the Alexandrian type in order to establish whether any of those individual MSS had a "tendency" to harmonize. This would be no different than Colwell's study of scribal habits in the early papyri. Those Alexandrian witnesses found to have a tendency to harmonize would then become suspect or of somewhat less weight in places where the remainder of the Alexandrian texttype does not harmonize. The real test, however, remains in those readings which are texttype-specific, wherein it can be presumed that the _archetype_ of the Alexandrian texttype must have harmonized -- this transcends the vagaries of the individual MSS comprising such a texttype, and is a proper subject for evaluation. >Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. My point is, one *cannot* quote isolated >examples. One must sit down with *some* section of continuous text and >examine every reading. This is interesting, since Fee and Wallace both have claimed that the task of the pro-Byzantine side was _not_ to deal in theory (even though that is what undergirds the entire perspective), but to deal in praxis with relatively isolated examples set forth as "challenge" cases. I have responded to two such test cases from Fee in an ETS paper which is currently available in our _Faith and Mission_ journal. However, praxis in individual variant units, without the consideration of the theory underlying such praxis, reflects nothing more than practical eclecticism, and this in itself establishes and proves nothing. Certainly I _do_ prefer far more the idea of looking at all variants within a single section of text, since this is compact and relatively easy to deal with. But I don't want this to become merely the "Pepsi Challenge" and continually have to move from pericope to pericope on the assumption that successful defense of Byzantine readings in one place says nothing about what might occur elsewhere. Just as Fee said with his two test passages from Mark, they were merely "two among hundreds," and whatever defense could be made for them could be repeated hundreds of times over (Fee of course meant a defense made by only the Alexandrian eclectics, and discounted the possibility of any such defense coming from the Byzantine supporters). Suffice it to say that _if_ a reasonable defense can be made for the Byzantine readings appearing in a given pericope or segment of text, it should be granted that such a defense obviously _could_ be made elsewhere in a similar manner. Certainly some readings might require time and research effort, and cannot be defended by a simple shot from the hip; but that is only to be expected in the nature of the case. >In fact, I made a small experiment of that sort last night. I started >from Hodges & Farstad (the only text with a reasonably relevant critical >apparatus). Taking two sample chapters (from Mark and John), I compared >the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the >internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." Probably too simplistic in and of itself, but fitting in with a primary internal criterion of textual criticism. >The majority of readings were ambiguous. In instances where one reading >seemed preferable to the others, it seemed about an even split as to >which was preferable, Byzantine or Alexandrian. This of course is your subjective judgment. Others (whether eclectics or pro-Byzantine) might look at the same variant units and come to totally different conclusions, even using that single criterion. I know that I would. Part of the reason of course will be that you applied a criterion taken in isolation apart from other internal or external data (a severe parallel to the Kilpatrick/Elliott method of "rigorous" eclecticism). I suspect that even Elliott would demur from your method in such a case; but as a sample without definitive overtones, what you did was a fine experiment. >However, many of these readings were cases where one reading was only >slightly preferable. In the handful of cases where one was *clearly* >preferable (I think there were five that I noticed before I had to >stop), *all five of the preferable readings were Alexandrian.* Again a subjective judgment. Since I don't know the passages or readings, I might seem presumptuous, but since I have worked through all these readings previously and know where the most problematic happen to be, I would maintain that a reasonable case can be made for the Byzantine reading in almost all such places. The difficult cases especially need to be considered in view of the _entire transmissional history_, as even Westcott and Hort pointed out in their own model. The overriding theory, once established and settled, _must_ assume that even the difficult places were transmitted as they were because of autograph or archetype originality, else they would not be part and parcel of a texttype/Textform reading so perpetuated. >I didn't check enough readings to be decisive. But it also >says that we need a rigid control procedure; what I think is certainly >original may not be what Wisselink thinks is certainly original. It's >a problem. I agree in regard to the subjectivity, but that comes with the varied approaches and the theories which underlie them. I suspect that _no_ rigid control procedure could ever come about which would bridge the gap between competing theories. I _do_ think that a rigid control procedure _could_ be imposed within a _single_ theoretical perspective, and in fact my approach to the evaluative method of readings on internal grounds is quite controlled and "rigid" for the most part; it just does not happen to be the same controls or (lack of) rigidity that one would find within modern eclectic praxis. >But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. >The difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian is certainly not as >clearcut as I thought. It is interesting that you did that experiment, since I have my own text-critical students do something similar: I give them a "blind" list of readings within a portion of text, with no external evidence support cited, and ask them to determine solely from internal criteria which readings are "best". The results when working "blind" in almost all cases is an equally-divided bag: some Byzantine readings being preferred, some Alexandrian, and even a few Western. The net result of such an approach is that we should expect from eclectic scholars a resultant text which is far more equally balanced among the texttypes than is present in the primarily-Alexandrian model found in the UBS or NA editions. This of course is _only_ if we proceed from internal criteria without theories regarding the "best" MSS or texttypes etc. >True on both counts. Although -- even if the process continues -- my >resultant theory is likely to resemble Von Soden's or Sturz's. I doubt >I will abandon non-Byzantine text-types entirely. If it ever does resemble Von Soden or Sturz (which are quite disparate, by the way), let me know, since I have a strong critique regarding either theory, though admittedly Sturz ends up by his methodology with a text which is _very_ close to a Byzantine text (he published a fascicle containing Matthew to demonstrate his method). Sturz departed from the Byzantine Textform _only_ when the Alexandrian and Western texttypes happened to unite apart from the Byzantine text -- and you know how infrequently that would occur. >Just great... already half the people on this list don't listen to me. >Now I'm going to get the other half ignoring me. :-) Welcome to the club. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 14:52:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01764; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:52:20 -0500 Message-Id: <9704022052.AA26459@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: The "Freizeit" of the "logos" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 97 21:56:33 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 848 >for on a QWERTY keyboard the "z" is too far >from the "h"... And, may I add, it's also too far on our french "AZERTY" :-) (there's much humor on the list today, I like it!) ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. ________________________________________________________________ THIS MESSAGE WAS SENT TO YOU FROM BRUSSELS, THE CAPITAL OF EUROPE !!! From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 14:55:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01787; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:55:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:55:00 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Papyri pieces In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 703 An interesting online exhibit entitled "From Papyrus to King James: The Transmission of the English Bible" is currently available on the University of Michigan site at http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/exhibits/ from_papyri_to_king_james/king_james_review. This exhibit, which unfortunately includes fewer than ten images, includes images of pages from P46, the Tyndale Bible, and the Geneva Bible. There is a real need for high-quality color images of manuscripts to begin appearing on the Web. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 16:09:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02233; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:09:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:09:22 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: 1769 or 1833 To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199704021609_MC2-13A7-BBBE@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 547 Hubert Bahr asked for the full bibliographic references to: A. S. Herbert _Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525 - 1961_ (London/NY: BFBS/ABS, 1968) Margaret T. Hills. _The English Bible in America. A Bibliography of Editions of the Bible & the New Testament Published in America 1777 - 1957. (NY: ABS and NY Public Library). Both these titles are out of print but they should be available in larger libraries. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 16:17:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02264; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:17:10 -0500 Message-Id: <9704022217.AA02359@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 97 23:21:22 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1986 >Fully agreed. Now, if someone can find liturgical or other citations of >either "fruit of the spirit" or "fruit of light" in early Orthodox liturgy >or literature, this will be helpful. > A first step would be to look at the lectionary of a byzantine-rite church. I don't have one here, but I have a vague remembrance of having heard that text (or the one in Galatians, rather) read one of the last times I visited the melkite parish of Brussels. Probably for the office of the christmas night (thus one of great affluence). Can somebody verify ? In the nestorian and chaldean churches (but then we are in the syriac world) the Ephesian text is read the last sunday of Advent. The Syrian Orthodox church reads the Galatian text on the third sunday of lent, and the Ephesian text, and the Ephesian text the 7th sunday after Epiphany. By the way, in the peshitto, they are not harmonized. But of course, this is the situation in the XXth century. Even though there have been less liturgical reforms in the East than in the West, we should check it on manuscripts... About the popularity of John 3.16 again : I already mentioned its presence at the heart of St John's Chrysostom' liturgy, and, though it's more anecdotic, I mention also this : it's on the title page of the Gospels in an edition of the georgian NT that was published by the Patriarchate (or more exactly catholicate) of the Georgian orthodox church (Tbilisi, 1963). ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 19:56:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02457; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:56:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:57:59 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <199704021736.TAA19550@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4245 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): > Therefrom it may be concluded that Wisselink treats all of the witnesses he uses > in his examination very much the same. I simply could not find conclusions drawn > from his data where Wisselink "excuses" harmonizations from whatever witness he > examined. I will have to look again and see how Wisselink approaches different views of transmissional history. Something should be there regarding how which transmissional view one accepts will include or exclude various alleged harmonizations/assimilations. > more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged" > to Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS. I acknowledge that "alleged" is my term, not Wisselink's; however, I see nothing more in the term than a degree of fairness in the use of such term, since until a harmonization is proven to be such (which it may not be if stemming from the autograph), it can only be an "alleged" harmonization. > Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to > "where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations" is a METABASIS > EIS ALLO GENOS and without any hint on Wisselink's printed results. But again, Wisselink did determine a MS's propensity toward assimilation from its singular or sub-singular readings. These would say nothing about those cases where, say, an Alexandrian or Western reading happened NOT to be singular or subsingular, but instead reflected the texttype as a whole. Only the Byzantine was considered under that category, and then only as a "control" type of database. _No_ conclusion should be drawn from the use and performance of Byz (H/F text or otherwise) taken as a whole texttype in regard to the _real_ proportion or tendency of the MSS comprising that texttype for assimilation. Since Wisselink found that assimilation was _not_ endemic to the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform, and dismissed the claims in that regard, the next step should be to examine selected early Byzantine MSS in singular and sub-singular readings in a manner similar to that utilized for the non-Byz individual MSS in order to determine the likelihood of Byzantine assimilation per se. If that likelihood remains small, then most of the assimilations listed under Byz or H/F should be ruled invalid. > Broad and simple, Maurice, Wisselink "is saying" non of these, at least not in > my reading of his work, and certainly not "clearly". He may hold a textual > theory similar to your own, he may even argue the way you do (however, I have my > doubts on that), but in his book he expresses nothing comparable to your above > mentioned conclusions. IMHO, you should verify your conclusions in pointing to > Wisselink's published work. Whatever you and Wisselink agreed upon when meeting > in Kampen in 1989 we can not know. I think that what I am saying is a clear enough reflection of what I read in Wisselink. We obviously read his data and words differently and draw different inferences. I recognize that part of the problem is that he had to work from a "neutral" and non-judgmental perspective in his research, and this is reflected in his text. However, I still think the inferences are very much there, and the perceptions of different readers may affect how such inferences are understood. I know that other items came up in conversation, and I may be blending some of those recollections into my discussion; in that regard I confess guilt. > Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky business. I > just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall conclusion. Maybe we should > have a closer look at various examples. Rather than making this post exceedingly long, I will postpone discussion of the examples to another posting, after I have had opportunity to download and digest all you have written. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 19:56:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02470; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:56:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:11:53 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Rom. 15:19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5775 While we are on the topic of correction to the "more familiar" phrase, and the Holy Spirit in particular, I am just curious as to the opinion of the modern eclectics on the tc-list regarding the divided reading in Rom. 15:19 between PNEUMATOS AGIOU and PNEUMATOS QEOU (which in uncial nomina sacra would be PNCAGIOU/PNOCAGIOU or PNCQU/PNOCQU). This happens to be a case where the Byzantine reading is identical to that preferred by the editors of NA26/27, so in theory both positions should argue the internal matters of the case in a similar manner. Paul clearly uses both expressions, though somewhat unequally. The count can be tabulated as follows (not including Rom.15:19): The specific phrases: Paul excluding Hebrews Hebrews PNEUMATOS AGIOU (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 6x 2x WH text: 5x 2x PNEUMA QEOU: (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 7x -- WH text: 7x -- In a more general sense, one finds the following: Paul excluding Hebrews Hebrews PNEUMA AGIOS (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 13x 2x WH text: 12x 2x AGIOS PNEUMA (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 6x -- WH text: 5x -- TO PNEUMA TO AGIOS (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 1x 3x WH text: 1x 3x In Rom.15:19 the textual evidence is divided thus (N26 apparatus): AGIOU - A D*,2 F G 33 81 104 365 630 1739 1881 PC lat syh-mg co (Von Soden adds to this: arm Didymus Basil Athanasius) QEOU - p46 Aleph D1 Psi Maj b sy (C illeg.) omit - B While obviously the Byzantine Textform reads QEOU here, internal considerations seem to lean in that direction in any case. "Spirit of God" is used less in Paul (but not significantly less, so I am uncertain if any major case can be made from that). On the other hand, the phrase "Holy Spirit" (PNEUMA AGIOS in various cases) is primarily a Lukan/Pauline term in the NT, occurring as shown above in Paul, and in Lk/Ac Byz 25x (WH 23x), but in the rest of the NT outside of Luke/Paul only Byz 10x (WH 8x). The articular expression TO PNEUMA TO AGIOS (in various cases) is also distinctively Lukan, occurring 15x in Ac and 2x in Lk, while only once each in Mt/Mk/Jn. That form of expression, however, is not distinctively "Pauline", since it occurs only once in Ephesians and 3x in Hebrews. Similarly the reverse expression AGIOS PNEUMA (in various cases) also may not seem greatly characteristic of Paul, with only 5 occurrences, 3x (2x WH) in 1Cor, 1x in 2Cor, and 1x in 2Th; but it once more is a Lukan/Pauline characteristic phrase, occurring as well 7x (6x WH) in Acts and 2x in Lk., with only 1x in Mt and 1x in 1Pe rounding out the NT. But is there enough significant difference to advocate on internal grounds the slightly lesser-used Pauline expression here? In the remainder of the NT, the phrase "Spirit of God" occurs only 1x Byz (2x WH) times, and even Luke/Acts do not use the term, so it could be termed almost a "distinctly Pauline" usage. Also, the phrase "Spirit of God" would seem to be less common in later liturgical use than the familiar "Holy Spirit", which might serve as another argument away from the familiar toward the accepted reading of N26/Byz. Also, the "harmonization to the immediate context" principle may once more play a part, since the phrase "Holy Spirit" appears previously in 15:13 (genitive) and 15:16 (dative), and such close-context occurrences could easily influence a scribe in that direction at 15:19. I note also from Von Soden that at the very end of Rom.15:19 there is another isolated "harmonization to the immediate context" by Chrysostom and MS 88 (= Ia1 200 VS) in reading QEOU for CRISTOU. This suggests that a QEOU was possibly in their exemplars at the variant unit occurring earlier in the verse; not surprising, given that QEOU is the majority reading in the unit under discussion. Yet are these sufficient grounds in the minds of most eclectics on which to declare "Spirit of God" original over "Holy Spirit"? I suspect that this _should_ be the case, since NA26/27 has accepted that reading, but I remain curious as to how the various eclectics on the list might view this line of argument. I also am curious whether anyone might opt for either the "Holy Spirit" reading or the singular Vaticanus "shorter reading" solution (which latter I consider either a product of accidental omission or a recensional decision, resolving the difficulty by omitting the descriptive term and reading only "Spirit"). I suppose that some could argue for the shorter reading of B as original, with later "pious expansion" in two different directions; the utter singularity of Vaticanus, however, will have to be explained and overcome if so). Another good question for the eclectic side is, _why_ in view of two competing readings in this variant unit was there no later conflation of both readings into the "Holy Spirit of God" (PNEUMATOS AGIOU TOU QEOU) in any MS, especially if (as is generally claimed), scribes -- and especially the "later Byzantine" scribes -- were so "prone" to perform conflation when two readings of equal validity presented themselves? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 20:58:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02663; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:58:42 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:04:48 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1692 Maurice Robinson asked about Rom. 15:19. Since nobody else does things my way, I will offer my analysis just to stir things up. For me, this is a very difficult reading. Let's start with the manuscript evidence, done my way: Evidence PNEUMATOS PNEUMATOS PNEUMATOS by text-type AGIOU QEOU p46/B sa p46 B Alexandrian A 81 1962 Aleph fam 2127 436 bo 1506 "Western" D* F G 629 b a d f m vg Family 1739 1739 1881 6 630 2200 Miscellaneous Family 1611 hark-marg 1505 1611 hark-txt other arm geo1 geo2 It's worth noting that the conflate reading PNEUMATOS QEOU AGIOU *does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU). Counting text-types is ambiguous. Though AGIOU has the clear support of the "Western" and family 1739 texts, the Alexandrian text is split. (It will be noted that I listed neither 33 nor 1175 as Alexandrian; both are Byzantine in Romans). p46/B is also split. On the whole, though, QEOU looks like the Alexandrian reading. It also looks more likely to be the reading of p46/B. Throw in the reading of family 1611, and it is textually just as stron as AGIOU. Which forces me to internal criteria. QEOU better explains AGIOU than the reverse. In my text, I would print QEOU -- but it would be marked in the margin as having maximum uncertainty. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:22:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02749; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:22:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:23:35 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The "Freizeit" of the "logos" In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970402124128.4e2788f0@email.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 710 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > supposition of a typing error, for on a QWERTY keyboard the "z" is too far > from the "h"... In which case the future textual critics from the QWERTY region would consider "Freizeit" most definitely the original reading, since only a _deliberate_ alteration would be responsible for substituting the "easier" "Freiheit" for the more difficult "Freizeit". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:33:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02768; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:33:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:34:21 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 Reply pt.1 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11792 This one got bounced due to length, so I have split it into two parts. Here is part 1.... On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God >fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. They need to listen to Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side" :-) >>Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in >>the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no >>variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. >But this is the fact we need: How often did people cite that passage? >Only by knowing how familiar it is can we determine whether people >would harmonize to it. I concede Robinson's argument (omitted) that >it is hard to tell how well-known a passage is. But it is a crucial >question here. Yet for the most part in the NT we are at the same loss. Certainly favorite liturgical passages such as the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat would be well known in the early church, but would the various catalogs of virtues all be linked together and called the "fruit of the spirit" by the average person? I think this unlikely. Similarly, while today's evangelical church majors on John 3:16 (as can be seen from almost any sporting event), I suspect this key salvational verse played a very small part in the early liturgical church. The key to familiarity in the early era is more probably liturgy than anything else, and thus the lectionaries and early liturgies are our best source for determining popularity of various verses or phrases, "world without end".... >>If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the >>autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear >>in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. >>Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read >>identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may >>happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate >>harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. >Agreed again, but it's *still* assuming the solution. The matter cannot >be investigated from that standpoint. Certainly it can. Any hypothesis _must_ be tested by first assuming the truth of the hypothesis under consideration and then evaluating its claims and attempting to disprove such. If there is an initial refusal to consider the hypothesis from within its own theoretical framework, then the conclusion is predetermined and such a hypothesis cannot be fairly evaluated. Such a method in no way precludes testing the component parts of the hypothesis by evaluating the data piece by piece. Were I to test the validity of the modern eclectic viewpoint, I would have to allow as an initial working hypothesis their view of transmissional history, the development of variants, and the secondary nature of the Byzantine Textform. I then could test the hypothesis and see whether the modern eclectic theory is self-consistent within its own parameters by making a detailed examination of its presuppositions and testing for a regular and fair application of its own internal and external principles. After such a theory has been tested from within its own parameters, with weaknesses or inconsistencies noted, one can then propose or move on to alternative hypotheses for similar evaluation. Following the scientific method, the hypothesis with the _fewest_ perceived weaknesses should be given the preference (I think this is the scientific method's equivalent to "God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery"). >>_All_ theories have to function properly >>within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to >>maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority >>method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be >>admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. >I see what you are saying. And I do not argue that we must always >accept the least harmonious reading. I am simply saying (and this >criticism applies just as much to blind followers of Hort as to >followers of the Byzantine text) that *wherever* there is a variant >involving one or more harmonized readings, and one or more disharmonized >readings, we must initially evaluate the readings without examining >the text-types they belong to. I agree that any and all harmonizations, whether real or alleged, must be investigated; however, following the method you just described (which disregards the working hypotheses under consideration), I see no way that you can come to any conclusion regarding _any_ alleged harmonization without declaring it to be a true harmonization and therefore secondary. Q.E.D., your suggestion _does_ advocate a principle that "we must always accept the least harmonious reading", so long as you approach the variant units with no theoretical concept from any perspective concerning the nature of transmissional history presupposed by the respective theorists. >Note that I am working at the very lowest level here. I am *not* >trying to determine the original text. I am trying to determine the >age and value of the Byzantine text (and the other text-types). >Only once that investigation is completed can we start on the >original text. I suspect that if that question were totally settled, we would not be having any discussion. Were I convinced that the Byzantine Textform and the transmissional theory which underlies a preference for it were false or unsound, I would be the first to return to either modern eclectic praxis or even to the Westcott-Hort theory. Since, however, the determination of the age and value of the Byzantine Textform as well as that of the other texttypes is bound up part and parcel with the underlying presuppositions and various hypotheses, I suspect no resolution of this problem will come quickly (although apparently many from the opposing side thought the Byzantine Text defense was long ago dead and buried, and liked the thought of keeping it that way). This is why I have maintained (with H.H.Oliver and others) that "textual criticism without a history of the text is impossible." Modern eclecticism proceeds without a real history of the text, and prefers to deal with the history of variants alone, taken from within the isolation of the respective variant units (whether one calls it the "local-genealogical method" or whatever). The net result of such a practice leads (as has been critiqued by Colwell, Clark, Epp, and others from within the eclectic school) to a resultant printed text which has _no_ transmissional heritage nor existence in any known MS, version or texttype. Suffice it to say that a Byzantine-priority method does not share those particular weaknesses, nor do transmissionally- based pro-Alexandrian theories such as that of Westcott and Hort (who would have had a nearly pure Alexandrian text had they not gotten imbued with the "Western non-interpolations" issue); the problem noted is endemic to modern eclecticism in particular. >To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels. Perhaps an understatement..... :-) >He has reached a conclusion about the original text type. I had reached >a different conclusion about that text-type. I am now offering to go >back one level, and assume *ignorance* about the text-types. I am >not willing to go back and then blindly come over to his side. This of course is not expected nor demanded. It must be remembered that my own movement to a pro-Byzantine position was the result _only_ of first analyzing and critiquing the modern eclectic position, as well as those of its predecessors, and only after did I seek a more reasonable explanation to account for the data. Blame Kenneth W. Clark for setting me on the road I have taken; it was his suggestion from the start. >I said *primarily* conservative. They did not set out to create variants. >That doesn't mean they *never* did so. We all know that no copyist is >perfect. Fully agreed. And no two MSS of _any_ texttype agree 100%, so far as I know; but this does not affect texttype-specific readings, which are the primary data to be conservatively preserved in most MSS of any given texttype. Regarding the creation of variants, however, I have suggested that "new" sensible readings, whether accidentally or deliberately created by scribes or revisers at any point subsequent to the autograph, would always be unlikely to gain more than a small foothold within the "primarily conservative" transmissional process, except among small "local text" regions. Most sensible readings so created were weeded out by cross-comparison and correction from other exemplars within a few copying generations; were this not the case, the NT MSS would have degenerated into near-utter chaos among themselves, such as was the case with the Old Latin, and we would not be talking of four major texttypes, but dozens of competing minor texttypes at the very least. The history of NT Greek MS transmission moves toward a final text preserved in the mass of documents which has relatively very few sub-variants among its member MSS. Order coming out of what should have been chaos is a very problematic concept, and it is this very fact which provoked either the Hortian "Syrian Recension" theory or the Colwellian "process" theory to account for the rise and dominance of the basically unified Byzantine Textform. Yet both the recensional and process alternative hypotheses are beset by serious weaknesses, as previously mentioned. >Also, when I refer to the Byzantine copyists as "conservative," I refer >to them during the periods during which their actions are visible >(which starts in the fourth/fifth century for the gospels, and later in >the rest of the NT). Still fully granted. If they essentially reproduced without change that which had been bequeathed to them by scribes of each earlier generation, I would not be surprised to find an essentially unified Textform being preserved from the fourth or fifth century onward in the majority of MSS. I also am willing to grant the relative non-conservative sloppiness of Egyptian scribes from the pre-4th century era in regard to most of the MSS which have been preserved to us from that region. I also grant the concept of the "uncontrolled popular text" existing before AD 200 which likely accounts for most known variant readings and especially the so-called "western" corruptions. My only additional assumption is that not all scribes nor even most scribes were necessarily like those we find in the papyri preserved from Egypt, and that it is a likely extrapolation from those known "conservative" Byzantine-type scribes from the 4th and 5th centuries and onward that similar earlier scribal conservatism also did prevail in the regions of the Empire where Greek had been the primary tongue (Southern Italy through modern Turkey) in the earlier centuries. If this assumption is correct, then the groundwork for a Byzantine- priority theory has a legitimate basis. Since such an assumption cannot be proved one way or the other in view of current data, well, that is why other hypotheses exist, equally unproven. >We do not know the shape of the materials they >worked with prior to that time. Of course, the same statement applies, >with differences in date, to all text-types. Also agreed. ....continued in pt. 2 _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:35:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02786; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:35:13 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:35:58 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 Reply, pt.2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11679 ....continued from pt.1 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: .... Also agreed. >We know, e.g., that the >copyist who produced B, and probably its immediate predecessors, were >conservative, because they kept its text close to p75. That in itself is correct, and shows that there were "conservative" scribes within the other textual traditions as well. Since I presume the Alexandrian texttype to be basically the local text of Egypt, I have no problem with either P75 or B preserving that localized variant with relative accuracy. The wonder is that so many other papyri from the localized region of Egypt did _not_ conservatively copy the text, but fell victim to the "uncontrolled popular text" syndrome. >But we do not >know what happened prior to the creation of p75. Most scholars think >the forerunners of that manuscript were also conservative and careful. >But we *cannot* prove it. Since P75 and B both preserve what Hort called "a very pure line of very ancient text", I think we _have_ to presume that particular line _was_ conservatively and basically carefully preserved over the centuries, and also in any forerunner MSS in a line going back to the archetype of the local Alexandrian texttype (unless one wanted to claim that P75 was "the" original archetype of the Alexandrian text -- I'll leave that one to Theide for his next book :-). >Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition >display *identical behaviors*. I will differ on this point, since -- especially with a religious text which becomes regarded as sacred -- the written and oral tradition tend to become fixed and stabilized in a manner which folkloric or lyrical oral tradition does not; and the passage of time, even centuries, does little to alter the fixed written or oral tradition in such cases. Remember that, even with all of the little sub-variant types among the Byzantine MSS, the basic text of _any_ Byzantine MS from the 15th century will look amazingly like _any_ Byzantine or proto-Byzantine text from the 4th, 5th, or 6th century. The analogy from oral tradition would expect to see continual corruption or alteration occurring and accruing over the centuries, but this simply is not the case with the Byzantine Textform as an entity, even though sub-Byzantine families or types might branch of in small particulars from the vast majority (Von Soden's Kx) which majority would continue to preserve the original and overarching Byzantine Textform in virtually any era. >But I would bet that I can find examples of *any* >textual phenomenon you care to name in Bronson's "Traditional Tunes >of the Child Ballads." (Or could, if I had all four volumes, which >I don't.) I could probably find all of them just in "Barbara Allen" >or "Lord Thomas and Fair Ellen." I will defer to you on the folk song issue. I only play them and attempt to sing them (and not very well). >I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what >Daniel Wallace had to say about Wisselink. He did raise one *very* >strong point. He observes that Wisselink compares the Byzantine *text* >with individual Alexandrian *witnesses.