From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 1 00:43:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12976; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 00:43:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199707010445.EAA72100@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 00:44:36 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: *Romanos* and the TR? (Was: Erasmus) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3740 Matthew Johnson writes: > >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. Hmmm. There are a couple things in this paragraph which confuse me. (1) The oldest Syrian text was the Diatessaron, whose "widespread acceptance" was such that it was commented upon by St. Ephrem (a doctor of the church), and was the text (often? usually?) used by Aphrahat--both mid-fourth cent. writers. It was displaced by the Peshitta only in the fifth cent., and then only under duress, as shown by the edicts of the "outside agitators" Rabbula of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrrhus ("outside" because their allegiance lay with Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome, not Edessa and Jerusalem [recall the *Doctrina Addai*]). Thus, the earliest "widely accepted" text in Syria was the Diatessaron--whose greatest textual sympathies are with the "Western Text" (D, vetus latina MSS a and g1, etc.). The displacement of the Diatessaron came about only as the result of a "reformation" within the Syrian church, in which the old Semitic center of gravity (Jerusalem [and the line of Addai and Aggai]) was replaced by a Hellenistic center of gravity (Rome [and the line of Palut]). And the Peshitta is most certainly not a TR form of text... The text of the authors who wrote (or are preserved) only in Greek is also not quite so simple...to wit, Romanos: (2) Your statement, "... the widespread acceptance of the TR owes much to the high esteem for Syrian scholars of great holiness, such as...St. Romanus the Melodist," gives me pause. Having identified each and every gospel citation and allusion in all of Romanos hymns (*genuina* as well as *dubia*--5 vols. in the SC ed. [2 in the Oxford ed.]), and compared them with the various traditions, Romanos' text can hardly be called the TR. His most distinctive readings are Syriac (= vetus syra) and Diatessaronic. See my monograph *The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist* CSCO 475 [Subsida 74] (Louvain: Peeters, 1985), or an article in *NTS* 29 (1983), pp. 484-507. Lest I be given the credit for noting Romanos' dependence upon the Diatessaron: the observation was first made by Curt Peters in *OrChrP* 8 (1942), pp. 468-476; it was also remarked upon (and new readings adduced) by Gilles Quispel in the Metzger FS (edd. Epp and Fee, 1981), pp. 305-311. (I should also point out that Romanos appears to make use of obscure traditions from the Judaic-Christian gospels; see my article "A New Testimoninum to a Judaic-Christian Gospel Fragment from a Hymn of Romanos the Melodist," *VigChr* 50 [1996]; it seems he knows a passage otherwise known only from the Latin *Historia passionis domini*, a fourteenth cent. source--which attributes it to the Gospel of the Nazoraeans...) What is your evidence for your assertions? >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. This statement of yours perfectly illustrates why the more awkward (or more difficult, or the theologically "non-standard") reading is preferred in many situations (not in all) by many (not all) textual critics... --Petersen, Penn State University PS: BTW, if you delve into the critical biographies of many of the ancients--including saints--one quickly sees that "holiness" is usually highly subjective, and often only in the eye of the beholder.... ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 1 08:00:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA13776; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:00:29 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970701080307_1622116151@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu 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: 639 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? Linguist's Software has a font called LazerGREEK for Windows. It seems to have all the signs you are looking for. Contact them at PO Box 580 Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 (206) 775-1130 FAX (206) 771-5911 ==================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ==================================================== From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 1 08:26:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA13918; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:26:20 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970701131834.006eb534@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 13:18:34 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: NA27 sigla in a true-type font Cc: jeffcate@juno.com In-Reply-To: <19970630.153406.4518.2.jeffcate@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1225 At 15:33 30/06/97 -0500, Jeff Cate (jeffcate@juno.com) New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary 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? These sigla come as part of the SGreek font contained in the Bible Windows program, now in v.5, which is also available separately as shareware [ they are entered with ALT + 0144 upwards ] The program's fonts are described thus on the Silver Mountain Software home page: http://www.silvermnt.com/fonts.html " basic Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic fonts with a Right to Left Utility for MS-Windows for typing Hebrew is available as shareware. These fonts are available as both TrueType and Type 1 fonts. Registration is $20. Download sfonts11.exe " There is also available a FREE font with the sigla in the same range, available for download at the same site as SGFIXED.ZIP This, as the name indicates, is a non--proportional font made available by Silver Mountain for use with Netscape and similar browsers for on-line viewing of the Perseus pages. Enjoy! Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ] mauros@iol.ie [using Eudora Pro 3 and Trumpet Winsock 3.0d ] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 1 12:20:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14862; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:20:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:22:16 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: KJV only To: TC-List Message-ID: <199707011222_MC2-199B-30D2@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 345 There is a Theology section -- The written Word on http://www.bible.org which offers serveral responses to the KJV-only position, including a lengthy (44 page) response by James White to Gail Riplinger's book, _New Age Bible Versions_. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 1 12:20:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14879; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:20:44 -0400 From: BillCombs@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970701122148_-660463138@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Erasmus's Latin Translation Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 394 Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 BillCombs@aol.com wrote: >> article on Erasmus. See William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," >> Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1966). >That is supposed to be 1996, I hope....otherwise it took forever for the >US mail to get it to me. :-) Yes, thanks for the correction. Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 1 18:43:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17650; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 18:43:52 -0400 Message-ID: <33BA11DC.35C3@sn.no> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 01:31:24 -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's Latin translation References: <970630200738_816478937@emout18.mail.aol.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: 5250 BillCombs@aol.com wrote: > > Helge Evensen wrote: > > >The changes he *did* introduce into Codex 2 (and the other MSS) may, i= n > >fact, have been based primarily on the MSS he studied in connection wi= th > >his Latin translation. If that is the case, it is not even necessary t= o > >assume that he gathered notes on his travels or his visits to librarie= s, > >but only that he gathered information from the Greek MSS he worked wit= h > >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 demons= trated > that the early dates of certain manuscripts (two in 1509 and one in 150= 6) > 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 Rece= ptus," > Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1966). I doubt that the view of a pre-1516 Latin translation by Erasmus has been "shown to be invalid". I do not believe that Brown has demonstrated that Erasmus did *not* prepare or work on a Latin translation prior to 1514. Just because it cannot be *proved* that he made a complete NT translation prior to that time, it does not follow that Erasmus did not at all work in preparation for a future edition. He may not have translated the whole NT prior to 1514 (I doubt that he did). But as I have stated earlier, we cannot be sure about the circumstances before 1516. And I do not think we are able at the present to disprove the conclusions of de Jonge on this subject. Erasmus may not have intended to publish a Latin translation prior to the time in which Froben the printer suggested that he should do so. That would have explained (in part) the silence around the preparation of such a translation. It would only be natural for Erasmus to say little to nothing about the plans of publishing a translation that deviated from the accepted Roman Vulgate. We should not expect him to announce such a thing prior to the time of publication. It might even have been dangerous for Erasmus to have talked about such a translation. But once the publication is a fact, it cannot be stopped. Maybe that is a clue to understanding the "rushing out" of his first edition. In order for Erasmus to have worked with Greek MSS 10 to 12 years prior to 1514-16, I do not have to demonstrate that he had ready a complete NT translation prior to that time. That should be clear enough. In his paper, it seems that Brown did not do much more than bringing to light the likelihood that Erasmus did not *complete* a NT translation prior to 1514. In his own words: ".....there is no satisfactory evidence, either in his published writings or in the Meghen manuscripts, that Erasmus had a complete translation ready to hand before 1514" (p.374 of the obove mentioned paper). And: "But even if we grant that Erasmus, in spite of his protestations to the contrary, might have carried out New Testament translation work prior to 1514, the text of the translation which is contained in the Meghen manuscripts can no longer be used as evidence that he did so". (p.375, this quote is the concluding words of the paper). Without going into the context of these statements, we clearly see here that Brown himself did not conclude with any certainty that Erasmus did not work with or did not prepare a Latin translation in the years prior to 1514. And he grants that Erasmus collated MSS prior to 1514. It is not necessary to assume that Erasmus even had plans to publish a Latin NT in order to suggest that he collated MSS. He was, after all, a scholar interested in Greek MSS and Greek studies. But again, I must emphasize that I do not believe that I can come up with any *evidence* to disprove the conclusions of Brown. Besides, I owe my awareness of a possible pre-1514-16 Latin translation to the studies of de Jonge (primarily). The information I can come up with on this issue is therefore secondary. So I guess that if anyone on this list wish to contest the possibility of a pre-1514 Latin (in part) translation, I am not the proper person to debate. In 1984 (the year of Brown=B4s paper) de Jonge made these statements (quoted in one of the previous posts): =20 "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". And: "By 1506 at the latest Erasmus had completed his new translation of Paul=B4s epistles, and not later than 1509 he had made a new version o= f the Gospels.......". Since de Jonge is a specialist on Erasmian studies, I have reason to take his findings and conclusions seriously. I would like to read your article "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus". How can I obtain a copy of it? Thanks ahead. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 2 00:57:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA18794; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 00:57:37 -0400 Message-ID: <33BA070B.1DC0@total.net> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:45:15 -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: 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: 2273 Matthew Johnson wrote: > > 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. Matthew, First let me assure you that there was no intention on my part to 'highly mislead' anyone. If I initially misunderstood Hlege's argument, then so be it. I responded according to my understanding of Helge's statements. Concerning 'love' rather than 'charity' in 1 Cor. 13. The term charity goes back to Wycliffe trans of 1382 (based on the Vulgate). Tyndale changed it to 'love' and so it remained with the Great Bible and Geneva. The Bishop's Bible returned to charity, and since this was the basis for the KJV, the learned men followed suit. But why is 'agape' such a prob in 1 Cor 13 and not elsewhere? Why not translate John 3:16 as "For God so charitied the world..."? What is the problem with translating the verb as 'love'? AND why is this a prob only in 1 Cor. 13? 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today, and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love. So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions?? > [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. Actually Matthew I would go one step further than that and state that it was PRODUCED by great men. I have great respect for Erasmus (as I have come to know him through his correspondence) as well as for the Stephanus family. Now if the correlation between the 'saintliness' of these men and the pedigree of the TR can be established, we can discuss the quality of the TR further... From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 2 11:47:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20508; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 11:47:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:49:42 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Amos targum X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970702114711.18e7d282@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: 288 Does anyone know of an online edition of the Amos Targum? 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 Wed Jul 2 12:09:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20662; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 12:09:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 12:11:52 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: The book of Kells X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970702120921.18e79436@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: 484 Could someone please tell me what the above mentioned document is and what it contains? I have only been able to ascertain that it is an 8th century NT ms. Is there an online edition or a print edition of it? If so, who is the publisher? Thanks ever so much. 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 Wed Jul 2 13:11:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA21216; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:11:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:13:44 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970702131342.482721ac@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: The book of Kells Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1166 Check the ODCC (Oxford Dict. of the Christian Church); see also Metzger's EVNT, pp. 339-340. The MS is in the library of Trinity College, Dublin (A.1.6). It is an elaborately ornamented MS of the gospels, of which many posters/photo books have been made. Named after the monastery where it was written in Co. Maeth. Considered the finest Irish MS extant. Facsim. ed.: E.H. Alton & P. Meyer (3 vols., Berne 1950-51). See further refs. in the ODCC and Metzger. Many art books or general works on mss in will show photos of it. Its text is Latin, Vulgate, with lots of conflations. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. At 12:11 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >Could someone please tell me what the above mentioned document is and what >it contains? I have only been able to ascertain that it is an 8th century >NT ms. > >Is there an online edition or a print edition of it? If so, who is the >publisher? > >Thanks ever so much. > >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 Wed Jul 2 13:28:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA21276; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:28:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 13:30:41 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: The book of Kells X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970702132809.246f8692@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: 1477 At 01:13 PM 7/2/97 -0400, you wrote: Bill, Thanks! >Check the ODCC (Oxford Dict. of the Christian Church); see also Metzger's >EVNT, pp. 339-340. > >The MS is in the library of Trinity College, Dublin (A.1.6). It is an >elaborately ornamented MS of the gospels, of which many posters/photo books >have been made. Named after the monastery where it was written in Co. >Maeth. Considered the finest Irish MS extant. > >Facsim. ed.: E.H. Alton & P. Meyer (3 vols., Berne 1950-51). See further >refs. in the ODCC and Metzger. Many art books or general works on mss in >will show photos of it. Its text is Latin, Vulgate, with lots of conflations. > > >--Petersen, Penn State Univ. > >At 12:11 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Could someone please tell me what the above mentioned document is and what >>it contains? I have only been able to ascertain that it is an 8th century >>NT ms. >> >>Is there an online edition or a print edition of it? If so, who is the >>publisher? >> >>Thanks ever so much. >> >>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 >> >> >> >> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 Wed Jul 2 14:02:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21440; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:02:04 -0400 Message-ID: <33BB2151.68CD@sn.no> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 20:49:37 -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: <33BA070B.1DC0@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: 3506 Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today, > and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love. > So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions?? Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the meaning "love" today. I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987) has this definition of the word "charity": "1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_. 1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG _He is far too proud to accept charity_". Here we clearly see that the meaning "almsgiving" (money or gifts) is the *secondary* meaning of the word, *not* the primary. Charity is an *act* (or at least shows itself through acts/works). In reality, I do not think it is always possible to separate between charity as almsgiving and charity as "love". It rather seems that it has to do with two (or more) ways of expressing the same thing. What is "love" anyway? Is it not demonstrated by actions? And if we consider the context of 1. Cor.13, we can clearly see that the KJV translators had good reasons for render it "charity" instead of "love". The former is broader in meaning and contains the sense of love _in action_. And that seems to be the primary meaning in 1 Cor.13. That is what the whole chapter is about. In fact, the chapter is in itself a *definition* of what "love" is, especially vv. 4-8. In total, "charity" occurs 28 times in the KJV. The interesting part is that the KJV translators chose this word in this context. They apparently saw the need of emphasizing more clearly the meaning of the Greek word "agape". "Agape" is a Biblical and ecclesiastical word, meaning (in its verb expression) to wish the best of others, to give without limit, show unselfish commitment, etc. I think that the word "agape" (or "agapao") is in its strongest expression in John 3:16: "For so God "loved" the world, that he *gave*....." The Webster Dictionary has another order in the definition of "charity". It says: "1. charitable actions, as almsgiving or performing other benevolent actions of any sort for the needy with no expectation of material reward: _to devote one`s life to charity_. 2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: _She asked for work, not charity_. 3. a charitable act of work., etc." Whether we accept the Collins or the Webster definitions, it is grossly inaccurate to say that charity does not mean love today! Charity meant "love" in 1611, and it means "love" today. To accept the word charity is therefore not to "introduce" a "problem in today`s versions", but rather to appreciate a word that is broader and deeper than "love". To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English word in all instances is clearly a fallacy. The KJV translators had great sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit the particular context. Another thing to consider here is that the word "love" in modern "street" language is encumbered with many wrong ideas, which is certainly not Biblical. I apologize for having gone into these details on a non-tc issue. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 2 14:21:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21574; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:21:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707021822.OAA23481@aus-e.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: The book of Kells Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1295 Jim: The Book of Kells is an illuminated gospel book, located in the Trinity College Library in Dublin, Ireland. It was probably begun at the monastery on the Scottish island of Iona in the late 8th century and after the Vikings raided the island probably finished in the early 9th century at the monastery at Kells in County Meath in Ireland. A facsimile was done in 1974. At 12:11 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >Could someone please tell me what the above mentioned document is and what >it contains? I have only been able to ascertain that it is an 8th century >NT ms. > >Is there an online edition or a print edition of it? If so, who is the >publisher? > >Thanks ever so much. > >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 > > > 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 Wed Jul 2 14:27:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21629; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:27:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707021827.OAA23641@aus-e.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: The book of Kells Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 987 The facsimile is by Thames and Hudson and carries a London imprint At 12:11 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >Could someone please tell me what the above mentioned document is and what >it contains? I have only been able to ascertain that it is an 8th century >NT ms. > >Is there an online edition or a print edition of it? If so, who is the >publisher? > >Thanks ever so much. > >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 > > > 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 Wed Jul 2 14:31:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21665; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:31:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:33:54 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970702131342.482721ac@email.psu.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: The book of Kells Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1453 On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, "William L. Petersen" wrote: [Re: Book of Kells] >Check the ODCC (Oxford Dict. of the Christian Church); see also Metzger's >EVNT, pp. 339-340. > >The MS is in the library of Trinity College, Dublin (A.1.6). It is an >elaborately ornamented MS of the gospels, of which many posters/photo books >have been made. Named after the monastery where it was written in Co. >Maeth. Considered the finest Irish MS extant. > >Facsim. ed.: E.H. Alton & P. Meyer (3 vols., Berne 1950-51). See further >refs. in the ODCC and Metzger. Many art books or general works on mss in >will show photos of it. Its text is Latin, Vulgate, with lots of conflations. If you want a *fast* look at the art, there is a photograph of part of a page on the Encyclopedia site. Look in the article on versions. The Book of Kells is usually cited in the Latin apparatus as Q. It is considered to have an Irish text, with a rather high number of conflations. Being such a fine specimen of illumination, there you can also find pictures in a lot of art books. (The meaning of that is left as an exercise for the reader. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 2 14:55:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21829; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:55:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:58:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33BB2151.68CD@sn.no> References: <33BA070B.1DC0@total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Charity (Was: Erasmus) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2763 Some things I can let pass. When Helge Evensen makes false and self-contradictory statements about the Textus Receptus, I can ignore it. When he makes ridiculous statements about the textual theories of Erasmus, I can stand aside. But when he insults that once-noble monument which is the English Language, I cannot leave the matter alone. [ ... ] >Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the >above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the >meaning "love" today. True in theory. False in practice. I challenge you to find *any* native speaker of English (at least in America) to whom the primary meaning of charity is affection rather than almsgiving. >I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find >that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary *This* is a standard English dictionary? Not where I live.... >(1987) has this definition of the word "charity": >"1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards >other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She >found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_. >1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG >_He is far too proud to accept charity_". The American Heritage Dictionary (which *is* a standard dictionary) offers this as its first definition: 1. The provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition, and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity" cannot be equated in ordinary conversation. And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be translated into colloquial English, not theological English! [ ... ] >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy. This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP- are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered consistently. To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random. >The KJV translators had great >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit >the particular context. This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997. The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the greatest ever works of English literature. It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it is *not in the language modern people speak.* Rant-and-rave mode off. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 2 15:06:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21905; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 15:06:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 15:07:50 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Charity (Was: Erasmus) X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970702150536.2467eb24@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: 1147 At 01:58 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the >greatest ever works of English literature. Right after the New Revised English Bible. > >It's also obsolete. It is absolutely obsolete. > Even if one ignores its defective text, based on second rate, inferior and much tampered with texts. > even >if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, and they did not know a lot- because they depended more heavily on the work of their predecessors than they did on original translations of their own. > it >is *not in the language modern people speak.* > nor even close. The reason folk are attached to the KJV is because they DONT want to know what the Bible says- so they read an outmoded translation simply to feel good about themselves without any regard for the meaning of the text. >Rant-and-rave mode off. > Why? >Bob Waltz >waltzmn@skypoint.com 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 Wed Jul 2 17:21:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23180; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 17:21:40 -0400 Message-ID: <33BAC84A.EE622ECA@accesscomm.net> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 16:29:47 -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: The book of Kells X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19970702120921.18e79436@mail.highland.net> 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: 622 Jim West wrote: > Could someone please tell me what the above mentioned document is and > what > it contains? I have only been able to ascertain that it is an 8th > century > NT ms. > > Is there an online edition or a print edition of it? If so, who is > the > publisher? > > Thanks ever so much. > > 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 Jim: Check out: http://www.osl.state.or.us/csimages/kells/bk2.htm Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 2 17:31:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23258; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 17:31:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 17:34:12 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: The book of Kells X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970702173157.23a7287e@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: 380 At 04:29 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote: > > Jim: > > Check out: > > http://www.osl.state.or.us/csimages/kells/bk2.htm > >Jack > > Thanks Jack- very useful. 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 Wed Jul 2 22:24:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA24286; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:24:47 -0400 From: BillCombs@aol.com Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970702222554_-559671379@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re-Erasmus's Latin Translation Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2806 Helge Evensen wrote: >I do not believe that Brown has demonstrated that >Erasmus did *not* prepare or work on a Latin translation prior to 1514. >Just because it cannot be *proved* that he made a complete NT translation >prior to that time, it does not follow that Erasmus did not at all work >in preparation for a future edition. Brown has proven that the only positive evidence that was used to support a Latin translation before 1514 is invalid. Since there is no other evidence to support such a claim, why give it any credence? >In 1984 (the year of Brownxs paper) de Jonge made these statements >(quoted in one of the previous posts): > "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". >And: > "By 1506 at the latest Erasmus had completed his new translation >of Paulxs epistles, and not later than 1509 he had made a new version of >the Gospels.......". >Since de Jonge is a specialist on Erasmian studies, I have reason to take >his findings and conclusions seriously. As you say, de Jonge made his statements in 1984, before he could have seen Brown's paper. I doubt he would hold the same view today. Ericka Rummel also held to a pre-1514 Latin translation before Brown's paper (see her Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics, p. 89. Writing after Brown's paper in her 1986 book, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament, she says: "The theory that Erasmus had begun work on a translation before 1506 was, however, at odds with his own testimony, for he consistently claimed that the idea of adding a translation to his New Testament edition occurred to him only when the project was already well advanced. In polemics against Edward Lee, Johannes Sutor, and Frans Titelmans, Erasmus declared that the plan was conceived by friends when the publication was already in progress. He claimed that it had not been his own intention to add a new translation--scholarly friends had urged him to do so--and insisted that nothing had been further from his mind at first" (p. 20). de Jonge has shown that the Latin translation in the 1516 edition was only a slight revision of the Vulgate (The Character of Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament as Reflected in His Translation of Hebrews 9" Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1984. >I would like to read your article "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus". >How can I obtain a copy of it? This is a problem since the first issue of our journal is out of print. I could send you a copy as an attached file to an e-mail, I believe. It is MS Word for Mac version 5.1. Would that be of any use? Of course, I could run off a hard copy. Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 3 17:15:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27632; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:15:53 -0400 Message-ID: <33BCA026.7DC@sn.no> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 00:03:02 -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: Charity (Was: Erasmus) References: <33BA070B.1DC0@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: 12937 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > Some things I can let pass. When Helge Evensen makes false and > self-contradictory statements about the Textus Receptus, I can > ignore it. When he makes ridiculous statements about the textual > theories of Erasmus, I can stand aside. But when he insults that > once-noble monument which is the English Language, I cannot leave > the matter alone. Finally, I have crossed the line and have become guilty of committing sacrilege against the Holy English Language! > > >Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the > >above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the > >meaning "love" today. > > True in theory. False in practice. I challenge you to find *any* native > speaker of English (at least in America) to whom the primary meaning > of charity is affection rather than almsgiving. I guess I could have found more than one if I just sought hard enough for it. However, I am not willing to use the time it would take. I am at a great disadvantage at this point, since I am not a native speaker of English. But your statement above is, in fact, missing the point. Please consider again the statement of Mike to which I responded: > 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today, > and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love. > So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions?? This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context* of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language. My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today. It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement). I even used one of the standard Dictionaries to prove my point. I doubt that the Birmingham University (on whose International Language Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right. (Or maybe they are trying to "deceive" students concerning the meaning of this word?) In order for charity to have the meaning of "love" today, it does not necessarily mean that it is to be spoken in everyday language. There are *other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain enough. On the title page of the Collins Dictionary, we read: "HELPING LEARNERS WITH _REAL_ ENGLISH". So the meaning of charity which I referred to is actually REAL ENGLISH. There is more. In the Introduction, we read: "This dictionary is for people who want to *use* modern English. It offers *accurate* and detailed information on the way *modern* English is *used* in *all kinds* of communication. It is a useful guide to *writing* and **speaking** English as well as an aid to reading and *understanding*". "For the first time, a dictionary has been compiled by the *thorough* examination of a *representative* group of English texts, *spoken* and *written*, running to many millions of words. This means that in addition to all the tools of the conventional dictionary makers - wide reading and *experience* of English, other dictionaries and of course eyes and ears - this dictionary is based on *hard*, measurable *evidence*. No major uses are missed, and the number of times a use occurs has a *strong* influence on the *way* the *entries* are *organized*". "The dictionary team has had daily access to about 20 million words,.... The words came from books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, leaflets, conversations, radio and television broadcasts..... The aim was to provide a *fair representation* of *contemporary* English" (Introduction, p. xv, emphasis added). Well, if words mean anything, and if the Birmingham University does not lie, I have good reason for trusting the definitions in this dictionary. At least, I think it is fair to conclude that if they list "love" as the *primary* meaning of charity, this meaning can be regarded as one of the *valid* meanings of charity in modern English. If not, Birmingham must have really missed it here and probably in numerous other places. According to the quoted words, this must be a pretty good dictionary. At least, I am not competent to try to correct it. On the front flap, it reads: "An editorial team has worked for seven years using extensive computer facilities to study and analyse the patterns of use in millions of words of text". On the back cover, we find: "It is based on a detailed analysis of how *today`s* English is really *used*" and "90,000 examples taken from the COBUILD database show just how words and phrases are *really* used". (Emphasis added). The thing that called forth my response to Mike was not that he asserted that "love" is not the *primary* meaning of charity, but that it did not have that meaning *at all* today! Note also that I did not say that charity *primarily* means "love" in all situations at all times. I was depending on the order of the listing of the Dictionary. Since you yourself referred to a dictionary in your post, it seems that you think that a dictionary definition carries at least *some* weight. My dictionary disagrees with yours, so what? That fact alone should be enough to admit that "love" *is* a valid meaning of the word charity. It certainly is wrong to conclude blatant that it does not at all have that meaning in modern language. If that was the case, I doubt that any dictionary at all would have given it this definition. Another thing to consider is that as long as this word occurs in a very influential Bible translation, it *is* a currently used word in modern English. Christians are using it in connection with teaching, witnessing, counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English? To state otherwise is to say that "theological language" is *not* part of modern English. It *is* a known word today. It may not be used in the meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not part of modern English?? Is not christians who use this word today among native English speakers? > >I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find > >that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary > > *This* is a standard English dictionary? Not where I live.... That does not make it a non-standard. But it certainly is a standard dictionary at numerous schools and colleges. And since it is based on extensive research and hard evidence, there is no reason to doubt its reliability. Students are using it, and are being formed by it, linguistically. > >(1987) has this definition of the word "charity": > >"1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards > >other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She > >found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_. > >1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG > >_He is far too proud to accept charity_". > > The American Heritage Dictionary (which *is* a standard dictionary) offers > this as its first definition: > > 1. The provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. > > The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition, > and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity" > cannot be equated in ordinary conversation. (What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?) As I said earlier, "good godly men differ". And dictionaries differ. We should not forget that there may be a difference between English and American English, and that the KJV is written in *English*. Thus, we may discover that there are slight differences in the definitions between dictionaries intended for use in America and those intended for use in England. But even though your American dictionary did not list "love" as a primary meaning of charity, I have one that does. I am talking about the Webster`s Dictionary of the American Language. That one may be regarded as a standard dictionary, I suppose. (Maybe not by all). On the front cover we find the following announcement: over 50,000 entries derivations **modern definitions** parts of speech syllabized clear type indexed (emphasis added) One of the things I expect to find when I open this dictionary, is *modern definitions* of the English words. I now open it to the word charity; and guess what I find? Yes, you guessed it, here it is: "n. (Bib.) love and goodwill to men; liberality to the poor; leniency in judging others; any act of kindness; alms; a charitable cause or institution". That is all this dictionary has to say about this word. Note that while it indicates that the word is "Biblical", it does not separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all together. But since you referred to a "standard" dictionary, let me refer to another one which is *certainly* a standard: The Oxford Advanced Learner`s Dictionary, New Edition (fourth edition), Oxford 1989. On the title page it is called a dictionary "of *Current* English" (emphasis added). This one better be right, for it is responsible for thousands of students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world. When I open this dictionary I expect to find definitions according to *current* English. And what do I find when I open it at the word charity? Yes, you guessed it again, here it is: "_n_ 1 [U] loving kindness towards others. 2 [U] tolerance in judging others; kindness; leniency: _judge people with charity_. 3 [U] (a) (generosity in) giving money, food, help, etc to the needy......etc." It cannot be rightly held as a fact that "love" is not one of the meanings of charity. Whether you choose a dictionary which lists this meaning first or one that lists it last. The meaning is *there*. > And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be > translated into colloquial English, not theological English! It does not automatically follow that, just because the NT was written in colloquial Greek, a translation must be in colloquial in the receptor language. That must depend on the ability of that particular language to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible. And what *is* "theological English", by the way? 100 years from now, the words of colloquial English may be regarded as "theological language". The best words to use in a translation are those which best transfer to the reader the meaning and riches of the original language words. And English readers may be greatly rewarded by consulting the English dictionaries, and gain an understanding of the *real* meaning of words! It is wonderful that we have dictionaries to help us if we do not have an understanding of the real meanings of the words we are faced with. > > >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English > >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy. > > This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP- > are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered > consistently. Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in existense. > To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we > can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name > may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random. There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use of a group of ordinary words. It should not be necessary for me to comment further on that. (It seems that the word "equivalent" here is a little too strong.....) > >The KJV translators had great > >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit > >the particular context. > > This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997. Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed. One of the reasons that the word charity is still in use today and still contains the meaning it had in 1611, is precisely the circumstance that the 1611 version has had greater influence on the English language than any other book. > The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the > greatest ever works of English literature. Amen and Amen!!!! > > It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even > if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it > is *not in the language modern people speak.* I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book which is different from a newspaper? > > Rant-and-rave mode off. I doubt that, after this post....; you may feel free to turn it *on* again now.... -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 3 18:25:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27989; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 18:25:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:27:35 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33BCA026.7DC@sn.no> References: <33BA070B.1DC0@total.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: Charity (Was: Erasmus) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8071 On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ] >Robert B. Waltz wrote: [ ... ] >> 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today, >> and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love. >> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions?? > >This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the >fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context* >of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is >a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English >use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language. >My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the >blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today. >It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning >of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement). The primary meaning is surely what people understand it to mean. And they understand it to mean "charity." I do not argue that this is "good" -- in fact, I object to the way certain people use certain words. Very obvious example: "Gay." In my vocabulary, "gay" is a word meaning "chearful," and is applied primarily to ladies -- at least in traditional music. But it has now been -- er -- perverted to mean "homosexual." And for all that I wish it otherwise, when I hear the word "gay," I must usually interpret it as meaning "homosexual," not "cheerful." >I even used one of the standard Dictionaries to prove my point. >I doubt that the Birmingham University (on whose International Language >Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right. But if two dictionaries disagree, should we not investigate further? And we are finding that the English speakers on the list understand the word as "almsgiving." >(Or maybe they are trying to "deceive" students concerning the meaning of >this word?) > >In order for charity to have the meaning of "love" today, it does not >necessarily mean that it is to be spoken in everyday language. There are >*other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain >enough. Not really. My interpretation of the above statement is that we are to speak some sort of code because that's what your dictionary says. [... ] > >Another thing to consider is that as long as this word occurs in a very >influential Bible translation, it *is* a currently used word in modern >English. Christians are using it in connection with teaching, witnessing, >counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English? Really? Anybody want to tell me what a "blain" is (Ex. 9:9)? :-) >To state otherwise is to say that "theological language" is *not* part >of modern English. It *is* a known word today. It may not be used in the >meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not >part of modern English?? In my experience, it is not. And my English (unlike my Greek) is quite good. [ ... ] >> The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition, >> and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity" >> cannot be equated in ordinary conversation. > >(What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?) "Ordinary conversation" is anything people say without trying to sound affected. [ ... ] >That is all this dictionary has to say about this word. >Note that while it indicates that the word is "Biblical", it does not >separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all >together. But -- trust me -- most people *don't* speak "Biblical English" in ordinary life, and can't be expected to understand it. Certainly they aren't taught it. In fact, any attempt to teach it in American public schools would be unconstitutional. >But since you referred to a "standard" dictionary, let me refer to >another one which is *certainly* a standard: The Oxford Advanced >Learner`s Dictionary, New Edition (fourth edition), Oxford 1989. >On the title page it is called a dictionary "of *Current* English" >(emphasis added). >This one better be right, for it is responsible for thousands of >students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world. The ultimate authority, perhaps, is the Oxford English Dictionary. Anybody out there have an OED to check? >When I open this dictionary I expect to find definitions according to >*current* English. And what do I find when I open it at the word >charity? Yes, you guessed it again, here it is: >"_n_ 1 [U] loving kindness towards others. 2 [U] tolerance in judging >others; kindness; leniency: _judge people with charity_. 3 [U] (a) >(generosity in) giving money, food, help, etc to the needy......etc." > >It cannot be rightly held as a fact that "love" is not one of the >meanings of charity. Whether you choose a dictionary which lists this >meaning first or one that lists it last. The meaning is *there*. > >> And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be >> translated into colloquial English, not theological English! > >It does not automatically follow that, just because the NT was written >in colloquial Greek, a translation must be in colloquial in the receptor >language. That must depend on the ability of that particular language >to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible. Modern English is fully as capable of translating Greek as the language of the KJV -- which happens to be early Modern English. It merely translates it differently. [ ... ] >> >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English >> >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy. >> >> This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP- >> are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered >> consistently. > >Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer >to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in >existense. But you are arguing for rendering it inconsistently, because the KJV rendders it inconsistently. Please, either be consistent or tell us that you don't care about logic. :-) >> To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we >> can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name >> may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random. > >There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use >of a group of ordinary words. I see none. It should not be necessary for me to >comment further on that. (It seems that the word "equivalent" here is a >little too strong.....) > >> >The KJV translators had great >> >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit >> >the particular context. >> >> This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997. > >Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed. That's *my* point. [ ... ] >> It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even >> if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it >> is *not in the language modern people speak.* > >I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily >be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book >which is different from a newspaper? Are you Protestant? I assume so. I imagine you are Lutheran. Is not the Priesthood of All Believers an important component of Lutheranism? Surely this means people must be able to understand their Bible. But people *do not* understand the KJV. I agree that is regretable; I wish more people could understand Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV. But it is true. We cannot hold back time. We can only bring our translations up to date. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Jul 3 20:31:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA28309; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 20:31:21 -0400 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 10:04:42 +0930 From: Andrew Kulikovsky Subject: acc. vs gen reading To: "'b-greek@virginia.edu'" Cc: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Message-id: <41716A1A94C8CF11A71400A0240007FC224E18@ntserv2.celsiustech.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-type: text/plain X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1473 Filloi, (Aussie translation: G'day mates!) I was reading Fee's exegesis of Rom 8:11 in his book God's Empowering Presence where he accepted a variant reading over the UBS4 reading. The UBS4 reading has: DIA TOU ENOIKOUNTOS and the variant: DIA TO ENOIKOUN Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also supported by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked Metzger's Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness containing the Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing the gospels - no mention of Romans anywhere! So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so then what about Metzger's descriptions? Secondly, Fee's acceptance of the variant means DIA must be taken with the accustive and therefore is causal making the translation "because of" instead of the genative "through". This argument fits the context very well and seems very convincing to me - I'm just a bit worried about the manuscript confusion... So what do the rest of you 'oll think? cheers, Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS Software Engineer CelsiusTech Australia Module 6 Endeavor House Technology Park Adelaide Australia 5095 Ph: +618 8343 3837 Fax: +618 8343 3777 email: anku@celsiustech.com.au Some people are so narrow-minded, they can see through a key hole with both eyes Others are so open-minded their brain has fallen out. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 3 21:48:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA28503; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 21:48:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 20:51:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <41716A1A94C8CF11A71400A0240007FC224E18@ntserv2.celsiustech.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: acc. vs gen reading Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2975 On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: >Filloi, (Aussie translation: G'day mates!) > >I was reading Fee's exegesis of Rom 8:11 [ ... ] > The UBS4 reading has: >DIA TOU ENOIKOUNTOS > >and the variant: >DIA TO ENOIKOUN > >Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be >discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also supported >by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked Metzger's >Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness containing the >Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing the gospels - >no mention of Romans anywhere! You were reading the Gospels list. In Paul, D is Codex Claromontanus, not Bezae, and G is also a different manuscript. Both are Western -- *in Paul.* Not that Metzger's manuscript lists are worth much. (IMHO.) >So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so then >what about Metzger's descriptions? Let's give the raw evidence, then classify. (I maintain this is how *all* variants should be analysed -- though of course others use different approaches.) TOU ENOIKOUNTOS Aleph A C P** 81 88 104 206 223 256 263 326 436 623 1319 1505 1506 1611 1799 1852 1962 2127 2495 f m hark sa bo arm eth geo slav Clement TO ENOIKOUN B D F G K L P* Psi 6 33 181 330 424 451 (614) 629 630 1022 1175 1241 1739 1881 (1912) 2200 2412 2464 2492 Byz a b d vg pesh (pal) Ir-lat Origen Ambrosiaster ******** Analysing by text-types, we find TOU ENOIKOUNTOS: p46-B: sa Alexandrian: Aleph A C 81 104 1506 family 2127 (=256 263 [hiat 365] 1319 2127 etc.) bo eth "Western:" f m family 1739: (none) Byzantine: slav pc Misc: family 1611: 1505 1611 2495 hark family 330: (none) arm geo Clement TO ENOIKOUN: p46-B: B Alexandrian (none -- 33 1175 1241 are Byzantine in Romans) "Western": D F G a b d vg Ir-lat Ambrosiaster family 1739: 6 630-2200 1739 1881 Origen (no correction in 424) Byzantine: K L Psi 33 (614)-2412 1022 1175 1241 pm Byz Misc: family 1611: (none) family 330: 330 451 2492 pal In other words, TOU ENOIKOUNTOS is the reading of the Alexandrian text, supported only by family 1611 and some scattered witnesses. TO ENOIKOUN has the support of B, the "Western" text, and family 1739. It is also supported by family 330, but this might be Byzantine influence. Even so, since three text-types support TO ENOIKOUN, it should be adopted barring extremely strong internal evidence -- which I don't see here. In other words, I agree with Fee against UBS. It's worth remembering that the UBS committee almost always adopted the Alexandrian reading, whatever the other evidence says.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Jul 3 22:42:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA28632; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 22:42:10 -0400 Message-ID: <33BC6396.48586729@concentric.net> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 19:44:38 -0700 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: acc. vs gen reading X-Priority: 3 (Normal) 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: 2972 I gound Robert Waltx's analysis quite helpful but now I have a question. I can't say that I remember ever reading the classification of miniscule MSS like 33,81, and 1739, etc., but it seems to me that usually, these three MSS agree with major Alexandrian MSS like A and B. This seems so much the case that I'd assumed these miniscules were Alexandrian. I thought I'd seen them classified that way long ago. Robert Waltz has treated them, if I've read his analysis correctly, as either Western, or not belonging to a "text type." Would someone please clear this up for me? Thanks. Ken Litwak Graduate Theological Union Berkeley, CA Robert B. Waltz wrote: [snip] > You were reading the Gospels list. In Paul, D is Codex Claromontanus, > not > Bezae, and G is also a different manuscript. > > Both are Western -- *in Paul.* > > Not that Metzger's manuscript lists are worth much. (IMHO.) > > >So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so > then > >what about Metzger's descriptions? > > Let's give the raw evidence, then classify. (I maintain this is how > *all* variants should be analysed -- though of course others use > different approaches.) > > TOU ENOIKOUNTOS > Aleph A C P** > 81 88 104 206 223 256 263 326 436 623 1319 1505 1506 1611 1799 1852 > 1962 2127 2495 > f m hark sa bo arm eth geo slav > Clement > > TO ENOIKOUN > B D F G K L P* Psi > 6 33 181 330 424 451 (614) 629 630 1022 1175 1241 1739 1881 (1912) > 2200 > 2412 2464 2492 Byz > a b d vg pesh (pal) > Ir-lat Origen Ambrosiaster > > ******** > > Analysing by text-types, we find > > TOU ENOIKOUNTOS: > p46-B: sa > Alexandrian: Aleph A C 81 104 1506 > family 2127 (=256 263 [hiat 365] 1319 2127 etc.) bo eth > "Western:" f m > family 1739: (none) > Byzantine: slav pc > Misc: > family 1611: 1505 1611 2495 hark > family 330: (none) > arm geo Clement > > TO ENOIKOUN: > p46-B: B > Alexandrian (none -- 33 1175 1241 are Byzantine in Romans) > "Western": D F G a b d vg Ir-lat Ambrosiaster > family 1739: 6 630-2200 1739 1881 Origen (no correction in 424) > Byzantine: K L Psi 33 (614)-2412 1022 1175 1241 pm Byz > Misc: > family 1611: (none) > family 330: 330 451 2492 > pal > > In other words, TOU ENOIKOUNTOS is the reading of the Alexandrian > text, supported only by family 1611 and some scattered witnesses. > TO ENOIKOUN has the support of B, the "Western" text, and family > 1739. It is also supported by family 330, but this might be > Byzantine influence. Even so, since three text-types support > TO ENOIKOUN, it should be adopted barring extremely strong > internal evidence -- which I don't see here. > > In other words, I agree with Fee against UBS. > > It's worth remembering that the UBS committee almost always adopted > the Alexandrian reading, whatever the other evidence says.... > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 4 08:20:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29615; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:20:26 -0400 Message-ID: <33BD744D.77BE@sn.no> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:08:13 -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: Charity (Was: Erasmus) References: <33BA070B.1DC0@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: 5870 Mr. Waltz, Thanks for your response. It is obvious that my former message did not help you understand what I am talking about, so I will just briefly end my contribution to this debate with the present post. And, admittedly, my limited experience as to the practical use of the English language, naturally hinders me from going further with this. Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: > > [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ] Fine with me. > >Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > [ ... ] > > >> 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today, > >> and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love. > >> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions?? > > > >This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the > >fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context* > >of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is > >a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English > >use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language. > >My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the > >blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today. > >It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning > >of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement). > > The primary meaning is surely what people understand it to mean. And they > understand it to mean "charity." What does, for instance, the word "grace" mean in contemporary English language outside "religious talk"? And the word "holy"? If they are not used in the Biblical meaning, is that a reason for avoiding the use of them in modern English translations? If so, not many translators have thought it necessary, for very few translations substitute these words. [.....] > >> >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English > >> >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy. > >> > >> This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP- > >> are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered > >> consistently. > > > >Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer > >to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in > >existense. > > But you are arguing for rendering it inconsistently, because the > KJV rendders it inconsistently. Please, either be consistent or > tell us that you don't care about logic. :-) This is a misunderstanding. I did not *argue* for rendering it inconsistently. I stated what was my *personal* preference with regard to the rendering of AGAPE, and that this view is not the only *valid* one. That is, *other* choices may be *valid*. But despite my own view, it is a fact that one Greek word does not always have to be rendered by the same English word. And that *may* be the case with the word AGAPE. I did *not* state anything conclusive, or that AGAPE *must necessarily* be rendered consistently. Actually, I have not stated that the KJV *always* has the word AGAPE rendered correctly. My argument is that it is wrong to say that the word "charity" does *not at all* have the meaning "love" today. That was my concern in my response to Mike. My personal preference may be the one or the other, but evidence is evidence, and that is what I have presented with regard to the word "charity". And I have not depended on my own opinions, I have cited evidence. If I had *not* found evidence for my statements regarding the word "charity", I would not have bothered this list with my opinions. Because of my limited experience with regard to the English language, it would be impossible for me to argue at all about the uses of that language in everyday talk, if I had not found evidence in dictionaries. If these dictionaries are not representative of the current use of English, that is really not my responsibility. Besides, I never did say that "charity" was used by all in the meaning "love". My only contention is that "charity" still contains the meaning "love", as it is found in the dictionaries which I have consulted. > >> To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we > >> can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name > >> may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random. > > > >There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use > >of a group of ordinary words. > > I see none. I may add that I have not argued that one is to use the words "love" and "charity" *at random*. The rendering of words must be done carefully, not "at random" (unless you used the expression in the sense of "irregular"). > >> It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even > >> if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it > >> is *not in the language modern people speak.* > > > >I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily > >be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book > >which is different from a newspaper? > > Are you Protestant? I assume so. I imagine you are Lutheran. Is not > the Priesthood of All Believers an important component of Lutheranism? > Surely this means people must be able to understand their Bible. > But people *do not* understand the KJV. Yes, I am Protestant. However, I am also "Charis(auto)matic" (that is, one who believes in the "auotomatic" giving of "Grace" to *anyone* who accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour and believes His Holy Word!) [...] > > I wish more people could understand > Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV. I agree. [...] > We can only bring our translations up to date. I clearly disagree with you there, but we cannot continue this debate forever, so enough for now. Thanks so far. God bless. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 4 09:19:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29674; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 09:19:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:22:18 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33BC6396.48586729@concentric.net> 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: acc. vs gen reading Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4206 On Thu, 03 Jul 1997, kdlitwak wrote: > I gound Robert Waltx's analysis quite helpful but now I have a >question. I can't say that I remember ever reading the classification >of miniscule MSS like 33,81, and 1739, etc., but it seems to me that >usually, these three MSS agree with major Alexandrian MSS like A and B. >This seems so much the case that I'd assumed these miniscules were >Alexandrian. I thought I'd seen them classified that way long ago. >Robert Waltz has treated them, if I've read his analysis correctly, as >either Western, or not belonging to a "text type." Would someone please >clear this up for me? Thanks. Remember that I do my own analysis of text-types, using computer sampling techniques. Thus my results are somewhat different (I say better, Larry Hurtado would probably say worse) than those in the standard manuals. But let's look at what I said. In the case of 81, I classified it as Alexandrian. No disagreements there. In the case of 33, it is of course generally Alexandrian. In fact, after Aleph, it appears to be the best Alexandrian witness in Paul. *Except* in Romans. I have read that 33's text of Romans comes from another hand. Certainly its text is different. In Romans -- and *only* in Romans -- 33 is a primarily Byzantine witness. Then there is the truly complicated matter of 1739. When it was first discovered, it was listed as Alexandrian. That was based on the fact that it wasn't Byzantine (obviously) and wasn't "Western." It was Zuntz who first noted that the Alexandrian text wasn't just a monolithic entity. He split it into two subgroups, "proto-Alexandrian" and Alexandrian proper. He put 1739, along with p46 and B, in the former group. Zuntz's great achievement lay in "breaking the mold"; he didn't assume existing text-types. Instead, he started from p46 -- the earliest witness -- and tried to see where that led. This was a real advance, but even it was an imperfect approach. Zuntz noted that 1739 came closer to p46 and B than did other Alexandrian witnesses such as Aleph and A. Therefore Zuntz classified 1739 with those witnesses. My approach is different and, I think, more complete. I start *everywhere* at once. And in that process I found that 1739 is closer to all three established groups (p46-B, Alexandrian, "Western") than they are to each other. This leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either 1739 is a sort of primitive eclectic text, compiled from proto-Alexandrian, Alexandrian, and "Western" witnesses, or it represents a text-type in its own right. The question then becomes, "Are there any other witnesses of the 1739 type?" The answer is emphatically YES! There are two uncials: 0121 (M) and 0243. And there are quite a few minuscules, among them (in Paul) 6 424** 630+2200 (in Romans-Galatians) 1881. One of these -- 0121 -- gives some evidence of being actually descended from 1739 (with at least one intermediate copy which was partly accomodated to the Byzantine text). But the others are *not*. 6 and 424** form a subgroup with some non-Byzantine readings not found in 1739. 1881 (the best "1739-type" witness other than 1739 itself) also has some independent readings. 0243 looks like a sister or first cousin of 1739, but it does not appear to be either parent or child. Thus we have several "family 1739" witnesses not directly derived from 1739 itself. On this basis I consider it to be a text-type in its own right. Hence my listing of 1739, and its relatives, apart from the Alexandrian text. If you want more details, check the article on "text-types" at the web site below. Also see the individual articles on 33, 81, 1739, and any other minuscules that interest you. I'm working -- slowly -- on a detailed study of family 1739 -- particularly on the relationship between 1739 and 0243 -- but I can't promise when it will be complete. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Jul 4 13:31:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00376; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:31:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ben.crick@argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick) To: @virginia.edu@shemesh Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 4 Jul 97 17:54:32 X-Mailer: VTi Internet Email reader 1.09 : aa Subject: Re: acc. vs gen reading Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1459 On Fri 4 Jul 97 (10:04:42 +0930), anku@celsiustech.com.au wrote: >=A0Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be >=A0discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also >=A0supported by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked >=A0Metzger's Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness >=A0containing the Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing= >=A0the gospels - no mention of Romans anywhere! Hullo Andrew, I think you'll find that "D" in the Epistles is Codex Claramontanus (Paris= , sixth century), containing the Pauline epistles; not C Bezae which is Gosp= els and Acts only. "G" is a ninth-century MSS in Dresden (v Dobschuetz 012; v Soden a1028), containing the Pauline epistles. FWIW the King James opted for DIA TO ENOIKOUN (Byzantine text). The Revised Version of 1881 relegated that to the margin, and opted for TOU ENOIKOUNTOS AUTOU PNEUMATOS. It is well known that Westcott and Hort frequently preferred the "difficult" reading, on the grounds that that wou= ld be the more likely to have been "improved" by an editor; therefore the more likely to have been the original. IMHO this is rather a subjective approach to the problem. I think Fee has got it right. Charles Hodge, /Romans/, new edition, Edinburgh, 1864, pp 260f has an interesting comment antedating W&H: "For the reading DIA TO ENOIKOUN AUTOU PNEUMA, Wetstein quotes the MSS D.E= From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 4 13:54:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00416; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:54:31 -0400 Message-ID: <33BD3ADA.622DFCE6@accesscomm.net> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 13:03:06 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b4 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: TC for the Layman and Bob Waltz 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: 1798 > TCers: I am primarily a lurker and learner on the tc-list. My own area of interest is that shadowy period of the original sources of the New Testament writings, outside of Paul, and what can be devined of the original Yeshuine Jews (my coinage). Although TC can cast little light on this period, it is valuable in showing me how the Greek-folk transmitted the oral and written sources of the Jewish Jesus-folk. Obviously, therefore, I have a great interest in the Syriac texts and how they may preserve the Aramaic idiom of the "vox ipsissima Iesu." In this regard, I find the works of Lamsa, Fitzmyer and Jeremias of great value but am beginning to see some of the pitfalls of "retroversion." As a layman, my access to TC has been through the works of Metzger and the modern scholars as well as the historicals. I am oftimes a bit disgruntled that New Testament scholars tend to be, in my opinion, overly Graecophilic (is that a word?) and discussions on the possible Aramaic behind the Greek often lead to minor bouts of apoplexy. I understand, however, that we can only work with the surviving evidence we have in hand...which is Greek, so I tend to forgive the flames that come my way when discussing the possible idiomatic differences between a Greek rendering and its Aramaic rendering. The former being merely background, the primary reason for this post is to publicly express my appreciation and gratitude to Robert Waltz for the tremendous gift he has offered to anyone with a PC and a desire to learn more about the present art of Textual Criticism, namely his website at: > http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn The test of a true scholar is not in how much he/she knows, but how much he/she departs to others. Jack Kilmon Houston, Texas jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 4 14:07:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00486; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:07:57 -0400 Message-ID: <33BDC5C1.139@sn.no> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 20:55:45 -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: Re-Erasmus's Latin Translation References: <970702222554_-559671379@emout06.mail.aol.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: 9480 BillCombs@aol.com wrote: > > Helge Evensen wrote: > > >I do not believe that Brown has demonstrated that > >Erasmus did *not* prepare or work on a Latin translation prior to 1514. > >Just because it cannot be *proved* that he made a complete NT translation > >prior to that time, it does not follow that Erasmus did not at all work > >in preparation for a future edition. > > Brown has proven that the only positive evidence that was used to support a > Latin translation before 1514 is invalid. Since there is no other evidence to > support such a claim, why give it any credence? Actually, I have not given it any real credence. I have primarily referred to it as a possibility, a suggestion and a likelihood. And, as I said, it does not have to be a complete translation. I have not referred to any "positive evidence" in favour of such a theory, but I have referred to the conclusions of de jonge as likely. At least, I have not based my statements on "nothing". And if the evidence is decisive that he never did translation work before 1514, I am of course willing to submit to it. However, as for now, it does not seem to me to be proved. I guess one of the primary points has to do with what credence we grant Erasmus own statements about the matter. > > >In 1984 (the year of Brownxs paper) de Jonge made these statements > >(quoted in one of the previous posts): > > > "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". > > >And: > > > "By 1506 at the latest Erasmus had completed his new translation > >of Paulxs epistles, and not later than 1509 he had made a new version of > >the Gospels.......". > > >Since de Jonge is a specialist on Erasmian studies, I have reason to take > >his findings and conclusions seriously. > > As you say, de Jonge made his statements in 1984, before he could have seen > Brown's paper. I doubt he would hold the same view today. I have not read anything of de Jonge after the publication of his 1984 article(s) to that effect. So it is difficult to know whether he would agree with Brown. > Ericka Rummel also > held to a pre-1514 Latin translation before Brown's paper (see her Erasmus as > a Translator of the Classics, p. 89. Writing after Brown's paper in her 1986 > book, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament, she says: "The theory that > Erasmus had begun work on a translation before 1506 was, however, at odds > with his own testimony, for he consistently claimed that the idea of adding a > translation to his New Testament edition occurred to him only when the > project was already well advanced. In polemics against Edward Lee, Johannes > Sutor, and Frans Titelmans, Erasmus declared that the plan was conceived by > friends when the publication was already in progress. He claimed that it had > not been his own intention to add a new translation--scholarly friends had > urged him to do so--and insisted that nothing had been further from his mind > at first" (p. 20). Scholarly experience has shown that scholarly opinion shifts in accordance with the latest research. And so it must be. But because of that fact, we should not be quick to accept a view based on just one or two studies. There may not pass very many years until someone comes up with another study which disprove or weakens the latest research. Of course de Jonge had considered the statements by Erasmus to the effect that he had not planned any translation before 1514. But he found reasons to doubt the correctness of these statements. On the last page of his paper "Nov. Test. A Nobis Versum:......", he states in a footnote: "To prevent new misunderstandings I point out that in his last years Erasmus was to deny that he had ever contemplated making a new Latin translation of the New Testament before 1514....... P.S.Allen already observed in his introduction to Ep.384 that this was a distortion of the facts. Deeply dismayed and disturbed by the development of the Reformation, Erasmus tried to avoid the impression that he had ever wished to supersede the Vulgate with his new translation" (p.413). Erika Rummel, as mentioned, was convinced that Brown was right in his conclusions regarding Erasmus translation, and asserted accordingly that the veracity of Erasmus statements is "no longer in doubt" (p.21). But still I question the veracity of Erasmus statements as well as the veracity of the conclusions made by Brown. Note that I am just *questioning* it, not *rejecting* it! These statements are not my *conclusions*! Even if Erasmus did not consider the *publication* of a Latin translation at all, he may nevertheless have been in preparation for such a task for a long time ahead of the actual publication. The indication that Erasmus did study MSS years before 1514 is not affected even if I accept that he may *not* have engaged in translation work at all prior to 1514. And, of course, my acceptance of the TR is not dependent on such a thing. So why should I have any interest in asserting this at any cost? In the above mentioned book by Erika Rummel, there are several interesting statements to the effect that Erasmus was well prepared for the task of edit/publish an edition of the NT. Under the heading "Research and Preparation for the Edition of the New Testament", she writes: "After his return to the continent in 1500 Erasmus immersed himself in Greek studies with a view to applying his newly acquired skills to biblical texts" (p.18). She further writes: "In letters to friends Erasmus also described his translations of secular authors as preliminary studies preparing him for a more serious enterprise: the restoration and elucidation of Scripture" (p.19). Later on Rummel explains that Erasmus described his "youthful pursuits" as "a preparatory phase in which he had honed his skills until he felt ready to begin work on the New Testament" (p.20). Also, consider the following quotations from Rummel: "It is.....not immediately clear what Erasmus had in hand when he approached the Froben press with a publication project.......Erasmus had no doubt collated Greek and Latin manuscripts;...." (p.22). "Erasmus was familiar with the Greek text and had the requisite skill and experience to hasten such a project to completion" (p.23). "Perhaps Erasmus had planned to make only minor changes to the Vulgate text but came to the conclusion that such half-hearted measures were unsatisfactory. Perhaps it was at this point that his friends encouraged him to publish a substantially revised translation" (p.24). Finally, Rummel describes the Annotations thus: "They allow a glimpse behind the scenes. We see Erasmus in his workshop adding, deleting, and revising as he comes across new information and encounters new opposition. The Greek and Latin texts are mute witnesses to Erasmus research;....." (p.26). > de Jonge has shown that the Latin translation in the 1516 > edition was only a slight revision of the Vulgate (The Character of Erasmus' > Translation of the New Testament as Reflected in His Translation of Hebrews > 9" Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1984. I have a copy of this paper, but I could not find the exact reference you mention about the 1516 edition. Could you give the page number? In this paper, de Jonge states that the Latin translation in the 1516 edition was (according to the title page) "revised and improved" (recognitum et emendatum). de Jonge takes this expression as a reference to the *Latin*, not the Greek. In a footnote he states: "As there were no Greek editions of the N.T. that could be "revised and improved" in 1516, the title of Erasmus editions of the N.T. announced only his Latin translation, not his edition of the Greek" (p.81). I believe the following citations from de Jonge applies here: "....numerous reactions of Erasmus contemporaries also make it clear that it was their view, as well as that of Erasmus, that the _Novum Instrumentum_ was in the first instance a new version of the New Testament in Latin. Both the praise and the criticism of contemporaries was concerned mainly with the Latin version, and with Erasmus comments, while the Greek text received little attention. It was the translation which gave many a new insight into the New Testament,....." If it was considered as a *new version* and if it caused many to get new insight into the NT, its departure from the Vulgate must have been regarded as important. "What made so many opponents furious was that Erasmus had taken it upon himself, on his own authority, to change the Latin biblical text,...." (Novum Test. A Nobis Versum:......", p.404-5). This shows that the deviations from the Vulgate text was extensive enough to arouse considerable opposition. Many of the deviations have been discussed and analyzed by de Jonge and others. > > >I would like to read your article "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus". > >How can I obtain a copy of it? > > This is a problem since the first issue of our journal is out of print. I > could send you a copy as an attached file to an e-mail, I believe. It is MS > Word for Mac version 5.1. Would that be of any use? Of course, I could run > off a hard copy. I am not sure whether or not I can use a Mac format doc. on my computer, or convert it. I use Windows 3.1. You may try to send it as you suggest, attached to an e-mail. Thanks -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 6 13:45:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04093; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 13:45:37 -0400 Message-ID: <33C0638B.4101@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 20:33:31 -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: Pickering´s address 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: 208 Is there anybody on this list who knows at which address Wilbur Pickering can be reached? I have tried several times to get in touch with him, but not succeeded. Thanks in advance -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 6 15:56:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04382; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 15:56:59 -0400 Message-ID: <33C021C2.4C30@total.net> Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 15:52:50 -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: Pickering´s address References: <33C0638B.4101@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: 407 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > Is there anybody on this list who knows at which address Wilbur > Pickering can be reached? > > I have tried several times to get in touch with him, but not succeeded. > > Thanks in advance > > -- > - Mr. Helge Evensen Helge, The last address I have of Pickering is: CP 3205 71001-970 Guara I, DF Brazil phone: 001 (55-61) 354-8771 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 7 14:55:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07493; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 14:55:35 -0400 From: BillCombs@aol.com Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 13:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970707132322_-1896394527@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Erasmus's Latin Translation Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1634 Helge Evensen wrote: >Of course de Jonge had considered the statements by Erasmus to the effect >that he had not planned any translation before 1514. But he found reasons >to doubt the correctness of these statements. On the last page of his >paper "Nov. Test. A Nobis Versum:......", he states in a footnote: > "To prevent new misunderstandings I point out that >in his last years Erasmus was to deny that he had ever contemplated >making a new Latin translation of the New Testament before 1514....... >P.S.Allen already observed in his introduction to Ep.384 >that this was a distortion of the facts. Deeply dismayed and disturbed >by the development of the Reformation, Erasmus tried to avoid the >impression that he had ever wished to supersede the Vulgate with his new >translation" (p.413). I think the "reasons he found to doubt" were mss which were thought to prove a Latin translation by Erasmus prior to 1514. P.S. Allen is simply conjecturing a theory as to why Erasmus would deny what Allen thought was a fact--Erasmus had indeed produced a Latin translation before 1514. But, now with Browne's research, there is no reason not to take Erasmus at his word. The reference from de Jonge's article in the Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies is on p. 82. He says: "It is clear that, in the chapter under consideration, Erasmus' translation is not an independent version, but a revision of the Vg. with the aid of Greek manuscripts. Erasmus changed the Vg. test wherever this seemed to him to be necessary or desirable, but otherwise he left it as it stood." Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 7 20:14:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08502; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 20:14:45 -0400 Message-ID: <33C21046.32F2@sn.no> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 03:02:46 -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's Latin Translation References: <970707132322_-1896394527@emout04.mail.aol.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: 3302 BillCombs@AOL.COM wrote: > > Helge Evensen wrote: > > >Of course de Jonge had considered the statements by Erasmus to the eff= ect > >that he had not planned any translation before 1514. But he found reas= ons > >to doubt the correctness of these statements. On the last page of his > >paper "Nov. Test. A Nobis Versum:......", he states in a footnote: > > "To prevent new misunderstandings I point out that > >in his last years Erasmus was to deny that he had ever contemplated > >making a new Latin translation of the New Testament before 1514....... > >P.S.Allen already observed in his introduction to Ep.384 > >that this was a distortion of the facts. Deeply dismayed and disturbed > >by the development of the Reformation, Erasmus tried to avoid the > >impression that he had ever wished to supersede the Vulgate with his n= ew > >translation" (p.413). > > I think the "reasons he found to doubt" were mss which were thought to = prove > a Latin translation by Erasmus prior to 1514. P.S. Allen is simply > conjecturing a theory as to why Erasmus would deny what Allen thought w= as a > fact--Erasmus had indeed produced a Latin translation before 1514. But,= now > with Browne's research, there is no reason not to take Erasmus at his w= ord. Of course, this may be the "scholarly consensus" *now* (until a new investigation [maybe] will show something else). In the meantime, we may at least take Brown=B4s results into serious consideration. I doubt it is the final word on the subject, though. > > The reference from de Jonge's article in the Journal of Medieval and > Renaissance Studies is on p. 82. He says: "It is clear that, in the cha= pter > under consideration, Erasmus' translation is not an independent version= , but > a revision of the Vg. with the aid of Greek manuscripts. Erasmus change= d the > Vg. test wherever this seemed to him to be necessary or desirable, but > otherwise he left it as it stood." Of course it had to be a *dependent* version, a revision of the Vulgate, the latter being based on a very strong Latin tradition. But nevertheless, it was a *revision* (which may vary from book to book, or even from passage to passage) that aroused considerable reaction. That speaks for itself. At the time, even the slightest change from the Vulgate would, in some quarters, be regarded as sacrilege. This might even have hindered Erasmus from going as far as he wished with the revision. It is interesting to note here that since the Vulgate is not as far from the TR as (for instance) the modern Critical text is, the revision made by Erasmus needed not be very extensive, in order to conform to his *Greek* text. As de Jonge noted, Erasmus presented his translation as a *revision* of the current Latin text (the Vulgate). It should be observed that in the quote by Jonge above, he refers to his own investigation of Hebrews 9 from the *fifth and final* edition of Erasmus (1535), not the 1516 edition. Referring to the 1535 edition, de Jonge stated: "In this edition, *thirty years* of work found their completion" (p.81), (emphasis added). Note that Erasmus revision was not only *textual*, but also *translational*. Consequently, in many of the places where "he left it as it stood", it had to do with the Latin *rendering*. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 8 18:29:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11639; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:29:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 18:29:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new book review 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: 925 A review of Roderic L. Mullen, The New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem, by Vincent Broman is now available on the pages of TC (volume 2). I hope to have several other reviews ready in the next two or three weeks. As always, TC is accepting proposals for articles, too! I've also added a new link to the TC Links page, under the section on articles. The editor of the Journal of Electronic Publishing asked me to write an article about my experiences as editor of an electronic journal, and in particular the advantages and drawbacks of electronic vs. print journals. Although this article does not deal directly with textual criticism, some on the list might find it of interest. The link is to a pre-pub copy of the article, which is supposed to appear in September in JEP. 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 Wed Jul 9 06:29:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA12992; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 06:29:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 06:29:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: another new book review 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: 384 Another new book review is now available in TC. William Petersen has written a review of George A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Go to the TC home page and choose "TC volume 2" to see the review of this important new work. 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 Wed Jul 9 22:17:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA15231; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 22:17:33 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC8CBA.427C9D80@2071597818.bellatlantic.net> From: "R. DAVID LARGE" To: "'TC-List'" Subject: JETS Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 22:43:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 944 Dear TCers, I have heard much, and read even more, about a lively exchange that took = place some time ago between Gordon Fee and Zane Hodges in the pages of = JETS, regarding the Majority Text. Unfortunately, I do not have access = to JETS locally, and would be more than a little grateful if someone = would suggest where I might be able to obtain the relevant materials- in = whatever form that is available.=20 Also, how often is the Journal published, and how may one subscribe?=20 Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ! --=20 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 9 23:51:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA15370; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 23:51:35 -0400 Message-Id: From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" To: "TC List" Subject: Relevance or Westcott and Hort Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 22:51:57 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 181 Do the works and theories of Westcott and Hort still matter, or are the only of historical value for textual criticism today? Of what importance are they today? Mark Arvid Johnson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 10 00:01:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA15422; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:01:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:01:54 -0400 From: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-Id: <199707100401.AAA15422@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 1797 I'm resending this message that bounced. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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 <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:54:46 -7000 From: dwashbur@nyx.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: JETS > I have heard much, and read even more, about a lively exchange that took place some time ago between Gordon Fee and Zane Hodges in the pages of JETS, regarding the Majority Text. Unfortunately, I do > > Also, how often is the Journal published, and how may one subscribe? JETS is the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. It is published quarterly to libraries and to ETS members. Full membership requires a Th.M. or higher degree, associate membership is open to others, and they also have a special student membership. Only full members are allowed to vote at meetings. Membership in ETS costs in the neighborhood of $20 (associate membership, and this may have gone up since I dropped my membership a couple of years ago), and one is required annually to sign a doctrinal statement that affirms the inerrancy of the Bible and the trinity. Back when I was a member they didn't really allow people just to subscribe to the journal, but that may have changed. I believe the secretary-treasurer is James Borland, but I don't have an email address for him. You may be able to track him down through their monograph editor, David W. Baker dbaker@ashland.edu. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 10 08:17:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16142; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:17:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707101216.IAA22752@aus-c.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: JETS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1438 Dear David: I'll post you the articles if you want them. Kevin W. Woodruff At 10:43 PM 7/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >Dear TCers, > >I have heard much, and read even more, about a lively exchange that took place some time ago between Gordon Fee and Zane Hodges in the pages of JETS, regarding the Majority Text. Unfortunately, I do not have access to JETS locally, and would be more than a little grateful if someone would suggest where I might be able to obtain the relevant materials- in whatever form that is available. > >Also, how often is the Journal published, and how may one subscribe? > >Any information would be greatly appreciated. > >Thanks ! > >-- >||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >David Large >PO Box 484 >Smyrna, DE 19977 >USA >(302) 653-1252 - TEL >(302) 659-1178 - FAX >dlarge@bellatlantic.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 Thu Jul 10 09:21:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16331; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 09:21:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:24:12 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Relevance or Westcott and Hort Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1575 On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, "Mark Arvid Johnson" wrote: >Do the works and theories of Westcott and Hort still matter, or are the >only of historical value for textual criticism today? Of what importance >are they today? Depends on what you mean by "importance." Obviously new discoveries have changed the picture somewhat. In fact, I would argue that they have changed the picture completely. On the other hand: 1. Hort was a very sensitive critic, and his approach to problems can still be helpful today. 2. Hort's analysis of the Byzantine text, which made it late and inferior, is still regarded by most scholars as fairly conclusive. This doesn't mean it is entirely accurate -- it is not. But the broad outlines of his argument are still relevant. 3. If you examine the matter, the most widespread text of today (the UBS4 text) is largely identical with the Westcott-Hort text. One may think this unfortunate (I certainly do!), but Hort's volume is actually the best introduction to UBS4 -- better than the UBS commentary, which only covers individual readings, not the theory of the text. So Hort is a historical monument, but it is still important to read, since its influence is still so widely felt. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Jul 10 10:46:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16647; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:46:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 09:49:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199707101449.JAA14317@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: Relevance of Westcott and Hort Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2223 At 10:51 PM 7/9/97 -0500, Mark Arvid Johnson asked: >Do the works and theories of Westcott and Hort still matter, or are the >only of historical value for textual criticism today? Of what importance >are they today? I think it is helpful to distinguish between Hort's discussion of text-critical methodology, on the one hand, and his reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the NT text, on the other. Regarding the latter: as Robert Waltz pointed out in his reply to Johnson, new discoveries since Hort's day have required substantial revisions in our understanding of the history of the transmission of the NT text (though in certain respects they confirmed some of Hort's hypotheses). Thus in terms of his historical reconstructions, Hort is a bit of a historical monument, to phrase it in terms of Johnson's question. Regarding the former: Hort's discussion of methodology remains the fundamental starting point for all serious discussion of text-critical methodology. The comprehensiveness of his treatment stands in sharp contrast to recent discussions of method (which, to be sure, are often attenuated for reasons often related to purpose, intent, or limitations of space; this comment is an observation rather than a criticism). Lack of attention (or ignorance of) to issues he discusses--such as the limitations of a purely documentary approach, or the distinction between "absolute originality" and "relative originality," or the ultimate importance of intrinsic evidence--in much contemporary discussion of textual criticism is a major contributing to much of our current confusion, etc. No less a critic than Zuntz (in his _Text of the Epistles_) basically affirmed the key and critical points of Hort's approach to methodology. (See further my comments in my essay in Ehrman & Holmes, _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_, 347-348.) If, as someone is reported to have said, Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, then discussions of method in NT textual criticism since 1881 may be likened to a series of footnotes to Hort. That's how fundamentally important his work on method (in contrast to his historical reconstructions) remains. Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 10 17:48:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17877; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 17:48:26 -0400 Message-ID: <33C5E26A.2866@sn.no> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:36:10 -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: JETS References: <199707101216.IAA22752@aus-c.mp.campus.mci.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: 1875 Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > > Dear David: > > I'll post you the articles if you want them. > > Kevin W. Woodruff > > At 10:43 PM 7/9/97 -0400, you wrote: > >Dear TCers, > > > >I have heard much, and read even more, about a lively exchange that took > place some time ago between Gordon Fee and Zane Hodges in the pages of JETS, > regarding the Majority Text. Unfortunately, I do not have access to JETS > locally, and would be more than a little grateful if someone would suggest > where I might be able to obtain the relevant materials- in whatever form > that is available. > > > >Also, how often is the Journal published, and how may one subscribe? > > > >Any information would be greatly appreciated. > > > >Thanks ! > > > >-- > >||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > >David Large > >PO Box 484 > >Smyrna, DE 19977 > >USA > >(302) 653-1252 - TEL > >(302) 659-1178 - FAX > >dlarge@bellatlantic.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 I too would like to have copies of these articles. In addition, do you have available the debate between Taylor and Pickering? I would greatly appreciate if you could mail me copies of these, espesially those of the Taylor-Pickering debate. In what format do you have them? Many thanks -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 10 20:09:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA18118; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:09:30 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC8D71.5C254AE0@2071597810.bellatlantic.net> From: DAVID LARGE To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: JETS Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:14:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 746 On Thursday, July 10, 1997 4:16 AM, Kevin W. Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: > Dear David: > > I'll post you the articles if you want them. > > Kevin W. Woodruff Dear Kevin, Many thanks for your generosity- please do. I appreciate your help; please let me know if I can return the favor some time. Take care and God bless you, David ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 10 20:27:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA18195; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:27:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707110026.UAA09695@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: JETS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2421 They will be paper copies made from a microfiche reader printer At 12:36 AM 7/11/97 -0700, you wrote: >Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: >> >> Dear David: >> >> I'll post you the articles if you want them. >> >> Kevin W. Woodruff >> >> At 10:43 PM 7/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >> >Dear TCers, >> > >> >I have heard much, and read even more, about a lively exchange that took >> place some time ago between Gordon Fee and Zane Hodges in the pages of JETS, >> regarding the Majority Text. Unfortunately, I do not have access to JETS >> locally, and would be more than a little grateful if someone would suggest >> where I might be able to obtain the relevant materials- in whatever form >> that is available. >> > >> >Also, how often is the Journal published, and how may one subscribe? >> > >> >Any information would be greatly appreciated. >> > >> >Thanks ! >> > >> >-- >> >>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> >David Large >> >PO Box 484 >> >Smyrna, DE 19977 >> >USA >> >(302) 653-1252 - TEL >> >(302) 659-1178 - FAX >> >dlarge@bellatlantic.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 > > >I too would like to have copies of these articles. In addition, do you >have available the debate between Taylor and Pickering? >I would greatly appreciate if you could mail me copies of these, >espesially those of the Taylor-Pickering debate. In what format do you >have them? > >Many thanks > >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > > 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 Thu Jul 10 21:52:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA21438; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:52:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707110150.VAA23851@aus-c.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: JETS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1230 David: I'll mail them in tomorrows post At 08:14 PM 7/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >On Thursday, July 10, 1997 4:16 AM, Kevin W. Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: >> Dear David: >> >> I'll post you the articles if you want them. >> >> Kevin W. Woodruff > >Dear Kevin, > >Many thanks for your generosity- please do. I appreciate your help; please let me know if I can return the favor some time. > >Take care and God bless you, > >David > > >||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >David Large >PO Box 484 >Smyrna, DE 19977 >USA >(302) 653-1252 - TEL >(302) 659-1178 - FAX >dlarge@bellatlantic.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 Thu Jul 10 21:57:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA22867; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:57:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707110157.VAA24138@aus-c.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: JETS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2507 Dear Helge: Sorry I can only snail mail and by your e-mail you're in Norway right? My library does not include foreign postage in it's budget, sorry! At 12:36 AM 7/11/97 -0700, you wrote: >Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: >> >> Dear David: >> >> I'll post you the articles if you want them. >> >> Kevin W. Woodruff >> >> At 10:43 PM 7/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >> >Dear TCers, >> > >> >I have heard much, and read even more, about a lively exchange that took >> place some time ago between Gordon Fee and Zane Hodges in the pages of JETS, >> regarding the Majority Text. Unfortunately, I do not have access to JETS >> locally, and would be more than a little grateful if someone would suggest >> where I might be able to obtain the relevant materials- in whatever form >> that is available. >> > >> >Also, how often is the Journal published, and how may one subscribe? >> > >> >Any information would be greatly appreciated. >> > >> >Thanks ! >> > >> >-- >> >>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> >David Large >> >PO Box 484 >> >Smyrna, DE 19977 >> >USA >> >(302) 653-1252 - TEL >> >(302) 659-1178 - FAX >> >dlarge@bellatlantic.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 > > >I too would like to have copies of these articles. In addition, do you >have available the debate between Taylor and Pickering? >I would greatly appreciate if you could mail me copies of these, >espesially those of the Taylor-Pickering debate. In what format do you >have them? > >Many thanks > >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > > 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 Jul 11 05:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA28140; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 05:29:04 -0400 Message-ID: <33C60460.1572@cryogen.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 19:01:04 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky Organization: Killersoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: b-greek@virginia.edu Subject: Re: JETS References: <199707110026.UAA09695@aus-a.mp.campus.mci.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: 1115 Does anyone out there know if the Evangelical Theological Society has a web page or email address? If not, does anyone know at all how to contact them? 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 Jul 11 08:02:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA28342; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:02:09 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC8DD4.C26DF320@2071597810.bellatlantic.net> From: DAVID LARGE To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: JETS Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:57:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 1128 On Thursday, July 10, 1997 5:57 PM, Kevin W. = Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: > Dear Helge: >=20 > Sorry I can only snail mail and by your e-mail you're in Norway right? = My > library does not include foreign postage in it's budget, sorry! > >I too would like to have copies of these articles. In addition, do = you > >have available the debate between Taylor and Pickering? > >I would greatly appreciate if you could mail me copies of these,=20 > >espesially those of the Taylor-Pickering debate. In what format do = you > >have them? Dear Helge, I will be happy to make you copies of the materials I receive as soon as = I get them. I'll let you know when you can expect to receive them. Ha det, David |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 11 08:04:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA28359; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:04:04 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC8DD5.087D2160@2071597810.bellatlantic.net> From: DAVID LARGE To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: JETS Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:32:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 604 On Thursday, July 10, 1997 5:50 PM, Kevin W. Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: > David: > > I'll mail them in tomorrows post Again, many thanks for your generosity! God bless, David -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 11 09:00:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28494; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:00:58 -0400 Message-ID: <33C6B449.44C9@sn.no> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:31:37 -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: JETS References: <01BC8DD4.C26DF320@2071597810.bellatlantic.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: 1342 DAVID LARGE wrote: > > On Thursday, July 10, 1997 5:57 PM, Kevin W. Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: > > Dear Helge: > > > > Sorry I can only snail mail and by your e-mail you're in Norway right? My > > library does not include foreign postage in it's budget, sorry! > > > > > >I too would like to have copies of these articles. In addition, do you > > >have available the debate between Taylor and Pickering? > > >I would greatly appreciate if you could mail me copies of these, > > >espesially those of the Taylor-Pickering debate. In what format do you > > >have them? > > Dear Helge, > > I will be happy to make you copies of the materials I receive as soon as I get them. I'll let you know when you can expect to receive them. > > Ha det, > > David Thank you very much, David. I really appreciate that! BTW, is the Taylor-Pickering debate included? Again, many thanks! > > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > David Large > PO Box 484 > Smyrna, DE 19977 > USA > (302) 653-1252 - TEL > (302) 659-1178 - FAX > dlarge@bellatlantic.net > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 11 09:12:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28543; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:12:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707111314.JAA02338@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: JETS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1879 No I only included the Hodges-Fee material that was originally requested At 03:31 PM 7/11/97 -0700, you wrote: >DAVID LARGE wrote: >> >> On Thursday, July 10, 1997 5:57 PM, Kevin W. Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: >> > Dear Helge: >> > >> > Sorry I can only snail mail and by your e-mail you're in Norway right? My >> > library does not include foreign postage in it's budget, sorry! >> >> >> >> > >I too would like to have copies of these articles. In addition, do you >> > >have available the debate between Taylor and Pickering? >> > >I would greatly appreciate if you could mail me copies of these, >> > >espesially those of the Taylor-Pickering debate. In what format do you >> > >have them? >> >> Dear Helge, >> >> I will be happy to make you copies of the materials I receive as soon as I get them. I'll let you know when you can expect to receive them. >> >> Ha det, >> >> David > > >Thank you very much, David. I really appreciate that! > >BTW, is the Taylor-Pickering debate included? > >Again, many thanks! > >> >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> David Large >> PO Box 484 >> Smyrna, DE 19977 >> USA >> (302) 653-1252 - TEL >> (302) 659-1178 - FAX >> dlarge@bellatlantic.net >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > > 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 Jul 11 11:54:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29067; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 11:54:28 -0400 Message-ID: <33C657D7.584B6B26@concentric.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:57:11 -0700 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: JETS X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199707110150.VAA23851@aus-c.mp.campus.mci.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: 257 Dear Kevin, I won't ask you to mail me articles but I'd like to know he references for what you are sending out. I can probably find it just as easily at my library and read it when I have time. Ijust need to know where it is. Thanks. Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 11 12:17:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29141; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:16:59 -0400 From: lcdr-gary.carr@smtp.cnet.navy.mil Date: Fri, 11 Jul 97 11:09:47 cst Message-Id: <9706118686.AA868645346@penu1268.cnet.navy.mil> To: TC-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: CHARITY Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 431 Transmitted for Dr. Ron Minton: "I understand that charity was an ecclesiastical word that carried definite religious merit, but not nearly so much as penance. I know Tyndale had "love" 85 years before 1611 so charity is not just an old word for love as many have supposed. Charity had religious overtones that love did not have. Am I wrong on this?" rminton@mail.orion.org From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 11 13:22:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29285; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 13:22:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 13:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707111723.NAA12025@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: JETS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 797 The references for the Fee-Hodges articles are in the March and June 1978 issues of JETS At 08:57 AM 7/11/97 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Kevin, > > I won't ask you to mail me articles but I'd like to know he >references for what you are sending out. I can probably find it just as >easily at my library and read it when I have time. Ijust need to know >where it is. Thanks. > >Ken Litwak > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 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 Jul 11 19:40:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00142; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 19:40:53 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC8E36.5B4BBE40@2071597825.bellatlantic.net> From: DAVID LARGE To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: JETS Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 20:02:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 799 On Friday, July 11, 1997 6:31 PM, Mr. Helge Evensen[SMTP:helevens@sn.no] = wrote: > Thank you very much, David. I really appreciate that! >=20 > BTW, is the Taylor-Pickering debate included? >=20 > Again, many thanks! Dear Helge, V=E6r s=E5 god ! I will be glad to include them in your mailing if Mr. Woodruff is = willing to send them to me along with the other materials. I'll keep you posted, David |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 11 19:41:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00163; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 19:41:05 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC8E36.6201E200@2071597825.bellatlantic.net> From: DAVID LARGE To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: JETS Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 20:05:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 835 On Friday, July 11, 1997 5:14 AM, Kevin W. = Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: > No I only included the Hodges-Fee material that was originally = requested Dear Mr. Woodruff, If you would be so kind as to mail me the materials referenced by Mr. = Evensen, I would be happy to mail them to him. Just let me know if you = are able to do so. Your kindness is genuinely appreciated, and I pray will not go = unrewarded. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 11 22:39:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA00366; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:39:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707120235.WAA12930@aus-c.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: JETS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1426 I'll try to scare up the Taylor-Pickering articles. This will have come later because of pressing demands. Thanks for understanding. Kevin At 08:05 PM 7/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >On Friday, July 11, 1997 5:14 AM, Kevin W. Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: >> No I only included the Hodges-Fee material that was originally requested > > > >Dear Mr. Woodruff, > >If you would be so kind as to mail me the materials referenced by Mr. Evensen, I would be happy to mail them to him. Just let me know if you are able to do so. > >Your kindness is genuinely appreciated, and I pray will not go unrewarded. > > >||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >David Large >PO Box 484 >Smyrna, DE 19977 >USA >(302) 653-1252 - TEL >(302) 659-1178 - FAX >dlarge@bellatlantic.net >||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 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 Jul 11 23:23:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA00437; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:23:06 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC8E55.66269460@2071597826.bellatlantic.net> From: DAVID LARGE To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: JETS Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:51:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 780 On Friday, July 11, 1997 6:35 PM, Kevin W. Woodruff[SMTP:cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net] wrote: > I'll try to scare up the Taylor-Pickering articles. This will have come > later because of pressing demands. Thanks for understanding. > > Kevin > Thank you for the favor, and please do it as time permits, as I know what it is to be pressed for time. Again, thank you and God bless you, David ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 12 03:21:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA00714; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 03:21:13 -0400 Message-ID: <33C7BA3B.7E47@sn.no> Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 10:09:15 -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: Thanks, Kevin and David! 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: 253 I want to thank both of you for making these articles available to me. I have tried to procure copies of them several times, but not succeeded. May God bless you for this readiness to help! David, Tusen takk, dette er bra! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 12 12:41:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01614; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 12:41:16 -0400 Message-Id: <9707121743.AB06557@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Nahum 1.1 Date: Sam, 12 Jul 97 18:47:04 +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: 754 I am puzzled by what I find in several Jewish commentaries about Nahum 1.1. Both Rashi and Mahari-Qra are speaking about the word "Hazon" being vocalized "with a qamets, unlike in Is. 1.1 where it has a Hatuph-Patah". I don't understand this remark since in my Hebrew editions, the word "hazon" in Nahum 1.1 _has_ a hatuph patah. What happens? Thank you, 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 Sat Jul 12 18:57:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02064; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 18:57:09 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 15:59:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: *Romanos* and the TR? (Was: Erasmus) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199707010445.EAA72100@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5498 On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > Matthew Johnson writes: > > > >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. > > Hmmm. There are a couple things in this paragraph which confuse me. > > (1) The oldest Syrian text was the Diatessaron, whose "widespread > acceptance" was such that it was commented upon by St. Ephrem (a doctor of > the church), and was the text (often? usually?) used by Aphrahat--both > mid-fourth cent. writers. A couple of corrections here: 1) the DIatessaron is a different text: it is (of course), the text of the DIatessaron, not of the Canonical Gospels. 2) According to the historians of the Syrian Church I have read, the history of Western Syria (sphere of influence of Antioch) and Eastern Syria (sphere of influence of Edessa) are somewhat distinct: it is in Eastern Syria that the Diatessaron enjoyed such popularity. If you are aware of more recent work that has overturned this version of history, please feel free to make reference to it in your reply. [snip] > gravity (Jerusalem [and the line of Addai and Aggai]) was replaced by a > Hellenistic center of gravity (Rome [and the line of Palut]). And the > Peshitta is most certainly not a TR form of text... The text of the authors > who wrote (or are preserved) only in Greek is also not quite so simple...to > wit, Romanos: > (2) Your statement, "... the widespread acceptance of the TR owes much to > the high esteem for Syrian scholars of great holiness, such as...St. Romanus > the Melodist," gives me pause. Having identified each and every gospel > citation and allusion in all of Romanos hymns (*genuina* as well as > *dubia*--5 vols. in the SC ed. [2 in the Oxford ed.]), and compared them > with the various traditions, Romanos' text can hardly be called the TR. His > most distinctive readings are Syriac (= vetus syra) and Diatessaronic. See > my monograph *The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the > Melodist* CSCO 475 [Subsida 74] (Louvain: Peeters, 1985), or an article in This is an interesting point, I am glad you mentioned it. But there is an important distinction you have still not mentioned: when you counted these citations and allusions, did you take into account which of them were in hymns that have never been widely used in the Church vs. which found an established place? There might be a dramatic difference in text-type. > *NTS* 29 (1983), pp. 484-507. Lest I be given the credit for noting > Romanos' dependence upon the Diatessaron: the observation was first made by > Curt Peters in *OrChrP* 8 (1942), pp. 468-476; it was also remarked upon > (and new readings adduced) by Gilles Quispel in the Metzger FS (edd. Epp and > Fee, 1981), pp. 305-311. (I should also point out that Romanos appears to > make use of obscure traditions from the Judaic-Christian gospels; see my > article "A New Testimoninum to a Judaic-Christian Gospel Fragment from a > Hymn of Romanos the Melodist," *VigChr* 50 [1996]; it seems he knows a > passage otherwise known only from the Latin *Historia passionis domini*, a > fourteenth cent. source--which attributes it to the Gospel of the Nazoraeans...) > Thanks for the references. I will look them up. > What is your evidence for your assertions? > 1 - The comments of Rostovcev "The History of the Byzantine Empire" (I know, o-l-d, which is why I didn't realize Romanos had been published) concerning the explosion of religious poetry in the Byzantine empire - poetry written by Syrian Orthodox Christians. 2 - Amphoux's "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticsim" p 95 "but this sophisticated kind of coded writing is not suitable for the general circulation. For wider distribution, the text had to be adapted to the mentatlity of the people who werer going to receive it". True, he had in mind the Western text, but why should this process have stopped then? 3- General observations in the Orthodox Church today, which still preserves much (but not all) of an older attitude to the Scriptures than Protestants and Textual Critics: if you really want to understand the mind of the scribes, learning the mind of the modern Orthodox is a big help. > >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. > > This statement of yours perfectly illustrates why the more awkward (or more > difficult, or the theologically "non-standard") reading is preferred in many > situations (not in all) by many (not all) textual critics... > > > --Petersen, Penn State University > > PS: BTW, if you delve into the critical biographies of many of the > ancients--including saints--one quickly sees that "holiness" is usually > highly subjective, and often only in the eye of the beholder.... ;-) As for holiness being subjective, if so, then remember that the book all of us devote so much effort to studying commands us in quite unequivocal terms to be subjective: "be holy, for I am Holy". 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 Sun Jul 13 20:43:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA03762; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 20:43:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 17:46:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Errata: was Re: *Romanos* and the TR? (Was: Erasmus) 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: 1107 Perhaps if had remembered the saying of Augustus "Festina lente", this would not be necessary: but I have two corrections to my own post. 1) Of course, the History of the Byzantine Empire was written by Vasiliev, not Rostovsev. 2) the much more appropriate citation from AMphoux is p 115 " all that is certain is that this type of text [the syro-byzantine] spread very rapidly throughout the Greek-speaking world when John Chrysostom and other Syrians had occupied the patriarchal see at Constantinople" My previous comments concern why I find Amphoux's assertion here so credible. His history of the text-type is quite consistent with the mentality I find in the Fathers and in the Orthodox today. Finally, I might also mention that vonSoden devotes many pages to Joh Chrysostom and his influence on the Syro-Byzantine text-type. To be sure, his history is not up to date, but has anyone else yet tried to write as complete a history of the type as he did? 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 Jul 14 00:19:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA04092; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:19:48 -0400 Message-Id: <199707140422.EAA37344@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:26:09 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: *Romanos* and the TR? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8346 Regarding Matthew Johnson's two recent posts on Romanos and the TR (the post, and then his correction of his own post): >A couple of corrections here: 1) the DIatessaron is a different text: it >is (of course), the text of the DIatessaron, not of the Canonical Gospels. >2) According to the historians of the Syrian Church I have read, the >history of Western Syria (sphere of influence of Antioch) and Eastern >Syria (sphere of influence of Edessa) are somewhat distinct: it is in >Eastern Syria that the Diatessaron enjoyed such popularity. >If you are aware of more recent work that has overturned this version of >history, please feel free to make reference to it in your reply. Both of your "corrections" are empirically wrong. I refer you to my *Tatian's Diatessaron. Its Creation, Dissemination, History, and Significance in Scholarship*, SuppVigChr 25 (Leiden: Brill 1994). I'm sure its 500+ pages of textual evidence and history of research on precisely these problems will shed light on how you err. Both of your "corrections" have been discounted for over a century (since the time of Theodore Zahn [1881]; one could even argue that de Beausobre [1730s] implicitly understood this). (Whence are you getting this bad information???) [snip] >This is an interesting point, I am glad you mentioned it. But there is an >important distinction you have still not mentioned: when you counted these >citations and allusions, did you take into account which of them were in >hymns that have never been widely used in the Church vs. which found an >established place? There might be a dramatic difference in text-type. Your reasoning here is very odd, especially if you are well informed. (1) Romanos' hymns were extremely popular *during his lifetime.* The *menologion* states that Romanos wrote "more than a thousand" *knotakia.* We have about fifty *kontakia* preserved in MSS which are considered "genuina" by Mass/Trypanis (Oxford edition, 1963) or Grosdidier de Matons (SC edition, 1964-81). Since these are well-preserved in their MS tradition--as opposed to the 950 (!!) lost hymns--it is usually assumed that these fifty included the "cream" of his output. (Note: Romanos died post 553/554, was a "hanger-on" at Justinian's court, and is a Saint in the RC tradition: we are not talking about a persecuted church, or a feeble early church here: the tradition was established, and during his lifetime, Romanos was understood to be "the greatest church poets of all time" [Krumbacher]). A consideration of the preserved hymns suggests this is so. (2) The Diatessaronic quotations are found throughout his hymns, but group most tightly in three areas: the Nativity, the Passion, and the Hymn on the Bleeding Woman. And it is precisely for the Nativity and Passion hymns that Romanos is best known. Also, recall that the Diatessaron apparently was the text of the Syrian chruch and of the Judaic Christians--it was their Vulgate. (3) *All* of Romanos' preserved hymns were, as far as we know, widely used in public worship in Constantinople at his time and thereafter; they were widely appreciated elsewhere, as well. Their popularity is attested independently, and their texts demonstrate through internal evidence that they were used in public worship ("Now that we have heard the gospel story,/ Let us inquire...", etc.). I refer you to the definitive work on Romanos and his hymns: Jose Grosdidier de Matons, *Romanos le Melode et les origines de la poesie religieuse a Byzance* (Paris: Beauchesne/Cerf 1977). >> What is your evidence for your assertions? >> > >1 - The comments of Rostovcev [Johnson corrected this to Vasiliev in his "errata" post] "The History of the Byzantine >Empire" (I know, o-l-d, which is why I didn't realize Romanos had been published) >concerning the explosion of religious poetry in the Byzantine empire - >poetry written by Syrian Orthodox Christians. Three comments: (1) Vasiliev is neither a specialist in this area (Byzantine hymnography) nor in textual studies, so he simply can't serve as an authority. If you are familiar with the literature, the experts on Romanos and the *kontakion* are: Christ, Paranikas, Maas, Trypanis, Krumbacher, Meyer. There are other great names who have worked in the area, but their work is faulty, either because their logic, evidence, or breadth of knowledge was defective. These include: Pitra, Emereau, and, yes, Grosdidier de Matons (that he is still the expert on Romanos and his hymns remains, despite his errors on certain points). (2) I use works far older than Vasiliev (cp. my citation of de Beausobre, above), who is very good on history. Only a fool would criticise something *simply* because it is old. But he is very much behind the times here, in an area in which he has *no* expertise, and he does *not* give any specifics to back up his generalities. (3) Your statement "I didn't realize Romanos had been published" is the problem in this entire discussion, from start to finish. My dear sir, Romanos was published in 1963--almost 35 years ago! And much literature has been generated since. See the bibliography in my CSCO volume. To be frank, this discussion is rather like a physician talking cardiac care with someone who hasn't read any of the literature in the last 35 years: it is really rather pointless, isn't it? >2 - Amphoux's "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticsim" p 95 >"but this sophisticated kind of coded writing is not suitable for the >general circulation. For wider distribution, the text had to be adapted >to the mentatlity of the people who werer going to receive it". >True, he had in mind the Western text, but why should this process have >stopped then? > [Johnson augments this quotation with a second one in his "errata" post: the much more appropriate citation from AMphoux is p 115 " all that is certain is that this type of text [the syro-byzantine] spread very rapidly throughout the Greek-speaking world when John Chrysostom and other Syrians had occupied the patriarchal see at Constantinople"] Both of these statements are so vague as to be worthless. Read the precise textual evidence presented in the half dozen titles I have given you, and then see what you think. I am not interested in generalities, or "may have beens." We are talking about a specific author (Romanos) and a specific text (the TR). Amphoux is writing (1) in broad generalities (Romanos is not cited here), and is (2) pushing his own particular textual theories. Both are irrelevant to this discussion. But, lest one more error survive: I repeat what I said above: *ANYONE* who has read the antique sources about Romanos, or read his hymns, will immediately see why he was called "le Melode" and why his hymns were so popular both during and after his lifetime. Some have attributed the *Akathistos* to him--probably erroneously--but it nevertheless suggests his stature. Further, *ANYONE* who has read his hymns will see that they are exquisitely constructed works, multi-layered, but still immediately accessible to the simplest among us. That is why they have been considered the genesis of chancel drama (see A.C. Mahr). