From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 1 16:07:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA23270; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:07:21 -0400 Message-Id: <9706012108.AB10825@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Early history of Lk 7.47 Date: Dim, 1 Jun 97 22:10:44 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 8155 Lk 7.47 is an interesting verse when we study it from the perspective of the history of the text. There are short, long and intermediary forms of the text. I'd like to present you those and have your reactions as to what seems to you the most probable reconstruction of the history of the development of this text (mine being just an hypothesis, it's worth what it's worth). 1/ D has the shortest form: D: ou charin de legw soi afewntai auth polla. That's all, and it's the shortest form that we find in the mss. Without applying mechanically the canon "lectio brevior, lectio potior", this has to be noted. 2/ Irenaeus. Interestingly, Irenaeus, who usually testifies of the D-text, quotes a fragment of the verse that is absent from D. Ir III.20.2: cui enim plus dimittitur plus diligit. I found an English translation of irenaeus on the internet, so here is the whole context: 2. This, therefore, was the [object of the] long-suffering of God, that man, passing through all things, and acquiring the knowledge of moral discipline, then attaining to the resurrection from the dead, and learning by experience what is the source of his deliverance, may always live in a state of gratitude to the Lord, having obtained from Him the gift of incorruptibility, that he might love Him the more; for "he to whom more is forgiven, loveth more:" and that he may know himself, how mortal and weak he is... We must note that the sentence is not introduced by any formula of the genre "for it is written that". We can't be sure from Irenaeus that the sentence he uses comes from a Gospel text. May be it's an aphorism that was circulating in his time (whether or not it went back to Jesus), and that he found suited to his argument. Or, maybe he is himself the author of it! 3/ Tatian (probably?) We have two witnesses that have a longer form of the text, fusioning what we find in D and what we find in Irenaeus: the vetus latina afra (codex e) and the commentary of Ephrem on the Diatessaron (10.9). This conjunction of the old latin with Ephrem makes me think it is reasonable to suppose that Tatian might be the author of the fusion of the two elements: the early, short text of codex D and the oral tradition found in Irenaeus. By the way, he knows the second element in a form slightly different from that used by Irenaeus: while the bishop of Lyons says "he to whom _more_ is forgiven, loveth _more_", the author of the Diatessaron has: "he to whom _less_ is forgiven, loveth _less_". This might be another evidence for the fact that it comes from an oral, a little inconstant tradition. e: propter quod dico tibi, remittentur illi peccata multa. Ephrem: w-meTul hono shbiqin loh Hatoheyh sagiye, lhaw geyr d-qalil shbiq leh z(ur maHeb. 4/ The Egyptian texts. P75 is the earliest witness to the current text of this verse. it is followed by most greek manuscripts, whether Alexandrian, Palestinian or Byzantine.This text is also found already in the old syriac versions, the other old latin mss, etc... This form of the text is now in three parts: "for she loved much" is inserted between the two elements that we have already mentioned. P75, B, Byz: ou charin legw soi afewntai ai amartiai auths ai pollai, OTI HGAPHSEN POLU. w de oligon afietai, (B + kai) oligon agapa. Several small variants are found in other mss, but they are all characterized by this threefold form of the text, so I won't quote them by large. 5/ Secundary and longuer texts. There are more forms of the texts, probably secundary but deserving attention: a/ Cyprian (as quoted in the apparatus of Tischendorf) "Inquit: cui plus dimittitur plus diligit, et qui minus dimittitur modicum diligit". The "inquit" seems to show that Cyprian has the intention to quote Jesus. The way he does it fusions the aphorism of Irenaeus and its inverted form, the one known to the author who inserted it in the gospel tradition (probably Tatian). This shows that, besides what is now the gospel "text", the aphorism of Irenaeus is still circulating. The same can be said of the Armenian version: b/ The Armenian version: vasn oroy asem khez: thogheal litsin sma meghkh iwr bazowmkh, zi yoyzh sireats. zi orowm shat thoghowtsow, shat sire, ew orowm sakaw, sakaw. Translation: "because of which I say to you, her many sins are forgiven to her, for she loved much. For he to whom much is forgiven, loves much, and he to whom few, few". Let us note that we have the same order as in Cyprian: first "much-much", then "few-few". Much later are the last two forms of the text: c/ The persian harmony: "For this reason I say to you that the sins of this lady are forgiven, for she did much, she deserves much. And who did few, deserves few things, and few shall be forgiven to him". The persian harmony seems to be nothing more than a quite paraphrastic rendering of the current text. d/ The venetian harmony: "And for this I say to you that her sins are remitted to her, for she has loved much". This harmony seems to be the only witness to the presence of only the two first elements of the current text. ____________________________________________ Of course, you must distinguish between the facts themselves, and my analysis. My analysis leads me to give a priority to the western text, the other forms of the text being amplifications by the addition of an oral tradition (Tatian) and a theological (?) expletive sentence (the egyptian texts). At least, my analysis is an attempt to account for the development and amplification of this verse. Though I admit I have generally a little preference for western-priority hypotheses, I admit this reconstruction can be challenged, and the data arranged in another "chronological" sequence. How can we, for example, reconstruct the history of this text from an alexandrine-priority point of view? We would then have to account for the _deletion_ of several phrases of the text. A theological analysis, informed of the doctrinal developments of, say, the first three centuries, would be necessary to confirm or to challenge my reconstruction, and I'm aware I don't have all the resources for this. An interesting point in the analysis would be this: the paradox inherent to the interaction between love and forgivenness in this passage. In what direction does the influence go: is the woman forgiven because she loved, or does she love because she was forgiven? The several forms of the text seem to give slightly different answers to this question: In the text of D, the answer seems to be more stricktly paulinian than in other texts. The short text of D sees the actions of the woman (perfuming Jesus, washing his feet etc...) as reflecting her faith, as v. 48 comes after the short v.47 without elaboration. She is saved by the faith that she showed in welcoming Jesus. The other texts seem to have a more nuanced answer: if the woman is saved by her faith because she welcomes Jesus, her actions are attributed to love - a love that precedes forgivenness: her sins are forgiven _because she loved_, says the text. Paradoxically, the text adds also that the one who has been forgiven will love: love is both the source and the consequence of forgivenness. The theology of the alexandrian text seems more elaborate, its logic - may be - less simple than the D-text... A possible documentation about these theological discussions can be found in a text of the 1st letter of Clement, bishop of Rome: "Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us". (I Clement, L, 5) I don't think I am at the end of my reasoning about this verse, but I thought that at this point it might become interesting to share it with you... Any thoughts? Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 1 16:07:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA23286; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:07:38 -0400 Message-Id: <9706012108.AA10825@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi Date: Dim, 1 Jun 97 22:10:41 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 1213 While working on my arabic versions, I notice something about Jn 3.17. There are three different texts: 1/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion eis ton kosmon etc... P66 P75 Aleph B L fam1 565 etc... 2/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _autou_ eis ton kosmon etc... P63 A fam13 33 Maj 3/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _auton_ eis ton kosmon etc... Theta Two questions about the third text, that of Theta: 1/ Does it make sense? 2/ If not, there's perhaps a graphical reason for it. The scribe took the upsilon for a nu... but it works only if the exemplar he is using is a minuscule ms. Has anybody heard of other instances of such mistakes that would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule? Generally speaking, any general information about this codex would be welcome to me, as it seems important for the study of the arabic versions. Thank you, Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 1 18:38:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA23440; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:38:59 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9706012108.AA10825@iris.arcadis.be> References: Conversation <9706012108.AA10825@iris.arcadis.be> with last message <9706012108.AA10825@iris.arcadis.be> Priority: Normal X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Dave Washburn" Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi Date: Sun, 01 Jun 97 15:44:27 MDT 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: 1032 > While working on my arabic versions, I notice something about Jn 3.17. > There are three different texts: > > 1/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion eis ton kosmon etc... P66 P75 Aleph > B L fam1 565 etc... > 2/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _autou_ eis ton kosmon etc... P63 A > fam13 33 Maj > 3/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _auton_ eis ton kosmon etc... Theta > > Two questions about the third text, that of Theta: > 1/ Does it make sense? Not really... > 2/ If not, there's perhaps a graphical reason for it. The scribe took the > upsilon for a nu... but it works only if the exemplar he is using is a > minuscule ms. Has anybody heard of other instances of such mistakes that > would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule? That's not necessarily the only explanation. Surrounded as it is by -on endings, it could be a simple unconscious assimilation to the words around it, i.e. a simple scribal error. I don't know much of anything about Theta, but this looks like a mental error to me. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 1 19:29:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23620; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:29:05 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:31:04 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <9706012108.AA10825@iris.arcadis.be> Conversation <9706012108.AA10825@iris.arcadis.be> with last message <9706012108.AA10825@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1688 On Sun, 01 Jun 97, "Dave Washburn" wrote: >> While working on my arabic versions, I notice something about Jn 3.17. >> There are three different texts: >> >> 1/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion eis ton kosmon etc... P66 P75 Aleph >> B L fam1 565 etc... >> 2/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _autou_ eis ton kosmon etc... P63 A >> fam13 33 Maj >> 3/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _auton_ eis ton kosmon etc... Theta >> >> Two questions about the third text, that of Theta: >> 1/ Does it make sense? > >Not really... > >> 2/ If not, there's perhaps a graphical reason for it. The scribe took the >> upsilon for a nu... but it works only if the exemplar he is using is a >> minuscule ms. Has anybody heard of other instances of such mistakes that >> would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule? > >That's not necessarily the only explanation. Surrounded as it is by -on >endings, it could be a simple unconscious assimilation to the words around >it, i.e. a simple scribal error. I don't know much of anything about >Theta, but this looks like a mental error to me. I won't lie and claim that I know anything about Theta, either, but one thing I recall reading is that the scribe knew little if any Greek. To my mind, this makes a misreading perhaps slightly more likely than an assimilation. Hardly proof, of course. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 1 21:24:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23804; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:24:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:26:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC List Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi In-Reply-To: <9706012108.AA10825@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: 1119 On 1 xxx -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > 3/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _auton_ eis ton kosmon etc... Theta > > Two questions about the third text, that of Theta: > 1/ Does it make sense? Short answer, no. > 2/ If not, there's perhaps a graphical reason for it. The scribe took the > upsilon for a nu... but it works only if the exemplar he is using is a > minuscule ms. Has anybody heard of other instances of such mistakes that > would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule? Simplest answer is that this is an accidental harmonization to the immediate context, and thus an accidental accomodation to the accusative case of the two words immediately preceding. There is no need to suppose a more farfetched hypothesis of a minuscule exemplar and resultant confusion of letters in such a case. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 1 22:50:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA23968; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:50:18 -0400 Message-Id: <199706020252.WAA34464@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:51:03 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Early history of Lk 7.47 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 990 Jean Valentin wrote: >Lk 7.47 is an interesting verse when we study it from the perspective of >the history of the text. There are short, long and intermediary forms of >the text. I'd like to present you those and have your reactions as to >what seems to you the most probable reconstruction of the history of the >development of this text (mine being just an hypothesis, it's worth what >it's worth). [sinp] This verse and the variants (not all of which are given in Jean's post) have a long history in research. A variant form was noted by Th. Zahn over a century ago in the bilingual Codex Sangallensis (Latin-OHGerm); much later, Walter Henss published his reconstruction of the history of the verse in a book titled *Das Verhaeltnis zwischen Diatessaron, christlicher Gnosis und "Western Text"*, BZNW 33 (Berlin 1967). I discuss the verse, the history of research, and offer additional evidence on pp. 264-269 of *Tatian's Diatessaron*. --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 2 11:14:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24883; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:14:24 -0400 Message-ID: <33936C51.43EB@sn.no> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:58:57 -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: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi References: <9706012108.AA10825@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: 857 Jean VALENTIN wrote: > > While working on my arabic versions, I notice something about Jn 3.17. > There are three different texts: > > 1/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion eis ton kosmon etc... P66 P75 Aleph > B L fam1 565 etc... > 2/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _autou_ eis ton kosmon etc... P63 A > fam13 33 Maj > 3/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _auton_ eis ton kosmon etc... Theta > > Two questions about the third text, that of Theta: > 1/ Does it make sense? Maybe. I do not really know, but is it not a possibility that the sentence is to be understood in this way: "For God did not send the Son _himself_ into the world...." (with the "auton" used as a reflexive)?? This is probably less likely, though. But there are some cases in the NT in which pronouns are (most probably) used in the reflexive sense. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 2 15:57:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25935; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:57:41 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970602194724.2e179d68@nd.edu> X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:47:24 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: RE: Hos. 11:1 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 489 Unfortunately this verse is not preserved in the extant, identified manuscripts found at Qumran (both biblical mss and pesharim). 4QXII-g contains a good portion of chapter 11 of Hosea but not this verse. The manuscript is so poorly preserved (most of the text is illegible to the naked eye). It is possible that with new photographing and imaging techniques additional text will be deciphered. Jimmy's explanation involving palaeography and orthography is most plausible. Curt Niccum From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 2 16:21:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26035; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:21:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:21:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Soisalon-Soininen 80 years (fwd) 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: 943 I'm forwarding this message to the list from Seppo Sipila (the original header was too long for majordomo to process). Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- Dear Colleague Prof. Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen will celebrate his 80. birthday on wednesday 4 June 1997. On behalf of the Finnish LXX team I invite his friends and colleagues to congratulate him. If you wish to participate, please send a short personal congratulatory message TO ME (seppo.sipila@helsinki.fi) before wednesday 4 June 8 am GMT. We will then collect, print and present all the messages to Prof. Soisalon- Soininen. Sincerely Seppo Sipila --- Mr Seppo Sipila Department of Biblical Studies University of Helsinki seppo.sipila@helsinki.fi http://www.helsinki.fi/~sesipila/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 2 16:49:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26183; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:49:15 -0400 Message-ID: <33933253.CC0@concentric.net> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:51:31 -0700 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Broad question abuot the LXX References: <2.2.16.19970602194724.2e179d68@nd.edu> 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: 1202 I've been working on a paper on Paul's use of Scripture, and his apparent divergences from the known LXX text has come up in several wriers, such as Koch and Stanley. What I'm wondering about is this. I know from reading that there are actually multiple Old Greek translations (Lucian, Symmachus, etc.). What i'd like to know is, do the differences, so far as they can be established ( a tricky business in itself) suggest anything theologically? Where I'm going with this is I'm wondering (a non-TC issue) whether the choice of a given form of the LXX, say by Paul, of proto-Lucianic (Cross) over Symmachus, or whatever, cuold have been based on the theological tendenz of the translation. I don't know if anyone has looked at this or if there's even enough data to form a tentative opinion, but I thoght I'd ask. I realize that even establishing the text for one of these translators may be quite difficult, and I'm not suggesting that choice explains all there is to know about NT citation techniques (I actually find Stanley's conclusions fairly compelling). I'd be most interested vis-a-vis Luke-Acts, since Luke-Acts and Scripture is the area of my dissertation. Thanks. Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 2 17:05:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26281; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:05:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Broad question abuot the LXX X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: kdlitwak@concentric.net Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970602170646.382fd6e6@mail.highland.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: 2163 At 01:51 PM 6/2/97 -0700, you wrote: >I've been working on a paper on Paul's use of Scripture, and his >apparent divergences from the known LXX text has come up in several >writers, such as Koch and Stanley. What I'm wondering about is this. I >know from reading that there are actually multiple Old Greek >translations (Lucian, Symmachus, etc.). What i'd like to know is, do >the differences, so far as they can be established ( a tricky business >in itself) suggest anything theologically? Certainly. Every translation is an interpretation. But when you are dealing with Paul you must consider the possibility that his quotations of OT texts are his own renderings (sometimes quite free) of the Hebrew text. He was, to be sure, not bound to use any translation. He could have easily made his own. >Where I'm going with this is >I'm wondering (a non-TC issue) whether the choice of a given form of the >LXX, say by Paul, of proto-Lucianic (Cross) over Symmachus, or whatever, >cuold have been based on the theological tendenz of the translation. > Again, every translation is an interpretation. For instance, Theodotian is a post Christian Jewish revision which elminated several "christian" readings. > I don't know if anyone has looked at this or if there's even enough >data to form a tentative opinion, but I thoght I'd ask. Dozens of folks have worked on it. One book, "Was steht geschrieben?" discusses the whole issue; as does Dodd and others. > I realize that >even establishing the text for one of these translators may be quite >difficult, and I'm not suggesting that choice explains all there is to >know about NT citation techniques (I actually find Stanley's conclusions >fairly compelling). I'd be most interested vis-a-vis Luke-Acts, since >Luke-Acts and Scripture is the area of my dissertation. Thanks. > see the excellent, though now dated, work of Leonard Goppelt! "TYPOS: the Typological Interpretation of Scripture" (or something like that). >Ken Litwak > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 2 17:35:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26339; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:35:49 -0400 Message-ID: <33933D3F.3345@concentric.net> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:38:07 -0700 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Broad question abuot the LXX References: <1.5.4.16.19970602170646.382fd6e6@mail.highland.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: 879 Actually, Jim, from what I can tell, almost no one asks the specific question I'm asking. KOch and Stanley seemto be abut the only people I've encountered who take seriously the possibility tha tPaul may have used a version of the LXX which departed from those we know of. You might be interested in looking at Stanley, who challenges the "Paul freely invented his own version" viewpoint. I can't do Stanley's close argumentation justice in a tiny post. You'll have to go read Paul and the Langauge of Scritpure foryourself. I'm looking for disucssions of differences between flavors of he Old Greek translation that reflect more than "translation" practices, andyes, I know all translations are tosome extent interpretations. Of course, that shouldn't necessarily be constured as a bad thing, if the transaltor "interpreted" the source text correctly. Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 3 13:37:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA28098; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:37:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9706012108.AA10825@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: 1891 On 1 xxx -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > While working on my arabic versions, I notice something about Jn 3.17. > There are three different texts: > > 1/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion eis ton kosmon etc... P66 P75 Aleph > B L fam1 565 etc... > 2/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _autou_ eis ton kosmon etc... P63 A > fam13 33 Maj > 3/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _auton_ eis ton kosmon etc... Theta > > Two questions about the third text, that of Theta: > 1/ Does it make sense? > 2/ If not, there's perhaps a graphical reason for it. The scribe took the > upsilon for a nu... but it works only if the exemplar he is using is a > minuscule ms. Has anybody heard of other instances of such mistakes that > would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule? Jean- Your question reminds me of how much easier I find reading uncials than reading minuscules. But I did look at a reproduction of Codex 048 to see how plausible (at least in that scribes hand) your conjecture is. At first, I thought it highly improbable, but I then noticed that his final "ou" in masculine genitives does look like "on" in one of the three instances. But I also noticed that the accent mark preserves the correct interpretation even when the "ou" looks like a "on". All the minuscules I have seen have the accent marks, "ou" takes the circumflex, "on" takes the grave; in 048 they are quite distinct in appearance. Thus for this misreading in the minuscule, we require two scribal errors: a sloppy final upsilon and a sloppy circumflex (or a simple failure to read the accent correctly). On the other hand, if we assume the exemplar is an slanted-uncial, then since there are no accents, we only require an unreadable initial stroke in the N. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 3 15:03:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28445; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:03:00 -0400 Message-Id: <9706032004.AA13600@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Early history of Lk 7.47 Date: Mar, 3 Jun 97 21:06:36 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 553 Thanks to Mr Petersen for referring me to the pages of his book concerning the variant in Lk 7.47. I will take the time to consider how it affects my ideas about the transmission of this verse. Very stimulating! Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 3 15:05:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28462; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:05:31 -0400 Message-Id: <9706032006.AA13806@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi Date: Mar, 3 Jun 97 21:08:51 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 566 >On the other hand, if we assume the exemplar is an slanted-uncial, then >since there are no accents, we only require an unreadable initial stroke >in the N. So once again, I fall under the category "what's too complex..." :-) Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jun 4 07:10:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA29992; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:10:09 -0400 From: CLeMCroll@aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970604071212_-1965450273@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Request for help. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1383 >From Charles Croll, England. Email: CLeM Croll@aol.com I wonder if any readers of the TC List can help me solve a practical problem. 1. Does anyone know of any published or unpublished collations of MSS of the Apocalypse? The MSS I am interested in are those that were not available to H C Hoskier. I am particularly looking for collations of the Apocalypse in MSS 1140, 1424, 1685, 1769, 1857, 1870, 1872, 2201, 2323, 2377, 2428, 2429, 2431, 2432, 2434, 2495, 2554, 2625, 2626, 2638, 2643, 2648, 2672, 2716, 2723, 2794. 2. Getting copies of microfilms of some of these MSS for collation purposes is not always straightforward. Does anyone know of existing microfilms I might be able to borrow of the following MSS: 1140, 1769, 1857, 1870, 1872, 2323, 2377, 2431, 2554, 2625, 2626, 2638, 2648, 2672, 2716, 2794? 3. Josef Schmid collated a good number of these MSS but published them in families in a form that makes them inaccessible for my project. Does anyone know whether his archive still exists? I have tried his old faculty at Munchen without success. I am a reader of the TC List digest (ministers don't have enough spare time to keep more up to date!), so please don't expect instant responses if you reply through the list, or you could reply directly to my Email address. Charles Croll (Reading part time for a PhD at the University of Birmingham under David Parker) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jun 4 10:22:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00440; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:22:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199706041424.KAA25637@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:26:10 +0000 Subject: Re: Request for help. CC: CLeMCroll@aol.com, abmc@cgs.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1380 Dear Colleagues, This note is a reply to the following portion of Charles Croll's set of requests: > 2. Getting copies of microfilms of some of these MSS for collation purposes > is not always straightforward. Does anyone know of existing microfilms I > might be able to borrow of the following MSS: 1140, 1769, 1857, 1870, 1872, > 2323, 2377, 2431, 2554, 2625, 2626, 2638, 2648, 2672, 2716, 2794? If you have not already done so, I'd suggest contacting the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California, about microfilms of these mss. I don't have their list of holdings handy, but they manage the IGNTP collection of ms microfilms, and so may have at least some of the ones you seek. Contact information is as follows: Ancient Biblical Manuscript center 1325 N. College Avenue Claremont CA 91711 USA telephone: 1-909-621-6451 FAX: 1-909-621-1481 e-mail: abmc@cgs.edu The Director of the ABMC is Michael Phelps. Best wishes, Richard Weis ******************************************************************************* Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-908-246-5613 17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-908-249-5412 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA ******************************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 6 15:38:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00581; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:38:10 -0400 Message-ID: <33987577.5F1B@ao.net> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 15:39:19 -0500 From: "Fred P. Miller" Organization: Mollerhaus Books X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: a question in Hebrew Grammar please help 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: 1457 Friends I hope ths is not an intrusion but I have no Hebrew grammar which covers the following question. I would appreciate very much anyone who answers the question which follows and forgive the intrusion if this letter is misplaced. How does one express a subjunctive idea in a Hebrew verb other than context? Is subjunctive tonally expressed by inflection? Or is there any grammatical sign as it Greek? Many find it difficult and translate what appears to me to be subjunctive as future. For instance Isaiah 32:1 is taken by all to be a messianic reference while I see it as a subjunctive. That is: "a king ought to rule in righteousness and rulers ought to be just so that common people will follow their example and a society will experience good times as a result of even common people being bulwarks of spiritual strength and defenders of truth." [whether the Messiah is present or not.] I am quite sure that is the mind of the prophet but unfortunately no translation in English agrees with me and neither does the LXX or Targum. I would appreciate your input on how a subjunctive is formed in the Hebrew language. Is it only certain when it is vocal? In other words how does one distinguish should be from shall be? Thanks very sincerely for your help. yevarek-ke-ka ha-Shem Fred P Miller -- *************************** Fred P Miller For Bible Study Majoring in Isaiah http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller ******************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jun 7 08:42:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA02144; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 08:42:10 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199706071244.OAA128180@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 07 Jun 97 15:01:06 +0100 Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi 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: 1241 On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote (inter alia): >Jean- >Your question reminds me of how much easier I find reading uncials than >reading minuscules. But I did look at a reproduction of Codex 048 to see >how plausible (at least in that scribes hand) your conjecture is. >At first, I thought it highly improbable, but I then noticed that his >final "ou" in masculine genitives does look like "on" in one of the three >instances. >But I also noticed that the accent mark preserves the correct interpretation >even when the "ou" looks like a "on". All the minuscules I have seen have >the accent marks, "ou" takes the circumflex, "on" takes the grave; in 048 >they are quite distinct in appearance. >Thus for this misreading in the minuscule, we require two scribal errors: >a sloppy final upsilon and a sloppy circumflex (or a simple failure to >read the accent correctly). >On the other hand, if we assume the exemplar is an slanted-uncial, then >since there are no accents, we only require an unreadable initial stroke >in the N. In my view, this is an excellent discussion of the relevant data. However, a small correction needs to be added: 048 is not Codex Koridethi; Codex Koridethi is 038. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 9 11:16:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05968; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:16:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 11:18:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: New Article X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970609111707.2e87511a@mail.highland.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: 487 Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that a new article is available in the Journal of Biblical Studies at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest follw the "articles" link. This is a good time to remind you that submissions are welcome, as are book suggestions. Yours, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology Managing Editor, The Journal of Biblical Studies http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 9 22:23:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA07889; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:23:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:26:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199706071244.OAA128180@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: 1242 On Sat, 7 Jun 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote (inter alia): > > >Jean- > > >Your question reminds me of how much easier I find reading uncials than > >reading minuscules. But I did look at a reproduction of Codex 048 to see > >how plausible (at least in that scribes hand) your conjecture is. [snipped] > > In my view, this is an excellent discussion of the relevant data. However, a > small correction needs to be added: 048 is not Codex Koridethi; Codex > Koridethi > is 038. TO which I reply: OK, I admit, I did not look up Codex Koridethi. The local Jesuit University's library (mentioned in the previous post) does not HAVE an edition of Codex Koridethi. I picked Codex 048 only because it is a minuscule I _could_ find in that local library. Unfortunately, minuscule hands vary even more greatly than uncial hands. But given that caveat, 048 is fairly typical for a minuscule. So I hope the members of the list will accept my apologies for phrasing my post with the unintentional result that it sounded like I had looked at Codex Koridethi. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 10 06:43:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08720; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:43:07 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:40:51 GMT Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 522 Matthew Johnson wrote): > Unfortunately, minuscule hands vary even more greatly than uncial hands. But > given that caveat, 048 is fairly typical for a minuscule. > There is further confusion here. One might assume that you had intended to write that '048 is fairly typical for an uncial'. But 048 is of course a double palimpsest. Which script you looked at you don't say. David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 10 14:55:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10265; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:55:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu 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: 2409 On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, DC PARKER wrote: > Matthew Johnson wrote): > > > Unfortunately, minuscule hands vary even more greatly than uncial hands. But > > given that caveat, 048 is fairly typical for a minuscule. > > > > There is further confusion here. One might assume that you had > intended to write that '048 is fairly typical for an uncial'. But 048 > is of course a double palimpsest. Which script you looked at you don't say. You are right. We are dealing with another "modern scribal error". I wrote down the minuscule number, but then miscopied it when writing my post. I did not notice until afterwards that I had written the initial "0", which is standard for uncials, not minuscules. Since I no longer have the notes, I will have to scurry back over to the local Jesuit University Library and try to find the volume I looked at to see which minuscule it was. In the meantime, all I can say is that it _was_ a minuscule as was clear from the form of the letters (usually connected, with accents and breathing marks etc). But despite the embarrasing error concerning which minuscule I looked at, I hope members of the list will find the line of reasoning useful. After all (recapitulating very briefly), the idea holds for many different minuscule hands. The idea was that 1) Jean's proposed confusion of AUTON for AUTOU _could_ occur when copying from a minuscule, but this requires both a particularly sloppy hand and a double misreading 2) the same error could occur reading from a damaged uncial, particularly if it is a _slanted_ uncial. In this latter case we require only that the initial stroke of the N was assumed missing. Such an error is far less likely if the copyist knows Greek, but it has already been shown that the copyist of Th.038 (Koridethi) did not know Greek very well. Having said all this I will now add only one thing before I look up which minuscule it was: I do not consider the above reasoning _conclusive_ evidence that either error occured. I only consider it suggestive that the second error is more likely than the first. I would really rather see large parts of a fascimile edition of Th.038 as well as the same sort of statistics reported in Parker's Codex Bezae before issuing a more confident judgement. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jun 11 22:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA14789; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:29:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:31:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu 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: 1073 On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, DC PARKER wrote: > > > > > There is further confusion here. One might assume that you had > > intended to write that '048 is fairly typical for an uncial'. But 048 > > is of course a double palimpsest. Which script you looked at you don't say. > > Since I no longer have the notes, I will have to scurry back over to > the local Jesuit University Library and try to find the volume I looked at > to see which minuscule it was. So now I have done the promised scurrying: it was minuscule 747, Luke 2:1-7, looking at the words AUGUSTOU, AUTON and TOU to compare how the scribe forms the OU and the ON. While I was looking at this, another error path occurred to me: the scribe have fallen under the spell of the repetitive ON endings, writing TON hUION AUTON instead of TON hUION AUTOU for three ON endings in place of two. But this is hardly a new result. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 12 11:37:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA16420; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:37:28 -0400 Message-Id: Priority: Normal X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: "tc-list" Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Dave Washburn" Subject: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 09:37:47 MDT 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: 1093 One of the more interesting features of Isaiah 53 is the odd combination of singular and plural in verses 8 and 9. V.8 ends with LAMO, which is traditionally understood as a plural. I'm not so sure, because I have seen some other examples of it that appear to be singular, so it looks to me at first blush as though it can be either one. At the same time, LXX and some other witnesses read LMWT, "to death." The note in BHS says to read this way. I'm wondering what other TC-ers think of this text: which reading do you think is original and why, is it possible that LAMO is a singular in this context, etc. etc. V.9 includes the plural BMTYW, "in his deaths." 1QIsa(a) reads BWMTW, while LXX reads a singular. BHS proposes BMTW, "in his tomb." I can see how both the MT and the Qumran readings could arise by metathesis from an original BMWTW (=LXX), but I may be a little prejudiced toward the singular readings in both cases. I would be interested to know what others think of these texts and their variants. Thanks, Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ dwashbur@nyx.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 12 11:51:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA16468; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:51:38 -0400 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:53:37 AST4ADT Subject: Re: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9 Priority: normal In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-Id: <353B354734@ace.acadiau.ca> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 471 David, Have you consulted: Clines, David J. A. I, he, we and they : a literary approach to Isaiah 53 Sheffield : Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1983,c1976. (Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement series; 1) Reprint. Originally published : Sheffield, Eng. : JSOT Press, 1976. This may deal with the issues you raise. Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 12 13:07:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16765; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:07:42 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <353B354734@ace.acadiau.ca> Priority: Normal X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: "tc-list" Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Dave Washburn" Subject: Re: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:10:02 MDT 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: 747 ---------- > > David, > > Have you consulted: > > Clines, David J. A. > I, he, we and they : a literary approach to Isaiah 53 > Sheffield : Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, > 1983,c1976. > (Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement > series; 1) > Reprint. Originally published : Sheffield, Eng. : JSOT Press, > 1976. Can't say I have, can't say I can at the moment. One of the bad things about living in rural Wyoming is the lack of a decent library. And right now I'm in the middle of moving to central Arizona and won't be able to consult much of anything for a while. Could you give me a quick synopsis? Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ dwashbur@nyx.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 12 13:35:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16892; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:35:01 -0400 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:36:52 AST4ADT Subject: Re: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9 Priority: normal In-Reply-To: References: <353B354734@ace.acadiau.ca> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-Id: <36F37C54EC@ace.acadiau.ca> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 846 Dave, Sorry, but I can't. I just know that the book deals with the issue of the pronouns in Is. 53. Glenn > Priority: Normal > To: "tc-list" > From: "Dave Washburn" > Subject: Re: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9 > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:10:02 MDT > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Can't say I have, can't say I can at the moment. One of the bad things > about living in rural Wyoming is the lack of a decent library. And right > now I'm in the middle of moving to central Arizona and won't be able to > consult much of anything for a while. Could you give me a quick synopsis? > > Dave Washburn > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ > dwashbur@nyx.net Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 12 14:47:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17156; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:47:14 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <36F37C54EC@ace.acadiau.ca> References: Conversation <353B354734@ace.acadiau.ca> with last message <36F37C54EC@ace.acadiau.ca> Priority: Normal X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: "tc-list" Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Dave Washburn" Subject: Re: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 12:49:41 MDT 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: 991 Okay, it gives me something to go on once I get moved. Thanks! ---------- > > Dave, > > Sorry, but I can't. I just know that the book deals with the issue of > the pronouns in Is. 53. > > Glenn > > > Priority: Normal > > To: "tc-list" > > From: "Dave Washburn" > > Subject: Re: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9 > > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:10:02 MDT > > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > > > Can't say I have, can't say I can at the moment. One of the bad things > > about living in rural Wyoming is the lack of a decent library. And right > > now I'm in the middle of moving to central Arizona and won't be able to > > consult much of anything for a while. Could you give me a quick synopsis? > > > > Dave Washburn > > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ > > dwashbur@nyx.net > > Glenn Wooden > Acadia Divinity College > Wolfville N.S. > Canada > > wooden@acadiau.ca > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 13 16:28:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA20379; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:28:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:27:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: ECanon tags added to TC 1 articles 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: 880 At long last I've added tags to all the articles in TC volume 1 that will allow readers to click on a biblical reference and see the requested passage, *usually in Greek or Hebrew* (transliterated for the moment)! Once readers are taken to the ECanon page with the passage in question displayed, they will have the option of switching to the other versions that are currently available (Hebrew Tanakh, Greek NT, Vulgate, Syriac NT, KJV). We plan to add the LXX as soon as we work out some technical problems. We are aware of some glitches in the ECanon program and are working to fix them, but I thought some people on the list would be interested in checking out this new feature. As always, TC is looking for a few good articles ...! Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 16 14:48:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26329; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:48:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:58:55 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: John 5:4 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970616135710.26f74dfe@mail.highland.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: 496 The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse? There seems no good reason for including it. Yet it is, after all, possible that it was accidentally dropped fairly early. Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology Managing Editor, The Journal of Biblical Studies http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 16 16:12:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26580; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:12:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 5:4 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970616135710.26f74dfe@mail.highland.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: 3404 On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Jim West wrote: > The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the > versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse? According to N27, sy-p and sy-h(**) as well as part of the Bohairic version contains this verse and also the closing portion of 5:3. Note that the "overwhelming majority" of all Greek MSS _except_ the early minority of predominantly Alexandrian and Western witnesses _include_ the verse, along with verse 3b, which is similarly omitted by many of the early witnesses, though with less reason. Note that, even among the witnesses that include vv.3b-4 there is some minor internal variation. > There seems no good reason for including it. Yet it is, after all, possible > that it was accidentally dropped fairly early. If it were not originally part of the autograph (as modern eclectic theory supposes), how does one make sense out of verse 7, where, after Jesus asks the man, "Do you want to become whole?" he responds "I have no man, that he should cast me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am [trying to] come, another goes down [into the pool] before me." Certainly my position regarding this variant is already known, even if I have not spoken on it in this forum (as expected, I will support the Byzantine/Majority reading as original). But granting for the sake of argument that, since the Egyptian and Western traditions omit the phrase 3b-4, the shorter form was in fact the original form of the text, there still is a major interpretative problem in v.7 which is extremely perplexing without _some_ explanation having been previously stated in the earlier verses. My concern in this regard is _what_ type of exegetical/hermeneutical explanation can one make regarding the intent of the autograph of John reading as it does in verse 7, if neither vv3b-4 nor any other explanatory phrase ever was present originally. My own viewpoint is that the omission of vv.3b-4 reflects deliberate recensional activity, performed primarily by the orthodox (thank you, Bart!) in order to remove a passage which superstitiously might have encouraged a false worship of angels, exaggerated claims regarding "healing spas" or the like in the early centuries, particularly in Egypt and the Western regions of the Empire. Accidental omission hardly seems likely in regard to such a variant, especially when some witnesses only omit verse 4 while others omit 3b and 4, and still others include 3b and omit 4. Such "mixed" recensional activity was faulty, however, in that it none of it addressed (for whatever reason) the problem of the wording of verse 7; yet that easily could have been recensionally altered by a similar curtailing and replacement of the text into something like "Do you want to become whole?" "Sir, I have no man, in order that he should assist me"). Yet recensional activity, even when clearly evidenced, is not always wholly rational, so this fact occasions me no major difficulty, even when charging recensional activity in those early witnesses in regard to vv.3b-4. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Jun 16 16:28:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26657; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:28:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:30:39 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970616163039.43df08e4@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: John 5:4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1785 Syr-c omits it; Syr-s is defective at this point. Burkitt, Ev. da-Meph. Vol. II, p. 195 says that the size (# of lines on the folio) of Syr-s indicates that it too lacked the angel troubling the waters. The date of the "interpolation" (if that is what it is) must be very early, for Ephrem (died 373) apparently knows and quotes the passage in his *Commentary on the Diatessaron* (I have not time to check this now, but the references are as above, in Burkitt. Ephrem, in his Commentary, writes: "If they believe that the Angel by the water of Shiloah was healing the sick, how much rather should they believe that the Lord of the Angels purifies by baptism from all stain?" Burkitt notes that it is only in the interpolation that an "angel" is mentioned; hence, Ephrem knows the interpolation, and Burkitt assumes it was part of the Diatessraon--hence, in the text c. 172 [Baumstark, however, pointed out that Ephrem's Diatessaron had already been interpolated and revised; it sometimes disagrees with the Arabic Diatessaron, etc., which appear to have a more ancient reading than Ephrem's Diatessaron; see E. Beck's studies or mine in *Studia Patristics* 20.4 (1989), pp. 197ff.]) --Petersen, Penn State Univ. At 01:58 PM 6/16/97 -0500, you wrote: > The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the >versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse? > >There seems no good reason for including it. Yet it is, after all, possible >that it was accidentally dropped fairly early. > >Thanks, > >Jim > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Jim West, ThD >Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology >Managing Editor, The Journal of Biblical Studies >http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm > >jwest@highland.net > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 17 16:02:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA29524; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:02:23 -0400 Message-Id: <9706172103.AB15487@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: John 5:4 Date: Mar, 17 Jun 97 22:06:33 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 2889 > The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the >versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse? As you already have answers about the Syriac versions, I will pass directly to the Arabic versions. I don't have copies of the Gospel of John in all the Sinai Arabic manuscripts for the moment: these copies are expensive for the moment and I'm gathering progressively. So my answer will be fragmentary. here are the datas I can give you concerning Arabic: (1) Sinai Arabic 71 (Xth cent.), as you already know from my previous posts, lacks this Gospel. The apparented lectionary Sin. Arb. 133 (1102 A.D.) has both the second part of v.3 and v.4. As I mentioned, this lectionary, compared with Sin. Arb. 71, is probably revised from the Peshitto. As these verses are present also in the peshitto, we can't know whether they were already present in Sin. Arb. 71 or were imported from the peshitto. We can presume though, as the text is present in codex Koridethi, that most chances are that Sin. Arb. 71 had it also. (2) The Alexandrian vulgate of the XIIIth century, as edited by Paul de lagarde from a Vienna manuscript, has this text. But it has critical notices, the one at the beginning of v.3 saying that "this is not in the coptic, neither in the greek", the second one before v.4, saying that it is not in the coptic. (3) Sin. Arb. 112 (dated 1259) which follows syp in the beginning of Mt, greek texts in other parts (and I've not explored it enough to say something about John) has also the whole verses 3 and 4. (4) Sin. Arb. 69, the oldest (in Sinai) representative of the official melkite version of the XIth century, mixing syriac and greek elements, has also the whole text. That's all I can say for the moment concerning Arabic! Specially, I couldn't verify the text in the earliest version, that of Sin. Arb. 74 and 72, for the reasons I already mentioned. ----------------- Turning to the Georgian versions, we find that (1) both the version of the Adysh codex (according to some probably translated from an old, lost Armenian version) and the versions of codices ABDE (from a Cesarean Greek text) have the whole verse 3, but not verse 4, and (2) the later georgian vulgate (revision of ABDE following byzantine texts) has both verses 3 and 4. The armenian version as edited by Zohrab has the whole text of v. 3 and 4. All three mss of the syropalestinian lectionary have also the whole text of v.3 and 4. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 17 16:02:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA29542; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:02:26 -0400 Message-Id: <9706172103.AC15487@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Gothic special characters Date: Mar, 17 Jun 97 22:06:37 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 729 A little question: The gothic language has some special characters (the "ch", the "th" and the "hw"). Does anybody know of transcription fonts (I have a Macinstosh!) that have these characters and where I can find them - for example, a shareware font that I could download from somewhere on the internet ? Thanks for your help. Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 17 18:10:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29770; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:10:54 -0400 From: Fran@prodigy.net Message-Id: <199706172210.SAA33424@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:09:45 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: 1 John 5:18 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: 1126 In 1 J 5:18 the NU reads AUTOV while MT(Byz) reads EAUTOV. Metzger says that "the committee understood O GEVVNQEIS to refer to Christ, and therefore adopted the reading AUTOV, which is supported by A* B 330 614 it(r) vg syr(h) cop(bo) al. Copyists who took O GEVVNQEIS to refer to the Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses O GEGEVVNMEVOS, never O GEVVNQEIS, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive EAUTOV (Aleph A(c) K P Ups 33 81 1739 al)." Apparently (IMNeophyteO) the external witnesses are pretty even.(?) Is that the reason the Committee had to decide on Internal Criteria? The reason (internal) seems pretty good (I've not done the study yet but will later check it... I think we can assume that it is as they say). In brief, What is the Byz answer to the Ecletic reasoning above? I would like to hear (read) Prof. M. Robinson on this (if he is not on vacation). I've been trying to understand the reasoning, but I need some help from the experienced TCers. Thanks! Francisco Orozco Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995 (Montville NJ USA) Fran@prodigy.net Nashville NC USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 17 18:46:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29879; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:46:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706172246.SAA19969@aus-a.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Gothic special characters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1226 Try: http://babel.uoregon.edu/yamada/fonts/german/gothic.html At 10:06 PM 6/17/97 +0200, you wrote: >A little question: > >The gothic language has some special characters (the "ch", the "th" and >the "hw"). Does anybody know of transcription fonts (I have a >Macinstosh!) that have these characters and where I can find them - for >example, a shareware font that I could download from somewhere on the >internet ? > >Thanks for your help. > >Jean V. > > >_________________________________________________ >Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique >e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 >_________________________________________________ >"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est >inutilisable" >"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" >_________________________________________________ > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 17 18:58:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29916; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:58:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:57:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706172257.SAA20421@aus-a.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: jgvalentin@arcadis.be From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Gothic special characters-the FTP sites 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: 1286 Try: ftp://yftp@www-vms.uoregon.edu/fonts/germanic/gothic.hqx ftp://yftp@www-vms.uoregon.edu/fonts/germanic/GOTHIC.zip At 10:06 PM 6/17/97 +0200, you wrote: >A little question: > >The gothic language has some special characters (the "ch", the "th" and >the "hw"). Does anybody know of transcription fonts (I have a >Macinstosh!) that have these characters and where I can find them - for >example, a shareware font that I could download from somewhere on the >internet ? > >Thanks for your help. > >Jean V. > > >_________________________________________________ >Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique >e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 >_________________________________________________ >"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est >inutilisable" >"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" >_________________________________________________ > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 17 19:41:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00025; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:41:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:43:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199706172210.SAA33424@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3230 On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Fran@prodigy.net wrote: >In 1 J 5:18 the NU reads AUTOV while MT(Byz) reads EAUTOV. Metzger says >that "the committee understood O GEVVNQEIS to refer to Christ, and >therefore adopted the reading AUTOV, which is supported by A* B 330 614 >it(r) vg syr(h) cop(bo) al. Copyists who took O GEVVNQEIS to refer to the >Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses O GEGEVVNMEVOS, >never O GEVVNQEIS, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive >EAUTOV (Aleph A(c) K P Ups 33 81 1739 al)." > >Apparently (IMNeophyteO) the external witnesses are pretty even.(?) Let's tackle this in a slightly different manner. First, let's list all the witnesses, then classify them. AUTON: A* B 330 451 614 794 1505 1852 1898 2138 2412 2495 pc l t vg Jerome EAUTON: Aleph A** K L P Psi 049 056 0142 6 33 69 81 206 323 436 623 630 876 945 1175 1241 1243 1611 1739 1881 2492 Byz arm geo Origen Analyzing by text-types gives us: Alexandrian AUTON EAUTON Early Alexandrian B Aleph Main Alexandrian A* A** 33 81 436 etc. Family 1739 - 6 323 945 1241 1243 1739 1881 Family 2138 614 1505 2138 206 630 1611 2412 2495 Byzantine - K L 049 056 0142 pm Misc 330 451 latt arm geo Clearly EAUTON is the reading of Family 1739. It's almost equally clear that AUTON is the reading of Family 2138 (since we frequently see members of that family deserting it for the Byzantine text). The Alexandrian text is another question. I am inclined to say that its earliest form supported AUTON, but this is far from assured. The Byzantine text, obviously, supports EAUTON. So you're right -- the external evidence is fairly evenly divided. If I had to pick one reading based on the external evidence, I would choose AUTON (largely on the basis of 330-451), but the balance is so close that even a single new witness might cause me to change my mind. >Is >that the reason the Committee had to decide on Internal Criteria? The Committee, with its various prejudices, of course does not analyse the data this way. But they apparently came to the same conclusion: That external evidence, as commonly applied, cannot decide this reading. [ ... ] >In brief, What is the Byz answer to the Ecletic reasoning above? I should leave this to Robinson to answer, but it seems to me that the Byzantine answer is "EAUTON is Byzantine." :-) As for evaluating the internal evidence -- well, I am by nature not the best suited for that task. It's at points like this that I would consult authorities such as Weiss or Lagrange or the UBS committee. The difficulty of this reading is perhaps shown by the fact that Lachmann, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover preferred EAUTON while Tischendorf, Tregelles, Hort, UBS chose AUTON. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jun 18 00:52:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA00478; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:52:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 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: 7879 On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Fran@prodigy.net wrote: I will respond to both Bob and Francisco from Bob's posting, since he laid out the evidence so well, and I don't think anyone seriously would question the external data as a whole, though some might quibble over which MS is really of which type here. But I can accept it as presented without any major problem, though I will take the various statements out of their original order for convenience of reply. > First, let's > list all the witnesses, then classify them. > > AUTON: A* B 330 451 614 794 1505 1852 1898 2138 2412 2495 pc l t vg Jerome > EAUTON: Aleph A** K L P Psi 049 056 0142 6 33 69 81 206 323 436 623 630 > 876 945 1175 1241 1243 1611 1739 1881 2492 Byz arm geo Origen > > Analyzing by text-types gives us: > > Alexandrian AUTON EAUTON > Early Alexandrian B Aleph > Main Alexandrian A* A** 33 81 436 etc. > Family 1739 - 6 323 945 1241 1243 1739 1881 > Family 2138 614 1505 2138 206 630 1611 > 2412 2495 > Byzantine - K L 049 056 0142 pm > Misc 330 451 latt arm geo > > Clearly EAUTON is the reading of Family 1739. It's almost equally clear > that AUTON is the reading of Family 2138 (since we frequently see members > of that family deserting it for the Byzantine text). > > The Alexandrian text is another question. I am inclined to say that > its earliest form supported AUTON, but this is far from assured. I would see the Alexandrian as divided, and probably leaning toward EAUTON, since (to me, at least) a B-A* combination does not exactly an Alexandrian archetype make, especially when Aleph A** 33 81 436 etc are on the opposing side. > The Byzantine text, obviously, supports EAUTON. > > So you're right -- the external evidence is fairly evenly divided. If > I had to pick one reading based on the external evidence, I would choose > AUTON (largely on the basis of 330-451), but the balance is so close that > even a single new witness might cause me to change my mind. > >In brief, What is the Byz answer to the Ecletic reasoning above? > > I should leave this to Robinson to answer, but it seems to me that the > Byzantine answer is "EAUTON is Byzantine." :-) Accurate as far as it goes, but far too simplistic, since it presumes quite incorrectly that internal criteria play no part in the evaluation or final decision. Had the Byzantine witnesses themselves been divided here, this would be an extremely difficult decision, since the entire passage is already difficult of interpretation, especially falling immediately upon the context of the "sin unto death" of vv.16-17, coupled with the statement that "everyone begotten of God does not sin" in v.18a. The passage is already beset with enough difficulties regardless of which reading is best in the 5:18 variant unit! Francisco noted that > >Metzger says > >that "the committee understood O GEVVNQEIS to refer to Christ, and > >therefore adopted the reading AUTOV, which is supported by A* B 330 614 > >it(r) vg syr(h) cop(bo) al. Copyists who took O GEVVNQEIS to refer to the > >Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses O GEGEVVNMEVOS, > >never O GEVVNQEIS, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive > >EAUTOV (Aleph A(c) K P Ups 33 81 1739 al)." I would not agree with Metzger's assumptions regarding what the majority of copyists may supposedly have thought, since I consider alteration by a minority of scribes always an easier presumption than that nearly all scribes would make the same deliberate decision to alter the text before them or accidentally to blunder simultaneously. It is quite possible that the minority of copyists (A* B 330 451 614 al.) may simply have omitted the "E" due to the phonetic error of hearing THREI and HEAUTON sounded together in pronunciation (assuming as I do that the EI diphthong was probably barely distinguishable from the HE of HEAU- which follows). This would offer opportunity for a phonetically- influenced THREIAUTON to occur in written form in that minority of MSS, without any thought of trying to determine whether the believer or Christ is in view in the context as Metzger suggests, and I doubt that there was much serious consideration among scribes as to how to render this word when the whole passage is so difficult of interpretation. I do agree with the statement that O GEGENNHMENOS is normally used by the author of 1Jn to refer to the believer, while O GENNHQEIS will thus refer to Christ. I do not, however, think it must necessarily follow (when the entire context of vv.16-18 is considered) that merely because O GENNHQEIS refers to Christ that one _must_ interpret the sentence as speaking of Christ keeping or preserving the Christian believer and so opt for "him" rather than "himself" (which would then refer to Christ). The prior question of what it means to say "we know that everyone having been begotten of God does not sin" probably has to be addressed first, and I claim no special revelation on the interpretation of that phrase, but I do think it likely that it implies not sinning in the sense of the "sin unto death" described in the previous verses. If so, then the following statement _could_ be understood as saying that Christ, "the one having been begotten by God", keeps or guards _himself_ (following the Byzantine reading, obviously). This then connects with the subsequent statement that "the Evil One does not touch him" = Christ, and not the believer per se. This also ties in well (as I read it) with v.19, in which "the whole world lies in the Evil One," followed by v.20, in which the attention turns once more to Christ -- the one who "keeps himself" in v.18, as the one who "has given to us understanding that we might know the truth", and so combat the Evil One. Regardless of the merits of my interpretation of the passage (and textual critics are not always superior exegetes), my contention is that this is not so much a deliberate alteration by the majority of scribes who for whatever reason misunderstood the difference between O GEGENNHMENOS and O GENNHQEIS and so chose to alter the pronoun to fit their understanding of the passage as it is a likely accidental omission of a single letter in a minority of witnesses, occasioned primarily by phonetic slurring and blending of the -EI and HEAU- phonemes, merging the blended sound in such a way as to write -EI AU- instead of the normal -EI HEAU- > The Committee, with its various prejudices, of course does not analyse > the data this way. But they apparently came to the same conclusion: > That external evidence, as commonly applied, cannot decide this reading. Of course on the contrary, I consider the external evidence, presenting as it does the more "difficult" reading in the majority of MSS (on the contrary assumption that the scribes clearly understood that O GENNHQEIS _did_ refer to Christ -- an assumption which the Committee obviously did not consider), and also the "easier" reading on a transcriptional/phonetic basis in the minority of MSS, as significantly decisive in regard to the present variant unit. > The difficulty of this reading is perhaps shown by the fact that > Lachmann, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover preferred EAUTON while > Tischendorf, Tregelles, Hort, UBS chose AUTON. I am not surprised, given their varying rationales and external evidence preferences. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 18 09:30:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01112; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:30:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:32:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5698 On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: [ ... ] >I will respond to both Bob and Francisco from Bob's posting, since he laid >out the evidence so well, and I don't think anyone seriously would >question the external data as a whole, though some might quibble over >which MS is really of which type here. But I can accept it as presented >without any major problem, though I will take the various statements out >of their original order for convenience of reply. I don't have any particular objections to Robinson's post, either (except, perhaps, with the conclusions :-), but I would like to clarify a few points. So let's start with my manuscript summary. >> First, let's >> list all the witnesses, then classify them. >> >> AUTON: A* B 330 451 614 794 1505 1852 1898 2138 2412 2495 pc l t vg Jerome >> EAUTON: Aleph A** K L P Psi 049 056 0142 6 33 69 81 206 323 436 623 630 >> 876 945 1175 1241 1243 1611 1739 1881 2492 Byz arm geo Origen >> >> Analyzing by text-types gives us: >> >> Alexandrian AUTON EAUTON >> Early Alexandrian B Aleph >> Main Alexandrian A* A** 33 81 436 etc. >> Family 1739 - 6 323 945 1241 1243 1739 1881 >> Family 2138 614 1505 2138 206 630 1611 >> 2412 2495 >> Byzantine - K L 049 056 0142 pm >> Misc 330 451 latt arm geo >> >> Clearly EAUTON is the reading of Family 1739. It's almost equally clear >> that AUTON is the reading of Family 2138 (since we frequently see members >> of that family deserting it for the Byzantine text). >> >> The Alexandrian text is another question. I am inclined to say that >> its earliest form supported AUTON, but this is far from assured. > >I would see the Alexandrian as divided, and probably leaning toward >EAUTON, since (to me, at least) a B-A* combination does not exactly an >Alexandrian archetype make, especially when Aleph A** 33 81 436 etc are on >the opposing side. I suppose I could have stated this better. My research indicates (at least) three phases of the Alexandrian text in the Catholics. The earliest is represented by p72 (where it exists) and B. The largest group centers around A 33 436 (the latter slightly more Byzantine), and includes almost all later witnesses (Psi 81 etc.) And then there is Aleph, which seems to be closer to the A-33-436 subgroup than p72-B, but which is clearly *not* part of that subgroup. I agree that the Alexandrian text is split. And it's hard to tell the history of the type here, since p72 is defective and the Coptic versions apparently cannot testify to this reading. It would just appear that the oldest subgroup (p72-B) had AUTON, and that the main group had EAUTON. [ ... ] >> >In brief, What is the Byz answer to the Ecletic reasoning above? >> >> I should leave this to Robinson to answer, but it seems to me that the >> Byzantine answer is "EAUTON is Byzantine." :-) > >Accurate as far as it goes, but far too simplistic, since it presumes >quite incorrectly that internal criteria play no part in the evaluation or >final decision. Now, now -- I wasn't speaking of your (Robinson's) answer. Merely the unquestionable fact that the Byzantine reading is EAUTON. I was not offering interpretation. In fact, I carefully avoided that.... [ ... ] >> The Committee, with its various prejudices, of course does not analyse >> the data this way. But they apparently came to the same conclusion: >> That external evidence, as commonly applied, cannot decide this reading. > >Of course on the contrary, I consider the external evidence, presenting as >it does the more "difficult" reading in the majority of MSS (on the >contrary assumption that the scribes clearly understood that O GENNHQEIS >_did_ refer to Christ -- an assumption which the Committee obviously did >not consider), and also the "easier" reading on a transcriptional/phonetic >basis in the minority of MSS, as significantly decisive in regard to the >present variant unit. Observe my phrasing: "external evidence, as commonly applied." That is, the external evidence (as judged by most modern eclectics) is not clear enough to allow us to choose a reading. Of course, others can and do judge the evidence differently.... :-) >> The difficulty of this reading is perhaps shown by the fact that >> Lachmann, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover preferred EAUTON while >> Tischendorf, Tregelles, Hort, UBS chose AUTON. > >I am not surprised, given their varying rationales and external evidence >preferences. I'm not surprised, either. I'm just pointing out that this is a very difficult reading by the common methods of criticism. Most of the more recent editors (Hort, von Soden, Merk, Bover), after all, produce fairly similar texts.... ********** On a completely unrelated note: Any of you consulting my web page will find that I have reorganized it a bit. It doesn't contain much new information (a little, but not much), but about ten days ago I added a large number of new entry points. You can now find information much more easily (e.g. instead of having to know to look in the entry on "Versions" to find out about the Armenian version, there is now a separate entry point for "Armenian"). I hope this makes the site easier to use. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jun 18 15:08:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02380; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:08:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 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: 5889 On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > My research indicates (at least) > three phases of the Alexandrian text in the Catholics. The earliest > is represented by p72 (where it exists) and B. The largest group centers > around A 33 436 (the latter slightly more Byzantine), and includes almost > all later witnesses (Psi 81 etc.) And then there is Aleph, which seems > to be closer to the A-33-436 subgroup than p72-B, but which is clearly > *not* part of that subgroup. I can basically concur with this assessment, so long as "earliest" means only in terms of documents and not necessarily in terms of the closest to the archetype of the Alexandrian texttype (which, given the split nature of the Alexandrian documents here leaves the archetype question unresolved). > >> I should leave this to Robinson to answer, but it seems to me that the > >> Byzantine answer is "EAUTON is Byzantine." :-) > > > >Accurate as far as it goes, but far too simplistic, since it presumes > >quite incorrectly that internal criteria play no part in the evaluation or > >final decision. > > Now, now -- I wasn't speaking of your (Robinson's) answer. Merely the > unquestionable fact that the Byzantine reading is EAUTON. I was not > offering interpretation. In fact, I carefully avoided that.... Some others, however, might read those comments in much the same manner as Fee did the "majority text" concept when he claimed that Burgon's seven canons of criticism were merely seven ways of saying the majority is always right. I don't want the pro-Byzantine position to be caricatured as merely following one preferred texttype either because the readings are found in that texttype (which would be wholly circular), or merely because the numerical majority happens to be of that texttype. There certainly are many other items of reasoning and application which bear upon a Byzantine-priority theory. > >Of course on the contrary, I consider the external evidence, presenting as > >it does the more "difficult" reading in the majority of MSS (on the > >contrary assumption that the scribes clearly understood that O GENNHQEIS > >_did_ refer to Christ -- an assumption which the Committee obviously did > >not consider), and also the "easier" reading on a transcriptional/phonetic > >basis in the minority of MSS, as significantly decisive in regard to the > >present variant unit. > > Observe my phrasing: "external evidence, as commonly applied." That is, > the external evidence (as judged by most modern eclectics) is not > clear enough to allow us to choose a reading. Of course, others can > and do judge the evidence differently.... :-) I of course admit that external evidence by itself solves very little if transcriptional and internal considerations are not included in the equation. But I would suggest that most modern eclectics are of the "reasoned" variety, and would concur with me on that point. Although some other eclectics may be "rigorous" in their application of internal principles to the exclusion of external data (e.g. Elliott), I know of no modern eclectic who merely follows external evidence of a given MS or texttype wherever it might lead without taking internal and transcriptional matters into consideration at least to some degree (that they may apply such in what I would consider a wrong manner is irrelevant to this point). > I'm not surprised, either. I'm just pointing out that this is a very > difficult reading by the common methods of criticism. Most of the more > recent editors (Hort, von Soden, Merk, Bover), after all, produce > fairly similar texts.... As I mentioned in my previous post, had the Byzantine evidence itself been divided, this variant unit would have become even more difficult to decide. Since I proposed the minority reading to have arisen from the accidental dropping of the "HE" from HEAUTON due to the phonetic blending of -EI and HEAU- in immediate connection, let me add to the merits of that supposition the fact that many of the same minority MSS which read AUTON in v.18 were similarly guilty of (at least possibly so) having other typical accidental errors of phoneme or sound-alike confusion and also letter-dropping within close context to the EAUTON/AUTON variant unit in question, and still produce "sensible" variant readings in the process. Note the following from N27: v.18 GENNHQEIS becomes GENNHSIS in 1505 1852 2138 latt (sy-h) bo v.20 DEDWKEN becomes EDWKEN in A Psi 049 33 614 630 1505 2464 al v.20 GINWSKWMEN becomes GINWSKOMEN in Aleph A B* L P 049 33 81 614 al Notice again the support for AUTON when comparing with the above to see how many friendly faces (6 out of 12 Greek MSS cited for AUTON) happen to reappear sporadically in the above minority readings: A* B 330 451 614 794 1505 1852 1898 2138 2412 2495 pc l t vg Jerome ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Certainly of the MSS which support the Byzantine HEAUTON reading, some of those in support also deviate in the examples above (e.g. Aleph Psi 049 33 81 630), but from within a Byzantine-priority perspective, minority deviations are only to be expected, and such does not impact the theory adversely. It is from within a modern eclectic viewpoint that the minority deviations in vv.18 and 20 noted above will seriously impact the weight of testimony of those same minority witnesses in favor of AUTON in verse 18, since the evidence suggests some degree of carelessness within the immediate context among those same MSS which witness to AUTON in regard to phonetic variants or dropping of letters, etc. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 19 01:37:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA04709; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:37:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:40:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu 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: 5332 On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > Bob Waltz wrote: > > > > I should leave this to Robinson to answer, but it seems to me that the > > Byzantine answer is "EAUTON is Byzantine." :-) > > Accurate as far as it goes, but far too simplistic, since it presumes > quite incorrectly that internal criteria play no part in the evaluation or > final decision. Actually, I don't think Bob W. is making _that_ radical an assumption! I think all he is doing is letting the proponents of Byzantine priority (such as yourself) speak for themselves rather than start a flame-war by putting words in your mouth. > Had the Byzantine witnesses themselves been divided here, > this would be an extremely difficult decision, since the entire passage is > already difficult of interpretation, especially falling immediately upon > the context of the "sin unto death" of vv.16-17, coupled with the > statement that "everyone begotten of God does not sin" in v.18a. The > passage is already beset with enough difficulties regardless of which > reading is best in the 5:18 variant unit! > Certainly. This is what makes evaluating the internal evidence here rather challenging. > Francisco noted that > > > >Metzger says > > >that "the committee understood O GEVVNQEIS to refer to Christ, and > > >therefore adopted the reading AUTOV, which is supported by A* B 330 614 > > >it(r) vg syr(h) cop(bo) al. Copyists who took O GEVVNQEIS to refer to the > > >Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses O GEGEVVNMEVOS, > > >never O GEVVNQEIS, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive > > >EAUTOV (Aleph A(c) K P Ups 33 81 1739 al)." > > I would not agree with Metzger's assumptions regarding what the majority > of copyists may supposedly have thought, since I consider alteration by a > minority of scribes always an easier presumption than that nearly all > scribes would make the same deliberate decision to alter the text before > them or accidentally to blunder simultaneously. But in your quote here, Metzger says nothing about the _majority_ of scribes. Perhaps what he really had in mind is that once the copying error had been made, scribes presented with both choices found EAUTON much easier to believe. Remember, scribes were not trained in TC, so they would take the easiest way out (consistent with their monastic obedience). One may generally assume that they were always under a heavy workload. > > It is quite possible that the minority of copyists (A* B 330 451 614 al.) > may simply have omitted the "E" due to the phonetic error of hearing THREI > and HEAUTON sounded together in pronunciation (assuming as I do that the > EI diphthong was probably barely distinguishable from the HE of HEAU- > which follows). I would be interested in finding out on what you base this assumption. They are quite distinct even in Modern Greek with its drastic iotaciztion. But even more relevant is the information on the phonology of Hellenistic Greek at http://www.entmp.org/HGrk/papers/phonemics.html. >From this site it is clear that in the period under discussion EI was pronounced either like the "i" in "machine" or possibly (since pre-vocalic) almost like the "ey" in "they". But the HE in HEAUTON was still an E sound, as in "Edward", as it was in Classical times, and as it still is. The sounds are quite distinct to my ear. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that the scribes made this error, but it does show that phonetics have only a little influence here, if any. Finally, in the Eastern Churches, these passages have always been chanted, not merely read, in the Church Services. Now although the style now used in the East is not exactly the same, it is highly unlikely that it could have changed so much as to allow the slurring of adjacent, distinct vowels and diphthongs in separate words. On the contrary, each vowel and diphthong often gets several notes. This must have had an influence on how the scribe read the passage to himself when copying. > The prior question of what it means to say "we know that everyone having > been begotten of God does not sin" probably has to be addressed first, and > I claim no special revelation on the interpretation of that phrase, but I > do think it likely that it implies not sinning in the sense of the "sin > unto death" described in the previous verses. Possibly. Another possibility I would like to hear addressed is that John may have been thinking in Aramaic. The verb system in Aramaic does NOT have the notion of mood and tense of Greek, so he may have meant something like "does not let sin abide in him" rather than "does not sin [at all]". But I would like to hear this addressed by someone who knows Aramaic. > Regardless of the merits of my interpretation of the passage (and textual > critics are not always superior exegetes), This could have something to do with why TC often flip-flops on the assessment of readings based on internal evidence. After all, exegesis is a large part of internal evidence, even though there are many other important factors that must also be considered internal evidence, such as the author's own style. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 19 20:03:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA07255; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:03:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:06:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 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: 7092 On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > I would not agree with Metzger's assumptions regarding what the majority > > of copyists may supposedly have thought, since I consider alteration by a > > minority of scribes always an easier presumption than that nearly all > > scribes would make the same deliberate decision to alter the text before > > them or accidentally to blunder simultaneously. > > But in your quote here, Metzger says nothing about the _majority_ of > scribes. Perhaps what he really had in mind is that once the copying > error had been made, scribes presented with both choices found EAUTON much > easier to believe. Remember, scribes were not trained in TC, so they > would take the easiest way out This type of presumption is heavily beset with difficulties once one starts thinking in terms of transmissional history. Assume that only one or two early scribes changed AUTON into EAUTON. Under "normal" circumstances, such a newly created reading would have little chance of survival, given that "the easiest way out" is simply to continue to copy what lay before them, and, if in doubt, correct any presumed errors by consultation with at least one other MS. Now consider the situation which you suggest (and Metzger obviously must presume): we find one or two scribes creating what might be _thought_ by those scribes an "easier" reading (granting the rationale given by Metzger regarding O GENNHQEIS vs O GEGENNHMENOS). Then, instead of these one or two MSS in the process of time becoming corrected back to the presumed "common" reading (= autograph reading, since no other variant is presumed to have existed up to that point) of AUTON supposedly existing in all known MSS of that time, those one or two altered copies suddenly become the standard by which almost all other MSS become corrected. For this to occur, the one or two copies with the initial erroneous reading would have to start getting passed around and their reading becoming accepted by various scribes in different localities, without getting corrected away by comparison with what already was the well-known dominant text of those areas. This process would have to begin slowly at first, but with rapid multiplicity until the vast bulk of all MSS (90% or so) become permeated with an erroneous reading which had to have been transmitted in such an unlikely manner. Add to this, that for such a scenario to succeed, the HEAUTON reading also would have to commend itself as "easier" to _all_ those scribes who adopted it (at least to those who actually _thought_ about what they were transcribing: but Metzger _is_ presuming that they _were_ thinking on this point, especially in wrongly identifying O GENNHQEIS as the Christian believer rather than Christ because of their thinking overmuch rather than merely copying). Now, I can accept some scenario such as that occurring on the _small_ scale; but as soon as one postulates such on the wide scale, the logic of transmissional praxis simply does not hold up. The opposing scenario (which I have postulated) survives Occam's Razor much better: the original reading being HEAUTON, a _minority_ of twelve (12) localized Western and Alexandrian scribes dropped a single letter (E) from the text. This was likely due to the phonetic blending of the -EI from THREI and the HEAU- following (six of those scribes, you will recall are involved in similar errors within close context). The majority of MSS simply continued to preserve the original reading, and the erroneous reading made virtually no progress towards domination or influence of the basic MS tradition. This is only as would be expected on the basis of normal transmissional praxis. I see no need to unnecessarily multiply the needed attendant circumstances regarding transmissional history in order to support a preferred reading. The simplest explanation may well often be the best explanation, provided intrinsic and transcriptional probability are properly considered within a reasonable transmissional framework. > > EI diphthong was probably barely distinguishable from the HE of HEAU- > > which follows). > > I would be interested in finding out on what you base this assumption. > They are quite distinct even in Modern Greek with its drastic iotaciztion. I do not consider modern Greek pronunciation necessarily to reflect first century Koine (nor do I think Erasmian pronunciation is correct either). But a phonetic blending even in modern Greek of the -EI and EAUTON (try it especially _without_ the rough breathing as in modern Greek!) still could cause one to assume the E was missing from EAUTON. > >From this site it is clear that in the period under discussion EI was > pronounced either like the "i" in "machine" or possibly (since > pre-vocalic) almost like the "ey" in "they". I would favor the "ey" myself; but this does not affect the point. "ey" and "heh" for -EI HE-, if the rough breathing is at all sounded minimally will still cause the phonetic loss or near loss of the HE- from HEAUTON. > The sounds are quite distinct to my ear. Of course, this does not rule > out the possibility that the scribes made this error, but it does show > that phonetics have only a little influence here, if any. The sounds are quite distinct to me also, provided one says the words slowly enough. If a scribe reads the words and is retaining them in his mind between the exemplar and the copy, even as Metzger points out, many things can happen with the sounds inside the scribe's mind. > Finally, in the Eastern Churches, these passages have always been chanted, > not merely read, in the Church Services. You are not suggesting that the scribes chanted the words as they read them, are you? I would agree that they likely voiced them, but I would doubt chanting at the scribal desk in most cases, unless it is a favorite liturgical passage. But also, the transmissional scenario proposed by Metzger should easily pre-date the formal scriptorium atmosphere found in the later Greek church, so this would not apply in regard to the origin or early development of the variants here. > Another possibility I would like to hear addressed is that John > may have been thinking in Aramaic. The verb system in Aramaic does NOT > have the notion of mood and tense of Greek, so he may have meant something > like "does not let sin abide in him" rather than "does not sin [at all]". > But I would like to hear this addressed by someone who knows Aramaic. The closest to the Aramaic translation patterns we have for this passage are the Syriac versions, and they were not listed as supporting either variant, presumably because the distinction between HEAUTON and AUTON would be lost in Syriac or Aramaic or other Semitic languages. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 21 01:41:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA10769; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:41:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu 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: 10701 Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > >> > I would not agree with Metzger's assumptions regarding what the majority >> > of copyists may supposedly have thought, since I consider alteration by a >> > minority of scribes always an easier presumption than that nearly all >> > scribes would make the same deliberate decision to alter the text before >> > them or accidentally to blunder simultaneously. >> >> But in your quote here, Metzger says nothing about the _majority_ of >> scribes. Perhaps what he really had in mind is that once the copying >> error had been made, scribes presented with both choices found EAUTON much >> easier to believe. Remember, scribes were not trained in TC, so they >> would take the easiest way out > >This type of presumption is heavily beset with difficulties once one >starts thinking in terms of transmissional history. Not so, not so. This would be so only if we assumed that what you refer to below as "transmissional praxis" was the only influence on the history of the text-type. > Assume that only one >or two early scribes changed AUTON into EAUTON. Under "normal" >circumstances, such a newly created reading would have little chance of >survival, given that "the easiest way out" is simply to continue to copy >what lay before them, and, if in doubt, correct any presumed errors by >consultation with at least one other MS. > >Now consider the situation which you suggest (and Metzger obviously must >presume): we find one or two scribes creating what might be _thought_ by >those scribes an "easier" reading (granting the rationale given by Metzger >regarding O GENNHQEIS vs O GEGENNHMENOS). Then, instead of these one or >two MSS in the process of time becoming corrected back to the presumed >"common" reading (= autograph reading, since no other variant is presumed >to have existed up to that point) of AUTON supposedly existing in all >known MSS of that time, those one or two altered copies suddenly become >the standard by which almost all other MSS become corrected. Which could have easily happened when St. John Chrysostom brought the Syrian text-type to Constantinople, except that it need not be so sudden. More likely it took place over a period of 50 years or more. Transmissional history is not only the result of copying errors and recensions, but also the result of preferences for a given text type for other reasons. > >For this to occur, the one or two copies with the initial erroneous >reading would have to start getting passed around and their reading >becoming accepted by various scribes in different localities, without >getting corrected away by comparison with what already was the well-known >dominant text of those areas. This process would have to begin slowly at >first, but with rapid multiplicity until the vast bulk of all MSS (90% or >so) become permeated with an erroneous reading which had to have been >transmitted in such an unlikely manner. > >Add to this, that for such a scenario to succeed, the HEAUTON reading also >would have to commend itself as "easier" to _all_ those scribes who >adopted it (at least to those who actually _thought_ about what they were >transcribing: but Metzger _is_ presuming that they _were_ thinking on this >point, especially in wrongly identifying O GENNHQEIS as the Christian >believer rather than Christ because of their thinking overmuch rather than >merely copying). I am not defending Metzger's entire reasoning on this passage as correct. In fact, Metzger seems to pass over Origen's interpretation (PG 14:569) of this passage in silence, which is a mistake when trying to evaluate the internal evidence. > >Now, I can accept some scenario such as that occurring on the _small_ >scale; but as soon as one postulates such on the wide scale, the logic of >transmissional praxis simply does not hold up. Again, I don't think this is what Metzger is arguing. It is certainly not what I am arguing. > >The opposing scenario (which I have postulated) survives Occam's Razor >much better: the original reading being HEAUTON, a _minority_ of twelve >(12) localized Western and Alexandrian scribes dropped a single letter (E) >from the text. This was likely due to the phonetic blending of the -EI >from THREI and the HEAU- following (six of those scribes, you will recall >are involved in similar errors within close context). Which errors are you calling similar? You listed three in another recent posting (alas, I didn't save it), none of which I considered similar. One of them was DEDO^KEN for EDO^KEN, one of the others was confusing omega for omicron, which sounded identical at that time. Why would you consider these similar? > The majority of MSS >simply continued to preserve the original reading, and the erroneous >reading made virtually no progress towards domination or influence of the Yet the "new" reading took over the entire family of 1739. How could this be if it was, as you propose, an isolated error, an error of only twelve scribes? And how often do we see the same transcription error duplicated in an independent witness (except for itacisms)? From the abundance of Byzantine readings in 1739's family it is clear that they were frequently compared with Byzantine manuscripts. Why was the "new" reading not corrected? [snip] >> > EI diphthong was probably barely distinguishable from the HE of HEAU- >> > which follows). >> >> I would be interested in finding out on what you base this assumption. >> They are quite distinct even in Modern Greek with its drastic iotaciztion. > >I do not consider modern Greek pronunciation necessarily to reflect first >century Koine (nor do I think Erasmian pronunciation is correct either). >But a phonetic blending even in modern Greek of the -EI and EAUTON (try it >especially _without_ the rough breathing as in modern Greek!) still could >cause one to assume the E was missing from EAUTON. Did I say that I considered modern Greek pronunciation the same as Koine? Of course not. But as the site I metioned showed, modern pronunciation is closer in several respects than Erasmian or Allen's Vox Graeca. This is only to be expected, since it was in the process of changing from the one to the other. My point is that with none of these pronunciation methods do I find your "phonetic blending" plausible. In fact, the rough breathing had already disappeared from "standard" Greek before this. It is safe to assume that it was never present in AD Koine. So I have tried it, even before you suggested this, and I find this "phonetic blending" implausible. [snip] >The sounds are quite distinct to me also, provided one says the words >slowly enough. If a scribe reads the words and is retaining them in his > >mind between the exemplar and the copy, even as Metzger points out, many >things can happen with the sounds inside the scribe's mind. But as you quote him, he said "many", not "any". Judging which of the many things that might happen actually did happen is not easy. It certainly cannot be done by merely claiming that missing the E is: >phonetic error of hearing THREI > and HEAUTON sounded together in pronunciation (assuming as I do that the > EI diphthong was probably barely distinguishable from the HE of HEAU- > which follows). This is why I wrote: >>I would be interested in finding out on what you base this assumption. Surely that is not an unfair question. I still do not know on what you base this assumption, unless you base it upon a doubtful assumption for the values of these phonemes and the direction of elision (still backwards as in Attic, most likely) in Koine Greek. Again, I do not deny that the change could have taken place. I merely question that these sounds were, as you claim "barely distinguishable". > >> Finally, in the Eastern Churches, these passages have always been chanted, >> not merely read, in the Church Services. > >You are not suggesting that the scribes chanted the words as they read >them, are you? No, of course not. I did say quite distinctly: >>these passages have always been chanted, each vowel and >>diphthong often gets several notes. This must have had an >>influence on ^^^^^^^^^ >>how the scribe read the passage to himself when copying. The influence I expect is that vowels and diphthongs do NOT get slurred except when they are both close to the "i" in "machine", e.g., eta and iota, iota and epsilon iota, even eta and epsilon iota, but never EI and E, since E was never pronounced like "i". >I would agree that they likely voiced them, but I would >doubt chanting at the scribal desk in most cases, unless it is a favorite >liturgical passage. But also, the transmissional scenario proposed by >Metzger should easily pre-date the formal scriptorium atmosphere found in >the later Greek church, so this would not apply in regard to the origin or >early development of the variants here. It could easily predate the scriptorium, but it very likely did NOT predate the chanting. So the style of pronounciation in chant would still have influenced how the scribe sounded the syllables out. > >> Another possibility I would like to hear addressed is that John >> may have been thinking in Aramaic. The verb system in Aramaic does NOT >> have the notion of mood and tense of Greek, so he may have meant something >> like "does not let sin abide in him" rather than "does not sin [at all]". >> But I would like to hear this addressed by someone who knows Aramaic. > >The closest to the Aramaic translation patterns we have for this passage >are the Syriac versions, and they were not listed as supporting either >variant, presumably because the distinction between HEAUTON and AUTON >would be lost in Syriac or Aramaic or other Semitic languages. You seem to have missed the point. I asked about the whole passage, not about HEAUTON and AUTON, as it _might_ have existed in John's mind in Aramaic. I certainly did not presume that the distinction between HEAUTON and AUTON exists in Aramaic. But as you pointed out, which of HEAUTON and AUTON you assume is original depends on the sense of the passage. But the sense of the passage in turn depends on what he means by "does not sin". This in turn depends on how strictly he sticks to the meaning of the tense and mood of the Greek verb. Besides, it is well known that the Syriac version is a translation of the Greek. So arguing based on the Syriac adds yet another assumption (farther away from Occam's Razor) that the Syriac translator understood whether or not John really meant the verb tense to be strictly Greek, or an approximation to the Aramaic verb form. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jun 21 15:54:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11690; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:54:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1 John 5:18 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: 14155 On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > >This type of presumption is heavily beset with difficulties once one > >starts thinking in terms of transmissional history. > > Not so, not so. This would be so only if we assumed that what > you refer to below as "transmissional praxis" was the only > influence on the history of the text-type. Despite the suggestions you make below, the likelihood of those having more influence on what scribes would or would not do in the normal process of transcription is very slim. It goes back to the Occam's Razor principle once more, and the hypothesis which has to postulate the larger number of intermediate steps, and especially when such steps require very specialized and narrow parameters, is not as likely to be the correct solution so long as a reasonable and relatively simple solution can otherwise be postulated which accords with what would normally be expected within a transmissional framework. > >known MSS of that time, those one or two altered copies suddenly become > >the standard by which almost all other MSS become corrected. > Which could have easily happened when St. John Chrysostom brought > the Syrian text-type to Constantinople This is already a highly gratuitous assumption, and in fact becomes part of a circular assumption regarding the development of the Byzantine Textform as becoming popular because Chrysostom endorsed it, though he would have no reason to endorse it unless it were popular, etc. But are you _seriously_ suggesting that Chrysostom brought one or two copies of 1 John to Constantinople which _happened_ to have a Byzantine text, or at least a Byzantine reading in 1 Jn.5:18, and that, by mere force of personality, those who listened to his "golden-mouthed" sermons latched on to the clear exegetical distinction at the point of AUTON versus HEAUTON because the exegetical explanation of Chrysostom that the O GENNHQEIS referred to the Christian believer and not to Christ and thus the pronoun had to be altered was so convincing? And because of this that the local traditionalist scribes and even the clergy of Constantinople were speedily ready to jettison the AUTON reading which supposedly had held sway in that region for 300 years? Also that from that point the reading would spread like wildfire and within 50 years, as you suggest, nearly _every_ known MS would be corrected to read HEAUTON and nearly all future MSS would do the same? Is this _really_ a convincing explanation of the history of this variant unit? I think not; get me Occam, or at least get me Chrysostom's commentary/homilies on 1 John to establish even a modicum of possibility for this point.....After that we can speculate on what influence Chrysostom's favored text might continue to have when he was discredited and sent off into exile... > except that it need not > be so sudden. More likely it took place over a period of 50 > years or more. Transmissional history is not only the result of > copying errors and recensions, but also the result of preferences > for a given text type for other reasons. Certainly, but the other reasons have to be plausible within some reasonable transmissional framework, and I for one simply do not see such in this case. Multiplying hypothetical possibilities in regard to Chrysostom here does little or nothing to explain matters, but only makes the entire situation far more complex for historical reasonableness to accept. My solution requires no such complications, and remains historically and transmissionally/transcriptionally reasonable. > I am not defending Metzger's entire reasoning on this passage as > correct. In fact, Metzger seems to pass over Origen's > interpretation (PG 14:569) of this passage in silence, which is a > mistake when trying to evaluate the internal evidence. Yet it is perhaps ok to postulate on Chrysostom's supposed interpretation of the passage and how he directly influenced the spread of his "favorite" local text from Syria and to make that the basis for a transmissional hypothesis? > >Now, I can accept some scenario such as that occurring on the _small_ > >scale; but as soon as one postulates such on the wide scale, the logic of > >transmissional praxis simply does not hold up. > > Again, I don't think this is what Metzger is arguing. It is > certainly not what I am arguing. What then are you saying in regard to the Chrysostom hypothesis? Even that scenario would have to commend itself as historically and transmissionally/ transcriptionally reasonable. What I really suspect is that once more those who might hold to an eclectic text position are placed in the awkward position of having to deal with transmissional considerations which by definition should not be a factor in true "eclectic" methodology. As I have said before, were the situation reversed, and it was I who claimed a hypothetical multiplicity of coincidences to explain the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform, I suspect I would be roundly criticized by everyone on this list for so doing; yet this is basically what happens repeatedly in eclectic explanations intended to defend minority readings as soon as they attempt to account for the rise and dominance of the reading of the Byzantine Textform. Yet in most of those cases, the Byzantine reading can easily be defended as original without the need to engage in such mental gymnastics. > >from THREI and the HEAU- following (six of those scribes, you will recall > >are involved in similar errors within close context). > Which errors are you calling similar? You listed three in another > recent posting (alas, I didn't save it), none of which I > considered similar. One of them was DEDO^KEN for EDO^KEN, one of > the others was confusing omega for omicron, which sounded > identical at that time. Why would you consider these similar? Similar in the sense of scribal proclivities to phonetic error and the dropping of an individual letter. The DEDWKEN/EDWKEN is the latter; the other cases were the phonetic similarity of GENNHSIS to GENNHQEIS and the GINWSKOMEN/GINWSKWMEN interchange. The fact that 6 out of the 12 MSS which read AUTON in v.18 engage in at least one of those other two errors within close context clearly makes the likelihood of error in the case of AUTON a strong possibility. The variants are all different, but they are related directly to the problem due to the phonetic similarity issue and the dropping of a single letter issue. > > The majority of MSS > >simply continued to preserve the original reading, and the erroneous > >reading made virtually no progress towards domination or influence of the > Yet the "new" reading took over the entire family of 1739. How could this > be if it was, as you propose, an isolated error, an error of only twelve > scribes? The last I recall, Fam.1739 was not the majority of MSS, and the entire Fam.1739 evidence is _part_ of those twelve scribes being counted. An isolated family group simply possesses elements in common which have been perpetuated in a very limited degree among the descendants of a common archetype. This has no more bearing on my transmissional explanation of the Byzantine reading here than the fact that the _larger_ texttype groups of Alexandrian and Western MSS might differ from the majority reading. If you want to reduce the count from 12 scribes to 9 or so be considering the Fam.1739 to be a unit like Fam.1 or Fam.13, I am perfectly willing to accept that.....but then the perpetuation of the minority reading is even further reduced. > And how often do we see the same transcription error duplicated > in an independent witness (except for itacisms)? Simply collate a good number of MSS over a given portion of text and you will find far more than itacisms being duplicated independently. The DEDWKEN/EDWKEN type of variation is quite common, and generally betrays no genealogical connection. So also the KAI/DE type of interchange, or items like EBALLON/EBALON etc. The variants might remain sensible and meaningful by such errors, but their existence among MSS of diverse families and texttypes does not imply genealogical connection. > From the abundance of > Byzantine readings in 1739's family it is clear that they were frequently > compared with Byzantine manuscripts. Why was the "new" reading not > corrected? No one (including myself) is claiming that EVERY reading from the correction exemplar used by a diorthotes would be implemented into the finished copy at one time. Correction would be haphazard and sporadic in most cases, and this is in fact what we see even in the most pure Byzantine MSS. So it is no surprise to find the same thing occurring in MSS which are less Byzantine; there may be more corrections to a Byzantine standard found in such MSS, but nothing suggests that every non-Byzantine reading in any MS would ever be corrected at one sitting. I suspect that generally the diorthotes would read a newly copied MS and, so long as the text "made sense" or was in accord with what he recalled from memory, would _not_ consult the correction exemplar. Only when the diorthotes perceived a problem might he choose to verify such against a second exemplar. > Did I say that I considered modern Greek pronunciation the same as Koine? > Of course not. But as the site I metioned showed, modern pronunciation is > closer in several respects than Erasmian or Allen's Vox Graeca. This is > only to be expected, since it was in the process of changing from the one > to the other. My point is that with none of these pronunciation methods > do I find your "phonetic blending" plausible. Give me any suggested pronunciation of the -EI diphthong and the HEAU- sound, and I see a relatively simple phonetic blending by almost any vocalization within normal reading speed. The only exception would be if the words were clearly sounded separately and distinctly so as to emphasize the break between the words. > In fact, the rough breathing had already disappeared from "standard" Greek > before this. It is safe to assume that it was never present in AD Koine. Very peculiar then how the MSS, even as early as P66, felt a need to identify the rough breathing. I do not consider this line of argument very strong. > So I have tried it, even before you suggested this, and I find this > "phonetic blending" implausible. I find it extremely plausible, and having continually to tell Greek students to enunciate more clearly without blending letters so as to cause similar problems, I see no reason why some early scribes would not also have a similar problem, especially if Greek might not be their native language. > >mind between the exemplar and the copy, even as Metzger points out, many > >things can happen with the sounds inside the scribe's mind. > But as you quote him, he said "many", not "any". Judging which of the > many things that might happen actually did happen is not easy. Actually I don't recall precisely _what_ Metzger said, since I am only alluding to him on this point. For all practical purposes, however, "any" would be a proper term to describe what might fit within the limits of "many" in this situation, primarily because none of us can get into the mind of a scribe as he or she copies. > Again, I do not deny that the change could have taken place. I merely > question that these sounds were, as you claim "barely distinguishable". I see no reason to question why, when spoken rapidly in close connection, regardless of the phonemic pronunciation, that such blending could not cause the HE- of HEAUTON to drop out. Even with the grossly artificial Erasmian "I" sound (eye) for the -EI diphthong (which I doubt was ever used by anyone in the early centuries) the THREI (tey-rI) HEAUTON combination could _still_ lead someone to mis-hear and understand AUTON instead of HEAUTON. If your mileage varies on that point, well and good, but I will not belabor the pronunciation point regarding this variant further in this forum. > The influence I expect is that vowels and diphthongs do NOT get slurred > except when they are both close to the "i" in "machine", e.g., eta and > iota, iota and epsilon iota, even eta and epsilon iota, but never EI and > E, since E was never pronounced like "i". What is a diphthong itself, if not already a slurring/blending of two vowels? Why is there any problem in supposing a diphthong itself could be slurred/blended with another following vowel? > Aramaic. I certainly did not presume that the distinction between HEAUTON > and AUTON exists in Aramaic. But as you pointed out, which of HEAUTON and > AUTON you assume is original depends on the sense of the passage. But the > sense of the passage in turn depends on what he means by "does not sin". But then this devolves back to the larger question of how O GENNHQEIS would have been intended and understood and all of that as well. So that takes everything back to the issue of exegesis of the passage once more. My own suspicion is that even though John may have thought semitically (whether in Aramaic or Hebrew), he still wrote his gospel and epistles in Greek, and may have had the assistance of a stylist or ameneuensis who would polish up the finished product. The Greek of 1 John is what we have, and I suspect it is useless to speculate behind that to what John may or may not have been thinking in Aramaic. > (farther away from Occam's Razor) that the Syriac translator understood > whether or not John really meant the verb tense to be strictly Greek, or > an approximation to the Aramaic verb form. Agreed, this is really getting far from Occam, and is probably useless speculation regarding interpretative intent of an ancient translator or translators. I'll skip that part of the discussion, thank you. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 21 17:20:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11823; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:20:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:23:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Correction re: 1 John 5:18 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: 2445 I wrote in response to Matthew Johnson without thinking to go over the evidence, and ended up speaking erroneously off the top of my head in regard to the wrong family group. Johnson wrote: >> Yet the "new" reading took over the entire family of 1739. How could >>this be if it was, as you propose, an isolated error, an error of only >>twelve scribes? I responded: >The last I recall, Fam.1739 was not the majority of MSS, and the entire >Fam.1739 evidence is _part_ of those twelve scribes being counted. [snip] Mea culpa....I did _not_ intend to speak of Fam.1739 as part of those 12 MSS which differ from the majority reading. Fam.1739 here agrees with the Byzantine reading. I was thinking of the MSS of Fam.2138 which depart from the majority and read AUTON (there actually are 5 such MSS). If those 5 MSS were considered only to reflect the family archetype, then the total number of witnesses in favor of AUTON would be reduced to 12-5 = 7. The remainder of my discussion in my last post should be taken with this in mind, and, _mutatis mutandis_, should be dealing with Fam.2138 in the same context. However, I am therefore no longer certain I am addressing Johnson's comments, assuming he indeed was speaking of Fam.1739 and not Fam.2138 in his post -- If so, I confess I don't know _what_ he is referring to in his statement quoted above, since the Byzantine reading in my opinion did _not_ "take over" Fam.1739 at that point, nor did the Byzantine Textform as a whole "take over" that family or any family, as mentioned elsewhere in that post, else there would not be any "family" readings, but only the readings of the Byzantine text. My view in regard to Fam.1739 (not Fam.2138) at the 1 Jn.5:!8 reading is that the archetype of Fam.1739 simply read HEAUTON, and the AUTON reading was _never_ characteristic of that family at that variant unit. (I think Bob Waltz will agree with me on this). The same _cannot_ be said for the archetype of Fam.2138, which appears to have read AUTON, but of which reading 3 members (206 630 1611) _were_ corrected over to the Byzantine standard during the process of transmission. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 01:07:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA12343; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 01:07:16 -0400 Message-ID: <33ACBAA0.4C01@cryogen.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:39:45 +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: Question about greek behind KJV 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: 1875 TCers, Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated? According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis. Now it is generally held that the TR was used. But the term Textus Receptus came from a publisher's blurb in the Elzevir's 2nd edition GNT of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611. My current understanding is that the Greek text behind the KJV was the Stephanus 1551. Is this correct? I have also heard others say that it was an edition published by Theodore Beza... The Stephanus editions are revisions of Erasmus's text which he initially rushed out the door using only a hand full of late manuscripts and then made some corrections using the Complutum Polyglot. Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition? 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.cryogen.com/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 IHSOUS KURIOS! +--------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 22 12:31:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA12995; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:31:53 -0400 Message-ID: <33AD7CF7.6040@total.net> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:28:55 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question about greek behind KJV References: <33ACBAA0.4C01@cryogen.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: 2588 Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: > > TCers, > > Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated? > > According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English > Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was > only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis. As per the Greek texts used by the KJV translators, they primarily used Beza's 1589 edition (as well as the preceeding Greek/Latin editions of Beza), follwed by Stephanus 1550 ed.; less influential was the Complutensian Polyglot, and I doubt if Erasmus had any influence at all. Their work was simply a revision rather than a fresh translation ("to make a good work better"). > > Now it is generally held that the TR was used. Because it was! :-) >But the term Textus > Receptus came from a publisher's blurb in the Elzevir's 2nd edition GNT > of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611. Right, but it was a term that can to reflect the essentially identical text of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. > > The Stephanus editions are revisions of Erasmus's text which he > initially rushed out the door using only a hand full of late manuscripts > and then made some corrections using the Complutum Polyglot. > > Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition? > > cheers, > Andrew Andrew, The MSS used by Erasmus throughout the 5 editions are the following: Erasmian edition MSS used 1516 Codex 2e (13th cent.) sent to press Codex 2ap (12th cent.) sent to press Codex 1r (12th cent.) sent to press Codex 1eap (12th cent.) collated Codex 4ap (15th cent.) collated Codex 7p (11th cent.) collated Commentary of Theophylact collated ________________________________________________________________________________ 1519 Codex 3ap (12th century) collated ________________________________________________________________________________ 1522 Codex 61 (Codex Montfortianus, used for 1 John 5:7-8 only) Latin MSS collated _________________________________________________________________________________ 1527 Complutensian Polyglot NT (heavily used to revise Apocalypse text of 1522) Latin MSS __________________________________________________________________________________ 1535 none _________________________________________________________________________________ Thus even though Erasmus subsequently examined further MSS they all were Latin MSS: the foundation for the TR still remains his 7 Greek MSS. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Arcieri ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 22 12:32:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13010; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:32:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 11:34:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33ACBAA0.4C01@cryogen.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Question about greek behind KJV Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2970 On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: >TCers, > >Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated? No one really knows, but it is believed that the editions of Stephanus and Beza were the most important. Scrivener attempted to reconstruct the text they used, though I believe some criticisms have been leveled at that reconstruction. >According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English >Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was >only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis. I wouldn't put it quite that way. The earlier English versions were consulted for matter of English style, but the translation was based on the Greek (and the Latin, at some points). Also, although Tyndale's translation was not officially consulted, it is generally agreed that it had the greatest influence on the KJV. >Now it is generally held that the TR was used. But the term Textus >Receptus came from a publisher's blurb in the Elzevir's 2nd edition GNT >of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611. To say that the KJV translators worked from the TR is technically an anachronism -- but to say that they worked from a text of the TR *type* is perfectly correct. Stephanus, Elzevir, and Beza all used texts that were very nearly identical with the editions of Erasmus, which was the original TR. For proof of this, observe that all of them include 1 John 5:7-8 -- a reading with almost no support from the Greek manuscripts. >My current understanding is that the Greek text behind the KJV was the >Stephanus 1551. Is this correct? I have also heard others say that it >was an edition published by Theodore Beza... As mentioned, we don't really *know*. There is clear evidence that multiple editions were used. I believe it was Scrivener (who ought to know) who claimed that Beza's edition was the most important. >The Stephanus editions are revisions of Erasmus's text which he >initially rushed out the door using only a hand full of late manuscripts >and then made some corrections using the Complutum Polyglot. > >Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition? The *primary* manuscripts were 2e 2ap 1r. For the first edition he also consulted 1eap. For later editions he looked at a number of other manuscripts such as 4. But these had influence only on isolated readings. So the *basic* answer is that Erasmus used 2 influenced by 1, except in the Apocalypse, where he used 1 influenced by the Vulgate. (In fact, as is well known, the last six verses of the Apocalypse are taken straight from the Vulgate.) I hope this helps. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 22 14:11:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13152; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:11:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706221813.OAA14315@aus-a.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Question about greek behind KJV Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2673 Andrew: At least four Greek texts were consulted 1. the 1550 edition of Robert Stephens (Stephanus/Estienne) 2. The 1589 edition by Beza 3. The Complutesian polyglot done under Cardinal Ximes at Alcala 4. the various editons done by Erasmus Frederick Scriven dicusses their various usages in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible pages c-ciii At 02:39 PM 6/22/97 +0900, you wrote: >TCers, > >Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated? > >According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English >Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was >only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis. > >Now it is generally held that the TR was used. But the term Textus >Receptus came from a publisher's blurb in the Elzevir's 2nd edition GNT >of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611. > >My current understanding is that the Greek text behind the KJV was the >Stephanus 1551. Is this correct? I have also heard others say that it >was an edition published by Theodore Beza... > >The Stephanus editions are revisions of Erasmus's text which he >initially rushed out the door using only a hand full of late manuscripts >and then made some corrections using the Complutum Polyglot. > >Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition? > >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.cryogen.com/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 IHSOUS KURIOS! >+--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 22 14:13:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13184; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:13:28 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:15:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question about greek behind KJV In-Reply-To: <33AD7CF7.6040@total.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: 1016 On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > As per the Greek texts used by the KJV translators, they primarily used > Beza's 1589 edition (as well as the preceeding Greek/Latin editions of > Beza), follwed by Stephanus 1550 ed.; A small correction: according to Scrivener, the Beza 1598 edition was the primary TR text used by the KJV translators: "Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach." -- F.H.A. Scrivener, _The NT in Greek acc. to the text followed in the AV, together with the variations adopted in the RV_ (Cambridge, 1908), p.vii _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 15:03:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13277; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:03:33 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9706221904.AA17938@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:05:48 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Mal 1:3 variant? 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: 450 In a recent discussion elsewhere, I have seen a claim that the Peshitta text of Mal 1:2-3 reads "Jacob I loved, but Esau I did not honor" as opposed to the MT's clear "Esau I hated." My personal library is in boxes a thousand miles from my present location, and BHS shows no variant in this clause. Does anybody have more information about this purported reading? Thanks, Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 22 16:16:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA00298; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:16:11 -0400 Message-Id: <9706222118.AA07362@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Translation of Lk 1.28 Date: Dim, 22 Jun 97 22:20:54 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 3774 In Lk 1.28 we find the Greek expression: CHAIRE KECHARITOMENH. I have looked at the way KECHARITOMENH is translated in the old versions, and there are a few questions I ask myself. Literally, it is a passive participle : "gratified one", "one to whom grace was done/given". It is a passage where the Syriac and Latin traditions concur in having the same translation, which is not literal. My question is: in such a case where the Greek text is difficult, and where apparently it seems necessary to translate in a non-literal way, what can explain the agreement of remote traditions? syp : shlom lekh, MALYAT TAYBUTHO "peace to you, full of grace" Both old syriac versions "desunt" for this verse. lat. vulgate + most old latin mss : have, GRATIA PLENA "Hail, full of grace". The only exceptions in the old latin tradition are: - d: have benedicta "hail, blessed one" (a different non-literal translation). - q e : ave gratificata "hail, gratified one" (literal transl. of the Greek). Several other witnesses translate in the same way. In Arabic, the Arabic Diatessaron, the Alexandrian vulgate of the XIIIth century and ms Sinai Arabic 122 have equivalent translations to that of syp. Lectionary Sinai Arabic 133 has the same translation: "as-salaam `alayki mumtaliyat an-na`mat" which means "the peace on you, the one filled with grace". This lectionary is apparented to ms Sin. Arb. 71, but this "ancester" has a translation derived from Greek: "IfraHi ya muqaddasat" which means "rejoice, o Holy one". "Rejoice" clearly comes from "chaire", and "holy one" is probably another embarrassed translation from the greek. The shift from the translation of ms 71 to the one of ms 133 can be a point in the demonstration that ms 133 comes from a revision using the Syriac peshitto. Other witnesses translating "full of grace" are citations by Ephrem, and several Gospel harmonies (persian, latin, dutch, middle english... Such a translation, not literal but clearly recognizable, probably points to a connection between the Latin and the Syriac traditions. I don't want to jump too quickly on Tatian, there are may be other possibilities such as common translation techniques, common exegetical traditions... I has even been suggested that the latin versions had their origins in Antioch: Metzger, EVNT, p. 288 mentions this but seems to prefer the explanation involving Tatian "bringing Western readings from Rome to the East", but readings are not tranlsations... and Metzger adds directly that the most probable origin for the Latin versions is North Africa. Is it possible that in this last place, there might have been Syriac influences? To complete the documentation, other versions that DON'T translate in that way are: - the syropalestinian version: shilam lekhi, Hasidtha (peace to you, favorized one) - as I mentioned, Sin. Arb 71 most probably comes directly from Greek. - in Arabic again, the malkite version of the XIth century (oldest ms: Sin. Arb. 69) has: "as-salaam laki, ayyuhaa al-man`am `alayhaa" which is to be translated: "the peace to you, o the one upon whom is the grace". - the sahidic version has "rejoice, the one who found grace". Another non-literal translation, showing that the expression is difficult in Greek, but a different one from the syro-latin tradition. - the gothic version: "rejoice, of grace favorized". _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 22 16:20:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA00323; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:20:34 -0400 Message-Id: <9706222122.AA07715@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Mal 1:3 variant? Date: Dim, 22 Jun 97 22:25:19 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 1059 >In a recent discussion elsewhere, I have seen a claim that the >Peshitta text of Mal 1:2-3 reads "Jacob I loved, but Esau I did not >honor" as opposed to the MT's clear "Esau I hated." My personal >library is in boxes a thousand miles from my present location, and >BHS shows no variant in this clause. Does anybody have more >information about this purported reading? > I have looked in two editions of the peshitta, but both show a literal rendition of the hebrew text at that place: "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated". Unfortunately, I don't have the Leiden edition here, so I can't guarantee that the variant you mention doesn't exist in several syriac mss. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 22 19:43:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00667; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:43:33 -0400 Message-ID: <33AE4200.5065@sn.no> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:29:36 -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: Question about greek behind KJV References: <33ACBAA0.4C01@cryogen.com> 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: 18892 Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: > > TCers, > > Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated? > > According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English > Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was > only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis. In the Preface of the TBS Greek NT we find that "The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the English Authorised Version of 1611". Dr. Edward Hills referred to the words used in the title page of the AV, when he wrote: "The original tongues referred to in the title were the current printed Hebrew Bibles for the Old Testament and Beza`s printed Greek Testament for the New. The "former translations" mentioned there include not only the five previous English versions.....but also the Douai Version, the Latin versions of Tremellius and Beza, and several Spanish, French, and Italian versions. The King James Version, however, is mainly a revision of the Bishops` Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale`s Bible" (KJV Defended, p.215). H.W.Hoare writes: "With regard to the New Testament, the companies appear not to have confined themselves exclusively to any one existing text, but to have made use of much the same materials as were accessible to Tyndale, and to have attached also great weight to the modifications which had been introduced by Beza into the texts of Erasmus and of Henry Stephens" (The Evolution of the English Bible, London 1902, p.252). =20 > Now it is generally held that the TR was used. But the term Textus > Receptus came from a publisher's blurb in the Elzevir's 2nd edition GNT > of 1633, and the KJV was published in 1611. Even though it is clear that the "name" "Received Text" did not appear in any edition before that of the Elzevirs, all editions with virtually the same text as that of the Elzevirs are normally referred to as the Textus Receptus. Besides, the announcement was not intended as a new name or title, it was written in the Elzevir-edition only to refer to something which already was a fact, namely that "this is the text now recognized/received by all". It may have been an overstatement, but nevertheless it shows that this text was at least a standard in most circles (outside of the Roman church). It was in fact the _received_ text. The *announcement* in the Elzevir-edition was just that! The Elzevirs stated what they did because their edition contained the text which was *already* "received". The KJV was published in 1611 and the second Elzevir-edition with the "TR-announcement" did not appear until 1633. This sounds like the KJV was *not* based on the TR. But the "TR" refers primarily to the *form* of the text rather than to some particular *edition* of that form. The form was fundamentally the same with the Erasmus and Stephens editions. Thus, to speak of the "TR" as something that was brought on the scene in 1633, is not at all fair to the actual situation. There *are*, however, _minor_ differences between the TR editions of the Reformation, but the KJV-translators did not use only _one_ Greek source for their NT. They used a *variety* of the "TR", namely, a Greek text constructed on the basis of the Beza and Stephens editions, in comparison with other "TR-editions/translations". This also shows that they did not *uncritically* accept one particular source or just one edition. In this respect, the KJV-translators functioned as "textual critics". They even introduced a few readings of minor importance from Latin sources. In fact, they made their own "TR", their exact NT-basis was not in complete harmony with *any* printed Greek edition at the time. =20 > My current understanding is that the Greek text behind the KJV was the > Stephanus 1551. Is this correct? I have also heard others say that it > was an edition published by Theodore Beza... (See above) > > The Stephanus editions are revisions of Erasmus's text which he > initially rushed out the door using only a hand full of late manuscript= s > and then made some corrections using the Complutum Polyglot. > > Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition? > It should be clear today, especially after the studies by Bentley, Jonge, and others, on Erasmus and his text, that the implications drawn from the "rushing out" of the first edition of Erasmus, and his use of only a hand full of late MSS, can no longer be maintained. K.W.Clark, in his article "Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2" (Studia Evangelica, 1959, p.749-56), brought out a few interesting points about Erasmus and his first editon. I quote: "Some have held that it [cod. 2] was written in the fifteenth century, not long before Erasmus used it. The recent personal examination left no doubt that Gregory`s twelfth-century dating is right, and that we must evaluate the work of Erasmus on this basis". He continues: ".....Erasmus was not guilty, as often accused, of resting his text upon a manuscript of later date and of greater corruption. .....there is no _a priori_ assurance that his twelfth-century copy was better than a later one, or that a manuscript of the fifteenth century would have been substantially inferior". "Indeed, among manuscripts after about 600 A.D. there is seldom a substantial difference to be observed except for local or family resemblance". "Erasmus may be defended even against his own oft-quoted admission of haste. [Footnote: "... praecip fuit verius quam editum". It is not clear that Erasmus meant that he had been careless or negligent in preparing the text. The context suggests rather that he was dissatisfied with the haste and pressure of the printer. In any case, typographical errors are not properly to be charged to Erasmus]. Suppose that he had taken ten years instead of ten months; could the result have been much different, under the circumstances? A case in point is the Complutensian New Testament, praised by many for the care and time expended as well as for the superior manuscript sources borrowed and bought". ".....Scrivener quite rightly noted that "the text it [the Complutensian] exhibits does not widely differ from that of most codices written from the tenth century downwards". It is true that the Erasmus text is largely a printing of Codex 2, just as the Westcott-Hort text is largely a printing of Codex B; yet the Erasmus text is a typical Byzantine text and is the only sort of text conceivable two centuries before John Fell and John Mill" (p.750-52). Clark further notes: "We should not attribute to Erasmus the creation of a "received text", but only the transmission from a manuscript text already commonly received to a printed form in which this text would continue to prevail for three centuries more" (p.752). Then he goes on to discuss some select passages in which Erasmus made changes by way of notes in Codex 2. The passages (in Luke) selected for illustration are the more significant readings dealt with by Erasmus. Clark discovered in his investigation of Codex 2 that several of the changes made by Erasmus has later been attested by subsequent MS finds. Let me qoute just one example: "At Luke 5,16 the scribe wrote simply that Jesus was in the desert areas praying, as the specific term UPOXWRWN was omitted. Erasmus inserted this in the margin, and this change is now well approved". Here we find Erasmus at work as a textual critic. Clark found that the notes done by Erasmus in Codex 2 demonstrate that the first edition of Erasmus was not solely based on this codex and his supplied notes. He concludes his paper with these words: "The instances here cited from the Gospel of Luke form adequate illustration of the surprising fact that the Erasmus edition is not a mere reproduction of Codex 2 as Erasmus revised it. Who was responsible for the gap: Froben, or the Lutheran John Oecolampadius of Weinberg, or Nikolas Gerbel? Or did Erasmus make oral and later revision of his own work? It is even possible that the basic text prepared by Erasmus was subject to collaborative revision, and that the 1516 edition was not solely the work of Erasmus" (p.756). I think these statements and the investigation by Clark, shows that we should not be quick to pass judgment on Erasmus` work. It is, after all, several hundred years since Erasmus prepared his edition, and much material that was available to Erasmus may not be available at all today! The competence of Erasmus` as a textual critic is clearly seen in his "Annotationes in Novum Testamentum". Jerry H. Bentley writes about the "Annotationes", stating: "One surprising feature common to virtually all studies of Erasmus` scriptural labors is the failure to examine closely his _Annotationes....._. Heretofore only a few of the _Annotations_ have excited much scholarly interest..... .....and since the _annotations_ served for Erasmus purposes similar to those served today by the footnote and critical apparatus, the appendix and excursus.......it seems rather odd that scholars have not focused more attention on them before now. In fact the _Annotations_ can yield a great deal of information, not only about Erasmus` competence as a textual critic, but also about his general awareness of textual problems,.....". (Erasmus` _Annotationes in Novum Testamentum_ and the Textual Criticism of the Gospels, Archive f=FCr Reformationsgeschichte, No.67, 1976). In a footnote Bentley lists several earlier studies on the Annotations, and notes with reference to a chapter on it by A. Rabil: "Like all of the other studies listed in this note, Rabil is most interested in Erasmus` theological notes". This indicates that modern scholars in general have not given much consideration to the fact that Erasmus was a competent textual critic. In another article by Bentley on Erasmus and TC, we read: "....Erasmus was a remarkably astute textual critic. His _Annotations to the New Testament_ reveal that he was well aware of the many paths - some of them rather beaten tracks - leading to textual corruption in the pre-Gutenberg era. They reveal further that in the light of his well-developed critical faculty he was able to tread the largely unmarked road of textual criticism without himself straying down too many of those false paths. He employed advanced techniques, including the principle of the harder reading, for isolating error and recovering a pure text of the New Testament" (Erasmus, Jean Le Clerc, and the Principle of the Harder Reading, Renaissance Quarterly 31, 1978, p. 320). It is of importance to note that even though Erasmus did have objections to several "TR-readings", he did not let that influence the actual text he printed. He commented upon several readings in his Annotations, in which he disfavored readings which he himself had adopted into his text. He was led by a kind of "common faith" in the traditional text which was found in the current Greek MSS. His text-critical ideas did not influence his text much. Thus, Erasmus separated between TC and printed text. His method of TC was very moderate when it came to introduce into the text readings that departed from the generally accepted form of Greek text. Often we hear TCers referring to the "few and late MSS" used by Erasmus. But several of the "late" readings favored by Erasmus have been attested in subsequent time by far older MSS. Not to mention the great number of Byzantine MSS that has appeared since the time of Erasmus. This evidence attests even more to Erasmus` edition(s). Erasmus may have had "few" MSS at his disposal according to today`s standard, nevertheless his text was later attested by the great *majority* of MSS! And clearly, the text he produced from the "few" MSS was even in harmony with the great majority of Greek MSS at his own time. Let us now turn to one of the experts on Erasmian studies, Henk J. de Jonge. In his article "Novum Testamentum a Nobis Versum: The Essence of Erasmus` Edition of the New Testament", Jonge emphasizes the importance of the Latin part of the first edition. In so doing, Jonge raises a few important points that may be of some relevance to our discussion here. He writes: ".....that the aim of the _Novum Instrumentum_ [i.e. the 1516 edition] was not originally an edition of the Greek New Testament, is evident from what is known of the preparations for the work. It is established, and generally accepted, that Erasmus had been working on the text of the New Testament since 1504, and had been studying Greek manuscripts for this purpose..... His goal now was to make a new Latin translation on the basis of Greek manuscripts..... By 1506 at the latest Erasmus had completed his new translation of Paul`s Epistles, and not later than 1509 he had made a new version of the Gospels....." (Journal of Theological Studies, vol.35, part 2, 1984, p.402). >From this it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a "truism" that Erasmus based his first edition on "just a hand full of Greek MSS". Erasmus had plenty of time for the investigation of Greek MSS. At the final stage of the preparation he may have *used* just a few MSS. But it is clear from the facts noted by Jonge that Erasmus did not *base* his edition on just "a few" MSS. It is a known fact that he travelled all over Europe visiting libraries and gathering information on Greek MSS. It is unfair to assert that the Erasmus edition necessarily is based on "just a few late MSS", when there are indications that he had a wide knowledge of variant readings in MSS. Most certainly he must have gathered hundreds of notes on his travels. Besides, we know very little with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard to all the sources used by Erasmus. He *may* have used *many* MSS instead of "a few". If Erasmus had been working on the text of the NT since 1504, *twelve years* ahead of the publication of his first edition, it is only logical to conclude that he must have had knowledge of variants in MSS far beyond those exhibited in the "few late" MSS he "used" in the final stage. When Erasmus saw that the Greek MSS he found throughout Europe was virtually identical in text to the ones at his disposal at the time of printing, he did not hesitate to use the latter. He began his work with the printed edition at Basel in 1515, and he had there five Greek MSS at his disposal. In addition, he must have had notes and maybe other sources available. He had throughly studied the Church Fathers which had made him well acquainted with textual variants. If Erasmus already by the year 1506 had translated the Epistles of Paul and by 1509 had translated the Gospels _from the Greek MSS_, then it is not hard to at least assume that he had compared the MSS with which he had been working. Further in the above mentioned article by de Jonge, we learn that Erasmus had not made his own recension of the Greek text by the time of the printed edition. So even though he had collected readings and studied MSS, he did not make his own recension. His text was not his, but the currently available form of the Greek text at the time. Jonge writes: "The truth is that he never made any such recension". Some have asserted that he did, but the results of Jonge`s study indicate that this assertion is wrong. Jonge`s contention is, in fact, that the *primary* reason for Erasmus` edition was to make available a new Latin translation of the NT based on the *Greek* MSS instead of the Latin. Jonge also says that Erasmus used not four or five, "but seven Greek manuscripts, for the edition of 1516: three which went to the printer and four which he merely collated" (p.404). Erasmus made notes in the MSS he sent to the printer. In his subsequent four editions he introduced corrections. So by the time the KJV-translators prepared their work, they had a "developed" and a "refined" "TR" available for use. Here is a rather interesting citation from de Jonge`s article: ".....we must....bear in mind that if Erasmus had had more time and had found manuscripts of the now preferable Egyptian type, he would certainly not have used them. On the contrary, he regarded the older Egyptian text form as having been deliberately brought into conformity with the Latin Vulgate, and thus as corrupt and to be rejected. If this (false) theory is borne in mind, we can only expect Erasmus to have edited the Byzantine text" (p.410). I would strongly suggest to all on this list who have not already done so, to read the studies presented by de Jonge. They are very instructive and, even more important, corrective, to many "established" misconceptions regardig the edition(s) of Erasmus among TCers. At the same time I must warn that he seems to place all too much emphasis on the Latin part of Erasmus` edition, even to the point that he believes the Greek column only had the function as a means by which to verify the accuracy of the Latin. I quote: "The true purpose of the Greek text which he offered is almost always missed. The aim of this text was to give the reader of the Latin text column, the opportunity to check whether the surprising and startling new phrasing of the new translation was really based on the Greek. The Greek was designed as an aid to the verification of the accuracy of the unfamiliar Latin expressions..... It was not the textual criticism of the Greek, but the presence of the Greek at all, with which he was concerned" (p.410). Of course, de Jonge states this influenced by his own textual preferences which is not the TR or the Byzantine text. There is at least one major problem with Jonge`s statements here. I am talking now in terms of textual criticism. If the Greek was *not* in accordance with the Latin, there would have showed up problems in the mind of the careful reader. For if the reader reads something in the Latin which is not in the Greek, or something in the Greek which is not in the Latin, it probably would have caused questions regarding the accuracy of the Latin translation. So the textual quality of the Greek (i.e. that it has the same readings as the Latin) must have been an important aspect in Erasmus` mind. I have not, however, investigated Erasmus` Latin compared to his Greek, to verify this. But at least it seems to be the logical implication. Another point here seems to be (as already noted above) that since Erasmus had worked several years on his Latin translation based on *Greek MSS*, he must also have obtained a good insight into the readings of the Greek MSS and thus he must have developed a text-critical capability to approve or disprove of the MSS he would send to the printer. Finally, I must also state that, while Jonge defends Erasmus against some oft-repeated misconceptions, he does not at all favor the form of Greek text published by Erasmus, i.e. the "TR". -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 23 04:59:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA01450; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:59:41 -0400 Message-ID: From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:00:41 GMT Subject: Re: Mal 1:3 variant? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1188 Following up on Jean Valentin's message, there is no significant variant reading in the Leiden edition of Malachi, nor (unsurprisingly) is there any reference to such a reading in Anthony Gelston's excellent analysis of the Peshitta of the Dodekapropheton. Mal 1.3 is cited by Paul in Romans 9.13, but the Peshitta text of Rom 9.13 has exactly the same verb forms as Mal 1.3, although there is a minor change in word order ("Jacob" is placed before "I have loved"). Aland and Juckel's edition of the Syriac translations of Romans gives no variant verb form in any of the versions or citations listed. (Kerschensteiner has no "Old Syriac" citation of this verse.) In other words "I hated" , Syr "snith", is unchallenged in the Syriac tradition, and the contrary claim advanced elsewhere is without justification! Hope this helps, David Taylor ********************************************************************* Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. ********************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 23 13:22:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02366; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:22:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:25:12 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970623132510.396f2a8a@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: Erasmus' MSS (was: KJV Greek) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 843 At 02:39 PM 6/22/97 +0900, Andrew Kulikovsky asked (among other questions): > >Does anyone know what manuscripts Erasmus used to create his edition? > I haven't seen any specific answer(s) in the subsequent responses, and although de Jonge's article has been mentioned, one (and an addendum) which has not is: C.C. Tarelli, "Erasmus' Manuscripts of the Gospels," JThS 44 (1943), pp. 155-162; a brief supplement appeared in the same journal, 48 (1947), pp. 207-208. Tarelli specifies (as I recall) 5 mss., all VIII cent. and later. They are MSS 1 (eap; XII), 2 (e), 2 (ap; XII), and E (07; ep; VIII for e & IX-X for p); he wonders if "Delta" (Codex Sangallensis [037]; IX cent.) might also have been consulted. Elsewhere, I have also seen MS 4 (ap; XV cent.) listed as one used by the Rotterdamer. --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 24 08:00:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04404; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:00:52 -0400 Message-ID: <33AFE1F1.21DD@total.net> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:04:17 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC-LIST@SHEMESH.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Erasmus 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: 7616 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: > > > > > TCers, > > > > Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated? > > > > According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English > > Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was > > only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis. Mr. Evensen, I'm not quite sure why you thought it necessary to post such a long post in response to Mr. Kulikovsky. The questions were rather simple - what MSS did Erasmus use, and what was the Greek text behind the KJV. I suspect you felt it necessary to defend the honour of Erasmus and the KJV translators as scholarly. Was this the case? And who denied this? For example: > There *are*, however, _minor_ differences between the TR editions of the > Reformation, but the KJV-translators did not use only _one_ Greek source > for their NT. They used a *variety* of the "TR", namely, a Greek text > constructed on the basis of the Beza and Stephen's editions, in comparison > with other "TR-editions/translations". This also shows that they did not > *uncritically* accept one particular source or just one edition. In this > respect, the KJV-translators functioned as "textual critics". They even > introduced a few readings of minor importance from Latin sources. > In fact, they made their own "TR", their exact NT-basis was not in > complete harmony with *any* printed Greek edition at the time. The KJV translators have acted as editors (not "textual critics") just as modern-day translators do. No problem there. HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical. You cannot defend them at this point, since there was (and is) no good reason to depart from the Greek text. > > It should be clear today, especially after the studies by Bentley, Jonge, > and others, on Erasmus and his text, that the implications drawn from the > "rushing out" of the first edition of Erasmus, and his use of only a hand > full of late MSS, can no longer be maintained. Oh really?? In total, no more than 10 months could have been devoted by Erasmus, Froben and his associates to the task of editing and printing this GNT. Erasmus left Basel for England in March, 1515: two months later he returned to Basel where discussions with Froben resume. As late as September 1515 there still were no definite plans as to the eventual format of the work. This is rushing Helge, even by the mouth of Erasmus. > > I think these statements and the investigation by Clark, shows that we > should not be quick to pass judgment on Erasmus` work. It is, after > all, several hundred years since Erasmus prepared his edition, and much > material that was available to Erasmus may not be available at all today! For example?? And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out: "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so little" (p. 752). > In fact the _Annotations_ can yield a > great deal of information, not only about Erasmus` competence as a > textual critic, but also about his general awareness of textual > problems,.....". Fine - the Annotations shed light on his ad hoc criticism and text-editing. So? This does not change the fact of the MSS he used and how he used them, nor the fact that the entire production took 6-10 months to complete. But more on his text later... > He was led by a kind of "common faith" in the traditional text which was > found in the current Greek MSS. Hogwash. You've been reading Hills too long. Please read biography of Erasmus by J. J. Managan and let me know where you find ANY reference to a 'common faith' guiding him to do anything. Was it this 'common faith' that led him to dedicate his GNT to Leo X, the SAME Pope who condemned Luther?? > Often we hear TCers referring to the "few and late MSS" used by Erasmus. > But several of the "late" readings favored by Erasmus have been attested > in subsequent time by far older MSS. Not to mention the great number of > Byzantine MSS that has appeared since the time of Erasmus. This evidence > attests even more to Erasmus` edition(s). Erasmus may have had "few" MSS > at his disposal according to today`s standard, nevertheless his > text was later attested by the great *majority* of MSS! And clearly, the > text he produced from the "few" MSS was even in harmony with the great > majority of Greek MSS at his own time. I agree (for arguments sake) that subsequent discoveries have demonstrated the Byzantine character of the TR. And today, the texts of Hodges/Farstad as well as Robinson/Pierpont agree even more - far more in fact - with the great *majority* of MSS than ANY edition of the TR. So why bother with the TR?? > >From this it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a "truism" that > Erasmus based his first edition on "just a hand full of Greek MSS". How so?? Where does de Jonge state that Erasmus used many MSS (20? 30?) in his first ed? What documentation do you have that clearly identifies any other MSS used than the 7 I mentioned? > Besides, we know very little > with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard to all the sources > used by Erasmus. He *may* have used *many* MSS instead of "a few". And he *may* not have. Enough with these impossible inferences and wild speculation. Don't you have ANY documentation whatsoever? Is your entire defense of Erasmus simply a hypothesis based upon a supposition from a possible inference?? > If Erasmus had been working on the text of the NT since 1504, *twelve > years* ahead of the publication of his first edition, it is only logical > to conclude that he must have had knowledge of variants in MSS far beyond > those exhibited in the "few late" MSS he "used" in the final stage. > When Erasmus saw that the Greek MSS he found throughout Europe was > virtually identical in text to the ones at his disposal at the time > of printing, he did not hesitate to use the latter. > He began his work with the printed edition at Basel in 1515, and he had > there five Greek MSS at his disposal. In addition, he must have had notes > and maybe other sources available. He had thoroughly studied the Church > Fathers which had made him well acquainted with textual variants. > Here you are trying to make Erasmus out to be some sort of 16th century Tischendorf, roaming the European libraries, collating many MSS and then bringing this mass of variants along with him to Froben's printing press. I'm sorry Helge, but this is nothing but wishful thinking. The fact is, his entire apparatus was probably no more than 7 Greek MSS, some Latin MSS and whatever notes he may have had of variant readings. His GNT bears witness to this. Just as Clark wrote, it took so long to do so little - and the little done was to simply make corrections in the margin and/or interlinear of his MSS and bring these MSS to Froben. And that's that. But in all reality Helge, why bother defending the TR so much?? After all, now that we have those magnificent volumes by von Soden (for the NT) and Hoskier (for the Apocalypse), AND we have two critical editions of the Byzantine text (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont) why bother with the TR at all?? Afetr all, you believe that the TR is a good Greek text because of its Byzantine character, no? And what about those wonderful non-Byzantine variants in the TR? I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why bother with the KJV? But that's another story... Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 24 20:25:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06688; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:25:29 -0400 Message-ID: <33B0EEFA.95F@sn.no> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:12:10 -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: Erasmus References: <33AFE1F1.21DD@total.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: 18197 Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > > Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > > Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: > > > > > > > > TCers, > > > > > > Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated? > > > > > > According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English > > > Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was > > > only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis. > > Mr. Evensen, > > I'm not quite sure why you thought it necessary to post such a long post in response to Mr. Kulikovsky. The > questions were rather simple - what MSS did Erasmus use, and what was the Greek text behind the KJV. I suspect > you felt it necessary to defend the honour of Erasmus and the KJV translators as scholarly. Was this the case? My lenghty response to that post was not due to necessity. But the manner in which the questions were formed reflects some widely-held scholarly opinion which, to my mind, is not wholly representative of the actual case. Much has been said of Erasmus and the KJV-translators by modern scholars, which simply is not based on a thorough investigation of the actual statements by Erasmus, nor on the situation in which these statements occurred, or on the Annotations to the NT by Erasmus. This is demonstrated by the studies by Jonge and others. In my opinion, these questions (about Erasmus and the KJV translators) should not be quickly answered before the whole picture of the actual situation is laid before the questioner. That was the reason for my lenghty response. You suspect that I "felt it necessary to defend the honour of Erasmus and the KJV translators as scholarly". Again, nothing was said due to necessity. But do you mean to tell me that they were *not* scholarly?? Of course not! I have learned from reading books and articles that Erasmus was one of the most learned and scholarly persons of his time. And that the KJV-translators were the most scholarly persons in the whole kingdom at the time. Is this wrong? Of course not. If it is true then, why can it not be a part of the information on the work of these persons? It is almost "second nature" to many modern scholars to talk about the so-called "blunders" of Erasmus and the KJV-translators, and their "inferior" textbase. Therefore it does not hurt with a little balance. These "established facts" ascertained by modern scholarship are repeated by bible translators and others as if they were Bible facts. The christian seeker of truth needs to be confronted with the *whole* picture on this issue. > And who denied this? For example: > > > There *are*, however, _minor_ differences between the TR editions of the > > Reformation, but the KJV-translators did not use only _one_ Greek source > > for their NT. They used a *variety* of the "TR", namely, a Greek text > > constructed on the basis of the Beza and Stephen's editions, in comparison > > with other "TR-editions/translations". This also shows that they did not > > *uncritically* accept one particular source or just one edition. In this > > respect, the KJV-translators functioned as "textual critics". They even > > introduced a few readings of minor importance from Latin sources. > > In fact, they made their own "TR", their exact NT-basis was not in > > complete harmony with *any* printed Greek edition at the time. > > The KJV translators have acted as editors (not "textual critics") just as modern-day translators do. No problem there. Is that to say that translators cannot at times act as textual critics in the course of their translation work? Is not critical judgment of readings a kind of textual criticism? Note that I did not say they *were* textual critics, but that they *functioned* as such *in this respect*. They were translators and editors but sometimes they made some "critical work" with regard to which readings they should adopt into the text. Note also that I placed "textual critics" within quotation marks, signifying that they were not textual critics in the normal sense. They just *acted* as such in certain instances. >HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical. Not necessarily so! The easiest thing for the translators to do was undoubtedly to just follow the Greek editions and not bother at all about other alternate readings. To my mind, the fact that they *did* bother about alternate readings, shows that they were *not* uncritical! > You cannot defend them at this point, since there was (and is) no good > reason to depart from the Greek text. That is not really the issue! Whether or not they were *right* in their decisions was not my concern in my previous post. The primary intention with my post was not to *defend* the KJV-translators. I may do so at a later opportunity. (But not at the cost of being thrown off the list!). Many scholars today make wrong decisions in critical matters, but that does not make them "unscholarly" _per se_! But as regards departing from the Greek text, let me say this: In NT translation, to depart from the Greek text is to depart from the original language text. In *Old Testament* translation there is a considerable number of instances in which translators depart from the OT original language text. I see no reason to depart from the traditional Hebrew text as many modern translators have done in several instances. I am aware of the so-called problems in the Masoretic Text that "must" be solved by consulting the *versions* (especially the LXX). The first OTTC work that comes to my mind is that of Ralph Klein (1974). He asserts, for example, that several Hebrew passages in 1. Samuel and Jeremiah must be corrected in accordance with the LXX, a *version*! Well, is not this textual criticism? You may say: "There is *reason* to depart from the original language text in those instances!". I would have replied: "Other competent scholars disagree!". Why is it "lawful" for OT TCers to correct *large passages* of the Hebrew text in accordance with the LXX, and "unscholarly" for the KJV translators to correct just *very small* portions of the Greek text in accordance with the Latin?? > > > > It should be clear today, especially after the studies by Bentley, Jonge, > > and others, on Erasmus and his text, that the implications drawn from the > > "rushing out" of the first edition of Erasmus, and his use of only a hand > > full of late MSS, can no longer be maintained. > > Oh really?? In total, no more than 10 months could have been devoted by Erasmus, Froben and his associates to > the task of editing and printing this GNT. Erasmus left Basel for England in March, 1515: two months later he > returned to Basel where discussions with Froben resume. As late as September 1515 there still were no definite > plans as to the eventual format of the work. This is rushing Helge, even by the mouth of Erasmus. Let me emphasize that the quoted words of mine above do not object to the fact that the first Erasmus-edition was "rushed out". I am talking about the *implications* drawn from that fact. We cannot any longer *imply*, for instance, that just because this edition was prepared in a hurry and "rushed" to the press, that its *text* therefore must be badly prepared. I do not believe that Erasmus would have sent MSS to the printer which did contain a text of which he could not approve. As Jonge has stated, he would not have approved of MSS which agreed with the Roman Vulgate. > > > > > I think these statements and the investigation by Clark, shows that we > > should not be quick to pass judgment on Erasmus` work. It is, after > > all, several hundred years since Erasmus prepared his edition, and much > > material that was available to Erasmus may not be available at all today! > > For example?? What about the Greek MSS which he used when he prepared his Latin translation, years before the publication of the 1516 edition, which MSS most scholars acknowledge to know little to nothing certain about, as regards their existence and history?? Very little att all can be said with any *certainty* with regard to the details involved in both the preparation and the publication of the Erasmus-edition. The word "facts" becomes a little too strong in this context! Note that I did not assert anything with any certainty in the above quoted statement. I said: "*may* not....". > > And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out: > > "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so > little" (p. 752). Well, I could not have quoted the whole article in my post. I doubt that the comment is so "pertinent" as you suppose. Clark is here particularly referring to the notes made by Erasmus in Codex 2. The sentence preceding the one you quoted says: "What Erasmus did to the text of Codex 2 was too slight to merit much concern or praise". My contention is not about how much Erasmus worked with that particular MS. If he did little to the text of this MS, it may be due to it being a good MS in his judgment. By the way, it is interesting to consider that many of the changes he *did* introduce into this MS was supported by later discoveries. That fact, to me, speaks of a careful criticism, and I doubt that we can find a parellel to this among modern scholars. I think that the following statement by Clark is even more "pertinent" to our discussion: "....these changes made by Erasmus have in most cases come to be supported by later discovery and research, so that as far as Erasmus went in editing Codex 2 he merits chiefly commendation rather than the customary condemnation" (p.755). One must also consider that this MS was not the only one Erasmus sent to the printer. I must conclude that the changes Erasmus made are a sign of he being in agreement with those part of the text which he did *not* change. The printer also made changes in the MS. Again in the words of Clark: "A revision written in by Erasmus was sometimes disregarded, and where Erasmus made no change the printer himself sometimes revised" (p.755). He also writes: "It is even possible that the basic text prepared by Erasmus was subject to collaborative revision, and that the 1516 edition was not solely the work of Erasmus" (p.756, also quoted in my previous post). As I indicated in my previous post, and earlier in this, I admit that this final process was done in haste. There is no doubt about that. My contention, however, has next to nothing to do with the printing-process, or his notes in Codex 2. As I clearly stated, it is the 10 to 12 years *prior to* the publication of the 1516 edition, while studying Greek MSS for his Latin translation, that formed his critical knowledge of readings and gave him opportunity to gather notes and information on MSS. The notes he gathered on his travels might not have influenced Codex 2 or the other codices he sent to the printer much. For if these MSS were essentially in agreement with those he found in his travels, what need would there be for introducing many new readings into their texts?? > > > > > In fact the _Annotations_ can yield a > > great deal of information, not only about Erasmus` competence as a > > textual critic, but also about his general awareness of textual > > problems,.....". > > Fine - the Annotations shed light on his ad hoc criticism and text-editing. So? This does not change the fact > of the MSS he used and how he used them, nor the fact that the entire production took 6-10 months to complete. > But more on his text later... Note that the words you have responded to above are not mine; I quoted J.H.Bentley. "The MSS he used"? You mean those he used the last few months before the publication of the printed edition!? But I am talking about those he "used" 10 to 12 years before that event. The latter would give him the necessary information on how to handle those he had available to send to the printer. > > > He was led by a kind of "common faith" in the traditional text which was > > found in the current Greek MSS. > > Hogwash. You've been reading Hills too long. Please read biography of Erasmus by J. J. Managan and let me > know where you find ANY reference to a 'common faith' guiding him to do anything. Was it this 'common faith' > that led him to dedicate his GNT to Leo X, the SAME Pope who condemned Luther?? We all know that "good godly men differ". The dedication to Leo had nothing to do with the form of the text. > > > Often we hear TCers referring to the "few and late MSS" used by Erasmus. > > But several of the "late" readings favored by Erasmus have been attested > > in subsequent time by far older MSS. Not to mention the great number of > > Byzantine MSS that has appeared since the time of Erasmus. This evidence > > attests even more to Erasmus` edition(s). Erasmus may have had "few" MSS > > at his disposal according to today`s standard, nevertheless his > > text was later attested by the great *majority* of MSS! And clearly, the > > text he produced from the "few" MSS was even in harmony with the great > > majority of Greek MSS at his own time. > > I agree (for arguments sake) that subsequent discoveries have demonstrated the Byzantine character of the TR. > And today, the texts of Hodges/Farstad as well as Robinson/Pierpont agree even more - far more in fact - with > the great *majority* of MSS than ANY edition of the TR. Praise God that someone did take on themselves to do the painstaking work of making the Byzantine text available in a handy format! > So why bother with the TR?? There are many non-Byzantine TR readings which can be defended on the basis of both external and internal evidences. > > > > > >From this it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a "truism" that > > Erasmus based his first edition on "just a hand full of Greek MSS". > > How so?? Where does de Jonge state that Erasmus used many MSS (20? 30?) > in his first ed? I never asserted that he did. Directly Erasmus did not base the 1516 edition on more than a few MSS. But indirectly, through knowledge of other MSS, it had a far broader MS base. To say that the Erasmus edition was based on "few and late" MSS sounds as if it has a weak MS base, which it has not. > What documentation do > you have that clearly identifies any other MSS used than the 7 I > mentioned? Again, I did not say that he used other MSS (as far as we know) at the time of printing or at the time just prior to the printing of the 1516 edition. > > > Besides, we know very little > > with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard to all the sources > > used by Erasmus. He *may* have used *many* MSS instead of "a few". > > And he *may* not have. Agreed. But here again I am not limiting my mention of "MSS used by Erasmus" to those he used at the time of printing. > Enough with these impossible inferences and wild speculation. Don't you > have ANY > documentation whatsoever? Is your entire defense of Erasmus simply a hypothesis based upon a supposition from > a possible inference?? Documentation? Well, I did not state anything with any degree of *certainty* regarding these matters. I have not tried to prove anything. As I said: "we know very little with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard to all the sources used by Erasmus". > > > If Erasmus had been working on the text of the NT since 1504, *twelve > > years* ahead of the publication of his first edition, it is only logical > > to conclude that he must have had knowledge of variants in MSS far beyond > > those exhibited in the "few late" MSS he "used" in the final stage. > > When Erasmus saw that the Greek MSS he found throughout Europe was > > virtually identical in text to the ones at his disposal at the time > > of printing, he did not hesitate to use the latter. > > He began his work with the printed edition at Basel in 1515, and he had > > there five Greek MSS at his disposal. In addition, he must have had notes > > and maybe other sources available. He had thoroughly studied the Church > > Fathers which had made him well acquainted with textual variants. > > > > Here you are trying to make Erasmus out to be some sort of 16th century Tischendorf, roaming the European > libraries, collating many MSS and then bringing this mass of variants along with him to Froben's printing > press. I'm sorry Helge, but this is nothing but wishful thinking. The fact is, his entire apparatus was > probably no more than 7 Greek MSS, some Latin MSS and whatever notes he may have had of variant readings. His > GNT bears witness to this. Just as Clark wrote, it took so long to do so little - and the little done was to > simply make corrections in the margin and/or interlinear of his MSS and bring these MSS to Froben. And that's > that. As stated above, he needed not introduce *many* variants if the great majority of the MSS he found throughout Europe was in substantial agreement with those he used (and approved of) at the time of printing. The notes he may have gathered on his travels did not make their way into Codex 2 or the other MSS he sent to the printer, in those instances where the notes *agreed* with these MSS. > But in all reality Helge, why bother defending the TR so much?? After all, now that we have those magnificent > volumes by von Soden (for the NT) and Hoskier (for the Apocalypse), AND we have two critical editions of the > Byzantine text (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont) why bother with the TR at all?? Afetr all, you believe that > the TR is a good Greek text because of its Byzantine character, no? And what about those wonderful > non-Byzantine variants in the TR? As I said, I believe many of the non-Byz. readings *can* be defended on TC principles. (If I add an example, I start a new debate; I choose to avoid that for now). > > I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why > bother with the KJV? But that's another > story... Personally I like the KJV best. But why not use both? I also believe that the KJV can be defended against much of the criticism brought against it (I hope I do not start a kind of "KJV debate" here). Thanks so far.... -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jun 24 23:57:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06984; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:57:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:00:22 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: new short note X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970624235838.216f4cf8@mail.highland.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: 541 A new short note has been published in the Journal of Biblical Studies: A Text-Critical Reconstruction of Ezekiel 23:43 By Daryl F. Jefferies The Journal is located at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Just follow the Articles link. Note- you will need several of the Schoalrs Press fonts in order to read parts of this note. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jun 25 20:21:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA09744; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:21:30 -0400 Message-ID: <33B23F9F.4C8E@sn.no> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 03:08:31 -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: Erasmus: Addition 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: 1690 [addition to previous message] I wrote: >The notes he gathered on his travels might not have influenced Codex 2 >or the other codices he sent to the printer much. For if these MSS were >essentially in agreement with those he found in his travels, what need >would there be for introducing many new readings into their texts?? And: >[Erasmus] needed not introduce *many* variants if the great >majority of the MSS he found throughout Europe was in substantial >agreement with those he used (and approved of) at the time of printing. >The notes he may have gathered on his travels did not make their way >into >Codex 2 or the other MSS he sent to the printer, in those instances >where the notes *agreed* with these MSS. To add a point which was not clearly stated in my previous post: The changes he *did* introduce into Codex 2 (and the other MSS) may, in fact, have been based primarily on the MSS he studied in connection with his Latin translation. If that is the case, it is not even necessary to assume that he gathered notes on his travels or his visits to libraries, but only that he gathered information from the Greek MSS he worked with when preparing his Latin text. He certainly must have had the time and opportunity to do so, whether he actually did it or not. It is unlikely that all the changes that were later attested by MS discoveries and research, should have been introduced by Erasmus *without* any MS attestation. *Some* of them, of course, *might* have been editorial on the part of Erasmus. But I believe that the likelihood goes in the direction of he having been in possession of MS evidence for most of the changes he introduced. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 26 05:27:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA10602; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 05:27:39 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:28:47 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Cologne fragment Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 895 In a letter T.C. Skeat tells me I should know of "a small fragment of the Egerton Gospel [that] turned up in Cologne some years ago", and is thought to be a part of the same MS as the more well known Papyrus Egerton 2 ("The Unknown Gospel"). In light of some palaeographical features of this Cologne fragment, Skeat hints that it might be necessary to re-think the 2nd cent dating of Egerton 2. Skeat doesn't mention exactly *where/who* in Cologne to contact, and I've not yet been able to pick up any refs to publications on this fragment. I can always write back to him, but I wonder if someone out there more quickly can point me to a publication or to where it is in Cologne that this fragment is held. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 26 07:29:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA10724; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:29:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:31:34 GMT Subject: Re: Cologne fragment Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 252 For edition (Papyrologia Coloniensia, vii, Kolner Papyri 6) and bibliography, see J.K. Elliott, _The Apocryphal NT_, p. 38f. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 26 07:51:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA10779; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:51:44 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:54:40 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: Mal 1:3 variant? X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1604 > Subject: Re: Mal 1:3 variant? > Date: Dim, 22 Jun 97 22:25:19 +0200 > From: Jean VALENTIN > To: > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > >In a recent discussion elsewhere, I have seen a claim that the > >Peshitta text of Mal 1:2-3 reads "Jacob I loved, but Esau I did not > >honor" as opposed to the MT's clear "Esau I hated." My personal > >library is in boxes a thousand miles from my present location, and > >BHS shows no variant in this clause. Does anybody have more > >information about this purported reading? > > > I have looked in two editions of the peshitta, but both show a literal > rendition of the hebrew text at that place: "Jacob I loved, and Esau I > hated". Unfortunately, I don't have the Leiden edition here, so I can't > guarantee that the variant you mention doesn't exist in several syriac > mss. > > > _________________________________________________ > Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique > e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 > _________________________________________________ > "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est > inutilisable" > "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" > _________________________________________________ > > Codex Ambrosianus upon which the Leiden edition is based also reads "Esau I hated". > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 26 11:49:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00282; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:49:20 -0400 Message-ID: <33B28FC8.82FA564E@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:50:32 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b4 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Cologne fragment X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1037 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > In a letter T.C. Skeat tells me I should know of "a small fragment of > the Egerton Gospel [that] turned up in Cologne some years ago", and > is thought to be a part of the same MS as the more well known > Papyrus Egerton 2 ("The Unknown Gospel"). In light of some > palaeographical features of this Cologne fragment, Skeat hints that > it might be necessary to re-think the 2nd cent dating of Egerton 2. > Skeat doesn't mention exactly *where/who* in Cologne to contact, > and I've not yet been able to pick up any refs to publications on > this fragment. I can always write back to him, but I wonder if > someone out there more quickly can point me to a publication or to > where it is in Cologne that this fragment is held. > Larry Hurtado > > Larry: I believe this is P.Koln 255 and was published by Michael Gronewald 1987 and later by Jon B. Daniels. I am sorry I don't have my reference handy but I am sure that Koester mentions it in his ACG. Jack Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jun 26 13:56:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01007; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:56:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:59:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Kurzgefasste Liste Question 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: 600 In the 1994 edition of the Kurzgefasste Liste I notice that MS 0305 (a single leaf fragment from Matthew) has no date assigned to it. I presume the date was left out accidentally. Can anyone from Muenster or who has access to the editio princeps of this fragment inform me as to its presumed date? _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 26 21:33:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02441; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:33:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:36:23 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: kjv only X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970626213432.2f375f0c@mail.highland.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: 405 I would appreciate any bibliography anyone could offer debunking the KJV only idea. If there is an electronic version this would be even better (speed is of the essence here). thanks, jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 27 08:32:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA03338; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:32:53 -0400 Message-ID: <33B3BABB.1B4E@cryogen.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:06:03 +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: kjv only References: <1.5.4.16.19970626213432.2f375f0c@mail.highland.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: 1269 Jim West wrote: > I would appreciate any bibliography anyone could offer debunking the KJV > only idea. If there is an electronic version this would be even better > (speed is of the essence here). > DA Carson's book, "The KJV Only Debate: A Plea for Realism" completely destroys this KJV/TR only idea. 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.cryogen.com/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 IHSOUS KURIOS! +--------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 27 10:53:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03717; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:53:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:54:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199706271454.JAA21537@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: kjv only Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 495 In reply to Jim West's request for bibio re the KJV-only debate, Andrew Kulikovsky rightly directed attention to D. A. Carson's classic "The KJV Only Debate: A Plea for Realism" [Baker, 1979]. To this may be added: James R. White, _The King James Only Controversy_ (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995). Not only does he reinforce and update Carson, but also deals with some of the recent KJV-only authors, such as Gail Riplinger. Overall a fine piece of work. Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 27 11:16:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03817; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:16:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706271513.LAA03987@aus-a.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: kjv only Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2321 Jim: That particular subject is a hobby of mine. I would recommend these books: Carson, Donald A. _The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism._ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. 123 pages. Custer, Stewart. _The Truth About the King James Version Controversy._ Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University Press, 1981. Lewis Jack P. _The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation._ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982. 451 pages. (there's also a second edition of this out) See especially Lewis's chapter on " Doctrinal Problems in the King James Version" Pirkel, Estus. _The 1611King James Bible: A Study._ Southhaven, Misssisspppi 1994. 674 pages. Price James A._The King James Only Controversy in American Fundamentalism Since 1950._ Chattanooga, Tennessee: Temple Baptist Seminary (Doctoral Dissertation), 1990. Walker, Ronald L. _The King James Controversy._ Little Rock, Arkansas: Heritage Baptist Temple, 1988. White, James R. _The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?_Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1995. In addition, Dr. James D. Price, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, here at Temple Baptist Seminary and Old Testament Editor of the New King James Version has written extensively concerning this subject and would be more than willing to steer you to other materials. His number is 423/493-4246 (office) and 423/ 894-6197 (home) Hope these help, if you need any more let me know Kevin W. Woodruff At 09:36 PM 6/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >I would appreciate any bibliography anyone could offer debunking the KJV >only idea. If there is an electronic version this would be even better >(speed is of the essence here). > >thanks, > >jim > >+++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology >Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at >http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm > >jwest@highland.net > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 27 11:37:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03909; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:37:11 -0400 Message-ID: <33B404FD.3288@total.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:22:53 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: kjv only References: <1.5.4.16.19970626213432.2f375f0c@mail.highland.net> <33B3BABB.1B4E@cryogen.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: 965 Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: > > Jim West wrote: > > > I would appreciate any bibliography anyone could offer debunking the KJV > > only idea. If there is an electronic version this would be even better > > (speed is of the essence here). > > > > DA Carson's book, "The KJV Only Debate: A Plea for Realism" completely > destroys this KJV/TR only idea. > > cheers, > Andrew > > +--------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS Jim, Carson's book is good but dates back to 79. A more recent book is "The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White. This is probably better since he deals more extensively with the recent KJV crowd (ie. Waite, R.I.P.linger etc.). White does favor the NA26 type of text, and so occasionally criticizes the Byz txt. From a Byz-txt priority position I would disagree, but this is minor in perspective of the goal of the book. Highly recommend it. Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 27 15:13:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04799; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:13:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:15:49 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: a fact X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970627151348.2e077b98@mail.highland.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: 4569 Here is something I hope you enjoy as much as I did. Jim [The story behind this... Apparently, there is a nutball who digs things out of his backyard and sends his "discoveries" to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with scientific names and insisting they are actual archeological finds. The bizarre truth is that this guy really exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway, what follows is a letter from the Smithsonian Institute in response to his submission of a recently discovered specimen.] Paleoanthropology Division Smithsonian Institute 207 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20078 Dear Sir: Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D," layer seven, next to the clothesline, post Hominid skull." We have given this specimen careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie." It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin: 1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone. 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids. 3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with that of a common domesticated canine (dog) than it is of the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that: A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed upon. B. Clams don't have teeth. It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to this Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you might happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your backyard. Additionally, we eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital, which you proposed within your last letter. Several of us on the staff are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" which make the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered, take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench. Yours in Science, Harvey Rowe Curator, Antiquities +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 27 16:21:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05006; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:21:24 -0400 Message-ID: <33B3C1FE.2123@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:37:01 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: kjv only References: <1.5.4.16.19970626213432.2f375f0c@mail.highland.net> <33B3BABB.1B4E@cryogen.com> <33B404FD.3288@total.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: 408 You might also request information from The Lockman Foundation (nasbinfo@aol.com) and The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (615-892-7722). A few years ago I participated in a series of TV debates for Ankerberg over the issue, and the other (more illustrious) participants included James White, Ken Barker and Art Farstad. The tapes are available, and no doubt other information as well. Don Wilkins From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jun 27 22:58:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05790; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:58:28 -0400 From: habrehm@ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <33B42A1E.6677@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:01:28 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-NC320 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: kjv only References: <1.5.4.16.19970626213432.2f375f0c@mail.highland.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: 987 The best statement I have found is the preface to the 1611 KJV, "The translators to the Reader." There the KJV translators themselves affirm that every translation is the word of God and that they expected their translation to be revised. Straight from the horses' mouths! You can find a link to an electronic version of this preface by visiting my home page [address is listed below]; go to the link where I provide my statment on Scripture, then find the link to the preface in the text of that statement. -- H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of NT 3000 6th Avenue Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem. Fort Worth, Texas 76110 P. O. Box 22000 817-923-3008 Ft. Worth, TX 76122 817-922-9005 FAX 817-923-1921, ext. 6800 habrehm@ix.netcom.com 817-921-8760 FAX hab@swbts.swbts.edu Visit My Home Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html "The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what he becomes by it" --John Ruskin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jun 28 09:43:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06659; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:43:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:46:12 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Cana X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970628094412.21df5f00@mail.highland.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: 622 Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that a new article is available in the Journal of Biblical Studies: =20 CANA, R=C9V=C9LATION ET CAT=C9CH=C8SE (Jn 2, 1-11), by Lucien-Jean BORD. Point your web browser to http://web.infoave.net/~jwest and follow the articles link. We would be pleased to consider your submission in any field of Biblical Studies (exegetical, archaeological, textual, etc.) Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 29 06:54:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08016; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:54:17 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:56:49 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Which ms did Erasmus use for Hebrews In-Reply-To: <199706270630.CAA02847@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: 656 Concerning which ms Erasmus used for Hebrews, I do not think that it was minuscule 2 (now 2315?). I transcribed ms 2 for Hebrews because I thought it was the one Erasmus had used (or given to the printer to use), but then I found that its text does nor agree with the Textus Receptus. (See the ESCATOU/ESCATWN variant in ch. 1 for example.) I read somewhere (don't ask me where) that E. used ms 7 for some of the Pauline letters. I haven't checked to see if the text of this ms corresponds with that of the TR in Hebrews. Best regards, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 29 11:57:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA08273; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:57:08 -0400 Message-ID: <33B6A721.55F0@total.net> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:19:13 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Which ms did Erasmus use for Hebrews 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: 2241 Timothy John Finney wrote: > > Concerning which ms Erasmus used for Hebrews, I do not think that it was > minuscule 2 (now 2315?). I transcribed ms 2 for Hebrews because I thought > it was the one Erasmus had used (or given to the printer to use), but then > I found that its text does nor agree with the Textus Receptus. (See the > ESCATOU/ESCATWN variant in ch. 1 for example.) I read somewhere (don't > ask me where) that E. used ms 7 for some of the Pauline letters. I > haven't checked to see if the text of this ms corresponds with that of > the TR in Hebrews. > > Best regards, > > Tim Finney > Tim, It is generally agreed that these MSS were used by Erasmus: Erasmian edition MSS used 1516 Codex 2e (13th cent.) sent to press Codex 2ap (12th cent.) sent to press Codex 1r (12th cent.) sent to press Codex 1eap (12th cent.) collated Codex 4ap (15th cent.) collated Codex 7p (11th cent.) collated Commentary of Theophylact collated ________________________________________________________________________________ 1519 Codex 3ap (12th century) collated ________________________________________________________________________________ 1522 Codex 61 (Codex Montfortianus, used for 1 John 5:7-8 only) Latin MSS collated _________________________________________________________________________________ 1527 Complutensian Polyglot NT (heavily used to revise Apocalypse text of 1522) Latin MSS __________________________________________________________________________________ 1535 none _________________________________________________________________________________ Now how exactly he used them and where his own variations from the text of these MSS came from is more difficult to determine. Even though he sent 2ap to Froben he still did consult 1eap, 4ap and 7p. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Arcieri ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 29 11:57:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA08288; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:57:15 -0400 Message-ID: <33B6B0F6.7088@total.net> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:01:10 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Erasmus References: <33AFE1F1.21DD@total.net> <33B0EEFA.95F@sn.no> 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: 8853 Helge, Sorry for the late reply, as I've been occupied with other responsibilities lately. Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > And that the KJV-translators were the most scholarly persons in the > whole kingdom at the time. > Is this wrong? Maybe not wrong per se, but stretched a little... ;-) > > It is almost "second nature" to many modern scholars to talk about > the so-called "blunders" of Erasmus and the KJV-translators, and their > "inferior" textbase. Therefore it does not hurt with a little balance. > These "established facts" ascertained by modern scholarship are repeated > by bible translators and others as if they were Bible facts. Perhaps they use such words because that is the actual case?? For example, Herman C. Hoskier describes MS 57 (of Rev.) and the edition of Colinaeus as follows: So 57 becomes Colinaeus. But whence did Colinaeus draw? No one knows. We can surmise however. From nowhere! That is from no MSS. direct. Else his text would not have remained stuffed wih the errors of Erasmus, plus his own. I don't think Hoskier was an opponant of the Byz txt, yet he still spoke of the errors of Erasmus. And in light of the present knowledge of the Byz txt and its history, yes the TR IS an inferior Greek Text. It was considered imperfect and in need of revision by Burgon/Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, A. Martin, Hodges, Farstad, Robinson, Pierpont among others. No problem there. > >HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical. > > Not necessarily so! The easiest thing for the translators to do was > undoubtedly to just follow the Greek editions and not bother at all about > other alternate readings. To my mind, the fact that they *did* bother > about alternate readings, shows that they were *not* uncritical! I'm not speaking of deciding between variant readings which appear in the margin of the various GNT's they were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek text and using the Vulgate as a translation base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong. > > That is not really the issue! Whether or not they were *right* in their > decisions was not my concern in my previous post. The primary intention > with my post was not to *defend* the KJV-translators. I may do so at a > later opportunity. (But not at the cost of being thrown off the list!). > As I asked in my first post, WHO denied the scholarship of the KJV?? And was this ever an issue? No work that I have read on the history of English Versions or Text Criticism _ever_ denied the scholarship of the KJV translators. Its not a point to contest. > What about the Greek MSS which he used when he prepared his Latin > translation, years before the publication of the 1516 edition, > which MSS most scholars acknowledge to know little to > nothing certain about, as regards their existence and history?? > Very little att all can be said with any *certainty* with regard to the > details involved in both the preparation and the publication of the > Erasmus-edition. The word "facts" becomes a little too strong in this > context! Note that I did not assert anything with any certainty in the > above quoted statement. I said: "*may* not....". and > As I clearly stated, it is the 10 to 12 years *prior to* the publication > of the 1516 edition, while studying Greek MSS for his Latin translation, > that formed his critical knowledge of readings and gave him opportunity > to gather notes and information on MSS. > The notes he gathered on his travels might not have influenced Codex 2 or > the other codices he sent to the printer much. For if these MSS were > essentially in agreement with those he found in his travels, what need > would there be for introducing many new readings into their texts?? and > "The MSS he used"? You mean those he used the last few months before > the publication of the printed edition!? But I am talking about those he > "used" 10 to 12 years before that event. The latter would give him the > necessary information on how to handle those he had available to send to > the printer. > and > Directly Erasmus did not base the 1516 edition on more than a few MSS. > But indirectly, through knowledge of other MSS, it had a far broader > MS base. To say that the Erasmus edition was based on "few and late" MSS > sounds as if it has a weak MS base, which it has not. and > It is unlikely that all the changes that were later attested by MS discoveries and research, should have > been introduced by Erasmus *without* any MS attestation. *Some* of them, of course, *might* have been > editorial on the part of Erasmus. But I believe that the likelihood goes in the direction of he having been > in possession of MS evidence for most of the changes he introduced. Helge I find here a main pillar in your defense of Erasmus. This revision of the Latin text based on Greek MSS obviously is important to you. The problem is, your are basing your entire argument on something of which no one today knows any details about. We are ignorant of the Greek MSS he used and how he used them. Ignorance proves nothing, and all that you can deduce from nothing is nothing. You don't know how many MSS Erasmus used, which ones were used, how he used them, and whether or not any of the variants he knew of ever made it into Froben's printing shop. Hence these vague statements can be used by anyone for anything. They fit well your TR/KJV agenda and you are milking them for all their worth. This is your back-door escape out of admitting that the TR is not as good as you wish it were. No wonder you lay so much emphasis on these unknown MSS! They are essential to your defense. In fact you are simply shifting the burden of proof. Since I am unable to disprove the proposition concerning Erasmus' supposed use of many Greek MSS for his 1516 edition (according to you), you are using this as an argument that he _did_. Hills did the same when he appealed to the providence of God in order to defend non-Byz readings in the TR. Since he had no way to defend them, even by his own text-critical principles, he had to find a way to defend them at any cost (since this was his agenda). So he appealed to the providence of God (something that could not be proved/disproved) and thus was able to "defend" those non-Byz TR readings. Since you do not know WHICH Greek MSS he used, HOW he used them, what VARIANTS he noted, and how these variants had any influence (if at all) on the first 1516 edition, you can pretty much use this to your agenda any way you see fit. Whereas my argument from the first was, since we know which MSS he used for his first edition, let's judge his work on THAT basis: let us work with what we know rather on what we don't. > And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out: > > "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so > little" (p. 752). That fact, to me, speaks of a careful criticism, and I doubt that we can find a parellel to this among modern scholars. Helge this comment is utterly preposterous. Are you SERIOUSLY contending that Erasmus knew so much on NTTC and MS evidence that his method of TC was SO GOOD that today there no equal? Next you will argue that the KJV translators were so scholarly and had so mastered Greek and Hebrew that no one has surpassed them in scholarship... Get real Helge. > So why bother with the TR?? > There are many non-Byzantine TR readings which can be defended on the basis of both external and internal > evidences. They can be defended only by an application of specially devised criteria (tailor made for the TR) and by an ad hoc text critical methodology. However if you can privately email me a few examples I would be much obliged. > As I said, I believe many of the non-Byz. readings *can* be defended on TC principles. (If I add an example, > I start a new debate; I choose to avoid that for now). Agreed that it will start a new debate, even though I disagree. However can you privately email me some examples?? > > I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why > bother with the KJV? But that's another > story... > Personally I like the KJV best. But why not use both? Well Helge, do you read the KJV as well as the Geneva version? Why not? Because the Geneva Bible was good, but the KJV better. Ditto for the NKJV. It is more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the KJV than the KJV itself. And it is a superior translation (just look at their work with the definite article and with verbs - in fact most modern translation, such as ASV, NASV, and RSV are better than the KJV in this respect). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Arcieri ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 29 13:31:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08380; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:31:06 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:33:32 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199706270630.CAA02847@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Which ms did Erasmus use for Hebrews Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1643 On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: >Concerning which ms Erasmus used for Hebrews, I do not think that it was >minuscule 2 (now 2315?). I transcribed ms 2 for Hebrews because I thought >it was the one Erasmus had used (or given to the printer to use), but then >I found that its text does nor agree with the Textus Receptus. (See the >ESCATOU/ESCATWN variant in ch. 1 for example.) I read somewhere (don't >ask me where) that E. used ms 7 for some of the Pauline letters. I >haven't checked to see if the text of this ms corresponds with that of >the TR in Hebrews. This leads to two questions: 1. How many differences were there between 2 and the TR? Because, of course, Erasmus did not simply print the text of 2; he compared it with 1 and the Vulgate and perhaps 4 and 7. And then the printer added many errors. So unless the number of differences is quite high, it is likely that the TR is still *based on* 2, but with readings from the others. 2. Which of Erasmus's editions were you using? Because, of course, Erasmus used additional manuscripts for his later editions. The only one based *entirely* on the short list of manuscripts above was the first -- which can hardly be compared to anything because of its high number of errors. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 29 17:49:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08749; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:49:15 -0400 Message-ID: <33B761EC.3D31@sn.no> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:36:12 -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: Erasmus 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: 17640 Thanks for your reply, Mike. In this post I will try to make my response short. As I can see from your reply, this is as much a problem with our use of words as it is a problem with our differing stances. Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > > > > It is almost "second nature" to many modern scholars to talk about > > the so-called "blunders" of Erasmus and the KJV-translators, and their > > "inferior" textbase. Therefore it does not hurt with a little balance. > > These "established facts" ascertained by modern scholarship are repeated > > by bible translators and others as if they were Bible facts. > > Perhaps they use such words because that is the actual case?? For example, Herman C. Hoskier describes MS 57 > (of Rev.) and the edition of Colinaeus as follows: > > So 57 becomes Colinaeus. But whence did Colinaeus draw? No one knows. We can surmise however. From nowhere! > That is from no MSS. direct. Else his text would not have remained stuffed wih the errors of Erasmus, plus his > own. > > I don't think Hoskier was an opponant of the Byz txt, yet he still spoke of the errors of Erasmus. And in > light of the present knowledge of the Byz txt and its history, yes the TR IS an inferior Greek Text. It was > considered imperfect and in need of revision by Burgon/Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, A. Martin, Hodges, Farstad, > Robinson, Pierpont among others. No problem there. The context in which I stated the above quoted part was that of the usually made statements which often are used to reject the TR. But I have never seen a *scholarly* refutation of the TR itself. I have, however, seen many "refutations" of the opinions of many TR advocates. Whether or not there are blunders in the Erasmus edition or the subsequent TR editions, was not really my point. I did not even say that these "established facts" were *not* facts, but that they were handled as they were "Bible facts", that is, they are considered as "truths" by which to judge the whole TR text, when in reality these "blunders" have very little to do with the TR as a whole, since they are a very small part of the text. (I am not now talking about non-Byzantine readings, but the "blunders" such as the few places in Revelation which Erasmus supposedly did not have more than one MS source for, which lacked the six last verses of Rev.). I meant to say that minor things are used to reject the whole TR text. I am not here referring to the Byz-txt advocates who make a very good case for the Byz txt based on tc principles. To reject the TR after a careful investigation of the MSS is, of course, not the same as rejecting it primarily based on the "blunders" of Erasmus or the TR editors. > > > >HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical. > > > > Not necessarily so! The easiest thing for the translators to do was > > undoubtedly to just follow the Greek editions and not bother at all about > > other alternate readings. To my mind, the fact that they *did* bother > > about alternate readings, shows that they were *not* uncritical! > > I'm not speaking of deciding between variant readings which appear in the margin of the various GNT's they > were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek text and using the Vulgate as a translation > base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong. When I referred to these translators as "critical", I was referring to the work they did *textually* with regard to the underlyings texts. That was the context of the discussion. Besides, I am not able to see what their choice of words with regard to the *rendering into English* has to do with being "critical" or "uncritical". Has a *rendering* into English influenced by the Latin Vulgate *linguistically*, anything at all to do with "rejecting the Greek text"?? They did not, of course, use the Vulgate as a "translation base" just because they translated under the influence of the Latin as a language, which, by the way, was very dominant at their time. You called it to "translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text". To me, this sounds as if you referred to the *textual* issue! My point was that they chose a *version* instead of the current *Greek* text! As far as I can see, this is "critical evaluation", and it shows that they did not just accept one edition or even the current Greek text in every detail. > > > > That is not really the issue! Whether or not they were *right* in their > > decisions was not my concern in my previous post. The primary intention > > with my post was not to *defend* the KJV-translators. I may do so at a > > later opportunity. (But not at the cost of being thrown off the list!). > > > > As I asked in my first post, WHO denied the scholarship of the KJV?? And was this ever an issue? No work that > I have read on the history of English Versions or Text Criticism _ever_ denied the scholarship of the KJV > translators. Its not a point to contest. I was not contesting it. Initially, I referred to these facts, as part of the information in response to the post that started this. I pointed out that these facts must be taken into consideration when discussing the work of the KJV translators. There is a need for a little balance, since these translators so often are objects of groundless criticism. This is a kind of modern sport. > > > What about the Greek MSS which he used when he prepared his Latin > > translation, years before the publication of the 1516 edition, > > which MSS most scholars acknowledge to know little to > > nothing certain about, as regards their existence and history?? > > Very little att all can be said with any *certainty* with regard to the > > details involved in both the preparation and the publication of the > > Erasmus-edition. The word "facts" becomes a little too strong in this > > context! Note that I did not assert anything with any certainty in the > > above quoted statement. I said: "*may* not....". > > and > > > As I clearly stated, it is the 10 to 12 years *prior to* the publication > > of the 1516 edition, while studying Greek MSS for his Latin translation, > > that formed his critical knowledge of readings and gave him opportunity > > to gather notes and information on MSS. > > The notes he gathered on his travels might not have influenced Codex 2 or > > the other codices he sent to the printer much. For if these MSS were > > essentially in agreement with those he found in his travels, what need > > would there be for introducing many new readings into their texts?? > > and > > > "The MSS he used"? You mean those he used the last few months before > > the publication of the printed edition!? But I am talking about those he > > "used" 10 to 12 years before that event. The latter would give him the > > necessary information on how to handle those he had available to send to > > the printer. > > > > and > > > Directly Erasmus did not base the 1516 edition on more than a few MSS. > > But indirectly, through knowledge of other MSS, it had a far broader > > MS base. To say that the Erasmus edition was based on "few and late" MSS > > sounds as if it has a weak MS base, which it has not. > > and > > > It is unlikely that all the changes that were later attested by MS discoveries and research, should have > > been introduced by Erasmus *without* any MS attestation. *Some* of them, of course, *might* have been > > editorial on the part of Erasmus. But I believe that the likelihood goes in the direction of he having been > > in possession of MS evidence for most of the changes he introduced. > > Helge I find here a main pillar in your defense of Erasmus. This revision of the Latin text based on Greek MSS > obviously is important to you. The problem is, your are basing your entire argument on something of which no > one today knows any details about. We are ignorant of the Greek MSS he used and how he used them. Ignorance > proves nothing, and all that you can deduce from nothing is nothing. As I clearly stated, I have not tried to prove anything. I also clearly admitted that we know little to nothing with any certainty with regard to the MSS used by Erasmus, especially the MSS used for his Latin. On the other hand, many scholars refer to the "weak base" of the Erasmus edition or the TR as something sure, even though it cannot be assured. I made a point with regard to the Latin translation because that translation clearly gives us the information that he *must at least* have worked with Greek MSS a long time before 1516. I am not trying to draw conclusions based on silence. In the first place, the fact that Erasmus must have had MSS available for his Latin tramslation cannot rightly be regarded as "nothing"! I was not giving "information" on these MSS, but only concluded that he must have had Greek MSS available in order to do the work, and I *suggested* that these MSS may have influenced his Greek text. I cannot see why such suggestions are so hard to accept. In TC, suggestions are presented all the time, and are considered. For instance, a 12th cent. MS may be suggested to be a copy of earlier MSS with such or such text, because in itself it testifies to earlier sources. In the case of the Erasmus edition, I believe it can rightly be suggested that he may have used other sources than those we know of and that they have influenced his edition. But, again, nothing can be proved here. And that is also the case in many instances of TC work. Much must be worked out based on hypotheses. But you may not consider *my* hypotheses as valid, and that is, of course, your choice, and your right. Please note that I was using expressions like "likelihood", "I believe", etc. And even where I have not used such "uncertainty" expressions, the context of my discussion is nevertheless clear. The only thing I have stated as a fact, is in reality a fact: the fact that Erasmus must have had Greek MSS available when he worked on his Latin translation. I stated that the TR does not have a weak MS base, but that is referring to the "essential TR". As I said, often minor details are used as a "spring-board" to reject the TR. It should be clear to all by now that I am a TR advocate; and I defend that text as the best NT text, even though I have not done that in my previous posts. I have restricted myself to informative matters, not using space to defend the TR. I would love to do so, and I may at a later opportunity. However, I will try not to, and instead use my time to complete my book on TC and the TR. > > You don't know how many MSS Erasmus used, which ones were used, how he used them, and whether or not any of > the variants he knew of ever made it into Froben's printing shop. I never stated that I *knew* any of this. > Hence these vague statements can be used by > anyone for anything. All things can be used wrongly. However, I did not do that. > They fit well your TR/KJV agenda and you are milking them for all their worth. This is > your back-door escape out of admitting that the TR is not as good as you wish it were. No wonder you lay so > much emphasis on these unknown MSS! They are essential to your defense. In fact, I am not dependent on this for my TR stance at all. I discovered these facts long time after I was convinced that the TR is the best text. I must admit, of course, that I find the information brought to light by Jonge and others to be very interesting, and somewhat in favour of my TR stance. Note also that it is common in TC circles to "milk" the "facts" about Erasmus and the TR "for all their worth", as I indicated initially. So, if I "milk", I am not the only one. > In fact you are simply shifting the burden of proof. Since I am unable to disprove the proposition concerning > Erasmus' supposed use of many Greek MSS for his 1516 edition (according to you), you are using this as an > argument that he _did_. No. See above and my previous post. > Hills did the same when he appealed to the providence of God in order to defend non-Byz readings in the TR. > Since he had no way to defend them, even by his own text-critical principles, he had to find a way to defend > them at any cost (since this was his agenda). So he appealed to the providence of God (something that could > not be proved/disproved) and thus was able to "defend" those non-Byz TR readings. I do not believe that Hills "found" a way to defend the non-Byz readings "at any cost". Neither do I believe that "he had no way to defend them". He based his arguments and his TC on historical Christian principles. And he *did* make a good case for the non-Byz readings. You may differ with him, and that is all right. He was a competent scholar and a trained textual critic, and so are you (I suppose). You do not agree with Hills. That is all right. You disagree with me, and that is all right too. > Since you do not know WHICH Greek MSS he used, HOW he used them, what VARIANTS he noted, and how these > variants had any influence (if at all) on the first 1516 edition, you can pretty much use this to your agenda > any way you see fit. I *could* have done so, but I did not do so. And I never stated that I *know* anything about the MSS used by Erasmus for his Latin. > Whereas my argument from the first was, since we know which MSS he used for his first edition, let's judge his > work on THAT basis: let us work with what we know rather on what we don't. Is this the way you practice all TC work? Does not TC work at times consist in the use of hypotheses, likelihoods and suggestions?? > > And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out: > > > > "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so > > little" (p. 752). > > That fact, to me, speaks of a careful criticism, and I doubt that we can find a parellel to this among modern > scholars. Here something is certainly "left out". (See my original post). Are you responding (below) to what I actually wrote in my previous post, or are you responding to the above "quote"?? > Helge this comment is utterly preposterous. Are you SERIOUSLY contending that Erasmus knew so much on NTTC and > MS evidence that his method of TC was SO GOOD that today there no equal? Next you will argue that the KJV > translators were so scholarly and had so mastered Greek and Hebrew that no one has surpassed them in > scholarship... > > Get real Helge. I did not, of course, assert that Erasmus knew more than modern scholars about MSS and TC. My point was referring to his critical ability and his competence as a scholar, and that this must be taken into consideration when judging his text. (Although he did not edit the text of the MSS very much, he nevertheless approved or disapproved of MSS). > > > So why bother with the TR?? > > > There are many non-Byzantine TR readings which can be defended on the basis of both external and internal > > evidences. > > They can be defended only by an application of specially devised criteria (tailor made for the TR) and by an > ad hoc text critical methodology. However if you can privately email me a few examples I would be much > obliged. First, many of the non-Byz readings are found in the eclectic text accepted by many TCers today, and are defended on accepted TC principles. Second, even if I gave you examples, you could easily refute my arguments even if I used accepted TC principles to defend them. This is indicated in the fact that different TCers differ as to the use and emphasis of the accepted criteria. Just take a look at how many differing ideas there exist between TCers regarding the same readings. Third, I may call your preferred TC principles "tailor made for the Byzantine text", and those of the eclectics "tailor made for their purpose", and finally, those of the "Alexandrians", "tailor made for the Alexandrian text". The principles and canons applied or emphasized will often determine the results. > > As I said, I believe many of the non-Byz. readings *can* be defended on TC principles. (If I add an example, > > I start a new debate; I choose to avoid that for now). > > Agreed that it will start a new debate, even though I disagree. However can you privately email me some > examples?? Yes, I will do so. But, as I said, many of them are already defended by eclectics (and also some by "Alexandrians"). > > > > I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why > > bother with the KJV? But that's another > > story... > > > Personally I like the KJV best. But why not use both? > > Well Helge, do you read the KJV as well as the Geneva version? Why not? Because the Geneva Bible was good, but > the KJV better. In fact, I have a copy of the Geneva Bible and I find it interesting. But because of the format of my copy, it is not very handy as a Bible for daily use. I agree that the KJV is better, but it does not automatically follow that the NKJV is better than the KJV. Ditto for the NKJV. It is more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the KJV > than the KJV itself. And it is a superior translation (just look at their work with the definite article and > with verbs - in fact most modern translation, such as ASV, NASV, and RSV are better than the KJV in this > respect). I have found several instances in which the KJV has a better rendering than the NKJV. I could have listed them here, but because time does not at the present permit me to do so, I must wait for a better opportunity. I may send you an off-list message later, with a list of examples. Thanks so far..... -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jun 29 21:31:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08954; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:31:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:34:11 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: ms 2 and the TR In-Reply-To: <199706292149.RAA08768@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: 1167 Thanks to Mike Arcieri for the concise information on Erasmus' use of mss. In reply to Bob Waltz's questions: (1) I don't know how many differences between the TR and ms 2 there are yet. I'm still trying to write that collation program! Hopefully I will be able to answer this question soon, for Hebrews at least. (2) I use the electronic edition of the TR as an approximation of Erasmus' text. I don't have the actual text of any of his editions in electronic form. By the way Bob, I finally got to the point where I could analyse your 61 variant survey of Hebrews. The results were much the same as those obtained using the 44 units given in UBS4. They show that there are a few outliers such as P46, B, 1739, 1881, D (06), and Aleph, then a great cloud of witnesses that are all like each other. I am very pressed for time at the moment so I can't do more than promise more information after I get back from a trip to England for a two week summer school, then to Brazil for two weeks to see my wife's family. Sorry! Best regards, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 05:15:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA09690; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 05:15:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:18:00 +0200 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: M.Bakker@let.uva.nl (bakker) Subject: RE: Erasmus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1029 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >I did not, of course, assert that Erasmus knew more than modern scholars >about MSS and TC. My point was referring to his critical ability and his >competence as a scholar, and that this must be taken into consideration >when judging his text. If the eurodite Rotterdammer were alive today, I speculate he would: 1. reject 'his' Textus Receptus or a mechanically produced Majority Text, when confronted with the evidence now available. Erasmus was was an open-minded realist, not a dogmatist. 2. exploit comments by textual critics avant la lettre. Erasmus extensively quotes patristic evidence on theological interpretation and text-critical issues in his Novum Instrumentum. (However, he erroneously latinises the Greek byname of Theophylact of Bulgaria (Ohrid) and quotes him as 'Vulgarius' in the editions of 1516 and 1519.) 3. be with his biting remarks the poltergeist of this list. His Annotationes are a TC list avant la byte. Dr Michael Bakker Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 08:49:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA09962; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:49:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:52:29 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199706292149.RAA08768@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: ms 2 and the TR Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3271 On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: >Thanks to Mike Arcieri for the concise information on Erasmus' use of mss. > >In reply to Bob Waltz's questions: > >(1) I don't know how many differences between the TR and ms 2 there are >yet. I'm still trying to write that collation program! Hopefully I will >be able to answer this question soon, for Hebrews at least. This isn't really all that important (though it would be interesting). I was just pointing out that, while Erasmus based his work mostly on 2, he *did* edit the result. So there would be a fair number of readings where the TR does not agree with 2. >(2) I use the electronic edition of the TR as an approximation of >Erasmus' text. I don't have the actual text of any of his editions in >electronic form. This, too, could affect things a bit. All editions of the TR are *not* the same. They're close, but by no means identical. Based on the information in Scrivener, it appears that random editions of the Textus Receptus may disagree at up to 300 points. A few of these differences are substantial (I can't cite instances off the top of my head, but I remember somewhere a case of a whole clause found in Elzevir and missing in Stephanus). A disproportionate fraction of these divergences are in the Apocalypse -- but by no means all of them! >By the way Bob, I finally got to the point where I could analyse your 61 >variant survey of Hebrews. The results were much the same as those >obtained using the 44 units given in UBS4. They show that there are a few >outliers such as P46, B, 1739, 1881, D (06), and Aleph, then a great >cloud of witnesses that are all like each other. The above is hardly surprising (though 739 and 1881 should have stood fairly close together). The problem, in my opinion, is not these good high-class manuscripts such as p46, B, D, 1739, but the marginal ones -- the 330s and 1611s of the world. In a sample of 40-70 readings they might separate from the Byzantine text in 10-15 places. But if they agree with B seven times (say), and with Aleph in eight, and with D in six, how are we to tell what influences (other than the Byzantine) they have experienced? This is why I maintain we need much larger samples than we use. Which, BTW, is not a condemnation of Tim -- after all, he's using data I sent him. :-) I'm just pointing out a methodological weakness. The less pure the witness, the larger the sample we need to analyse it. But there is a lot of interest in those impure samples, since 330 and 1611 and the like *may* belong to undiscovered text-types. Pontification mode off. :-) >I am very pressed for time at the moment so I can't do more than promise >more information after I get back from a trip to England for a two >week summer school, then to Brazil for two weeks to see my wife's family. >Sorry! Have a good trip, and don't worry about it. I was lecturing the list, not Tim. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 10:49:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA10455; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:49:39 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199706301452.QAA33040@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jun 97 17:10:00 +0100 Subject: Re: Kurzgefasste Liste Question 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: 682 On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >In the 1994 edition of the Kurzgefasste Liste I notice that MS 0305 (a >single leaf fragment from Matthew) has no date assigned to it. I presume >the date was left out accidentally. Can anyone from Muenster or who has >access to the editio princeps of this fragment inform me as to its >presumed date? MS 0305 is dated to the 8th/9th centuries. As far as I know, the fragment has not been published yet. It was found on a microfilm covering _coptic_ fragments of *christian* MSS from the national library, Paris. In all likelyhood the greek fragment was erroneously mingled up with the coptic fragments. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 12:37:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10905; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:37:59 -0400 Message-ID: <33B80A12.6134@total.net> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:33:38 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Erasmus References: <33B761EC.3D31@sn.no> 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: 781 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > Thanks for your reply, Mike. > > In this post I will try to make my response short. > > As I can see from your reply, this is as much a problem with our use of > words as it is a problem with our differing stances. > Helge, I think that we've pretty much debated this as far as it can go. I really don't have anything else to add, unless I start hairsplitting on minor details. However I will be looking forward to continue this with you privately, esp. those places where you feel the TR is better than the Byz txt (and we can add those places where you feel the KJV is better than the NKJV). To begin discussing this now would be to get out of place with the discussion of Erasmian MSS. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Arcieri ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 17:01:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12034; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:01:56 -0400 From: jeffcate@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:33:36 -0500 Subject: NA27 sigla in a true-type font Message-ID: <19970630.153406.4518.2.jeffcate@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-5 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 219 Does anyone know of a True-type font (PC, not Mac) that contains the signs (e.g, add, omit, substitute, ktl.) from the apparatus criticus of NA27? Jeff Cate (jeffcate@juno.com) New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 18:27:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12252; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:27:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:30:11 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19970630.153406.4518.2.jeffcate@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: NA27 sigla in a true-type font Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 938 On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, jeffcate@juno.com wrote: >Does anyone know of a True-type font (PC, not Mac) that contains the >signs (e.g, add, omit, substitute, ktl.) from the apparatus criticus of >NA27? I can't guarantee that it's made it to the PC, but Zondervan has a font called Koine that includes the Greek alphabet, a (rather lousy) set of accents, and the NA27 sigla. If you're not overly concerned with letter spacing, or don't care about accents, it should suit your needs. And it can easily be converted to PC TrueType by anyone with Fontographer (no, I won't do it unless someone gets Zondervan's permission...). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 20:05:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA12459; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:05:02 -0400 From: BillCombs@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970630200738_816478937@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Erasmus's Latin translation Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1215 Helge Evensen wrote: >The changes he *did* introduce into Codex 2 (and the other MSS) may, in >fact, have been based primarily on the MSS he studied in connection with >his Latin translation. If that is the case, it is not even necessary to >assume that he gathered notes on his travels or his visits to libraries, >but only that he gathered information from the Greek MSS he worked with >when preparing his Latin text. He certainly must have had the time and >opportunity to do so, whether he actually did it or not. This view that Erasmus produced a Latin translation before his 1516 Latin-Greek NT has been shown to be invalid. Andrew J. Brown has demonstrated that the early dates of certain manuscripts (two in 1509 and one in 1506) which contain the Vulgate and Erasmus's Latin translation apply only to the Vulgate. Erasmus's own Latin translation was added in the 1520s ("Date of Erasmus' Latin Translation of the New Testament," Transactions of the Cambridge Biographical Society 8-4 (1984): 351-80). I discuss all this in my article on Erasmus. See William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1966). Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 21:50:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA12650; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:50:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Erasmus To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <33B6B0F6.7088@total.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: 2101 On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: [snip] > were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek > text and using the Vulgate as a translation > base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong. But this is a highly misleading description of what they did. Their translation of "charity" in 1 Cor 13 is not "using the Vulgate instead of the MSS", it is using the _example_ of the Vulgate translation to try to solve a difficult translation problem: how to convey the distinction between "agape^" and "philia" in English. The distinction is _similar_ (but not the same as) the distinction between "caritas" and "amicitia" in Latin, and that between "love" and "charity" in an earlier form of English. Here, "charity" does not mean almsgiving, but love. [snip] > > So why bother with the TR?? The TR is still very worth studying and understanding because it is the text form used by so many men of outstanding scholarship and saintliness for hundreds of years. Its differences from the elusive original text do not detract from its holiness. In fact, as I have hinted before, the widespread acceptance of the TR owes much to the high esteem for Syrian scholars of great holiness, such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Isaac the Syrian, Theodoret (the one from Syria), St. John Climacus, St. Romanus the Melodist... As Syrians, they lived and breathed the Syrian text-form of the Scriptures. Christians in those days were not so obsessed with the original text because they knew they couldn't get it, they made do with what Providence gave them. They did better than many today, despite the "corruptions" of the text-form. Then the Syrian text developed into the "Syro-Byzantine" text, which then gave us the Textus Receptus. The TR is _still_ easier for the average modern man to understand than the Alexandrian text, much as it was easier for people to understand in the days when the text-form evolved. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jun 30 23:47:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA12857; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:47:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199707010349.DAA30014@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:48:25 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: NA27 sigla in a true-type font Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 581 Re the request for a firm offering TT fonts with the NA sigla: Linguist's Software, PO Box 580, Edmonds, WA 98020-0580, tel: (206) 775-1130, e-mail <75507.1157@compuserve.com> offers a series of Greek fonts. One of their packages, LaserGreek (which is a bundle of 6 fonts) has the NA sigla, as well as the Leiden and TLG symbols. For Windows, the package's list price is $99.95 (or so the flyer says). I use it, their LaserGreek II, their LaserHebrew and their LaserSyriac, and all work and look fine (under Win 95; they also run under Win 3.1). --Petersen, Penn State Univ.