* >Now it is true that the Byzantine text is fairly coherent, and the >Alexandrian text is not, so this is the easiest sort of comparison. >But it is also a *false* comparison. An individual manuscript will >almost certainly have more harmonizations than its text-type. We >must compare types against types. I also grant this point, since obviously any single MS will have more of virtually any type of error (deliberate or accidental) than the members of its texttype. However, I think Wisselink _only_ utilized the frequency of harmonization in individual MSS of the Alexandrian type in order to establish whether any of those individual MSS had a "tendency" to harmonize. This would be no different than Colwell's study of scribal habits in the early papyri. Those Alexandrian witnesses found to have a tendency to harmonize would then become suspect or of somewhat less weight in places where the remainder of the Alexandrian texttype does not harmonize. The real test, however, remains in those readings which are texttype-specific, wherein it can be presumed that the _archetype_ of the Alexandrian texttype must have harmonized -- this transcends the vagaries of the individual MSS comprising such a texttype, and is a proper subject for evaluation. >Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. My point is, one *cannot* quote isolated >examples. One must sit down with *some* section of continuous text and >examine every reading. This is interesting, since Fee and Wallace both have claimed that the task of the pro-Byzantine side was _not_ to deal in theory (even though that is what undergirds the entire perspective), but to deal in praxis with relatively isolated examples set forth as "challenge" cases. I have responded to two such test cases from Fee in an ETS paper which is currently available in our _Faith and Mission_ journal. However, praxis in individual variant units, without the consideration of the theory underlying such praxis, reflects nothing more than practical eclecticism, and this in itself establishes and proves nothing. Certainly I _do_ prefer far more the idea of looking at all variants within a single section of text, since this is compact and relatively easy to deal with. But I don't want this to become merely the "Pepsi Challenge" and continually have to move from pericope to pericope on the assumption that successful defense of Byzantine readings in one place says nothing about what might occur elsewhere. Just as Fee said with his two test passages from Mark, they were merely "two among hundreds," and whatever defense could be made for them could be repeated hundreds of times over (Fee of course meant a defense made by only the Alexandrian eclectics, and discounted the possibility of any such defense coming from the Byzantine supporters). Suffice it to say that _if_ a reasonable defense can be made for the Byzantine readings appearing in a given pericope or segment of text, it should be granted that such a defense obviously _could_ be made elsewhere in a similar manner. Certainly some readings might require time and research effort, and cannot be defended by a simple shot from the hip; but that is only to be expected in the nature of the case. >In fact, I made a small experiment of that sort last night. I started >from Hodges & Farstad (the only text with a reasonably relevant critical >apparatus). Taking two sample chapters (from Mark and John), I compared >the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the >internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." Probably too simplistic in and of itself, but fitting in with a primary internal criterion of textual criticism. >The majority of readings were ambiguous. In instances where one reading >seemed preferable to the others, it seemed about an even split as to >which was preferable, Byzantine or Alexandrian. This of course is your subjective judgment. Others (whether eclectics or pro-Byzantine) might look at the same variant units and come to totally different conclusions, even using that single criterion. I know that I would. Part of the reason of course will be that you applied a criterion taken in isolation apart from other internal or external data (a severe parallel to the Kilpatrick/Elliott method of "rigorous" eclecticism). I suspect that even Elliott would demur from your method in such a case; but as a sample without definitive overtones, what you did was a fine experiment. >However, many of these readings were cases where one reading was only >slightly preferable. In the handful of cases where one was *clearly* >preferable (I think there were five that I noticed before I had to >stop), *all five of the preferable readings were Alexandrian.* Again a subjective judgment. Since I don't know the passages or readings, I might seem presumptuous, but since I have worked through all these readings previously and know where the most problematic happen to be, I would maintain that a reasonable case can be made for the Byzantine reading in almost all such places. The difficult cases especially need to be considered in view of the _entire transmissional history_, as even Westcott and Hort pointed out in their own model. The overriding theory, once established and settled, _must_ assume that even the difficult places were transmitted as they were because of autograph or archetype originality, else they would not be part and parcel of a texttype/Textform reading so perpetuated. >I didn't check enough readings to be decisive. But it also >says that we need a rigid control procedure; what I think is certainly >original may not be what Wisselink thinks is certainly original. It's >a problem. I agree in regard to the subjectivity, but that comes with the varied approaches and the theories which underlie them. I suspect that _no_ rigid control procedure could ever come about which would bridge the gap between competing theories. I _do_ think that a rigid control procedure _could_ be imposed within a _single_ theoretical perspective, and in fact my approach to the evaluative method of readings on internal grounds is quite controlled and "rigid" for the most part; it just does not happen to be the same controls or (lack of) rigidity that one would find within modern eclectic praxis. >But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. >The difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian is certainly not as >clearcut as I thought. It is interesting that you did that experiment, since I have my own text-critical students do something similar: I give them a "blind" list of readings within a portion of text, with no external evidence support cited, and ask them to determine solely from internal criteria which readings are "best". The results when working "blind" in almost all cases is an equally-divided bag: some Byzantine readings being preferred, some Alexandrian, and even a few Western. The net result of such an approach is that we should expect from eclectic scholars a resultant text which is far more equally balanced among the texttypes than is present in the primarily-Alexandrian model found in the UBS or NA editions. This of course is _only_ if we proceed from internal criteria without theories regarding the "best" MSS or texttypes etc. >True on both counts. Although -- even if the process continues -- my >resultant theory is likely to resemble Von Soden's or Sturz's. I doubt >I will abandon non-Byzantine text-types entirely. If it ever does resemble Von Soden or Sturz (which are quite disparate, by the way), let me know, since I have a strong critique regarding either theory, though admittedly Sturz ends up by his methodology with a text which is _very_ close to a Byzantine text (he published a fascicle containing Matthew to demonstrate his method). Sturz departed from the Byzantine Textform _only_ when the Alexandrian and Western texttypes happened to unite apart from the Byzantine text -- and you know how infrequently that would occur. >Just great... already half the people on this list don't listen to me. >Now I'm going to get the other half ignoring me. :-) Welcome to the club. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:42:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02830; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:42:14 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:46:13 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 375 I would prefer PNEUMATOS [QEOU] with the same reservations expressed by the brackets in the N-A27, primarily because of the possibility of the assimulation to verse 16. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:47:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02852; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:47:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:48:32 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <9704022217.AA02359@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 840 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > About the popularity of John 3.16 again : I already mentioned its > presence at the heart of St John's Chrysostom' liturgy, and, though it's > more anecdotic, I mention also this : it's on the title page of the > Gospels in an edition of the georgian NT that was published by the > Patriarchate (or more exactly catholicate) of the Georgian orthodox > church (Tbilisi, 1963). This is helpful; but I'll bet they didn't hold up signs with John 3:16 on them at the early Isthmian games...... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 22:15:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA02917; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:15:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:16:28 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 922 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > It's worth noting that the conflate reading PNEUMATOS QEOU AGIOU > *does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU). Thank you for providing this, since NA26 did not. It is a curious conflation, however, since one would expect PNEUMATOS AGIOU (TOU) QEOU as a more "normal" type of reading. > Which forces me to internal criteria. QEOU better explains AGIOU > than the reverse. In my text, I would print QEOU -- but it would > be marked in the margin as having maximum uncertainty. >From your persepctive, this is clear and understandable. Thanks for the enlightenment. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 22:21:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA02939; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:21:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:22:33 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1204 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Carlton Winbery wrote: > I would prefer PNEUMATOS [QEOU] with the same reservations expressed by the > brackets in the N-A27, primarily because of the possibility of the > assimulation to verse 16. Not to mention verse 13, which also could have had some influence. I am pleased to see the point being made and accepted of harmonization to the immediate context as a reason for rejecting a reading. :-) Let me ask, however, what might your decision have been, Carlton, assuming that there were _no_ other mention of the Holy Spirit in vv.13 and 16, nor any mention of "Spirit of God" in the immediate context? Would your evaluation of internal criteria still fall along the same lines as my own in regard to Pauline usage, or what? How also would you evaluate the external evidence without a compelling contextual harmonization as a possible cause? Would your decision change? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 04:49:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA03516; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 04:49:33 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704030950.LAA57070@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 12:04:29 +0100 Subject: EASE/Leisure/Freizeit To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1111 Thanks to all those reacting to my modern-times-real-life TC example for absolving at least my mother and various other suggestions. Especially helpful to me was the reference to the different keyboard lay-outs existing throughout the world. I somehow *knew* that, but I simply failed to account for it when writing the story down. By implication it seems very important to know and to imagine as much as possible of the immediate (not only intellectual, but) *physical* context of a given text. I enjoyed very much the various speculations of the "experts" to account for the reading "Freizeit", including conjectural emendation. Especially telling are suggestions like, e.g. heterodox corruption vs. orthodox emendation. The lesson I learned from our example is that with the "right" framework we are able to claim almost every reading as somehow deliberately, purposely produced. However, fact is that my URTEXT contained a simple typing-error. And apart from my hand-written notes, NO copy existed where what I was thinking of could be read plainly and unambiguously. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 05:13:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA03562; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 05:13:27 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704031014.MAA30162@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 12:28:31 +0100 Subject: Bob Dylan To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 702 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >>I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God >>fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. >They need to listen to Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side" :-) Apropos *Bob Dylan*. Some weeks ago I heard the rumor that Kurt Aland owned some Bob Dylan records appreciating his music. I should have checked it out before publicly mentioning it, but this week virtually noone is here at the institute, and next week I will be away... But given this rumor, isn't that fine, Maurice? Eclectics could have been fans of Bob Dylan... Just as an aside... Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 07:31:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03738; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:31:12 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704031231.OAA74882@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 14:46:11 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970401125734.42775d30@email.psu.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1719 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bill Petersen wrote (inter alia): >Just as a gloss on Ulrich Schmid's remark about Codex Bezae (D) and its high >number of harmonizations/assimilations (as per Wisselink's research) >relative to other (Greek) MSS: this high number is thought to be the result >of (1) Codex Bezae's having been influenced in some manner by the >Diatessaronic tradition (which is, of course, a gospel harmony...), or (2) >Codex Bezae's being related to the Vetus Syra, which has numerous >cross-gospel harmonizations because *it* was influenced by the Diatessaron, >or (3) both of the above (1 *and* 2). See, among others, the work of F.H. >Chase. The harmonizations/assimilations in Codex Bezae (D) are especially interesting, not only because of the outstanding number of occurences, but also because of some rather peculiar features. However, up to now I do not feel the need to account for them with reference to the Diatessaronic tradition. As far as I can see every Gospel MS displays some (some even more) harmonistic tendencies. Granted that even Marcions Gospel seems to display a few harmonistic readings, we may infer that harmonizations demonstrably happened earlier in time than the composition of the Diatessaron. Therefore, the sheer amount of harmonistic readings in D in itself does not, in my view, somehow naturally point to contact with the Diatessaronic tradition. However, I am only a beginner in Diatessaronic studies. Being more familiar with the evidence from that fascinating part of tradition might shift my point of view. BTW -- Bill, apart from the work of Chase, which I did not study yet, what else would you recommend? I read Vogels on that. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 09:02:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03945; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:02:25 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:03:31 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1725 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson >On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> It's worth noting that the conflate reading PNEUMATOS QEOU AGIOU >> *does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU). > >Thank you for providing this, since NA26 did not. It is a curious >conflation, however, since one would expect PNEUMATOS AGIOU (TOU) QEOU as >a more "normal" type of reading. I'd have to say that this depends on how the family 330 text evolved. I haven't managed to figure that out yet. The text is more Byzantine than anything else, but with a large mixture of something else. The "something else" seems to be closest to the Alexandrian text as found in family 2127 -- but it isn't very close. There may also be some "Western" influence. BTW -- just as a note: The Soden/Merk/Bover collation of 330 is very bad. Don't *ever* rely on it. Use the Davies collation or, if that is available, the minimal information available from UBS3. >> Which forces me to internal criteria. QEOU better explains AGIOU >> than the reverse. In my text, I would print QEOU -- but it would >> be marked in the margin as having maximum uncertainty. > >From your persepctive, this is clear and understandable. Thanks for the >enlightenment. Of course, nobody else on this list does TC the way I do.... I know that Robinson knows *that* feeling.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 09:19:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03997; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:19:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:20:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 244 Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest assured that the reading is original. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 09:38:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04026; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:38:36 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704031439.QAA39272@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 16:53:43 +0100 Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 475 >Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest >assured that the reading is original. >Jim >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology >jwest@theology.edu Well, that's good news. Stop thinking as long as P46 and Sinaiticus agree. Switch on your brain when they depart. Come on, Jim, I'm sure you have another hard and fast rule for those nasty cases. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 10:22:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04181; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:22:02 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704031439.QAA39272@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:28:55 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1136 On Thu, 03 Apr 97, schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: >>Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest >>assured that the reading is original. > > > >>Jim > >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>Jim West, ThD >>Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology >>jwest@theology.edu > >Well, that's good news. Stop thinking as long as P46 and Sinaiticus agree. >Switch on your brain when they depart. Come on, Jim, I'm sure you have another >hard and fast rule for those nasty cases. I have to agree with Ulrich Schmid. I'm willing to switch off my brain under certain circumstances (to wit, when p46 Aleph A B C D G 33 1739 agree) -- but basing a decision on just two witnesses is too few. Are you really saying that the "Western" text is *never* correct? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 11:33:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04572; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:33:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3344718D.4F38@sn.no> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:12:13 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: apocrypha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 249 I have a question regerding OT and NT apocrypha: Is there any of the OT and NT apocrypha which showed up for the first time in the 19. century (I mean in modern times, by way of discovery)?? If so, which?? Thanks ahead! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 11:40:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04626; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:40:23 -0500 Message-ID: <33447348.1B39@sn.no> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:19:36 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Alexandrian text Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 174 One question concerning the Alexandrian text: In what degree was the Alexandrian text-type transmitted among the Greek MSS after the 4./5.century? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:33:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04851; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:33:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:34:55 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123416.234724ee@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 646 At 04:53 PM 4/3/97 +0100, you wrote: >Well, that's good news. Stop thinking as long as P46 and Sinaiticus agree. >Switch on your brain when they depart. Come on, Jim, I'm sure you have another >hard and fast rule for those nasty cases. > >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > > Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be voted on to be proven right. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:33:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04865; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:33:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:35:00 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123421.23473094@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 705 At 09:28 AM 4/3/97 -0700, you wrote: > >I have to agree with Ulrich Schmid. I'm willing to switch off my brain >under certain circumstances (to wit, when p46 Aleph A B C D G 33 1739 >agree) -- but basing a decision on just two witnesses is too few. Are >you really saying that the "Western" text is *never* correct? > > It is only correct when it agrees with the Alexandrian type- this is also true of the Byzantine text; but I am willing to accept any evidence that this is not so; so far, I remain unconvinced and wish to be shown the error of my ways. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:34:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04889; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:34:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:35:04 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: apocrypha X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123424.2347770c@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 529 At 07:12 PM 4/3/97 -0800, you wrote: >I have a question regerding OT and NT apocrypha: > >Is there any of the OT and NT apocrypha which showed up for the first >time in the 19. century (I mean in modern times, by way of discovery)?? >If so, which?? > >Thanks ahead! > You may want to look at the 2 volume collection of these works by Charlesworth. >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:34:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04892; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:34:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:35:07 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: P46 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123428.234776aa@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 507 Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly superior by all the canons of TC. Why, then, dismiss it when it has all the right stuff? Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:45:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04938; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:45:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:46:29 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Assimilation and Mt.9:1 In-Reply-To: <199704030950.LAA57070@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6979 Continuing the discussion..... On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ulrich Schmid wrote (inter alia): >> Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels >> (including P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a >> constant threat on every level of textual transmission of the (united) >> Gospels, I simply have greater confidence in those witnesses who >> contain proportionally less assimilations. Again, how do you determine what constitutes "proportionally less"? Certainly not by taking the Byz readings as a whole and assuming that every _possible_ harmonization in such is a "true" harmonization. This would be no more legitimate than to take every _possible_ harmonization in the Alexandrian or Western texttypes as a whole and then broad-brush paint all the individual witnesses to those texttypes as somehow guilty of what allegedly _might_ occur on the wide scale within the archetypical level of that texttype. It simply is _not_ valid to take the Byzantine Textform as a whole, (which reflects a reasonable "control" group), and then presume that every "possible" assimilation in such a group is automatically a "true" harmonization. What needs to be done, plainly and simply, is to take Byzantine witnesses individually and calculate from their singular and subsingular readings what degree of or propensity toward harmonization seems apparent in such MSS, compare these to the same Byztxt-as-a-whole control group and from there consider how this might apply to the transmission of harmonizations within the main Textform once such harmonizations occur beyond a few copying generations. >> I don't think assimilation/harmonization was as much of a "constant >> threat" as you imagine, Ulrich, since the evidence of the MSS show >> that harmonizing readings tended _not_ to be perpetuated beyond a few >> copying generations. >Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky >business. I just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall >conclusion. The conclusion derives from the fact that it can be demonstrated merely from the critical apparatus of, say, _Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum_, [SQE] that harmonizations or assimilations _frequently_ occurred. It likewise can be demonstrated from their near total lack of perpetuation -- even among members of a single minority texttype -- that _non-perpetuation_ of harmonizations/assimilations was the rule rather than the exception. There is no need or logic underlying the presumption of the selective perpetuation of _some_ harmonizations on the wide "majority" level to the exclusion of other quite reasonable harmonizations which were _not_ perpetuated, except by a very few MSS in a very limited area or number of copying generations. >Maybe we should have a closer look at various examples. Sounds fine to me. >First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so >remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, >at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before >PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat >may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or >against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type >of assimilation. In Mk. 9:1, the article before PLOION is indeed the Byzantine reading, supported also by C* W 0233 (E F Delta 579 700 1424) al., with Alexandrian and Caesarean witnesses (Aleph B C3 L Theta f1 f13 33 565 892 al sa mae) otherwise omitting the article. This article-inclusion, however, as SQE demonstrates, is _not_ a matter of parallel passage harmonization, as you basically stated. However, from within a Byzantine-priority perspective, the use or non-use of the article in such a case _is_ a matter of "normal" Matthean style which appears to have been grammatically altered in a number of places by the minority MSS. Whether this was done due to consideration of the rule of first mention (in which the article would be omitted on the first mention of a term, but included on subsequent occasions), or whether there may be some other stylistic considerations or even influence from the use of the article in Coptic or its non-use in Latin would have to be determined from a more complete evaluation of the data. Examining the use of the article with PLOION (in various cases) in Matthew alone, one finds that in the Byzantine Textform that there are 13 instances of PLOION, _all but one_ of which (14:13) have the article present (Mt. 4:21,22; 8:23,24; 9:1; 13:2; 14:13,22,24,29,32,33; 15:39). Out of these the article is absent in the NA26/27 text in only 8:23; 9:1; 13:2 (as well as 14:13 which did not have the article to begin with). Omitting the article: 8:23 - Aleph1 B C f1 f13 33 205 565 892 pc (omission follows "rule of first mention" and also harmonizes with parallel lack of article in Lk.8:22, where itself article is added to harmonize with Byz in Mt only by H W f13 pc bo-mss) 9:1 - Evidence cited above. Omission here also follows the "rule of first mention" even though there are no parallel passages to compare against. 13:2 - Included by D K Gamma Delta f13 28 565 1006 1342 1506 (E F G 209 579 2542) Maj; all other constant minority witnesses omit (this omission once again follows the "rule of first mention" and also harmonizes with parallel lack of article in among minority MSS in Mk.4:1, where article remains present in Maj, but _not_ in Aleph B* C L Theta 33 565 892 1342 1424 2427 pc). Note also that WH text (but not NA26/27) chose also to omit the article in 14:22, following Aleph* C* 892* (ff1) sy-s sy-c. This also reflects an omission of the article in the parallel passage Mk.6:45 by Aleph Theta 1 33 565 1342 1582 2542 pc. and is again a case of certain MSS following the "rule of first mention". My suggestion in such cases as Mt. 8:23; 9:1; 13:2; and 14:22 is that certain minority scribes happened to accommodate Matthean style (which by including the article is more Hebraic) to the proper "rule" regarding first mention. If so, this appears to be not so much harmonization or assimilation, but recensional activity for grammatical reasons. Looking at it from another angle (the reading which best accounts for the rise of the others), there seems to be _no_ reason why the mass of scribes would _add_ the article in such places on their own initiative, but there are compelling reasons why the scribes might omit the article on a selective basis for grammatical or harmonization reasons. I will continue with the other examples in a later post... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:48:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04961; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:48:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:49:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Bob Dylan In-Reply-To: <199704031014.MAA30162@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 933 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > Apropos *Bob Dylan*. Some weeks ago I heard the rumor that Kurt Aland owned some > Bob Dylan records appreciating his music. I should have checked it out before > publicly mentioning it, but this week virtually noone is here at the institute, > and next week I will be away... > But given this rumor, isn't that fine, Maurice? Eclectics could have been fans > of Bob Dylan... If this is true, Ulrich, then Kurt Aland and I may be closer text-critically than you might think.....The question now is whether Barbara Aland or anyone else at the Institute is a fan of Dylan..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:50:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04978; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:50:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:51:04 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 583 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest > assured that the reading is original. Sounds a bit like Westcott and Hort on when Aleph and B unite....I have a suspicion that this type of method is oversimplified. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:11:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05037; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:11:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:12:02 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403123421.23473094@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1063 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > >Are you really saying that the "Western" text is *never* correct? > > > > > It is only correct when it agrees with the Alexandrian type- this is also > true of the Byzantine text; but I am willing to accept any evidence that > this is not so; so far, I remain unconvinced and wish to be shown the error > of my ways. In other words, you are saying that the Western or Byzantine are only correct when they agree with the Alexandrian -- this therefore basically says only the Alexandrian is correct at all times. Why? I certainly have reasons to defend the Byzantine-priority hypothesis, but these are both externally, internally, and transmissionally based. What is the basis for a pure "Alexandrian-priority" schema? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:13:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05068; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:13:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:14:05 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: P46 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403123428.234776aa@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 941 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very > small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. > > Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type > influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly > superior by all the canons of TC. > > Why, then, dismiss it when it has all the right stuff? And some think P46 might date to the AD 90-100 period.....but this also does not make it correct. When P46 stands alone in a non-error sensible reading, are you quite prepared to accept and defend such? And on what grounds? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:22:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05153; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:22:16 -0500 Message-Id: <9704031922.AA27957@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: liturgy on the net Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 20:25:59 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3063 Hello TC-ers : A few URL for those who want a first approach to the eastern liturgies, as we have been speaking about these in the last threads. A quick initiation to the plan of the liturgy can be found at : http://the-hermes.net/~hrycak/liturgy.html The liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which is the main liturgy of the chalcedonian Greek, Slavic and Melkite churches, orthodox and catholic, can be found at many places - never the whole text, it probably would be too long to type. Anyhow, the most important part of it. Just to name two URL's : http://www.cris.com/~bronson/6mass.html http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/liturgy1.html The Liturgy of St Basil - not the one of the Greeks which has hardly anything common with it except the name, but the main liturgy of the Coptic church, can be found at : http://pharos.bu.edu/cn/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html The Liturgy of St James in the syrian rite is used by a quite interesting "Antiochene Catholic Church of America". They say it's a "recension" of the one used by the Syrian orthodox Church of Antioch, but I found it to be quite true to the syriac text: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~thomas/acca/liturgy.html Here's the address of a server that has the text of most of the important liturgies, eastern and western, only is it not in a formatted html presentation. It has Chrysostom, St James both in the Greek and Syriac recensions (called "syrian rite"), the Chaldean mass of the Apostles... I haven't checked everything, it's hardly possible as I just discovered it, but it's a good place to begin... http://www.alltel.net/~gacanon/liturgy.html Of course, you'll be better documented if you buy liturgical books (but often they're expensive) or go to the manuscripts. But the main texts are there and it's valuable for a first contact. If you download some of these texts and read them once in a while, you will have a valuable source of information (and some very beautiful texts, think about the spiritual and theological depth in the Chrysostom liturgy!). I remember also that at the Holy Bible Web Site (http://www.redbay.com/newbies/mag) there are links that lead to archives where you will find a well-known collection of patristical texts translated into English, among which some liturgies are present. They are in the format of the Windows help. I hope I haven't made scribal errors in the URL's. Our century will probably be remembered in history for its high level of technology, but also for the human mistakes that it implies! ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:50:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05453; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:50:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:51:46 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: Re: Bob Dylan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 993 Maurice Robinson wrote: > schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > If this is true, Ulrich, then Kurt Aland and I may be closer > text-critically than you might think.....The question now is whether > Barbara Aland or anyone else at the Institute is a fan of Dylan..... Although it might not seems so at first glance, this may not be as unreasonable as one might think. It would appear that Mr Dylan is in possession of manuscripts that contain many interesting variant readings. For example, one of his early publication contained the following variant from Genesis: "God said to Abraham 'Kill me a son', Abe said 'Man, you gotta be putting me on!' God, he said, 'No' Abe he said 'What?!?' God said 'Listen you can do what you want. But next you seem comin' you'd better run...' Abe said 'Where you want this killing done?' God said 'Out on Highway 61!' -- Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 14:25:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05652; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:25:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 14:26:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: P46 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403142303.26d753bc@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 702 At 01:14 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >And some think P46 might date to the AD 90-100 period.....but this also >does not make it correct. No- its age does not make it correct; but its age goes a very long way in making it more reliable. > When P46 stands alone in a non-error sensible >reading, are you quite prepared to accept and defend such? And on what >grounds? > Yes. On the grounds that antiquity counts more than any of the other criteria (unless there are VERY compelling reasons to ignore a document's antiquity). > >Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 14:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05673; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:29:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 14:28:45 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403142517.26d78676@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1110 At 01:12 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >In other words, you are saying that the Western or Byzantine are only >correct when they agree with the Alexandrian -- this therefore basically >says only the Alexandrian is correct at all times. Why? > Yes. Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). >I certainly have reasons to defend the Byzantine-priority hypothesis, but >these are both externally, internally, and transmissionally based. What >is the basis for a pure "Alexandrian-priority" schema? > Why the same as the reasons one supports the western text or the byzantine. >_________________________________________________________________________ >Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament >Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:06:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05807; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:06:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:07:11 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970403150714.4e8fcf1a@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3247 At 02:46 PM 4/3/97 +0100, Ulrich Schmid wrote: >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bill Petersen wrote (inter alia): >The harmonizations/assimilations in Codex Bezae (D) are especially interesting, >not only because of the outstanding number of occurences, but also because of >some rather peculiar features. However, up to now I do not feel the need to >account for them with reference to the Diatessaronic tradition. As far as I can >see every Gospel MS displays some (some even more) harmonistic tendencies. >Granted that even Marcions Gospel seems to display a few harmonistic readings, >we may infer that harmonizations demonstrably happened earlier in time than the >composition of the Diatessaron. Therefore, the sheer amount of harmonistic >readings in D in itself does not, in my view, somehow naturally point to contact >with the Diatessaronic tradition. You are quite correct in this: harmonization--in and of itself--is, of course, not proof of a link with the Diatessaron; furthermore, as I pointed out in that post (or an earlier one), and in an article in *NTS* in 1990, harmonizations antedate the Diatessaron, most notably in the form of whatever the harmonized gospel was which Justin used... The special circumstances which apply to Codex Bezae are, however, more complex. A good starting place is to look at the apparatus in Daniel Plooij's edition of *The Liege Harmony* (Amsterdam 1929-70), which remains one of the more impressive editions ever undertaken, with an exquisite apparatus. The apparatus includes numerous Diatessaronic witnesses, both east and west, as well as relevant Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc., gospel MSS. There seems to be a high degree of agreement, throughout (not just in harmonizations/assimilations, but also in variant readings), between Codex Bezae and the Diatessaronic witnesses. That--not the willy-nilly presence of harmonizations--is why a link between Bezae and the Diatessaron has been proposed. What then follows, as a corollary, is that since the Diatessaron was earlier and a harmony, then *some* of the harmonizations, and the exceptionally high number of harmonizations/assimilations in Bezae, are *probably* due to Diatessaronic influence. > >However, I am only a beginner in Diatessaronic studies. Being more familiar with >the evidence from that fascinating part of tradition might shift my point of >view. BTW -- Bill, apart from the work of Chase, which I did not study yet, what >else would you recommend? I read Vogels on that. > >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > In addition to Plooij's edition, his two monographs (*A Primitive Text of the Diatessaron* [1923] and *A Further Study of the Liege Diatessaron* [1925]; both rather slim volumes) are excellent introductions. Ulrich, you are already familiar with Vogels (I assume you are referring to his *Die Harmonistik im Evangelientext des Codex Cantabrigiensis* [1910]). This, however, is only semi-useful for the Diatessaron connection. Vogels' *Beitraege zur Geschichte des Diatessaron im Abendland* (1919) is much more useful and mature. Chase's work is, however, probably the most direct treatment of this problem (and, although about a century old, perhaps the most incisive). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:18:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05836; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:18:55 -0500 Date: 03 Apr 97 15:16:38 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: celar evidence Message-ID: <970403201638_102147.2045_EHT31-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 338 >Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens >only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. >If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be >voted on to be proven right. **Now THAT'S "clear" - celar evidence ;-) ;-) ;-) (Sorry Jim, but I couldn't resist :-) ) Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:19:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05850; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:19:00 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032119.AA05758@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 22:23:05 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2799 Jim, as I see you are an unconditional Alexandrian! >Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in >Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). So, to you and all the list participants, a few questions (that probably will betray my bias in favor of the versions, but...) First a question about antiquity : some "western" witnesses seem to be as old as the "alexandrian" ones. Sometimes both agree against the other text-types, but when the B-type and the D-type disagree what will you do? And, corollary to that question, what would you answer to those people who say that in the IInd century, the Alexandrian text-type was a local text-type found only in Egypt, while the D-type was found everywhere in the world, and that this shows it is probably closer to the original ? (just like when you throw stones in water, the wider circle comes from a stone that was thrown in the water long ago...). Generally speaking, what do you make of geographical dispersion of the readings? How would you consider readings that are attested, for example, in an Arabic manuscript of the Xth century, and in the georgian version and some western versions (whether it be old latin or middle dutch for example) with or without a few isolated greek manuscripts? Personnally, I have the impression that geographical criteria are not enough considered when discussing variants - whether it be in the IInd century context (D against B) or later (versions). Do you think there is something correct in my impression and why? And if you answer yes, why is it so? To a certain extend, the same remarks would apply to the Byzantine readings. Maurice, what would you do of variants of Byz as against more geographically spread variants? Do you accept that older variants may survive far from the geographical "centers" of text-production? I see that some of you seem to have time these days: it's Easter vacation for the people working in teaching institutions, not for me! But I profit of the occasion in the hope to have some well-thought feedback. Sorry if those questions seem repetitive compared to earlier postings from me, but my work on the versions makes me sensitive to this problem. :-) ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:46:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05917; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:46:45 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:47:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: Textual Criticism List Subject: Dating Gos. John Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 299 I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of this date? --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:58:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05935; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:58:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:59:04 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: celar evidence X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403155551.2f177e48@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 581 At 03:16 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens >>only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. >>If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be >>voted on to be proven right. > >**Now THAT'S "clear" - celar evidence ;-) ;-) ;-) > >(Sorry Jim, but I couldn't resist :-) ) Thats ok- I had accidentally slipped into Byzantine scribe mode! > >Mike A. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:01:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05959; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:01:11 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032201.AA08313@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: An sample from Sinai Arabic 71 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 23:05:19 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2134 TC-ers, Here's a sample translation of a few verses from Sinai Arabic 71, the manuscript about which I posted some notes before. I remind you that (1) this version is from the Xth century - very early for Arabic, as the first mss (but they have another version) appear in the IXth), (2) it is most probably translated from Greek as many mistakes of the translator make it apparent, and (3) it's in an unliterary arabic showing traces of aramaic vocabulary and constructions. Here's a rough English translation of the beginning of Mark : 1 Beginning of the Gospel: Jesus Christ (is) the Son of God. 2 As it (is) written in the prophet: behold, I send my messenger before your face, so that he (may) prepare your way before you. 3 A voice calls in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, and straigth make his ways. 4 John was baptizing in the desert, and was preaching the baptism of repentance, for the forgivenness of the sins. 5 And all the region of Judea and all Jerusalem were coming and were being baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 And John used to clothe (himself) with camel's hair, and a belt of leather at his waist. And his food was the locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying: he comes after me, the one who is mightier than me, of whom I am not worthy to untie the thong of his shoes. 8 As for me, I baptized you with water. And he, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. What are your reactions about its text? If you like it, I could, from time to time, send you such samples from other Arabic mss as well. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:05:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05981; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:05:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:06:30 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403160315.2f1755b2@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3501 At 10:23 PM 4/3/97 +0200, you wrote: >Jim, as I see you are an unconditional Alexandrian! > Perhaps unconditioned- as my wife is constantly urgiing me to get in shape! (or is it, to shape up?) :) >>Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in >>Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). > >So, to you and all the list participants, a few questions (that probably >will betray my bias in favor of the versions, but...) > >First a question about antiquity : some "western" witnesses seem to be as >old as the "alexandrian" ones. Sometimes both agree against the other >text-types, but when the B-type and the D-type disagree what will you do? > If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. When all else fails, antiquity counts the most (but only when all else fails). >And, corollary to that question, what would you answer to those people >who say that in the IInd century, the Alexandrian text-type was a local >text-type found only in Egypt, while the D-type was found everywhere in >the world, and that this shows it is probably closer to the original ? How does it show this? What it shows is that it is widely disseminated; and this has nothing to do with originality. The Byzantine type is perhaps the most disseminated but I would hardly argue that it is original. >(just like when you throw stones in water, the wider circle comes from a >stone that was thrown in the water long ago...). > Unless it was a bigger stone. >Generally speaking, what do you make of geographical dispersion of the >readings? How would you consider readings that are attested, for example, >in an Arabic manuscript of the Xth century, and in the georgian version >and some western versions (whether it be old latin or middle dutch for >example) with or without a few isolated greek manuscripts? > I regret that I am not as impressed (yet) with the versional evidence as I am with the Greek manuscript tradition. >Personnally, I have the impression that geographical criteria are not >enough considered when discussing variants - whether it be in the IInd >century context (D against B) or later (versions). You may be right in this. But again, does dispersion = authenticity? > Do you think there is >something correct in my impression and why? And if you answer yes, why is >it so? > I have a little trouble with the notion that just because a manuscript is widely attested that it is thereby authentic. This will degrade into counting manuscripts; it seems to me. >To a certain extend, the same remarks would apply to the Byzantine >readings. Maurice, what would you do of variants of Byz as against more >geographically spread variants? Do you accept that older variants may >survive far from the geographical "centers" of text-production? > >I see that some of you seem to have time these days: it's Easter vacation >for the people working in teaching institutions, not for me! But I profit >of the occasion in the hope to have some well-thought feedback. Sorry if >those questions seem repetitive compared to earlier postings from me, but >my work on the versions makes me sensitive to this problem. :-) > Thats good- input from many sources makes us all better. > > >________________________________________________________________ >Jean Valentin Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:07:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06000; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:07:34 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032207.AA08714@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: celar evidence Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 23:11:46 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1023 >>>Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens >>>only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. >>>If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be >>>voted on to be proven right. >> >>**Now THAT'S "clear" - celar evidence ;-) ;-) ;-) >> >>(Sorry Jim, but I couldn't resist :-) ) > >Thats ok- I had accidentally slipped into Byzantine scribe mode! > Do you mean that you too copy old text in a dark cell ? :-) Shlama! ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:08:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06015; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:08:00 -0500 Date: 3 Apr 1997 21:07:43 -0000 Message-ID: <19970403210743.1304.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (gjw@wnetc.com) Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 940 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > ...John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis... The Rylands papyrus fragment from that Gospel is dated early second century, nominally AD 125. Interestingly, it's from Egypt, so that some time must also be allowed for the book to travel from Asia Minor to Egypt. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM0Qb+mCU4mTNq7IdAQE5iAP9GZDiN2SQMbANuTPWvHTJkKJxMLQj5TgX oftXBYoLIi8YQ8hyUlxtpZezjPRFdoUSohpZeo2yGz5VIPO5w/TGCd7lyJ6G4oPf Ml9W49FdAF2RGld7dKfk5OwcWO1f7XC4rs86Vhvy4KhJphMeHfJr5Q5CYrzxUlsN Jv+cUvdn3Ls= =bctk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:15:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06048; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:15:36 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:20:52 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 781 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, "Gregory J. Woodhouse" wrote: >I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel >of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of >this date? I don't recall the situation, but I'm fairly sure of the reason. The oldest manuscript of John is the fragment p52. Most scholars date p52 c. 125. Therefore John must have been in existence in 125. Q.E.D. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:15:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06063; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:15:39 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403142517.26d78676@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:21:32 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Pro-Alexandrian scholars Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 998 On Thu, 03 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: >At 01:12 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > >>In other words, you are saying that the Western or Byzantine are only >>correct when they agree with the Alexandrian -- this therefore basically >>says only the Alexandrian is correct at all times. Why? >> > >Yes. >Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in >Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). I think this is good news. Now we have a pure Hortian to attack, along with Maurice Robinson (pro-Byzantine) and me (pro-everything that isn't internal evidence). Misery loves company. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:22:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06098; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:22:26 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032222.AA09637@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 23:26:43 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1285 >>I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel >>of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of >>this date? > >I don't recall the situation, but I'm fairly sure of the reason. > >The oldest manuscript of John is the fragment p52. Most scholars >date p52 c. 125. Therefore John must have been in existence in 125. >Q.E.D. That's also what I've always read (for example in B. Metzger's manual). But the fragment is so little... Are we really sure we are not facing with some source of Jn. or with some other lost Gospel that had this passage in common with it? Of course, this is pure vicious hypothesis, but... there are many such papyri in Egypt (like collections of logia etc...). ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 17:09:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06211; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:09:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:08:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John In-Reply-To: <9704032222.AA09637@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 350 Thanks, I just happened to bring Metzger into the office with me today and was able to look it up . A fascinating story. I now remember how surprised I as reading the description of P52 when I first read it. --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 20:20:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06418; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:20:57 -0500 Message-ID: <3344575D.2FDB@Squam.org> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 20:20:29 -0500 From: "John C. Hurd" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John References: <9704032222.AA09637@iris.arcadis.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2209 The pint of P52 is that it is a codex fragment, i.e., written on both sides. From the same amount of text one can calculate the average line length and the average number of lines per page, and thus the number of MS pages in the Gospel of John. It would be vanishingly unlikely that a source of the IV would be extensive enough to match the canonical text as this fragment does. What one does wonder about is how closely one can date a scribes hand. +/- 12.5 years seems rather more than one should expect. Book hands are more conservative than informal scripts. -- John Hurd Jean VALENTIN wrote: > > >>I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel > >>of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of > >>this date? > > > >I don't recall the situation, but I'm fairly sure of the reason. > > > >The oldest manuscript of John is the fragment p52. Most scholars > >date p52 c. 125. Therefore John must have been in existence in 125. > >Q.E.D. > > That's also what I've always read (for example in B. Metzger's manual). > But the fragment is so little... Are we really sure we are not facing > with some source of Jn. or with some other lost Gospel that had this > passage in common with it? Of course, this is pure vicious hypothesis, > but... there are many such papyri in Egypt (like collections of logia > etc...). > > ________________________________________________________________ > Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE > ________________________________________________________________ > email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 > ________________________________________________________________ > Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est > inutilisable. > What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. > Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. -- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Prof. John C. Hurd Internet: John.Hurd@Squam.org :: :: 49 Wanless Ave. Office tel.: (416) 485-2429 :: :: Toronto, Ont. M4N 1V5 Office fax: (416) 485-7320 :: From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 20:47:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06444; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:47:43 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 19:51:41 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1116 Maurice Robinson wrote; >Not to mention verse 13, which also could have had some influence. I am >pleased to see the point being made and accepted of harmonization to the >immediate context as a reason for rejecting a reading. :-) > >Let me ask, however, what might your decision have been, Carlton, assuming >that there were _no_ other mention of the Holy Spirit in vv.13 and 16, nor >any mention of "Spirit of God" in the immediate context? Would your >evaluation of internal criteria still fall along the same lines as my own >in regard to Pauline usage, or what? How also would you evaluate the >external evidence without a compelling contextual harmonization as a >possible cause? Would your decision change? > I do not consider Pauline usage to be very helpful since he uses both. Without the possibility of assimilation, the decision would be more difficult. I would admit that I was quite unsure. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 23:53:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06637; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:53:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:53:45 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: A big idea In-Reply-To: <199704030235.VAA02805@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5439 There have been a few messages upon which I would like to comment: 1) Collation program for PC I believe that Peter Robinson has someone converting Collate (a Mac progam) to PC. By the way, the Project version of Collate (still Mac only) is about to be released. It does groovy things like produce html output: you can make a collation which is linked to transcriptions of the various witnesses for display with a browser like Netscape, AUTOMAGICALLY! It also does about 500 other things. 2) Images of P64/67 This is what the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project is supposed to be about. The aim is to collect images of New Testament manuscripts to be made available to the scholarly community. As you can imagine, there are lots of problems with such a venture, two of which are its magnitude (there are of the order of 1000 images required, just for the papyri), and the problem of protecting the images from electronic theft (there is no copyright on manuscripts, put there is on their images). With respect to P64/67 in particular, I have not yet been able to obtain images to put on the site. But even if I had, you still wouldn't be able to look at them, simply because we haven't put any images or transcriptions up at the site yet. 3) What's wrong with ENTMP? No one has asked this (yet) but I feel anxious enough about it to say the following. At the moment, ENTMP relies on James Tauber as the Web Architect, and he is a very busy person. James and I are both committed to the Project, but are both indisposed to do anything with ENTMP right now. (I am trying to finish my PhD thesis.) We do, in fact, have some papyri images and a few transcriptions (thanks to Jim West), but we haven't yet made them available. One issue is security and another is that we haven't yet got around to it. 4) An idea Through discussions with James about ENTMP, writing my thesis, reading the text books, talking with colleagues, and through the Lord's help, I have had the following idea, which has probably already occurred to some of you already. (As Klaus Wachtel once said, no one can come up with anything new in New Testament textual criticism.) With the constant advance of computer architecture, and the huge task of assembling New Testament textual data in electronic form, it makes sense to try to do the job in a modular form. Imagine a gigantic spread sheet that has as its first column every Greek word (orthographically levelled) that occurs in any NT manuscript, or that is behind a version or patristic quotation, in order. That is, the text of every witness could be obtained by selecting certain ones of the words as one proceeds down this first column. (I have worked out an algorithm that constructs such a sequence from a group of collated witnesses. It works with a fair degree of reliability.) Next, for every witness, line up its actual words (not levelled, sometimes fragmentary) with the corresponding words in the first column. These witnesses each form a new column. Next, for each manuscript word, provide a hypertext link to an image of the relevant part of the manuscript itself. Next, have columns for each manuscript of the versions (an even bigger job than for the Greek), for each Father, for each modern edition, for each commentator who has said what they think the original word is, and a column for each textual criterion (both internal and external -- much refinement is needed here). Such a big data structure could be a useful foundation from which to make assertions about the text. Every step of its construction is subject to difficulties, but not insurmountable ones. Java applets could then be written to do things like multivariate analysis of the resulting patterns of agreement between these many different perspectives on the text of the New Testament. This is a gigantic task: one which, I dare say, no single person or university can achieve. However, each one of these columns, or a group of them, could constitute a manageable project. The key is to make a coordinated effort. What is required is a coordinating body (???), a standardised approach to transcriptions (SGML/TEI?), a standard format for the spread sheet components (???), and a central location that holds the links between the various parts of the big data structure (ENTMP?). (There is no reason why the various parts could not be held all over the place). Well that's the big idea. Perhaps one of these areas (Greek mss, patristics, versions, editions, images, data bases) could benefit from your efforts. One thing that I would like to say now, though. Don't wait until the final standards have been worked out before you begin making a contribution. I think that it is more likely that the standards will be worked out later, not sooner. As long as we do not work in complete isolation, we should be able to produce data that will go with everyone else's. Certain scholars, universities, and organisations already specialise in particular ones of these areas. Acknowledged specialists would be the logical first choice to help with coordination of the various areas (Perhaps Aland and Das Instituet for the Greek mss, Fee for the patristics, Epp and Elliott for the criteria?) Sorry for the long message. Now I will disappear again in an attempt to finish that thesis, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 00:18:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA06683; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:18:08 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704040521.WAA20515@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:15:06 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: P46 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 675 > Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very > small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. > > Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type > influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly > superior by all the canons of TC. > > Why, then, dismiss it when it has all the right stuff? But it isn't always right, as anyone knows, so why canonize it? that seems like the other extreme. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 00:35:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA06714; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:35:09 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704040538.WAA21359@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:33:19 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 469 > Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest > assured that the reading is original. Uh-huh. So the only "original" New Testament is the little bit contained in P46. That should make reading through it in a year considerably easier... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:10:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06758; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:10:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:11:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Bob Dylan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 830 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Nichael Cramer wrote: > Although it might not seems so at first glance, this may not be as > unreasonable as one might think. It would appear that Mr Dylan is in > possession of manuscripts that contain many interesting variant readings. > For example, one of his early publication contained the following variant > from Genesis: > > "God said to Abraham 'Kill me a son', > Abe said 'Man, you gotta be putting me on!' > God, he said, 'No' > Abe he said 'What?!?' > God said 'Listen you can do what you want. > But next you seem comin' you'd better run...' > Abe said 'Where you want this killing done?' > God said 'Out on Highway 61!' I believe this expanded reading is found in the Dylanxenian Pentateuch scrolls, found in Cave 7 alongside Highway 61.... From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:21:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06780; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:21:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:22:48 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: P46 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403142303.26d753bc@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2084 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > > When P46 stands alone in a non-error sensible > >reading, are you quite prepared to accept and defend such? And on what > >grounds? > > Yes. On the grounds that antiquity counts more than any of the other > criteria (unless there are VERY compelling reasons to ignore a document's > antiquity). This sounds very much like Philip Comfort's methodology, which to my knowledge has not exactly been regarded in a favorable light by reviewers (including myself). Why exactly should the oldest or near-oldest MS be considered best? If, as you say above, virtually _any_ sensible reading is to be preferred when it stands quite alone merely because it happens to occur in the oldest known MS, you still have a responsibility to explain how such a reading gave rise to all other readings and also to explain transmissionally how it is that _no_ other MS, let alone version or father, happened to share such a singular reading. If this cannot be done, then there remain no good grounds for holding to a reading merely because it happens to be found in a single ancient document. What do you do then with Colwell's suggestion that virtually _all_ sensible variant readings were created before AD 200, regardless of the age of the MSS in which they happen to currently appear? Also, what do you do in cases such as Eph.5:9 where an almost equally early papyrus (P49) differs? What happens in John when, say, P66 and P75 differ? Which one is best, and why? Antiquity of a single witness as a sole criterion is too simplistic, it would seem to me. That is why even among pro-Byzantine supporters like Burgon the principle of "Antiquity" is only _one_ of seven major criteria, and not sufficient in and of itself to determine a reading. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:43:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06820; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:43:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <9704032119.AA05758@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2021 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > To a certain extend, the same remarks would apply to the Byzantine > readings. Maurice, what would you do of variants of Byz as against more > geographically spread variants? Do you accept that older variants may > survive far from the geographical "centers" of text-production? Your own textual bias of course does show, Jean, as you admit. Certainly a geographically-spread variant (if not likely to have arisen by coincidence or identical accident) does betray a certain degree of antiquity and diversity, both of which are important factors in evaluating variant readings. What I find as a major defect in looking _only_ to such diversity is that those readings present in versional and localized text regions outside of the primary Greek-speaking area (S.Italy through modern Turkey) likely reflect more aberrant forms of text if unsupported by Byzantine witnesses. When the Byzantine is supported by such additional diversity, it certainly gains some degree of support thereby, but outside diversity without a shared Byzantine presence would be suspect in my opinion. > I see that some of you seem to have time these days: it's Easter vacation > for the people working in teaching institutions, not for me! But I profit > of the occasion in the hope to have some well-thought feedback. Sorry if > those questions seem repetitive compared to earlier postings from me, but > my work on the versions makes me sensitive to this problem. :-) My week off will soon be over; I suspect I already have more than enough to reply to, and have already started to feel overwhelmed. Maybe it will be good to see the Theology of Freizeit wane away beginning next week... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:52:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06837; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:52:53 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:53:43 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC-List Subject: Re: An sample from Sinai Arabic 71 In-Reply-To: <9704032201.AA08313@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 872 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > Here's a sample translation of a few verses from Sinai Arabic 71, the > > 1 Beginning of the Gospel: Jesus Christ (is) the Son of God. 2 As it (is) > written in the prophet: Prophet -- singular, not plural? Sort of a halfway house between "Isaiah the prophet" and "the prophets"? Couldn't have been because someone might be trying to make the Muslims think Muhammed said that, could it? Just curious on what influences there might have been here, or whether this was simply a scribal error, leaving off the final -in. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:58:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06858; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:58:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:59:15 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: celar evidence In-Reply-To: <9704032207.AA08714@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 860 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > >Thats ok- I had accidentally slipped into Byzantine scribe mode! > > > Do you mean that you too copy old text in a dark cell ? :-) Since I think that I am the only one on this list who has actually copied out the entire Greek NT by hand (typing it into the computer for the Online Bible in four different editions), I can testify that I do _not_ do that type of work in a dark cell (though the room is a small 10'x10'), but a well-lit room which has a glowing computer screen to "illuminate my manuscript". :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 05:28:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07051; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 05:28:03 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704041028.MAA49564@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 12:42:55 +0100 Subject: Re: Assimilation and Mt.9:1 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5138 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): >Continuing the discussion..... Maybe I should have been waiting with my reply, but something in your post, Maurice, strikes me... >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ulrich Schmid wrote (inter alia): >>> Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels >>> (including P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a >>> constant threat on every level of textual transmission of the (united) >>> Gospels, I simply have greater confidence in those witnesses who >>> contain proportionally less assimilations. >Again, how do you determine what constitutes "proportionally less"? >Certainly not by taking the Byz readings as a whole and assuming that >every _possible_ harmonization in such is a "true" harmonization. This >would be no more legitimate than to take every _possible_ harmonization >in the Alexandrian or Western texttypes as a whole and then broad-brush >paint all the individual witnesses to those texttypes as somehow guilty >of what allegedly _might_ occur on the wide scale within the >archetypical level of that texttype. Once for all: When I speak of assimilation in the context of our discussion on Wisselink (that's how it all started), I simply use HIS definition, for I wanted to infer from HIS results. Again, Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation; the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a dissimilation" (p. 63). Therefore, please stop fighting straw-men. >It simply is _not_ valid to take the Byzantine Textform as a whole, >(which reflects a reasonable "control" group), and then presume that >every "possible" assimilation in such a group is automatically a "true" >harmonization. What needs to be done, plainly and simply, is to take >Byzantine witnesses individually and calculate from their singular and >subsingular readings what degree of or propensity toward harmonization >seems apparent in such MSS, compare these to the same Byztxt-as-a-whole >control group and from there consider how this might apply to the >transmission of harmonizations within the main Textform once such >harmonizations occur beyond a few copying generations. Wisselink does not show a glimps of your distinction as far as I can see. He simply construes a kind of master-file with the mentioned MSS + Hodges and Farstad "as summary of many minuscules" (p. 64). He, therefore, treats the Byzantine Textform as a MS, ignoring all the singular or sub-singular assimilations of the "many minuscules" and yet comparing it to individual MSS. When he then concludes that the single MS B contains less assimilations (according to his working definition) than Byz, you might count proportionally even less assimilations in B, when ignoring its singular assimilations, than in Byz. My problem with that is somehow similar to your problem, but don't blame me. Wisselink is to be charged for that. [snip] >>Maybe we should have a closer look at various examples. >Sounds fine to me. >>First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so >>remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, >>at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before >>PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat >>may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or >>against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type >>of assimilation. >In Mk(sic). 9:1, the article before PLOION is indeed the Byzantine reading, >supported also by C* W 0233 (E F Delta 579 700 1424) al., with >Alexandrian and Caesarean witnesses (Aleph B C3 L Theta f1 f13 33 565 >892 al sa mae) otherwise omitting the article. >This article-inclusion, however, as SQE demonstrates, is _not_ a matter >of parallel passage harmonization, as you basically stated. Sorry, Maurice, but this really brings me up. Where did I "basically state" this to be "a matter of PARALLEL passage harmonization" (emphasis added). If you are so familiar and "congenial" with the work of Wisselink, almost totally making him a spokesman of your own theories, you should have noted that assimilation/harmonization is indeed a tricky business. Wisselink seems to be more sensible towards the problem, than you: please take note that the article-inclusion in Mat 9:1 is the first reading Wisselink includes in his statistics in Appendix 2 (pp. 108-163). Fight him. But most of all, READ him and READ others CAREFULLY. Before going any further, it may be wise to stop, take a deep breath, switch off the PC, take a week off, not touching an on-line computer, and enjoy Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the Ostsee. That's exactly, what I'm going to do now. (Don't worry, Maurice, I planned this long before your recent post.) Bye for now. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 08:09:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07329; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:09:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 08:09:54 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970404080639.264f4ce2@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1323 I have taken some jabs for my suggestion that age is a primary factor in determining reliability. I have at no point said it is the only factor to be taken into account. Yet it seems to me that each person who does tc picks a criteria (or more properly criterion) and uses it more than the others. for Maurice, it is Byzantine priority. For Jean, it is geographical distribution. For me it is antiquity. for others it is something else. All of us, for some reason or another, choose a tool which seems to us to fit the job the best. The trick is learning to use the other tools as well. I have tried Byzantine priority and found it lacking, and unconvincing. Likewise the matter of geographical dispersion seems to me to lack a certain reliability. It is only antiquity of a manuscript which is compelling evidence; for it is hard evidence and not subject to the subjective impulses of the interpreter. If two manuscripts of equal age conflict, then the other criteria come into play. If they do not, then the reading is virtually (!) assured. What sense does it make, after all, to say that an 8th century manuscript is more reliable than a 2nd? This is the hurdle which I cannot leap. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 08:44:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07408; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:44:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 08:45:42 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: ABMC X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970404084229.276f5d78@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 230 Does anyone know the email address of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 08:50:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07447; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:50:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:51:37 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: A big idea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 183 Current spread sheets can handle tens of thousands of columns and rows; you can use Greek fonts to fill in the cells. Your project is, in principle, quite feasible. [feasable? sp?] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:11:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07523; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:11:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:12:40 -0500 (EST) From: Kim Haines-Eitzen To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: ABMC In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404084229.276f5d78@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 349 The address is ABMC@cgs.edu --Kim Haines-Eitzen On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Does anyone know the email address of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center > at Claremont? > > Thanks, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:23:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07563; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:23:27 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404080639.264f4ce2@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:21:40 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2672 On Fri, 04 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: >I have taken some jabs for my suggestion that age is a primary factor in >determining reliability. I have at no point said it is the only factor to >be taken into account. >Yet it seems to me that each person who does tc picks a criteria (or more >properly criterion) and uses it more than the others. >for Maurice, it is Byzantine priority. >For Jean, it is geographical distribution. >For me it is antiquity. >for others it is something else. > >All of us, for some reason or another, choose a tool which seems to us to >fit the job the best. The trick is learning to use the other tools as well. >I have tried Byzantine priority and found it lacking, and unconvincing. >Likewise the matter of geographical dispersion seems to me to lack a certain >reliability. It is only antiquity of a manuscript which is compelling >evidence; for it is hard evidence and not subject to the subjective impulses >of the interpreter. Conceding that it is hard evidence, I can't see that that is decisive. To take a more recent example: The earliest publications of most of Shakespeare's plays are called the "bad folios" -- for the good and simple reason that they are of very poor quality. Age can give us a hint of a manuscript's quality; an early manuscript *might* be very good. But it might be very bad. The obvious example is p45. Colwell has offered strong evidence that this is an *edited* text -- hardly something I want to rely on to reconstruct the original text. >If two manuscripts of equal age conflict, then the other criteria come into >play. If they do not, then the reading is virtually (!) assured. >What sense does it make, after all, to say that an 8th century manuscript is >more reliable than a 2nd? This is the hurdle which I cannot leap. I admit that this is beyond me. What matters is not the age of the *manuscript,* but the age of the text it contains. Would you actually claim that the minuscules 33 and 861 (both 9th century) are of equal value? 861 is purely Byzantine, 33 ranges from about half Alexandrian in the gospels to purely Alexandrian in Paul (outside Romans). Surely everyone on the list will agree that they differ in value (though Maurice would disagree as to which is more valuable :-) -- yet they are the same age. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:30:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07594; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:30:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:30:48 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Ehrman presidential address Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1024 Bart Ehrman, president of the Southeastern SBL region this year, presented a paper at the recent meeting of the group in Macon. His paper, entitled "The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies," is a plea for the necessity of engaging in textual criticism as the first step in exegesis. In his paper he explores the variants in Luke 22:19-20 to illustrate his point. Since his audience had very few text critics in it (there was at least one!), his remarks were designed to communicate to a less specialized group and are thus accessible to the broad range of biblical scholars and students. Ehrman's address is now accessible on TELA at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html, and it has been added to the TC-Links page (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html). 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:50:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07693; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:50:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3345AB15.72C4@sn.no> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 17:29:57 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 References: <1.5.4.16.19970403160315.2f1755b2@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 194 Jim West wrote: > If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 10:18:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07773; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:18:44 -0500 Message-Id: <9704041619.AA09374@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: A sample from Sinai Arabic 71 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 97 17:23:04 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1758 >Prophet -- singular, not plural? Sort of a halfway house between "Isaiah >the prophet" and "the prophets"? Couldn't have been because someone might >be trying to make the Muslims think Muhammed said that, could it? Just >curious on what influences there might have been here, or whether this was >simply a scribal error, leaving off the final -in. Yes, singular. It could be explained by syriac, as in that language the plural of the noun is expressed by a double dot that is put above the word. And I noticed that in the two mss of the vetus syra, this double dot (called seyome) is frequently omitted. The problem is that (1) we have no vetus syra for these verses, and (2) I see no other place where a variant could be explained by the misreading of a syriac text (there are many _common variants_ with the veteres syrae, but nothing that really proves a direct relation). This would be the first place... Concerning the final -in, this is not correct for this word : _nabi_ has an "broken" plural as arabic grammatical terminology names it : the plural is _anbya_, graphically quite different. I haven't either found traces of polemics with Islam in this ms. For me this reading remains a mystery. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 10:45:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07811; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:45:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:40:59 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970404103726.23375506@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 416 At 05:29 PM 4/4/97 -0800, you wrote: >Jim West wrote: > >> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. > > >You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". > > No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 12:08:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13019; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:08:38 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404103726.23375506@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:15:21 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 549 On Fri, 04 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: >At 05:29 PM 4/4/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Jim West wrote: >> >>> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. >> >> >>You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". >> >> > >No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. > >>-- >>- Mr. Helge Evensen >> > >Jim I want to get this straight. Let's take an example: The Doxology of Romans. p46 (only) places it after chapter 15. Is that where you would put it? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 12:15:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13044; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:15:36 -0500 Message-Id: <9704041816.AA18367@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Acts in Arabic... Date: Fri, 4 Apr 97 19:19:55 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3383 Here follow the text of the beginning of the Acts, translated from Sinai Arabic 158. It is the oldest ms of what I call the "Acts in the melkite version of the XIIIth century". First the text, then a few precisions : 1 As to the first discourse, o Theophile, I composed it in all the things that Jesus begun to do and to teach, 2 until the day when he commanded by the Holy Spirit to his disciples that he had chosen and he ascended, going-by-degrees, (3) they to whom he rose (parestisen!) his soul after his suffering alive by many firm proofs, they saw him appearing to them a period of forty days and saying discourses about the reign of God, 4 and in his gathering with them he commanded that they flee not from Jerusalem but that they wait the promise of the Father which you have heard from me. 5 For sure, John baptized with water, and you, you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, not after many days from this one. 6 And they approached him and asked him saying: O Lord, will you at that moment bring the reign back to Israel? 7 And he said to them: it is not entrusted to you that you know the years or the moments that the Father established in his might. 8 But you, you will take a force through the descent of the Holy Spirit to you, and you will be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and Samaria and to the end of the earth. Here's a list of the mss that have this version in Mt Sinai: Sin. Arb. 158 (1232) Sin. Arb. 168 (1238) Sin. Arb. 175 (1255) Sin. Arb. 170 (1285) Sin. Arb. 171 (1296) Sin. Arb. 173 (1303) Sin. Arb. 156 (1316) As you see, they were all produced over a period of a century. It is most probably translated from Greek, but we don't know what text-type exactly, and nothing excludes totally that the translator consulted syriac texts. But the Greek is clearly dominant. As to its text, a friend of mine who is working on the text of the Acts says it's a mixed text, in which elements from B, D, Byz, syp and others are present. Does the sample above allow you to see something interesting? There are earlier mss at Mt Sinai (Sin. Arb. 154, 151, both of the IXth century), but they have other versions and have been published. This version seemed to have an official character, as the number of mss seems to show. They have liturgical indications. Also, some of them have their text interspersed with homiletical texts. The version is in literary arabic. Its vocabulary is often quite researched (rare words...). Why was such a text extinct after a century? Probably because of the concurrence of another version. Sinai Arabic 151, one of the oldest versions, was revised: Sinai Arabic 150 (1252) is a lectionary showing the text of that revision. We find another, probably independant, revision of the same text in the Acts that Erpenius published in his Arabic NT (1616). ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:31:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13168; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:31:09 -0500 Message-ID: <3345DECC.4949@sn.no> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 21:10:36 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 References: <1.5.4.16.19970404103726.23375506@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2879 Jim West wrote: =20 > >> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest re= ading. I commented: > >You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". Jim replied: > No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. I now reply: So you just _know_ that the oldest _reading_ is found in the oldest _MS_!= ? A good faith statement! Then you mean to tell me that the oldest _reading_ is always found in the= oldest _MSS_ (if the reading is not=20 _clearly_ in error, of course), that is, oldest MS =3D oldest reading????= If that=B4s so, your method seems to be=20 the most simple method ever. It is _easy_ to be _assured_ of the original= readings by this method: You just=20 gather all the oldest MSS and wherever the NT text is covered in them (ev= en in the places where there is only=20 one "oldest" MS supporting a reading, after all, the MS is _oldest_) you = pick the oldest MS (or fragment) in=20 each instance, and presto! there is the autograph reading! (Of course you= still have to choose between _some_=20 competing readings). That=B4s a convenient methodology. Had only W & H th= ought of that! One of the obvious problems is this: You _have_ to rely on _"later"_ MSS = in most cases, since there is no such=20 thing as "_the_ oldest NT MS". You begin at the fragment p52 and work you= r way down through the comparatively=20 "later" fragments/papyri/MSS. Maybe some day the remaining part of p52 wi= ll be discovered. But its text may=20 _not_ agree with any of the other "oldest" papyri known today!! It may ev= en introduce "new" variants. Can you please tell me *why* an _obvious false_ reading (a scribal slip o= r something....) can have entered the=20 *oldest* _extant_ MSS/fragments, and a _real_ error (that is, a deviation= from the autograph text) cannot=20 have?? Maybe you believe in the providential preservation of the scriptur= es by archeological discoveries. There=20 may still be some even _older_ MSS hiding in the sand or in some cave. It= =B4s good that the MSS which is _found_=20 can be of some help in the assurance of the autograph reading. The whole theory of "oldest is best" is very false indeed. We cannot even= always know for sure that the datings=20 placed on the MSS is 100% accurate. If one papyri has been dated 200 A.D.= and another 180 A.D., would you=20 automatically accept the reading of the one dated 180 A.D.?? (I now go underground....I=B4m not sure I dare to open my mailbox next ti= me.....I don=B4t even know if there is a=20 computer available down there.....) I appologize ahead for any "faulty logic" on my part in the above......If= it=B4s too bad, please just regard it=20 as another humoristic contribution to this list. As you can see, I=B4m no= t a scholar, nor a specialist in text=20 criticism. You should have noticed that by now! - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:33:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13197; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:33:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:33:48 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Assimilation and Mt.9:1 In-Reply-To: <199704041028.MAA49564@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8082 On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > Once for all: When I speak of assimilation in the context of our discussion on > Wisselink (that's how it all started), I simply use HIS definition, for I wanted > to infer from HIS results. > Again, Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the > following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there > is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading > which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation; > the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a > dissimilation" (p. 63). > Therefore, please stop fighting straw-men. As a neutral statement, Wisselink's working definition is satisfactory. However what you seem to make into a "straw man" has nothing to do with that neutral definition, but with the decision to use Byz as an entity as if it were a MS. If it indeed is _counted_ as a MS, and not as merely a control group for comparison, then the number of assimilations which can be alleged to exist in Byz will definitely be proportionally higher than those found in any of its individual components. Reverse the situation and use the WH text to = Alex and then compare that against the same individual MSS -- you once more would have a _larger_ number of possible or alleged assimilations in Alex than you would in any of the individual MSS. The point is simple, and not a "straw man" -- a texttype as a whole cannot function as a single MS when making comparisons; its _only_ usefulness is in serving as a control group for comparison. > Wisselink does not show a glimps of your distinction as far as I can see. If Wisselink does not make that abundantly clear in his dissertation, that is his problem, but such is the _only_ logical manner in which to evaluate the data, and such _must_ underlie his methodology. Texttypes and individual MSS are like apples and oranges, and cannot be directly compared one to another with equally valid results, else why not simply compare Alex with West, Caes, and with Byz, and forget the individual MSS comparison? He chose to compare individual MSS to get an idea regarding their propensity toward assimilation, and therefrom to derive some idea of the likelihood of assimilation extending into the texttype-as-a-whole (which Alex or Caes or West was _not_ considered). Had he simply included individual Byzantine MSS and evaluated their propensity toward assimilation and made extrapolations therefrom, we would be on level ground all the way around. That certainly is the way in which I would have approached his dissertation research; but I was not his director, nor did I offer any advice. You later state: >If you are so familiar and "congenial" with the work of Wisselink, almost >totally making him a spokesman of your own theories... But I am no more familiar with Wisselink than having read his material once and having conversed with him once. He most certainly is _not_ a spokesman for my own theory, though he does assist that theory by his conclusion regarding assimilation as _not_ a primary characteristic of the Byzantine Textform any more than for other texttypes (which I would have claimed in any case, but he provides hard evidence). As for Wisselink's own theory, I really do not know it in detail, though I know he leans more pro-Byzantine, as does Jakob Van Bruggen, his mentor, but I am not even sure if he and Van Bruggen agree. I do know that other eclectics have tried to make Wisselink's work also support a position against the Byzantine Textform when he in fact does no such thing. This is why I think Wisselink at some point should have simply stopped being so "neutral" and declared his own interpretation of the conclusions. > When he then concludes that the single MS B contains less assimilations > (according to his working definition) than Byz, you might count > proportionally even less assimilations in B, when ignoring its singular > assimilations, than in Byz. My problem with that is somehow similar to > your problem, but don't blame me. Wisselink is to be charged for that. Agreed in this case. I would also suggest that what you mention would change proportionally were he even to compare B against the WH Alexandrian text with whatever possible proportions of alleged assimilation might be present in that texttype taken as a whole. My point has been that on the texttype level there will _always_ be proportionally more assimilations than on the individual MS basis, so long as the singular and subsingular readings of individual MSS are being examined. On the other hand, if the singular and subsingular readings of individual MSS are included AND the other possible alleged harmonizations of the texttype to which such a MS belongs should be added, then of course _every_ MS will look even _more_ prone to harmonization than otherwise. This is why MSS should be compared with MSS and texttypes with texttypes, and never the twain should meet. > >>First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so > >>remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, > >>at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before > >>PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat > >>may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or > >>against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type > >>of assimilation. > >This article-inclusion, however, as SQE demonstrates, is _not_ a matter > >of parallel passage harmonization, as you basically stated. > Sorry, Maurice, but this really brings me up. Where did I "basically state" this > to be "a matter of PARALLEL passage harmonization" (emphasis added). I will recant on that point: you only said "a type of assimilation" -- though I remain puzzled in light of Wisselink's definition why parallels are somehow not in view if it is to be termed assimilation. He said: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation" ..If comparison is possible between two text passages, then they must in some way be "parallel". However, I reject in the present case any contention that the mere presence or absence of an article before PLOION has something of "assimilation" to it, as I discussed the matter. > please take note that the > article-inclusion in Mat 9:1 is the first reading Wisselink includes in his > statistics in Appendix 2 (pp. 108-163). Fight him. But most of all, READ > him and READ others CAREFULLY. I indeed object to Wisselink's use of Mt.9:1 in that situation and would not claim any such passages as assimilation or harmonization, for reasons stated. Basically nothing in the first category of "remote" assimilations which have no real parallel to harmonize with should be considered as assimilations, plain and simple. These should be dealt with (as I did) from other text-critical perspectives. Wisselink is not perfect in this matter, and neither am I; but I most definitely would have had certain aspects of his research proceed differently were I to suspect the later interpretative problems his published results would cause. > Before going any further, it may be wise to stop, take a deep breath, switch off > the PC, take a week off, not touching an on-line computer, and enjoy > Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the Ostsee. I would love to do the same. I plan to head for the mountains this last weekend before classes resume and talk to the hillbillies in Mecklenburg county NC..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:43:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13229; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:43:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:44:04 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404080639.264f4ce2@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1408 On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > It is only antiquity of a manuscript which is compelling > evidence; for it is hard evidence and not subject to the subjective impulses > of the interpreter. > If two manuscripts of equal age conflict, then the other criteria come into > play. If they do not, then the reading is virtually (!) assured. > What sense does it make, after all, to say that an 8th century manuscript is > more reliable than a 2nd? This is the hurdle which I cannot leap. So let me ask the ultimate question then: since virtually all text-critics acknowledge that the age of the MS itself does not say anything specific about the age of the text it contains, do you reject that principle, and therefore say that the Western text of D is merely 5th century and no earlier because that is the date of that vellum? Likewise, is the predominantly Alexandrian text of minuscule 33 merely "late", and not to be considered, despite the fact that it's text is in high agreement with the other early Alexandrians? Do you simply write off all evidence after, say, the fourth century, or what? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:45:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13284; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:45:42 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970404184801.006efce0@mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: peterd@mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:48:01 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Peter Diebenow Subject: Re: Ehrman presidential address Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1982 At 09:30 AM 4/4/97 -0500, you wrote: >Bart Ehrman, president of the Southeastern SBL region this year, presented >a paper at the recent meeting of the group in Macon. His paper, entitled >"The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies," is a plea for the >necessity of engaging in textual criticism as the first step in exegesis. >In his paper he explores the variants in Luke 22:19-20 to illustrate his >point. <> >Ehrman's address is now accessible on TELA at >http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html, and it has >been added to the TC-Links page >(http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html). > >Jimmy Adair Thank you for this article and its location, Jim. I have just read it. As a non-scholar but very interested student of the Bible, I have two questions about this article. In the following quote I am left with the impression that he agrees with Thiede's claims. Am I misreading Ehrman here? (Hasn't that claim been put to rest?) "... very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article of Time Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus by one of his followers." My second question: Will this article/paper be discussed on this list? I am interested in a response to his thesis as well as his example. (The longer/shorter version of Luke 22:19-21)? I found his style interesting, easy to read and understand, and welcome responses from members on this list. Thank you! --pete ____________________________________________________________ Peter Diebenow, Interim Minister (As of 5/15/96 serving as a Vacancy Pastor, Charity Lutheran, Burleson, TX) (817)792-3271(Voice) peterd@iadfw.net (817)275-5641 (FAX) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 19:21:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA14235; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:21:26 -0500 Message-ID: <334649EF.6A55@cryogen.com> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:47:43 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky Organization: Killersoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ehrman presidential address References: <2.2.32.19970404184801.006efce0@mail.airmail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2182 Peter Diebenow wrote: > > Thank you for this article and its location, Jim. I have just read it. > > As a non-scholar but very interested student of the Bible, I have two > questions about this article. > > In the following quote I am left with the impression that he agrees with > Thiede's claims. Am I misreading Ehrman here? (Hasn't that claim been put to > rest?) > > "... very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually > to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article > of Time > Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the > middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account > of the life of Jesus by one of his followers." > > My second question: Will this article/paper be discussed on this list? I am > interested in a response to his thesis as well as his example. (The > longer/shorter version of Luke 22:19-21)? > > I found his style interesting, easy to read and understand, and welcome > responses from members on this list. Thank you! > > --pete > What does P64 actually contain? Does it contain Biblical books or sections or is it a pseudopigraphic document? cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cryogen.com | | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.netforward.com/cryogen/?hermeneutics | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IESOUS KURIOS! +--------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 20:23:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA14335; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 20:23:45 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704050127.SAA02884@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 18:21:48 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1242 > At 05:29 PM 4/4/97 -0800, you wrote: > >Jim West wrote: > > > >> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. > > > > > >You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". > > > > > > No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. No you don't. You redefine the "oldest reading" to mean "the reading found in the oldest manuscript(s)". That's a very different definition of the "oldest reading" than is accepted by most textual critics. As Bob Waltz pointed out, the oldest reading is not necessarily the one found in the oldest extant ms. Let's keep in mind that the ages and geographical/chronological distributions of the mss we possess (at least before about the 10th century) are purely a matter of chance and the luck of the draw, in terms of what has been preserved and what we have been able to find. That's why the age of the text contained in a ms. is more important than the age of the ms itself. Nothing is resolved simply by arbitrarily redefining terms like this. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 21:05:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA14391; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 21:05:42 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970404184801.006efce0@mail.airmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 21:08:57 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: Ehrman presidential address Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2140 At 12:48 PM -0600 4/4/97, Peter Diebenow wrote: >Thank you for this article and its location, Jim. I have just read it. Ditto. >In the following quote I am left with the impression that he agrees with >Thiede's claims. Am I misreading Ehrman here? (Hasn't that claim been put to >rest?) > "... very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able >actually > to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article >of Time > Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the > middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account > of the life of Jesus by one of his followers." I think, that in context, it is very hard to argue that Prof Ehrman is supporting Thiede's claim. More generally Ehrman's point is that the principles of textual criticism (and, indeed, much of Greek itself) is outside the "toolkit" of many practicing scholars --to say nothing of the non-specialist. But more to the point, the complete paragraph from which you quote make, I feel, Prof Ehrman's position perfectly clear: "This is raw ignorance in one of its most crass forms, an ignorance that can be and has been fed upon by well-meaning incompetents and glory-seeking cranks. Very few people in our society have any grounds whatsoever to evaluate the claims that the words of the King James Translation are themselves inspired by God; very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article of Time Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus by one of his followers. There are lots of knees jerking over these issues, but very few minds working. At the very least scholars of the NT should be equipped to deal with these matters. And, in fact, the training that can prepare them to do so can prove salutary for other reasons, since considerations of the problems of the text naturally involve so many areas of research interest to scholars of the Bible and early Christianity." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 08:36:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14973; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:36:02 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:41:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199704051341.IAA00405@mail3.voicenet.com> X-Sender: cbtslibr@popmail.voicenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "L. Mark Bruffey" Subject: Re: Bob Dylan Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1005 HMMMM . . . . Must be from Philly. At 01:11 AM 4/4/97 -0500, you wrote: > > >On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Nichael Cramer wrote: > >> Although it might not seems so at first glance, this may not be as >> unreasonable as one might think. It would appear that Mr Dylan is in >> possession of manuscripts that contain many interesting variant readings. >> For example, one of his early publication contained the following variant >> from Genesis: >> >> "God said to Abraham 'Kill me a son', >> Abe said 'Man, you gotta be putting me on!' >> God, he said, 'No' >> Abe he said 'What?!?' >> God said 'Listen you can do what you want. >> But next you seem comin' you'd better run...' >> Abe said 'Where you want this killing done?' >> God said 'Out on Highway 61!' > > >I believe this expanded reading is found in the Dylanxenian Pentateuch >scrolls, found in Cave 7 alongside Highway 61.... > > > L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 08:42:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA15002; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:42:30 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:42:53 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405084249.245f58dc@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1163 The simplest answer to the various queries is as follows: First, we have no autographs of any Biblical documents. Second, we have thousands of copies. Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until the oldest manuscript of them which we possess. Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these documents. Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to these documents. How does this work itself out? In the Gospels, for instance, we have much debate about the origin of Mark. Was it written in 60 or 70 or 80 CE? The simple truth is, we have no proof that it existed prior to the oldest manuscript we have of it. This oldest manuscript must receive special attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this document. That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have no manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that Mark existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 09:07:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15039; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 09:07:32 -0500 Message-Id: <9704051507.AA14606@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Antiquity Date: Sat, 5 Apr 97 16:11:52 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 931 >Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until the >oldest manuscript of them which we possess. >Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these >documents. >Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to >these documents. Jim, you reason as if patristical quotations simply didn't exist. What's too simple... Jean V. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 09:44:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15086; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 09:44:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 09:45:13 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405094222.276fc47a@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 976 At 04:11 PM 4/5/97 +0200, you wrote: >Jim, you reason as if patristical quotations simply didn't exist. What's >too simple... > >Jean V. > Not at all. If a Father contains a quotation of the Biblical text, it must be taken into account. Yet the same problem arises in the Patristic evidence (somehting I know little to nothing about). I.e., what is the earliest manuscript of the Father? If Tertullian quotes John, for instance; well and good. But what is the date of the Tertullian manuscript? 12th, 16th, 19th century? Simply to say that Father x quotes Mark and therefore the text of Mark can be estalished by that quote simply does not work. What is the date of Father x's ms? The same criterian apply to the OT text. The DSS are 1000 years older than the Leningrad text. They are therefore far more significant than Lenigrad. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 13:25:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15233; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 13:25:19 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:31:51 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oldest Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2052 Since we're all jumping on Jim West (hey, Maurice, how does it feel to be part of the consensus for once? :-), I thought I would add one other thought. One difficulty with following the reading of the oldest manuscript is *determining* the oldest manuscript. If I recall correctly, none of the papyri are dated. The only uncial I can recall that gives a date is S. This means that, of our 250 or so earliest manuscripts, *only one* can be dated precisely. The rest are dated paleographically. I'm not trying to attack paleography. But it is *not* an exact science. Consider this: I can write five different hands: A script hand, a normal print hand, an italic hand, and two types of blackletter (one for broad pens and one for pointed pens). In the ordinary course of things, I write with the print hand, which is closest to what people write today (though with rather more curls and twists than "block print"). If, however, I were writing something as significant as a Biblical manuscript, I would resort to the blackletter -- which is a fair approximation of a seventeenth century hand. I don't say it happens often. But there is nothing to prevent a scribe from employing an archaic hand -- or cultivating an odd style (observe that we cannot date Theta because no other sample of that style of writing has ever been found). If even *one* important manuscript uses an archaic hand, it could throw off the whole theory. Keep in mind, too, that manuscripts *with* colophons can mislead. Colwell showed that 1505 had a colophon with a forged date. How can we be sure that others are not equally false? Yet another reason why basing our assessment of manuscripts solely on their date is dangerous.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 14:00:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15276; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:00:35 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704051904.MAA29769@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 11:58:45 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1911 > The simplest answer to the various queries is as follows: > > First, we have no autographs of any Biblical documents. > Second, we have thousands of copies. > Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until the > oldest manuscript of them which we possess. > Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these documents. > Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to > these documents. > > How does this work itself out? In the Gospels, for instance, we have much > debate about the origin of Mark. Was it written in 60 or 70 or 80 CE? The > simple truth is, we have no proof that it existed prior to the oldest > manuscript we have of it. This oldest manuscript must receive special > attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this document. But this is true only insofar as it testifies to the antiquity of the autograph. It says nothing about the usefulness of that oldest manuscript for purposes of textual criticism. It gives us some idea how old the work is, but for textual purpose it could still be a piece of junk. So we're comparing apples and oranges. > That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have no > manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that Mark > existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Not so pure and not so simple, but also off the subject. Once again, how old the manuscript says nothing about its usefulness for TC. Antiquity does not equal reliability (if you're into C, Ant != Rel) :-) And our specific context on this list is textual criticism, a field into which the above reasoning does not carry over. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 14:02:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15295; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:02:06 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704051905.MAA29836@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:00:17 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 501 > The same criterian apply to the OT text. The DSS are 1000 years older than > the Leningrad text. They are therefore far more significant than Lenigrad. Oh please. Are you saying we should rearrange and completely rewrite the Psalms, and add a few extras, based on 11QPs? Let's get real here. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 14:54:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15339; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:54:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 14:52:33 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: getting Real X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405145231.30573988@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1106 The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to have been original. If you could tell me how that is to be done without taking into account the oldest manuscripts of a document I would be grateful. As to getting real, it seems to me that a realistic approach to textual criticism lies in hard evidence and not in fanciful hypothetical reconstructions. The DSS Psalms is a millenium older than Leningrad; but we are urged to ignore it because it would cause us to re-evaluate our standard "book of Psalms". So which approach is more unreal- the one which maintains that "older is better" or the one that attaches itself to a present form of the text in spite of a more ancient form and trys to reconstruct from the present to the past? As to the purpose of this forum- I believe it is the open exchange of ideas and not the mere gainsaying of ideas which a particular author finds discomfiting for (apparently) dogmatic reasons. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 15:12:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15372; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:12:20 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:13:09 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <199704050127.SAA02884@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1770 On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > No you don't. You redefine the "oldest reading" to mean "the > reading found in the oldest manuscript(s)". That's a very different > definition of the "oldest reading" than is accepted by most textual > critics. As Bob Waltz pointed out, the oldest reading is not > necessarily the one found in the oldest extant ms. And this is the same principle which is held by the Byzantine-priority position also. But I am more impressed with Dave's closing comment, which says precisely what I have been trying to say all along from within my text-critical framework, viz., that the limited sample from pre-9th century antiquity which we possess is _not_ necessarily representative of the state of the text in those respective centuries, especially as the copying dates become older and the MSS become fewer and more "localized" -- extant pre-9th century MSS _do_ reflect the "luck of the draw" to a degree which is _not_ present in the post-9th century era. > Let's keep in mind that the ages and geographical/chronological > distributions of the mss we possess (at least before about the 10th > century) are purely a matter of chance and the luck of the draw, in > terms of what has been preserved and what we have been able to find. > That's why the age of the text contained in a ms. is more important than > the age of the ms itself. Nothing is resolved simply by arbitrarily > redefining terms like this. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 15:13:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15390; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:13:15 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:57:19 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC List Subject: Mat. 9:2, 5 and parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11142 Continuing Ulrich's examples... >Then we have a second type of assimilation where more than the article >is involved, e.g. the various forms of AFIENTAI SOU AI hAMARTIAI in Mat >9:2.5 parr. Here the examination with respect to assimilation might >produce more solid results. However, the possibility can not be ruled >out, that in this case some assimilations might have been produced >independently. This example is extremely complex (and I hope everyone will forgive the lengthy discussion, but it is due to the complexity involved), and the variants affect not only Matthew but the direct synoptic parallels in Mark and Luke as well. _All_ of these have to be considered together in order to see the differences, and it should not be forgotten that numerous other items which might reflect harmonization/assimilation also occur in the immediate context, not merely the one phrase you have selected. It first will be well to set forth in horizontal-line format (a la Swanson) the parallel passages in the Byzantine Textform, followed by the same passages in the NA26/27 text. Spacing and underscores (_ _) indicate differences among the gospels within each edition: Byzantine parallel texts: Matt 9:2b kai idwn o ihsous thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _tw paralutikw_ Mk 2:5 idwn de o ihsous thn pistin autwn _legei_ _tw paralutikw_ Lk 5:20 kai idwn thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _autw_ Matt qarsei _teknon_ afewntai soi ai amartiai sou Mk _teknon_ afewntai soi ai amartiai sou Lk _anqrwpe_ afewntai soi ai amartiai sou Note that the Byzantine text within those parallel passages does _not_ harmonize totally among its own majority readings. This in itself should indicate that the tendency toward harmonization was itself rare and sporadic among MSS of the Byzantine type. Nestle-Aland parallel texts: Matt 9:2b kai idwn o ihsous thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _tw paralutikw_ Mk 2:5 kai idwn o ihsous thn pistin autwn _legei_ _tw paralutikw_ Lk 5:20 kai idwn thn pistin autwn _eipen_ Matt qarsei _teknon_ _afientai sou_ ai amartiai Mk _teknon_ _afientai sou_ ai amartiai Lk _anqrwpe_ _afewntai soi_ ai amartiai sou Note that in the first line the NA text has harmonized the kai/de interchange which remained different in Byz. In the second line the uniform Byzantine "afewntai" has become "afientai" in Mt/Mk, and the uniform "soi ai amartiai sou" of the Byzantine synoptics now remains only in Luke, while Mt/Mk concur in the simpler "sou ai amartiai". Otherwise only the "autw" of Luke in the Byz is missing from the parallels in NA. Overall, both texts are relatively non-harmonized, and retain the identical differences among the various synoptic parallels. The only major changes which might be charged as harmonizations here deal with the "afewntai/afientai" difference and the closing phrase itself. As you mentioned, the influence (in whatever direction) from the later close-context parallels (Mt 9:5b; Mk 2:9; Lk 5:23) also need to be considered, and their respective readings in general context are given next: Byzantine parallel texts: Matt 9:5b eipein afewntai sou ai amartiai h eipein Mk 2:9 eipein tw paralutikw afewntai sou ai amartiai h eipein Lk 5:23 eipein afewntai soi ai amartiai sou h eipein Matt egeirai kai peripatei Mk egeirai kai aron sou ton krabbaton kai peripatei Lk egeirai kai peripatei Nestle-Aland parallel texts: Matt 9:5b eipein afientai sou ai amartiai h eipein Mk 2:9 eipein tw paralutikw afientai sou ai amartiai h eipein Lk 5:23 eipein afewntai soi ai amartiai sou h eipein Matt egeire kai peripatei Mk egeire kai aron ton krabbaton sou kai peripatei Lk egeire kai peripatei Without even looking at the external evidence, one can see that the final phrase "soi ai amartiai sou" of Byz in Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5/Lk 5:20, although identical in those parallels, does _not_ harmonize with the close-context parallels in Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9 which read "sou ai amartiai"; only the Lukan context retains the "soi ai amartiai sou" in both places. On the other hand, when looking at the Nestle-Aland parallels, one sees the initial phrase "sou ai amartiai" in Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5 harmonized _directly_ to the close context NA parallels in Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9, while the Lukan close-context parallels continue to remain identical, as with Byz ("soi ai amartiai sou"). If anyone has harmonized/assimilated in this case, it seems to be the NA witnesses and _not_ the Byzantine; and the harmonization was once more to the close context. It is also possible that the NA reading may be that which is "smoother" stylistically and grammatically, since it removes what might be perceived as a too-redundant occurrence of two pronouns when only one will suffice. As for the "afewntai"/"afientai" difference, I suspect this is not so much a matter of harmonization or assimilation as a homonymic variation, in which case the similar sounds of both words could cause a scribe to read one word, sound it out in his mind, and write the other word, still "making sense" in the context. According to Swanson, we also find the forms "afiontai", "afionte", "afeontai", "afeonte", "afaiontai" and "afaiwntais" beyond the normal "afewntai" and "afientai" in the MSS he collated. The primary "sensible" change, however, affects the tense, switching (in Mt/Mk, all occurrences) from the Byzantine perfect passive to the NA present passive. Luke alone retains the perfect passive in _both_ Byz and NA, for whatever reason (though according to Swanson, Theta reads "afientai" in Lk 5:23). While either Byzantine perfect or the NA present passive could fit in either context, the present passive "afientai" clearly would seem to be the "easier" reading, since it would "fit" the time frame within which the forgiveness would have been made, while the perfect passive would raise theological questions as to _when_ in the past such forgiveness had been made which was being declared at the then present. So the alteration here I suspect as being homonymic, but also with a tendency toward the "easier" reading in the NA text. There is still more which needs to be said regarding these parallel variant units, however, since merely utilizing the NA text could lead to false inferences regarding the amount and degree of the external support for each variant. The external evidence provides some interesting information: Regarding the Byz "afewntai" vs the NA "afientai", and looking at NA and Swanson's evidence supporting the non-Byzantine reading in Mt/Mk (Lk remained identical to Byz, so is not listed): Verse/Reading Support Mt 9:2 "afientai" Aleph B pc lat Ir "afionte" D "afewntai" Byz Mk 2:5 "afientai" B 28 33 565 1342 2427 pc lat "afiontai" Delta "afiwntai" Theta "afeontai" 124 1424 "afewntai" Byz Mt 9:5 "afientai" Aleph-c B pc lat "afiontai" Aleph* D "afeontai" f13 1424 "afewntai" Byz Mk 2:9 "afientai" Aleph B 28 565 1342 2427 lat "afeontai" 69 1424 "afaiwntais" 579 "afaiontai" 1071 "afewntai" Byz It will be noted that the only _consistent_ witnesses for this change are B and lat; all others vary to differing degrees. From a Byzantine-priority perspective, this is not unusual or unexpected, since sporadic departures from the Byzantine standard are only to be expected, especially such might be based on phonetic confusion, and especially if such change produces a theologically "easier" reading. The reading of B lat could have a common archetype, or could have arisen from independent occurrences of the same phonetic error or a similar desire to create the theologically simpler reading. I return to consider the closing clause, in which the NA text of Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5/(Lk 5:20) harmonizes to the close-context readings of Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9/(Lk 5:23). As mentioned, this may be due to close-context harmonization or may be due to a desire to simplify and smooth out the text by removing a redundant pronoun ("sou/soi"). What should be noticed in the external evidence is once more the wide inconsistency of harmonization/assimilation among the MSS here as well as in the "afewntai"/"afientai" context. Once more MS B appears to be the _only_ thread holding the NA critical text together on this point (where B or any major MS is not cited, it agrees with Byz; the evidence is all according to Swanson), and this calls into question precisely _what_ "harmonizations" or "assimilations" are occurring, _which_ MSS they occurred in, and _why_ they occurred. Regardless of explanation, the Byzantine text in this passage comes out looking _far_ better and less "harmonized" than any of the other witnesses cited. Note that, for whatever reason, NA breaks up the variants for the Markan passages into _separate_ units rather than taking all as a whole; this is far more confusing, especially since the "txt" support is not given for those readings. Rather than perform extrapolation from the constant witnesses to see the support, I opted for the easier and quicker route and simply used Swanson for the Markan evidence. I think the divergence among the MSS is itself exemplary enough to demonstrate precisely which sources harmonize and in which direction. Verse Reading Support Mt 9:2 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph B C* W Delta* f1 33 205 892 pc "sou ai amartiai sou" M Omega "soi ai amartiai" D Delta-c pc k vg-mss "soi ai amartiai sou" Byz Mk 2:5 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph B D G L W Delta Theta f1 33 69 565 579 1424 "soi ai amartiai" C* "sou ai amartiai sou" M* Omega f13 28 124 1071 "soi ai amartiai sou" Byz Mt 9:5 "soi ai amartiai" G L N S U Delta Pi f13 1 33 118 124 1346 1582 "soi ai amartiai sou" 1424 "sou ai amartiai" = Byz Mk 2:9 "soi ai amartiai" A C S Delta 1071 "soi ai amartiai sou" f13 "sou ai amartiai" = Byz Lk 5:20 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph D W Theta 579 1071 "sou ai amartiai sou" Omega "soi ai amartiai sou" Byz Lk 5:23 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph D W "sou ai amartiai sou" C Lambda 33 1346 "soi ai amartiai" N Psi "sou ai amartiai sou" Byz And here this portion of the discussion ends....more to come regarding Ulrich's remaining point in a later post... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 15:28:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15479; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:28:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:29:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405084249.245f58dc@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 927 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have no > manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that Mark > existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Whoa!......Now if this were applied to the OT Books prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then we would have no proof that much of anything in the Hebrew Bible existed before the 9th century AD. Similarly, as of 150 years ago, we apparently had no certain "proof" than any NT book was older than the 4th century AD.... Where then is the logic behind your assumption? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 16:24:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15602; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:24:42 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 16:25:17 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1135 At 03:29 PM 4/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >Whoa!......Now if this were applied to the OT Books prior to the discovery >of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then we would have no proof that much of anything >in the Hebrew Bible existed before the 9th century AD. > No- in fact we have the Nash papyrus; several fragmentary items from Cairo; and other such items. >Similarly, as of 150 years ago, we apparently had no certain "proof" than >any NT book was older than the 4th century AD.... > Quite true. >Where then is the logic behind your assumption? > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have a document! Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's existence that they are so important. Where is the logic in denying any of this? Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:30:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15708; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:30:07 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704052233.PAA04399@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:28:14 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: getting Real Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2845 > The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to > have been original. > If you could tell me how that is to be done without taking into account the > oldest manuscripts of a document I would be grateful. I believe that we and those who have gone before us have spent a couple of centuries doing just that. And nobody is saying not to take into account the oldest manuscripts. That wouldn't be good science. However, it's also not good science to blindly follow one small pocket of evidence because it happens to embody the "oldest manuscripts of a document." > As to getting real, it seems to me that a realistic approach to textual > criticism lies in hard evidence and not in fanciful hypothetical > reconstructions. Once again you redefine terms. There's the science of textual criticism's definition of "hard evidence," and then there's Jim West's definition. I'll go with the former, thank you. > The DSS Psalms is a millenium older than Leningrad; but we are urged to > ignore it because it would cause us to re-evaluate our standard "book of > Psalms". So which approach is more unreal- the one which maintains that > "older is better" or the one that attaches itself to a present form of the > text in spite of a more ancient form and trys to reconstruct from the > present to the past? The DSS Psalms is one among many. The fact that it's old doesn't alter the fact that it's contrary to every other piece of evidence, betrays anachronistic tendencies, stands by itself even among its brethren in the DSS corpus, and contains an unusually high number of nonsense readings. "Older is better" is not a valid criterion. It's a gross attempt at oversimplification that flies in the face of the evidence gathered since the earliest days of TC. IOW, it's unreal. > As to the purpose of this forum- I believe it is the open exchange of ideas > and not the mere gainsaying of ideas which a particular author finds > discomfiting for (apparently) dogmatic reasons. Cop-out. I didn't gainsay anything based on dogmatic reasons and you know it. What I said was, the comments about the age of a document as reflected by the age of the manuscripts of it has no real bearing on textual criticism. It lies more in the purview of form or rhetorical criticism and really tells us little or nothing about the establishment of or history of the text as transmitted from the autographs. This forum is for "the open exchange of ideas" related specifically to textual criticism. I merely pointed out that the statements made are not, in the final analysis, germane to textual criticism. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:33:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15730; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:33:24 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:39:45 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1872 On Sat, 05 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: >The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have >a document! This is exactly the problem. Consider: Our earliest manuscript of Herodotus dates from the tenth century. Does this mean that Herodotus came back from the grave fourteen centuries after his death and wrote the book? Our only copy of the Annals of Tacitus has lost the whole reign of Gaius. Does this mean Tacitus never wrote about that Emperor? >Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly >not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying >that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. Since I already used a literary analogy, let's try a biological. Assume your parents were lost at sea. Does that mean we know nothing about their DNA? Hardly! We can learn about it from you, and any siblings you may have, and perhaps ancestors or siblings of your parents. And so forth. Or take crimes. The majority of crimes are solved by the police. Yet in many of these instances there are no eyewitnesses. The crime is solved through circumstantial evidence. As long as we have no autographs, we *must* rely on some sort of secondary evidence. Which means we must examine it, not trust it blindly. >It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's >existence that they are so important. That may be of importance for dating. But that has nothing to do with the text. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:34:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15750; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:34:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3347694D.41C7@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:13:49 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405084249.245f58dc@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4203 Jim West wrote: >=20 > The simplest answer to the various queries is as follows: >=20 > First, we have no autographs of any Biblical documents. > Second, we have thousands of copies. > Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until = the > oldest manuscript of them which we possess. > Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these doc= uments. > Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to > these documents. There=B4s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscripts= : 1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a=20 document. 2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. Within a certain frame of thought the oldest MSS may be _regarded_ as=20 "the most important witnesses", but again, this would not stand the test=20 of sound criticism and it gives all too much weight to only _one_ canon=20 of criticism. a) Even if we _had_ the autograph of any NT book, let=B4s say of the book= =20 of Colossians, who would be the authority for determining if it really=20 _is_ the autograph?? Such a MS would have been dated as early as the=20 established date of this particular book. But is there anybody living=20 today who is able to recognize Paul=B4s handwriting? Most certainly, such= a=20 claim _could_ not have been verified at all. If somebody claimed it, he=20 would very soon meet strong opposition from other scholars.=20 b) As to the _existence_ of a certain document, the oldest MS copies may=20 be the "most important" witnesses, for they give testimony to that=20 document=B4s early existence. One example is the discovery of p52: while=20 not of great use in textual criticism because of its small size, it is a=20 strong defense against the supposed late date of John. The early=20 existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textform_ is=20 earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated.=20 c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may not= =20 be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a document=20 which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I do=20 not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantially as= =20 we have it today in the later MSS. Following the "hard proof" theory, p52= =20 is not a witness to the existence of the _whole_ Gospel of John as we=20 know it today, just that part which it contains (maybe most of ch.8=20 because of the verso-recto situation). You must seek in _later_ MSS to=20 find the whole Gospel of John attested. So when we talk about "hard=20 evidence" or "hard proof", it is far from always possible to draw=20 conclusions from such. We may _interpret_ the "hard evidence" in a=20 certain way, that=B4s ok, but "proof" and certainty? that=B4s another thi= ng!! > How does this work itself out? In the Gospels, for instance, we have m= uch > debate about the origin of Mark. Was it written in 60 or 70 or 80 CE? = The > simple truth is, we have no proof that it existed prior to the oldest > manuscript we have of it. This oldest manuscript must receive special > attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this docume= nt. As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! =20 > That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have = no > manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that = Mark > existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existence_=20 and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. Even if we did not have a MS of Mark prior to the 8th century, hardly=20 anybody would argue that it did not _exist_ before that time! So far as I= =20 can see, Jim, you seem to be quite alone in your theories, but that=B4s=20 alright, it=B4s your choice......and it sure is a _choice_..... =20 > Jim >=20 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:40:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15780; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:40:20 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704052244.PAA04841@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:38:24 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2383 > >Where then is the logic behind your assumption? > > > > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have > a document! > > Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly > not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying > that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. > It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's > existence that they are so important. > > Where is the logic in denying any of this? First, it's not logical. I can't see the sun today because of a snowstorm, but the fact that it's not visible cannot be adduced as evidence that it doesn't exist. By this kind of "logic" we end up saying that, because we don't have the autographs, there's no evidence they ever existed. That's just plain silly. Second and more important, this approach renders any kind of meaningful scientific historical investigation impossible. If we don't have Julius Caesar's perforated body we have no evidence that he was murdered, or that he ever existed. If we can't do historical study without your so-called "hard evidence" then in the main we can't do history at all. TC is, after all, a branch of historical study. None of us was there for the events, so we have to examine the history using the most scientific tools and methods available. Those tools and methods are constantly being re-evaluated and refined to make them more scientific and reliable. Your approach takes them all away and sends us back to the principle of blind faith. It's like this: the most ancient mss we have were preserved quite by accident, the luck of the draw as I said before. If we insist that these have to be the most reliable because they're the oldest, it's a little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all base our lives on it." It just doesn't work, and doesn't take into account the fact that the dice will ultimately be thrown again and come up with a different number. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:04:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15843; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:04:21 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:04:21 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405180416.19af538e@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1882 >>The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have >>a document! > >This is exactly the problem. Consider: > >Our earliest manuscript of Herodotus dates from the tenth century. >Does this mean that Herodotus came back from the grave fourteen >centuries after his death and wrote the book? > No. But it does prove that the mss of Herodotus we have are very far removed from him. >Our only copy of the Annals of Tacitus has lost the whole reign of >Gaius. Does this mean Tacitus never wrote about that Emperor? > No- and this is argument reductio ad absurdam. >Since I already used a literary analogy, let's try a biological. > >Assume your parents were lost at sea. Does that mean we know nothing >about their DNA? Hardly! We can learn about it from you, and any >siblings you may have, and perhaps ancestors or siblings of your >parents. And so forth. Yet you don't have them- do you? > >Or take crimes. The majority of crimes are solved by the police. >Yet in many of these instances there are no eyewitnesses. The crime >is solved through circumstantial evidence. Indeed- but try proving to a jury that your circumstantial evidence is proof of guilt. Just ask OJ how that works. > >As long as we have no autographs, we *must* rely on some sort of >secondary evidence. Which means we must examine it, not trust it >blindly. > Indeed- but we must trust what is more reliable; and a priori evidence closer to the time of composition is worthy of higher trust than evidence further removed. >That may be of importance for dating. But that has nothing to do with >the text. Not so. It has everything to do with the text; it is not just about the material used or the penmanship of the scribe. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:09:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15860; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:09:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:10:04 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405180958.21a736aa@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3746 >There=B4s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscripts: >1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a=20 >document. Or- they give evidence of a newly composed document. Or are you saying that every manuscript has a predecessor? If so, then this electronic manuscript also has a predecessor. >2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. >The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > No- TC deals with both. >Within a certain frame of thought the oldest MSS may be _regarded_ as=20 >"the most important witnesses", but again, this would not stand the test=20 >of sound criticism and it gives all too much weight to only _one_ canon=20 >of criticism. > And, as I have said, when manuscripts of similar age conflict, the other criteria are brought to bear. I did not say antiquity was the only criteria- just that it is the most important. >a) Even if we _had_ the autograph of any NT book, let=B4s say of the book= =20 >of Colossians, who would be the authority for determining if it really=20 >_is_ the autograph?? Such a MS would have been dated as early as the=20 >established date of this particular book. But is there anybody living=20 >today who is able to recognize Paul=B4s handwriting? Most certainly, such a= =20 >claim _could_ not have been verified at all. If somebody claimed it, he=20 >would very soon meet strong opposition from other scholars.=20 > Yet we can tell if a manuscript of Colossians was written in the 10th century or the 2nd. >b) As to the _existence_ of a certain document, the oldest MS copies may=20 >be the "most important" witnesses, for they give testimony to that=20 >document=B4s early existence. One example is the discovery of p52: while=20 >not of great use in textual criticism because of its small size, it is a=20 >strong defense against the supposed late date of John. The early=20 >existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textform_ is=20 >earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated.=20 > Quite true. >c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may not= =20 >be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a document=20 >which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I do=20 >not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantially as= =20 >we have it today in the later MSS. Following the "hard proof" theory, p52= =20 >is not a witness to the existence of the _whole_ Gospel of John as we=20 >know it today, just that part which it contains (maybe most of ch.8=20 >because of the verso-recto situation). You must seek in _later_ MSS to=20 >find the whole Gospel of John attested. So when we talk about "hard=20 >evidence" or "hard proof", it is far from always possible to draw=20 >conclusions from such. We may _interpret_ the "hard evidence" in a=20 >certain way, that=B4s ok, but "proof" and certainty? that=B4s another= thing!! > > Indeed! >As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! >=20 How can they be different? Are you other than your existence? >Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existence_=20 >and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. >Even if we did not have a MS of Mark prior to the 8th century, hardly=20 >anybody would argue that it did not _exist_ before that time! So far as I= =20 >can see, Jim, you seem to be quite alone in your theories, but that=B4s=20 >alright, it=B4s your choice......and it sure is a _choice_..... > Its hard to be the only one right! :) >Helge Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:13:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15890; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:13:07 -0500 Message-ID: <33477262.5975@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:52:34 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: getting Real References: <1.5.4.16.19970405145231.30573988@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 821 Jim West wrote, in part: >=20 > The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely t= o > have been original. > If you could tell me how that is to be done without taking into account= the > oldest manuscripts of a document I would be grateful. Of course the oldest MSS should be _taken into account_. But it=B4s=20 another thing to use antiquity as the sole criterion for establishing=20 the original text. > As to getting real, it seems to me that a realistic approach to textual > criticism lies in hard evidence and not in fanciful hypothetical > reconstructions. But the question still remains: _Is_ antiquity in reality "hard=20 evidence" for establishing the _original_ text?? All know that it is=20 evidence for the _existence_ of a certain document or text.=20 --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:16:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15907; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:16:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:17:08 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405181702.21a73608@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3016 >First, it's not logical. Uh huh. (you see, I have given up offering substance as I have yet to hear any substance opposing the fact that the antiquity of a document is of the utmost importance) > I can't see the sun today because of a >snowstorm, but the fact that it's not visible cannot be adduced as >evidence that it doesn't exist. By this kind of "logic" we end up >saying that, because we don't have the autographs, there's no >evidence they ever existed. That's just plain silly. > The sun is there whether you see it or not. But if you do not see it- you do not see it. We have no autographs. Period. >Second and more important, this approach renders any kind of >meaningful scientific historical investigation impossible. Not at all. It simply bases investigation in what we do have- not in what someone hypothetically reconstructs. > If we >don't have Julius Caesar's perforated body we have no evidence that >he was murdered, or that he ever existed. You are right- we dont have his body. Why then would anyone argue that we do? ANd yet some text critics are arguing that we have good textual evidence from the 8th century while at the same time they discount the earliest manuscript evidence and make age of text merely one criteria among others. > If we can't do historical >study without your so-called "hard evidence" then in the main we >can't do history at all. TC is, after all, a branch of historical >study. None of us was there for the events, so we have to examine >the history using the most scientific tools and methods available. >Those tools and methods are constantly being re-evaluated and refined >to make them more scientific and reliable. Your approach takes them >all away and sends us back to the principle of blind faith. NO! It is blind faith I am opposing; that is why I am suggesting (!) that of all the criteria, antiquity should be held in great importance (and yet still no one has bothered to discuss this central issue; this crux). > >It's like this: the most ancient mss we have were preserved quite by >accident, the luck of the draw as I said before. If we insist that >these have to be the most reliable because they're the oldest, it's a >little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and >declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on >this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all >base our lives on it." It just doesn't work, and doesn't take into >account the fact that the dice will ultimately be thrown again and >come up with a different number. > Ya lost me on this one! :) >Dave Washburn >http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html >There will be times when we disagree, but that's >good because disagreement leads to thinking, and >when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) Perhaps so!!! :) Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:20:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15924; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:20:14 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:20:25 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: getting Real X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405182021.19af4f28@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 846 At 01:52 AM 4/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >Of course the oldest MSS should be _taken into account_. But it=B4s=20 >another thing to use antiquity as the sole criterion for establishing=20 >the original text. > I never said it was! (gute nacht, du falsche Welt; as Papageno sang before he put the noose around his neck because no one was listening!) > >But the question still remains: _Is_ antiquity in reality "hard=20 >evidence" for establishing the _original_ text?? All know that it is=20 >evidence for the _existence_ of a certain document or text.=20 It simply takes us closer to the original than any of the other criteria. If it does not, which criteria does? >--=20 >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:32:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15950; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:32:52 -0500 Message-Id: <9704060033.AA10927@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: getting Real Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 01:37:15 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1334 >The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to >have been original. Jim, this may be _your_ purpose. But confronted with the complexity of the evidence (and this complexity is the source of the debates we're in) many scholars would, at least for one or two generations - try to attain more modest goals. Like for example : making the history of the text, gathering documentation, solving one or another specific question. I appreciate your "most likely" though, and I think that is quite to the point. The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and so many hundreds of mss have not yet been read... In the present state of the art, nobody can be too dogmatic about what the "original text" (if there ever was such a thing) should have been. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 19:08:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15983; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 19:08:57 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:09:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <199704051905.MAA29836@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 726 > > The same criteria apply to the OT text. The DSS are 1000 years older than > > the Leningrad text. They are therefore far more significant than Leningrad. > > Oh please. Are you saying we should rearrange and completely rewrite > the Psalms, and add a few extras, based on 11QPs? Let's get real here. Tyndale (1525) is older and therefore superior to the KJV (1611) which is superior to all new versions. That must be it, Dr. West is a KJVO ite and this is his indirect way of bringing in his defense. Just a joke.... But then again, if older is better,.... :) -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 19:59:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA16041; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 19:59:26 -0500 Message-ID: <33477D49.4E28@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:39:05 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405180958.21a736aa@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2925 Jim West replied, in part: >=20 > >There=B4s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscri= pts: > >1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a > >document. >=20 > Or- they give evidence of a newly composed document. Or are you saying= that > every manuscript has a predecessor? If so, then this electronic manusc= ript > also has a predecessor. Only if one cannot find a trace in history of a certain document, traces=20 that predate the manuscript copy, can it rightly be asserted that the=20 manuscript is "a newly composed document". And the NT certainly has left=20 historical traces that predates most of its MSS! It can hardly be compared to your electronic post. Besides, since MSS=20 were frequently copied in antiquity, the chance for a discovered MS to be= =20 an autograph or a newly composed document must be very small. > >2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. > >The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > > >=20 > No- TC deals with both. Well, if you say so, it must be right..... =20 > >Within a certain frame of thought the oldest MSS may be _regarded_ as > >"the most important witnesses", but again, this would not stand the te= st > >of sound criticism and it gives all too much weight to only _one_ cano= n > >of criticism. > > >=20 > And, as I have said, when manuscripts of similar age conflict, the othe= r > criteria are brought to bear. I did not say antiquity was the only > criteria- just that it is the most important. The result of your theory is that _whenever it is possible_, you will use= =20 the principle of antiquity as the final authority. Is that so? Your theory still seems to place to much _weight_ (as I said) on only=20 _one_ canon or criteria. =20 > >a) Even if we _had_ the autograph of any NT book, let=B4s say of the b= ook > >of Colossians, who would be the authority for determining if it really > >_is_ the autograph?? Such a MS would have been dated as early as the > >established date of this particular book. But is there anybody living > >today who is able to recognize Paul=B4s handwriting? Most certainly, s= uch a > >claim _could_ not have been verified at all. If somebody claimed it, h= e > >would very soon meet strong opposition from other scholars. > > >=20 > Yet we can tell if a manuscript of Colossians was written in the 10th > century or the 2nd. True of course, but again, that does not say much of the _form_ or the=20 _quality_ of text contained in the manuscript. =20 > >As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! > > >=20 > How can they be different? Are you other than your existence? Let me qualify: the _existence_ of a *manuscript* is not the same as the=20 _originality_ and _quality_ of its *textform*. For the existence of a NT=20 manuscript is a _copy_ and we have not seen the autograph manuscripts. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:00:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16122; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:00:58 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:01:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970405210143_182580122@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Need e-mail address Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 197 TC List members, I have been in some discussion with Dr. E. Habas from Univ. of the Negev, Isreal and have lost his e-mail address. Does anyone out ther have it? Thanks for any help. Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:11:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16170; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:11:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:11:11 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: getting Real X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405211105.26df5144@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 934 At 01:37 AM 4/6/97 +0200, you wrote: >Jim, this may be _your_ purpose. But confronted with the complexity of >the evidence (and this complexity is the source of the debates we're in) >many scholars would, at least for one or two generations - try to attain >more modest goals. Like for example : making the history of the text, >gathering documentation, solving one or another specific question. >I appreciate your "most likely" though, and I think that is quite to the >point. The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and >so many hundreds of mss have not yet been read... In the present state of >the art, nobody can be too dogmatic about what the "original text" (if >there ever was such a thing) should have been. Jean, We are 100% in agreement here! Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:12:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16188; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:12:12 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:12:21 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405211217.26df81a0@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 551 At 06:09 PM 4/5/97 -0600, you wrote: >Tyndale (1525) is older and therefore superior to the KJV (1611) which is >superior to all new versions. That must be it, Dr. West is a KJVO ite and >this is his indirect way of bringing in his defense. Just a joke.... >But then again, if older is better,.... :) > But, the Greek mss are older than the KJV or any translation- and therefore FAR superior. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:15:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16209; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:15:12 -0500 Message-ID: <33478F0E.3787@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:54:54 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: getting Real References: <1.5.4.16.19970405182021.19af4f28@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1744 Jim West wrote: >=20 > At 01:52 AM 4/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >=20 > >Of course the oldest MSS should be _taken into account_. But it=B4s > >another thing to use antiquity as the sole criterion for establishing > >the original text. > > >=20 > I never said it was! (gute nacht, du falsche Welt; as Papageno sang be= fore > he put the noose around his neck because no one was listening!) You=B4re right! I am aware you would use other criteria _if_ in=20 some instances you should have your back against the wall and have no=20 other choice.=20 >=20 > > > >But the question still remains: _Is_ antiquity in reality "hard > >evidence" for establishing the _original_ text?? All know that it is > >evidence for the _existence_ of a certain document or text. >=20 > It simply takes us closer to the original than any of the other criteri= a. > If it does not, which criteria does? Closer to the original *what*? the original _text_ or the original=20 _writing_ (activity) of the NT?? It does indeed take us closer to the _time_ of the writing of the NT.=20 There=B4s no argument there. But the possibility remains that the NT text= =20 could very well have been corrupted in some MSS at an *early* stage, and=20 as long as this possibility is present and since there is no "hard proof"= =20 to prove _otherwise_, antiquity is not necessarily the *best* criterion. The earliest papyri do not very often reflect an accurate copying=20 activity. And they have a high percentage of disagreements among=20 themselves. What if we have had 500 NT papyri? (What a mess!). So you may freely _prefer_ the antiquity theory, and assert that it is=20 the best one, but that does not make it more sure than other=20 criteria..... --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:15:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16226; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:15:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:15:34 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405211529.26dfd092@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 807 Helge, At 03:39 AM 4/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >Well, if you say so, it must be right..... > Not necessarily- but.... >The result of your theory is that _whenever it is possible_, you will use >the principle of antiquity as the final authority. Is that so? > Yes. >Your theory still seems to place to much _weight_ (as I said) on only >_one_ canon or criteria. Perhaps. But no more, I think, than on adhering to a certain text type, etc. >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > At any rate, I will be quiet and just listen for a while, as I have probably used up my monthly allotment of postings (or more than a lifetimes worth to some of y'all :) ) finis Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 22:01:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16273; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:01:15 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:05:17 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 955 Perhaps it would be better for Jim to talk of specific places where the reading of the oldest Greek ms containing a verse is wrong. What would you say to Romans 8:28. P46, clearly the oldest Greek ms but not the oldest evidence (Clement, the Greek text behind the old latin). The reading of P46 clearly is wrong even tho witnessed to by P46, A, B, & 81 because there is little likelihood that scribes would have omitted the name of God. The reading also fits what Paul was saying, i.e., having mentioned God in the hOTI clause he assumed him as the subject of the verb SUNERGEI. So the wording of the verse as Paul wrote it gave rise to the variation preserved in the earliest ms of Romans that we possess at the moment. Would you agree, Jim. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 22:10:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16295; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:10:33 -0500 Date: 05 Apr 97 22:10:43 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: 'dam' Antiquity... Message-ID: <970406031043_102147.2045_EHT2-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 274 Jim West wrote: >No- and this is argument reductio ad absurdam. Jim, No need to get angry. Its 'reductio ad absurdum'; ad absur_dam_ is logic spiked with a little swearing... ;-) ;-) ;-) This is the last spell-check, honest. ;-) (but thanks for the laugh) Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:19:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16341; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:19:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:20:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2130 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > No- in fact we have the Nash papyrus; several fragmentary items from Cairo; > and other such items. So go back 150 years in OT studies also -- then there would be no certainty that any book of the Hebrew Bible ever existed prior to the 9th century AD, and any theory that it might be a total fabrication made in AD 692 of thereabouts to counter the Muslim insurgence might be correct? > >Similarly, as of 150 years ago, we apparently had no certain "proof" than > >any NT book was older than the 4th century AD.... > > Quite true. > > >Where then is the logic behind your assumption? > > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have > a document! Then under your method, you would never be able to claim restoration of either the archetype of any given texttype, let alone the autograph or a near reflection of such? This position still would not eliminate the hypothesis that any NT book might merely be a second-century fabrication. > Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly > not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying > that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. > It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's > existence that they are so important. > > Where is the logic in denying any of this? There is nothing wrong with looking at MSS of early date as contributing to the goal of textual criticism in restoring the archetype or autograph. But one, two, or three early MSS (I say this so as to include Philip W. Comfort's theory as well) do not in themselves suffice to establish the definitive text of either the archetype or autograph when all other relevant data and principles of internal evidence are not included. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:37:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16359; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:37:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:37:59 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <3347694D.41C7@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2575 On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > 2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. > The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > > The early existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textform_ > is earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated. > > As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! > > Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existence_ > and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. I group the above together since I must discuss my definition and use of the word "Textform" as opposed to any other definitions which might be otherwise utilized. As stated in the introduction to my edition of the Gk NT, I consider the Byzantine to be the "Textform", i.e. the overarching autograph text, from which all other "texttypes" are derived (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean). So I make a very clear distinction between "Textform" (which I _always_ capitalize) and "texttype" (which I _never_ capitalize). Others on this list generally have not used the term "Textform"/"textform" in a manner which differed from my own usage, so I did not mention the point previously. Mr Evensen in the above passages appears to use "textform" as synonymous with "texttype", so this is why I offer the clarification from my perspective. Of course anyone can define any term to mean what they desire, but I wish it to be known that I _am_ making a distinction in my use of the terms. > c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may not > be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a document > which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I do > not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantially as > we have it today in the later MSS. If I recall correctly, by extrapolation of estimated line length, number of lines per page and other factors which can be calculated from the four or so verse portions in that small fragment (Jn.18:31-33, 37-38), I believe that someone calculated that P52 would not have contained the woman in adultery passage, presuming that the gospel began at a proper line 1 of page 1. I forget the source however; can anyone clarify? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:39:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16380; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:39:29 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:40:21 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <199704052244.PAA04841@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 707 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > it's a > little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and > declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on > this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all > base our lives on it." This of course would be wrong, since most of us know (or should know) that the correct answer is 42.... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:43:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16401; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:43:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:44:20 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405180416.19af538e@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 900 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Indeed- but we must trust what is more reliable; and a priori evidence > closer to the time of composition is worthy of higher trust than evidence > further removed. How then does this square with the classic observation of Scrivener in the 19th century, basically repeated by Colwell in the 20th, that the worst corruptions the NT text and its MSS have ever been subjected to were basically during the first four centuries, and especially during the period before AD 200? How then does this affect the reliability of the oldest documents in your opinion? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:56:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16471; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:56:14 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:57:07 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: getting Real In-Reply-To: <9704060033.AA10927@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1706 On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and > so many hundreds of mss have not yet been read... In the present state of > the art, nobody can be too dogmatic about what the "original text" (if > there ever was such a thing) should have been. Certainly the bulk of even the continuous-text MSS have not been collated in detail, but I suspect nearly everyone on the list will agree that there would not likely be too many surprises, especially not after these have already been subjected to the thousand test-passages now partially provided in the _text und Textwert_ series. I suspect the "representative sample" of collated MSS which we currently possess is indeed sufficient and adequate for establishing the "original text" in accordance with various theories of transmission or the lack thereof. This would include not only my own theory and resultant Byzantine Textform edition, but also the NA "Standard Text" view, as well as texts constructed on a rigorously eclectic basis. The fact that all texts tend to agree around 90% implies (at least for that portion) virtual certainty as to the autograph text in such agreed-upon wordings. So, yes, I _do_ think something meaningful can be said regarding the "original text" (which apparently _did_ have some real and valid existence), based upon the evidence we currently possess. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 00:14:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16502; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:14:27 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704060517.WAA18465@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:12:19 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5787 > >First, it's not logical. > > Uh huh. > (you see, I have given up offering substance as I have yet to hear any > substance opposing the fact that the antiquity of a document is of the > utmost importance) Several have, but you appear to have set the question up in such a way that no amount of evidence can suffice for you. > > I can't see the sun today because of a > >snowstorm, but the fact that it's not visible cannot be adduced as > >evidence that it doesn't exist. By this kind of "logic" we end up > >saying that, because we don't have the autographs, there's no > >evidence they ever existed. That's just plain silly. > > > > The sun is there whether you see it or not. But if you do not see it- you > do not see it. We have no autographs. Period. This is not a reply to my analogy. The autographs existed, whether we now have them or not. But because I can't see the sun, I have to use other criteria to establish its existence, composition, etc. So it is with TC: we have to use other criteria, among them the canons of internal and external evidence, to establish the nature of the autographs. I can't just arbitrarily pick the highest cloud I can see and say "This one is most like the sun because it's the closest to it," which is what you're doing with manuscripts. > >Second and more important, this approach renders any kind of > >meaningful scientific historical investigation impossible. > > Not at all. It simply bases investigation in what we do have- not in what > someone hypothetically reconstructs. Wrong. If all we have is a haphazard array (and a mighty small one, at that) of randomly-preserved fragments, but are told that those are ALL we can base our investigation on, then true science is not possible. How many people have ever seen an electron? Nobody has. They are "what someone hypothetically reconstructs." The reason we all accept their existence is because the hypothesis fits the observable facts. That's how science works. And given the unpredictable and capricious nature of (pre-9th century) manuscript preservation, we MUST have some sort of scientific method to help us or we end up looking like ostriches. > > If we > >don't have Julius Caesar's perforated body we have no evidence that > >he was murdered, or that he ever existed. > > You are right- we dont have his body. Why then would anyone argue that we > do? ANd yet some text critics are arguing that we have good textual > evidence from the 8th century while at the same time they discount the > earliest manuscript evidence and make age of text merely one criteria among > others. Your extension of the analogy doesn't work because you misunderstood it. My point was, we have historical evidence (writings) to substantiate both his existence and his death. Saying that we have good textual evidence from the 8th century is the result of sound historical investigation. It is nothing akin to saying we have Caesar's body. What we have are good records of its rise and fall; it's the same with 8th century (and other) textual evidence. By your approach, we can't really know anything about Caesar's death unless we either (a) have his body or (b) have a note from his own hand that reads "My buddies just ran me through!" The methodology just doesn't work, and as I said, it eliminates any meaningful historical investigation for lack of "hard evidence." > > If we can't do historical > >study without your so-called "hard evidence" then in the main we > >can't do history at all. TC is, after all, a branch of historical > >study. None of us was there for the events, so we have to examine > >the history using the most scientific tools and methods available. > >Those tools and methods are constantly being re-evaluated and refined > >to make them more scientific and reliable. Your approach takes them > >all away and sends us back to the principle of blind faith. > > NO! It is blind faith I am opposing; that is why I am suggesting (!) that > of all the criteria, antiquity should be held in great importance (and yet > still no one has bothered to discuss this central issue; this crux). Because all you've done is say it, you haven't given any sound scientific reasons why. Plenty of respondents have pointed out that the most ancient manuscripts can be and sometimes are much more flawed than later ones, and I have yet to see you answer that. The reason text critics hold antiquity as merely one criterion among many is because that's what it is. > >It's like this: the most ancient mss we have were preserved quite by > >accident, the luck of the draw as I said before. If we insist that > >these have to be the most reliable because they're the oldest, it's a > >little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and > >declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on > >this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all > >base our lives on it." It just doesn't work, and doesn't take into > >account the fact that the dice will ultimately be thrown again and > >come up with a different number. > > > > Ya lost me on this one! :) Read my previous post about it and Maurice's response. The "most ancient" witnesses we have may or may not be a true sampling of the text at that period in time; because of the paucity of such witnesses, we can't know. Hence, even when we don't have two witnesses of equal age (as you have described elsewhere), we still have to have other balancing criteria for deciding among readings. Age is simply not enough. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 00:19:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16519; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:19:17 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704060523.WAA18626@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:17:25 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 663 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > > > it's a > > little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and > > declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on > > this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all > > base our lives on it." > > This of course would be wrong, since most of us know (or should know) that > the correct answer is 42.... For me it's actually 43 (all too soon to become 44...) Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 01:37:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA16595; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 01:37:17 -0500 Message-ID: <33474A81.709E@bellatlantic.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:02:25 -0400 From: David Large X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4813 Hello! I am a recent subscriber to this list ( I found out about it thanks to Maurice << Hello, Maurice :-D >>, and have enjoyed the posts I've read thus far. Just for everyone's information, I am not a scholar, don't know Greek ( I am trying to teach myself, though ), and am a 27 year-old minister in a small Maryland church. I've been reading and studying about TC for about three years or so, and continue to seek out a better understanding of it. I truly believe that this field is *much* more relevant to the Christian's faith than is commonly admitted, so I can appreciate the toil of the individuals, both professional or otherwise, who regularly enrich this field, both by an accretion of knowledge and the advancement of theory. Kudos to all who care enough to share in a forum such as this! Thank you, all :-) I've been a little reluctant to dive in so far, fearing I lack the tools and training to offer much; but the recent thread concerning 'Antiquity' provides, I think, as convenient a point of entry to the group discussion as I'm liable to find. So here goes... First, a few preliminary remarks: * Bob - love the web page - keep up the good work! * Maurice - Thanks for telling me about the list, and thanks for taking the time recently to discuss some of my questions. You don't get much sleep, do you? ;-) It's good to see you're still making your point! * Jim W. - You seem to have touched a nerve or two with your recent posts, but I applaud your honesty in stating "it seems to me that each person who does tc picks a criteria (or more properly criterion) and uses it more than the others." Though such a statement may seem naive to some, and insulting to others, it reminds me of something I read quite some time ago, which went something like, ' He who lingers long over a particular line of reasoning grows increasingly unable to appreciate its weaknesses." ( forgive the paraphrase ). My other com- ments follow. I am an outsider to this discipline, and my calling and ministry prevent me from devoting the resources and time I would otherwise spend in order to master this field. But far from giving it a half-hearted effort, I have tried my hardest to impartially sift through all that I have read the past few years, in order to reach a certain con- viction concerning the most original form of the N.T. text. I have " lingered long " over many disparate trains of thought, and early on was struck by the dogmatic tones taken by not a few scholars as they asserted their theories. ( though, in a way, the dogmatic man is a happy man- I mean, to be at all equivocal in matters of faith is to be, of all things, most miserable. "But..." I can hear one say, "... this is not faith... this is *science*." ;-) ) Some times I wonder. Recently, there has been a discussion over the use of antiquity as a determinant when evaluating external evidence. I must say, I find little to commend Jim's method ( No offense, Jim :-) ). It seems to me that to defer to antiquity as a final arbiter amidst conflicting readings is to disregard the need to appreciate a given text in its historical context. Whether you understand the text's history from a Byzantine-priority, a p75-B priority, et al., nothing, in my humble opinion, is more antithetical to an historical inquiry than to blur the necessary distinction between a document's text and a text's document, say, " the document's the thing " and call it a day. You said : > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have > a document! > > Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly > not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying > that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. > It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's > existence that they are so important. > > Where is the logic in denying any of this? I would like to know what you do with patristic evidence. In many cases pat- ristic quotations, allusions and paraphrases precede actual documentary evidence for, at times, centuries. A logic such as this is unworkable and historically naive. It would be not unlike affirming that you didn't even exist until you were photographed, even though you had children who spoke of you, no? :-) Well, I guess I better get going. I've been stabbing at this post, on and off, all day now ( interruptions.... interruptions... ), so I'm sure that there are some more current posts by now. Thanks for your time, all! *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* Rev. David Large dlarge@bellatlantic.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 07:39:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16710; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 07:39:09 -0400 Message-Id: <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: latin NT texts on the net? Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 13:43:20 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 672 By the way, anybody knows if the text of the Latin NT is available on the net? I'd like to D/L a copy on my hard disk. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 07:48:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16743; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 07:48:07 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 11:47:48 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Western version of Acts MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 211 I've read that the Western version of Acts, which is about 10 percent longer, was quoted in the early second century. Could someone tell me where and by whom please? -- Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 12:30:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16848; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:30:41 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33474A81.709E@bellatlantic.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:36:33 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1963 On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: >"But..." I can hear one say, "... this is not >faith... this is *science*." ;-) As an amateur myself, I would have to say that textual criticism, as practiced, is *both* art and science. The problem is in deciding the correct balance between the two. Some parts of TC are show almost all the characteristics of a science. Paleography is an example. It works with actual observable objects, and sets out to categorize them. It makes and tests hypotheses. Etc. The relationship between texts can also be placed on a fairly scientific (statistical) basis. We can say, for instance, that "In a sample of 150 readings in the Catholic Epistles, 945 and 1739 agree 80% of the time, and 96% of the time where both are non-Byzantine." >From bases such as these, one can construct an exact science of textual criticism. As I understand it, this is what Dearing has attempted to do. I don't go quite that far (I still think about readings), but I approach it as far closely as possible. But the vast majority of critics also practice an "art" -- it's known as "internal evidence." The balance we place between the art and the science determines what type of critics we are -- and what sort of text we produce. >Some times I wonder. I don't see faith as coming into it at all. One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. I've been a scientist for most of my life (well, not really a scientist, but I wanted to be one when I was young, and I *do* have a degree in Physics & Math). That's a lot longer than I've been a Christian.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 12:30:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16856; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:30:42 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <9704060033.AA10927@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:36:38 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Finding text-types (Was: Re: getting Real) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2336 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >Certainly the bulk of even the continuous-text MSS have not been collated >in detail, but I suspect nearly everyone on the list will agree that there >would not likely be too many surprises, especially not after these have >already been subjected to the thousand test-passages now partially >provided in the _text und Textwert_ series. I wonder about this. While I conceded that T&T gives us at least some information about the vast majority of manuscripts, the data really hasn't been analysed. For example, no one ever seems to have studied family 330 (330, 451, 2492). Even Davies, who collated 330 for her study of 2344, never noticed its family connections. Similarly, family 2138 has not been studied until recently, and generally has been lumped with the "Western" text when it is examined. Nor did anyone notice that 1891 is a near-sister of 1739 in Acts until the last few years. I think we still have some surprises awaiting us. I concede that family 330 probably doesn't hold many *big* surprises (since it's about 75% Byzantine) -- but if there's one undiscovered group, there might be more.... >I suspect the "representative sample" of collated MSS which we currently >possess is indeed sufficient and adequate for establishing the "original >text" in accordance with various theories of transmission or the lack >thereof. This would include not only my own theory and resultant Byzantine >Textform edition, but also the NA "Standard Text" view, as well as texts >constructed on a rigorously eclectic basis. The fact that all texts tend >to agree around 90% implies (at least for that portion) virtual certainty >as to the autograph text in such agreed-upon wordings. So, yes, I _do_ >think something meaningful can be said regarding the "original text" >(which apparently _did_ have some real and valid existence), based upon >the evidence we currently possess. That I won't argue with. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 12:58:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16937; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:58:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3347D609.6308@ipo.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 12:57:46 -0400 From: vanatter@ipo.net (Vanatter, Scott) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b2 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity [timeline example... we're *way* down the line] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> <33474A81.709E@bellatlantic.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4515 See below for the real problems that even preceed the problem we are discussing now: Timeframe "a" -- the lag between the event being recorded and the original recording of it. Timeframe "b" -- What influences occured between the time of an accurate 'truer' original -- and the less accurate (for whatever reasons) third hand (or worse) copy. We'll 'never' have an Original, probably never even close to a first hand copy... Textual criticism is necessary, but should always be couched in its own caveats as to how much *can* be known from such a process with so much, ao many unknowns. _______ Timeline: / x...xn / y...yn / z...zn EO....IR....EEC............................Today | a | b | c | d ^^^^^ ^^^^^ - EO = Event Occured IR = Initial Recording of "Event" EEC = Earliest Existing Copy of IR - a = Time period between Event Occuring and Initial Recording b = Time period between Initial Recording and Earlest Existing Copy* c = Time Period between Earliest Existing Copy and the many extant manuscripts, x, y, & z d = Time period between having multiple 'competing' extant manuscripts and now... We are dealing with the "d" timeframe. If we could ever got to the "a" or "b" time -- *then* we could say with more confidnce and authority any hard and fast conclusion. - x = One known manuscript y = Another known manuscript z = Even another known manuscript - x1, x2, xn = Versions of Manuscript "x" y1, y2, yn = " y z" " " = " z ___________ * The search for the "earliest" is proper -- however, knowing which *is* the earliest, is the crux of one of our problems, and then, if a certain manuscript is judged to be earliest -- Then what? I suggest that the "earliest manuscript" *available* will always be 'too late' in the timeline to make *any* hard and fast conclusions. Of all the 'copies' ever made of an Initial Recording of an Event, let's assume we are only dealing with, (say in round numbers) 50% of 'em. (Generous, yes/no?) Since the "real"* Earliest Copy probably hasn't been discovered yet -- if it even still exits -- our conclusions could be way off, if we stay dogmatic on any one position or another, based on supposedly knowing which actually is earliest. Specifically, re: the "earliest" copy: Later copies of manuscripts could well tell more about the Event, if it's origin is a better one than the origin of the earlier one. E.g.: x3 [poor source -- older] y9 [better source -- later] If we have a later copy [y9] of a better sourced original, then the earlier version [x3] might not be of more value. It might even be more misleading than the later item. Well, I hope I've not added confusion, or betrayed too much ignorance. Thanks. Scott Vanatter http://www.angelfire.com/va/vanatter/index.html PS David Large wrote: > ... > I would like to know what you do with patristic evidence. He has already briefly answered this one -- treat it the same. When was the original supposed to have been written, and what are the dates of the earlist copies of even these [patristic] writings? > In many cases patristic quotations, allusions and paraphrases > precede actual documentary evidence for, at times, centuries. > A logic such as this is unworkable and historically naive. > It would be not unlike affirming that you didn't even exist > until you were photographed, even though you had children > who spoke of you, no? :-) Summary of the logic of your pix analogy: - I exist - Photo of me - Children affirming my existence My addition: third hand report of my children speaking of me... ====================================================== | Still, absent my photo (or even better, me myself) | | -- reading third hand information *of* what my | | children spoke of me will not get too close to who | | I actually was. | ====================================================== I do like your analogy... it works for both sides of this discussion. ---------- I am in agreement with the position Mr West is taking -- with as many caveats placed on his position as he wishes to place on those arguing against him, limiting the importance of "earlier" manuscripts. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 13:03:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16958; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:03:17 -0400 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 13:02:44 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970406130233.0b9f4146@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2107 At 09:05 PM 4/5/97 +0400, you wrote: >Perhaps it would be better for Jim to talk of specific places where the >reading of the oldest Greek ms containing a verse is wrong. Yes, it would. Though to say that a ms contains a "wrong" reading is a little ahead of the game, since it seems a bit premature at the beginning of a post rather than at the end. > >What would you say to Romans 8:28. > P46, clearly the oldest Greek ms but >not the oldest evidence (Clement, the Greek text behind the old latin). Depending on when you date the Clement ms. At any rate, the Greek ms tradition takes precedence over the Patrisitic and Versional evidence. >The reading of P46 clearly is wrong even tho witnessed to by P46, A, B, & >81 because there is little likelihood that scribes would have omitted the >name of God. Yes, if a scribe felt it redundant, he could omit it; or it may have been omitted due to parablepsis; there seem to be any number of possibilities. It is certainly the more difficult reading (in terms of sense) It is the reading which best explains the others. It is not the shorter reading (so here, in terms of the general rules, it fails) It is the oldest reading. > The reading also fits what Paul was saying, i.e., having >mentioned God in the hOTI clause he assumed him as the subject of the verb >SUNERGEI. This is absolutely correct- which is why a scribe would delete the second reference to God; and why a scribe would not add it in- as the verse is already clear without it. > So the wording of the verse as Paul wrote it gave rise to the >variation preserved in the earliest ms of Romans that we possess at the >moment. > Or- the wording Paul used gave place in some mss to a scribal smoothing. >Would you agree, Jim. > Yes- in terms of what I have clarified above. > >Carlton L. Winbery Now, I said I would shut up for a while- but as Carlton did me the kindness of positing an actual case I felt compelled to respond. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 14:18:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17056; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:18:58 -0400 Message-Id: <9704061919.AA24284@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Antiquity Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 20:23:24 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1374 Jim, > >Depending on when you date the Clement ms. At any rate, the Greek ms >tradition takes precedence over the Patrisitic and Versional evidence. I'm not yet conviced about this, specially when it comes to the early fathers that give us information about their local texts, while all that the earliest mss tell us is about the conditions in Egypt - and, for sure, we have to listen to them too. As to what should or should not take precedence, I get back to what I said before : as long as no complete history of the text has been written using ALL the evidence, such statements seem hazardous to me. That's why, also, my goal is not to establish a text, but to gather documentation and provide informations for the generations that will be able to say something based on more evidence than what we have. Cheers, Jean V. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 14:42:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17097; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:42:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3347F487.2862@bellatlantic.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 15:07:51 -0400 From: David Large X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2625 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: > > >"But..." I can hear one say, "... this is not > >faith... this is *science*." ;-) > > As an amateur myself, I would have to say that textual criticism, > as practiced, is *both* art and science. The problem is in deciding > the correct balance between the two. I would concur emphatically on that simple, yet profound, point. > But the vast majority of critics also practice an "art" -- it's > known as "internal evidence." The balance we place between the > art and the science determines what type of critics we are -- > and what sort of text we produce. And, I would add, how scientific they are. > I don't see faith as coming into it at all. All kinds of faith-assumptions are cloaked with the appearance of 'science'. Take for instance, Jim W.'s preference for the oldest document. It is based upon a faith-assump- tion that our earliest extant papyri are *representative* samples. And who can possibly assert *that* scientifically without the hard data required to confirm or confute it? Surely the Patristic evidence is anything but conclusive. Take the methodology of the 'rigorous eclectics'- their method makes a faith-assumption that a historical recon- struction of the text is either impossible, or worse, irrelevant. They also assume that the subjective canons that they utilize have been sufficiently established empirically, and can be applied accurately. Maurice assumes that the generally convergent process that lead to Byzantine dominance was a result of cross-correction, not Muslim conquests and the restriction of Greek to the Byzantine Empire. Nothing here is new, my point is that we *all* must make assumptions to account for lucanae in the data, and assumptions such as the above, in my humble opinion, naturally lead to a skewed methodology which is much more art than science. A theory is only as strong as its presuppositions; the real question is- What presuppositions are more reasonable in light of history and the data? To pretend that one's theory is a *natural* outcome of a rigorous scientific method is naive. The data are not that conclusive. In my mind, the more scientific method is the one which makes the more reasonable assump- tions, since we *must* make them. > One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. If you mean faith in Christ, I agree. If you mean faith, as opposed to empirical science, I do not.:-) > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Rev. David Large dlarge@bellatlantic.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:06:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17132; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:06:53 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> References: Conversation <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> with last message <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Huey or Faye" Subject: Re: latin NT texts on the net? Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 04:59:21 PST Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 909 try http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu/catholic/scriptures/vulgata-clementina.html or gopher://ftp.std.com/11/obi/book/Religion/Vulgate or http://ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu/carrie/vulgate_main.html ---------- > By the way, anybody knows if the text of the Latin NT is available on the > net? I'd like to D/L a copy on my hard disk. > Thank you. > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE > ________________________________________________________________ > email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 > ________________________________________________________________ > Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est > inutilisable. > What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. > Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:20:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17182; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:20:25 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3347F487.2862@bellatlantic.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:27:06 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2642 On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: [ ... ] > >All kinds of faith-assumptions are cloaked with the appearance of 'science'. Take for >instance, Jim W.'s preference for the oldest document. It is based upon a faith-assump- >tion that our earliest extant papyri are *representative* samples. And who can possibly >assert *that* scientifically without the hard data required to confirm or confute it? >Surely the Patristic evidence is anything but conclusive. Take the methodology of the >'rigorous eclectics'- their method makes a faith-assumption that a historical recon- >struction of the text is either impossible, or worse, irrelevant. They also assume that >the subjective canons that they utilize have been sufficiently established empirically, >and can be applied accurately. Maurice assumes that the generally convergent process >that lead to Byzantine dominance was a result of cross-correction, not Muslim conquests >and the restriction of Greek to the Byzantine Empire. > >Nothing here is new, my point is that we *all* must make assumptions to account for >lucanae in the data, and assumptions such as the above, in my humble opinion, naturally >lead to a skewed methodology which is much more art than science. A theory is only as >strong as its presuppositions; the real question is- What presuppositions are more >reasonable in light of history and the data? To pretend that one's theory is a *natural* >outcome of a rigorous scientific method is naive. The data are not that conclusive. In >my mind, the more scientific method is the one which makes the more reasonable assump- >tions, since we *must* make them. A minor demurrer. There are some points at which the data *is* conclusive. (E.g. no one can doubt the existence of the Byzantine text.) I agree that the data do not allow us to compile a complete and verifiable history of the text, which is of course the basis for our reconstructions of the text. > >> One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. > >If you mean faith in Christ, I agree. If you mean faith, as opposed to empirical >science, I do not.:-) OK, I'll accept that. At the very least, one needs faith in one's own competence as one is being attacked by dozens of rabid TC-listers. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:25:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17199; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:25:05 -0400 X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:29:01 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1798 Jim West Wrote; >>What would you say to Romans 8:28. >> P46, clearly the oldest Greek ms but >>not the oldest evidence (Clement, the Greek text behind the old latin). > >Depending on when you date the Clement ms. At any rate, the Greek ms >tradition takes precedence over the Patrisitic and Versional evidence. > > >>The reading of P46 clearly is wrong even tho witnessed to by P46, A, B, & >>81 because there is little likelihood that scribes would have omitted the >>name of God. > >Yes, if a scribe felt it redundant, he could omit it; or it may have been >omitted due to parablepsis; there seem to be any number of possibilities. > >It is certainly the more difficult reading (in terms of sense) >It is the reading which best explains the others. >It is not the shorter reading (so here, in terms of the general rules, it >fails) >It is the oldest reading. > >> The reading also fits what Paul was saying, i.e., having >>mentioned God in the hOTI clause he assumed him as the subject of the verb >>SUNERGEI. > >This is absolutely correct- which is why a scribe would delete the second >reference to God; and why a scribe would not add it in- as the verse is >already clear without it. > >> So the wording of the verse as Paul wrote it gave rise to the >>variation preserved in the earliest ms of Romans that we possess at the >>moment. After a lifetime of collating and using the collations of others, I would have to say that scribes did not omit the name of God except to put another divine name in its place (John 1:18), especially when it would clarify the meaning of a sentence. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:47:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17235; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:47:39 -0400 Message-ID: <334885AF.7735@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 22:27:11 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3523 Maurice Robinson wrote: >=20 > On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >=20 > > 2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. > > The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > > > > The early existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textf= orm_ > > is earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated. > > > > As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! > > > > Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existen= ce_ > > and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. >=20 > I group the above together since I must discuss my definition and use o= f > the word "Textform" as opposed to any other definitions which might be > otherwise utilized. >=20 > As stated in the introduction to my edition of the Gk NT, I consider th= e > Byzantine to be the "Textform", i.e. the overarching autograph text, fr= om > which all other "texttypes" are derived (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, > Caesarean). So I make a very clear distinction between "Textform" (whi= ch > I _always_ capitalize) and "texttype" (which I _never_ capitalize). >=20 > Others on this list generally have not used the term "Textform"/"textfo= rm" > in a manner which differed from my own usage, so I did not mention the > point previously. Mr Evensen in the above passages appears to use > "textform" as synonymous with "texttype", so this is why I offer the > clarification from my perspective. Of course anyone can define any term= to > mean what they desire, but I wish it to be known that I _am_ making a > distinction in my use of the terms. Yes, I used "textform" as synonymous with "texttype". This may be wrong=20 and your definition of the terms may be completely justifiable. Thanks=20 for the clarification! >=20 > > c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may= not > > be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a docum= ent > > which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I = do > > not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantiall= y as > > we have it today in the later MSS. >=20 > If I recall correctly, by extrapolation of estimated line length, numbe= r > of lines per page and other factors which can be calculated from the fo= ur > or so verse portions in that small fragment (Jn.18:31-33, 37-38), I > believe that someone calculated that P52 would not have contained the > woman in adultery passage, presuming that the gospel began at a proper > line 1 of page 1. I forget the source however; can anyone clarify? My fault. I confused chapter 18 with chapter 8. Sorry.=20 My point was that the fragment may have _at least_ contained the whole=20 chapter of that part in which it is extant in that fragment, but that=20 according to the "hard proof" theory the document (of which p52 is a=20 fragment) did not necessarily contain much more than this one chapter,=20 and therefore can=B4t be _proved_ to be (following Jim West=B4s "hard=20 evidence" theory) a fragment originally belonging to a copy of the=20 *complete* Gospel of John. This may, however, not be justifiable logic on= =20 my part. >=20 > _______________________________________________________________________= __> Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testa= ment > Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Caroli= na > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= ~~ --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 16:20:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17289; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 16:20:39 -0400 Message-Id: <9704062121.AA01107@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Western version of Acts Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 22:25:03 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1240 > >I've read that the Western version of Acts, which is about 10 percent >longer, was quoted in the early second century. Could someone tell me >where and by whom please? There's a much probable allusion to Acts 2.24 D in Polycarp (around 110 AD) to the Philippians 1.2: Ihsou Christou... on hgeiren o Theos lusas tas wdeinas TOU ADOU. TOU ADOU is the text of D (with d e g p r t vg syr.p boh mae and other fathers like Irenaeus which is also very early, as well as a medieval Provencal version) while B has TOU THANATOU (with P74vid ! A B C E P etc... Byz syr.h sah arm eth geo . I don't see in his apparatus that there would be Fathers on the B-side that are as early as those of the D-side. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 18:13:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17522; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 18:13:49 -0400 Message-ID: <33482610.678C@bellatlantic.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 18:39:12 -0400 From: David Large X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2902 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: > > [ ... ] > > > >All kinds of faith-assumptions are cloaked with the appearance of 'science'. Take for > >instance, Jim W.'s preference for the oldest document. It is based upon a faith-assump- > >tion that our earliest extant papyri are *representative* samples. And who can possibly > >assert *that* scientifically without the hard data required to confirm or confute it? > >Surely the Patristic evidence is anything but conclusive. Take the methodology of the > >'rigorous eclectics'- their method makes a faith-assumption that a historical recon- > >struction of the text is either impossible, or worse, irrelevant. They also assume that > >the subjective canons that they utilize have been sufficiently established empirically, > >and can be applied accurately. Maurice assumes that the generally convergent process > >that lead to Byzantine dominance was a result of cross-correction, not Muslim conquests > >and the restriction of Greek to the Byzantine Empire. > > > >Nothing here is new, my point is that we *all* must make assumptions to account for > >lucanae in the data, and assumptions such as the above, in my humble opinion, naturally > >lead to a skewed methodology which is much more art than science. A theory is only as > >strong as its presuppositions; the real question is- What presuppositions are more > >reasonable in light of history and the data? To pretend that one's theory is a *natural* > >outcome of a rigorous scientific method is naive. The data are not that conclusive. In > >my mind, the more scientific method is the one which makes the more reasonable assump- > >tions, since we *must* make them. > > A minor demurrer. There are some points at which the data *is* conclusive. (E.g. > no one can doubt the existence of the Byzantine text.) I agree unreservedly, and don't mean to imply otherwise. Certainly some things are certain, but who argues for the existence of the Byzantine text? ;-) > I agree that the data do not allow us to compile a complete and verifiable > history of the text, which is of course the basis for our reconstructions of > the text. And since the data are incomplete, we must advance theories that account for the data that we *are* able to verify, whilst remaining historically sensitive. I'm sure that we are agreed here, as well. > >> One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. > > > >If you mean faith in Christ, I agree. If you mean faith, as opposed to empirical > >science, I do not.:-) > > OK, I'll accept that. At the very least, one needs faith in one's own competence > as one is being attacked by dozens of rabid TC-listers. :-) And a good sense of humor doesn't hurt, either :-D > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- David Large dlarge@bellatlantic.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 22:22:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA17781; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:22:02 -0400 From: Fran@prodigy.net Message-Id: <199704070222.WAA163978@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:22:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: On Ancient Versions Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1293 On Ancient Versions' Value to TC - A question (Dear Jean V. Thanks so much for your reply. I appreciate your help, as my language ability does not include Arabic, and a host of other languages ;-) Are you (Jean or someone else) doing the initial translation of this ms? (Sinai Arabic 71). Is there an English translation available of the Arabic witness to the GNT?). I know that that will mean another step removed from the GNT, but I wish to know more about the versional testimony to the GNT. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a translation of Gr into another ancient language). I understand that this means, as I said above, a step removed from the original Gr, therefore: 1. What would be the *consensus* (if there can be such a thing in TC!) as to the value of ancient versions in TC? 2. Are there versions which are *more* valuable than others? 3. Are there English translations of such versions? 4. Are those versions also *divided* into Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western....? A Lurker, Francisco Orozco Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995 (Montville NJ USA) Fran@prodigy.net Nashville NC USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 14:37:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19861; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:37:00 -0400 Message-ID: <33495B74.7DB4@usinternet.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 13:39:16 -0700 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions References: <199704070222.WAA163978@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1223 Fran@prodigy.net wrote: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to > ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a > version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a > translation of Gr into another ancient language). >The degree to which you can ascertain the text, is going to vary by how literal the translation was and how reliably it was handed down. Pick a few English translations and use a Nestle text to guess the variant readings they are based on. The task is much easier for the American Standard Version than for "The Message" paraphrase. I've noticed that versional evidence tends to be overlooked in the NT, probabally in part, because it is difficult at points to determine which text the translator had in front of him when he translated. There is also the difficulty of mastering a third, fourth, or fifth langauge (possilby more). Some scholars seem to feel that given the wealth of readings in Greek, there is little value in the versions. I think all evidence has value, but I am unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that. --Huey Bahr hbahr@usinternet.com I thought it made sense when I wrote it. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 15:31:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20109; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:31:58 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33495B74.7DB4@usinternet.com> References: <199704070222.WAA163978@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:34:06 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2913 On Mon, 07 Apr 1997, Hubert Bahr wrote, in part: >I've noticed that versional evidence tends to be overlooked in the NT, >probabally in part, because it is difficult at points to determine which text >the translator had in front of him when he translated. There is also the >difficulty of mastering a third, fourth, or fifth langauge (possilby more). >Some scholars seem to feel that given the wealth of readings in Greek, there >is little value in the versions. I think all evidence has value, but I am >unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that. I certainly am in the same situation. I have very little Latin (some vocabulary, but no sense of the grammar), no Syriac, no Coptic, no Armenian or Georgian or anything else useful. But I agree that the versions *need* to be considered. Not just because they are evidence of an early date. Even more so, because they are frequently the *key* evidence for various text-types. Take the "Western" text of the gospels. For the most part we automatically equate it with Bezae. But D has demonstrably been edited at at least one point (since it uses Matthew's genealogy of Jesus in Luke). If it has been edited at that point, we must admit the possibility that it has been edited elsewhere. This means that we *must* turn to the Latin versions to determine the proper readings of the "Western" text. Or consider the "Caesarean" text. I don't mean to start a debate with Hurtado or others over this. But a simple fact is that *every* so-called "Caesarean" witness is at least half Byzantine. (And those are the *best* witnesses -- Theta and family 1. Family 13 is about two-thirds Byzantine, 700 is worse, 28 is valuable only in Mark, and 565 is also rather weak outside Mark.) The best witnesses to the type would appear to be the Old Georgian and Armenian versions; without them we probably cannot fully reconstruct the type. Or take the p46/B text-type in Paul. There are only two Greek witnesses, both incomplete. And they sometimes disagree. In such cases, we must look to the only other witness to the type -- the Sahidic Coptic. There may be other examples that I don't even know about. The Gothic version, for instance, seems to have a number of "Western" readings in Paul. But the examples listed should be more than enough proof that we *cannot* ignore the versions. We cannot even be content with the "big three" cited in NA27 (the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic). We need to give full attention to the Armenian and Georgian, and at least investigate the others.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 15:41:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20156; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:41:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:42:42 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions In-Reply-To: <33495B74.7DB4@usinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2073 (concerning the below) Versional evidence is useful in several ways. As is mentioned, given the already-numerous Greek readings, some scholars don't want to further muddy the waters with still more readings which some of the versions might suggest; these readings are much more shakey, anyways, being re-constructed from a translation. A more friendly use of the versions is that they can attest to the geographic and temporal spread of a given Greek reading; here the question is not of a new variant, but rather mapping the spatio-temporal spread of that variant. For example, the Gothic Bible (one version with which I am familiar) attests to certain variants in a time and place where they are not otherwise attested. ********************************** On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Hubert Bahr wrote: > Fran@prodigy.net wrote: > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to > > ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a > > version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a > > translation of Gr into another ancient language). > >The degree to which you can ascertain the text, is going to vary by how > literal the translation was and how reliably it was handed down. Pick a few > English translations and use a Nestle text to guess the variant readings they > are based on. The task is much easier for the American Standard Version than > for "The Message" paraphrase. > > I've noticed that versional evidence tends to be overlooked in the NT, > probabally in part, because it is difficult at points to determine which text > the translator had in front of him when he translated. There is also the > difficulty of mastering a third, fourth, or fifth langauge (possilby more). > Some scholars seem to feel that given the wealth of readings in Greek, there > is little value in the versions. I think all evidence has value, but I am > unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that. > > --Huey Bahr > hbahr@usinternet.com > I thought it made sense when I wrote it. > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 17:10:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA20426; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:10:26 -0400 Message-Id: <9704072210.AA22951@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 23:14:47 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11177 >Are you (Jean or someone else) doing the initial translation of this ms? >(Sinai Arabic 71). Is there an English translation available of >the Arabic witness to the GNT?). I know that that will mean another step >removed from the GNT, but I wish to know more about the versional >testimony to the GNT. No, there is to my knowledge no translation of this interesting manuscript. Neither is there an edition of its text, I am prepairing it using a microfilm... and hope to present also a French (sorry...) translation with it. Good news, I've just finished typing the Arabic text and the translation is going forward too :-) To my knowledge, there is no translation of any of the many Arabic versions. The only exception is the Arabic Diatessaron, probably the easiest to find is the one in the collection of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. In what concerns the texts, the easiest to find is the "Alexandrian Vulgate" as we call it. It is an eclectic recension of the XIIIth century and was edited by Lagarde. But with no translation... >Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to >ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a >version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a >translation of Gr into another ancient language). To a certain degree indeed. The best introduction to that problem - and to the Versions in general - is the book of B.M. METZGER The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977). After the presentation of each version, he lets a specialist of the language involved speak about its ability and limitations to render Greek. If you are interested in scholarly discussion of the versions, this book is the place to begin! BTW, before ascertaining the "greek" text that lies behind a version, the first thing to know is whether it _was_ translated from greek or from another language - there are versions of versions (we call them secundary versions, and there are even tertiary or quaternary ones, if these words are correct. No, we are not in Jurassic Park! :-). Determining the language of the source is not always easy as you can guess, it involves careful study. And when you have a translator who works with several mss in different languages open before him (quite often in the case of Arabic versions), it becomes very difficult to say anything certain. For example, there are versions mixing greek and syriac elements, or the Alexandrian vulgate uses greek, syriac and coptic texts. >I understand that this means, as I said above, a step removed from the >original Gr, therefore: It depends on what you mean by that. Let's take an extreme example : the earliest gerogian version, contained in the Adish codex (IXth century - it was already an old version in that time). Most of its specialists argued it was (1) translated from an armenian base (there are even armenian words in it, and misconstructions - armenisms - in georgian that are due to servile imitation of the armenian model), very different from the armenian version that we know (but reflected also in Armenian patristical quotations). But (2) the textual type is very close to the old syriac version, thus this lost armenian base was most probably itself translated from an old syriac base. (3) We have only two fragmentary mss of the old syriac, so the Adysh codex can be important to reconstruct this text-type, that goes back, probably, to the IInd century. (4) As you know, the old syriac is one of the most important witnesses to the "western" text - that was thus once very widespread in the East too before the triumph of the antiochene (or byzantine) text. So even though there are so many stages between the greek and the Adish ms, it is in fact quite an important ms for the reconstruction of the history of the text, and more specifically for our knowledge of a very important text-type : the so-called "western text". > >1. What would be the *consensus* (if there can be such a thing in TC!) as >to the value of ancient versions in TC? Well, just look at the very different reactions on the list when we're speaking about them :-) Personnally, "value" is a term I don't like as it has utilitarian or moralistic overtones which I believe do not have their place in critical studies. The versions complete the documentation as to the text-type that was used in several regions of the world where we do not have greek mss, or few of them. Also, they tend to be quite conservative as many nationalistic and religious complexes (specially in dissident churches like the Coptic or Syrian churches) intervene in their conservation (just look at the proud face of an Armenian when scholars call their Bible the "Queen of Versions", or look at Lamsa's translation of the peshitto, where the introduction, signed by the nestorian patriarch of the time, claims that the peshitto is the authentic apostolic text overhanded to the Church). >2. Are there versions which are *more* valuable than others? Once again, it depends on what you mean by "valuable"... Some (old latin, old syriac, sahidic) are usually seen as very important witnesses, but this can be quite subject to personal opinion - some people will probably find the coptic versions very important just because they believe the Alexandrian text to be the closest to the original. Versions that reflect a well-known text-type are less interesting, as they don't give us many variants from, say, the byzantine text or the latin vulgate. But even late medieval versions (or patristic quotations) can be very important in that they attest of the survivance of a less known text-type, and even provide variants that can fill the holes of our knowledge about these text-types, their variants and geographical dissemination. Generally speaking, the more you get remote from the centres of manuscript production and revision, the more it becomes interesting in that respect... The great centers (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople) influenced very early the region surrounding them. If they produce a revision, it will be adopted in their region, but an older text will survive in Mesopotamia, in the Caucasus, in Arabia, or in the Netherlands, in Portugal etc... As soon as there is any barrier, whether it be geographical, political, linguistical or ecclesiastical, we have a chance of meeting another text-type. Another extreme example : so late as the XVIth century, we find a... hebrew ms that is translated directly from the old latin (Paris Hebrew 132 - it has only Mt). And it appears in... Rome, so while you would expect the Vulgate it is not the case as the Jews that copied this text were not subject to the obligation of aligning their text on the Vulgate! >3. Are there English translations of such versions? Yes there are, once again, Metzger's book might provide information about them. I'm not well placed for speaking of English translations though, as I would first look for a French one (or rather, prefer to learn the language of the version :-). But be careful: some of these translations are not scholarly works. An example is Lamsa's English translation of the peshitto. Lamsa, an Assyrian himself, produced a translation of the peshitto, but as a speaker of modern syriac he often let his knowledge of the modern language influence his translation, substituting modern syriac meanings for the classical ones. Often, you will find a translation accompanying the edition of the version, whether in English, French, German or Latin. As these languages are supposedly known to anybody who wants to work in the field, they are the most currently used in publications. Burkitt published the vetus syra with an English translation, Lake and Briere published the Adish ms with a latin translation, Marmardji published the Arabic diatessaron with a french translation (though it has many problems) etc... >4. Are those versions also *divided* into Alexandrian, Byzantine, >Western....? Some follow quite strictly one of those text-types : the third georgian version ("georgian vulgate", the official one unto this day) is quite strictly byzantine for example, as are several arabic versions. Earlier versions may follow the alexandrian (in Egypt) or the western type (though not exactly as represented by D). Some are probably based on critical recensions made for the occasion. As I said, some translators worked with several mss open before them and chose the text that suited them the most (many mixed texts in arabic for example). I'll mention too that the "cesarean" text, which is documented by quite a few greek mss (some scholars even doubted it ever existed - I think even Kurt Aland is one of them if I understand his statement in his manual), survives in many eastern versions that, even though they may have variations, have too many common variants : syropalestinian, armenian, the second georgian version (Tbeth and Opiza mss and others), and several arabic versions too - Sinai arabic 71, except for the many blunders and carelessnesses of the translator, is very close to Theta. I was quite amazed when I first discovered that, before the well-know, byzantine-based versions, there were cesarean versions nearly everywhere in the East - and, before that, western or deeply influenced by the diatessaron. Was it the official text of the Jerusalem patriarchate before its "byzantinization"? The abandonment of the cesarean text for the byzantine seems indeed to coincidate with the adoption of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom in place of the liturgy of St James, and other reforms that were introduced in a time when the melkite patriarchs resided in... Constantinople. The situation in Georgia is typical : first the Adish ms with its old syriac influences, then the second version, close to the cesarean texts, then finally the georgian vulgate, nearly fully byzantine - because produced by the georgians of Mount Athos (close to "the centre") - and, the georgians are chalcedonian, they are in communion with Constantinople so they finally accepted the byzantine text, though late. The same can be said of the Melkites of the Middle-East : as chalcedonians, they also finally produced versions that reproduced the byzantine text at the end of the processus. Non-Chalcedonians like the Jacobites from Syria or the Copts preferred to use their own version and translate it into arabic - though sometimes with an eye on greek codices. Oops! What a long post... Read the rest in Metzger and the other good authors... :-) ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email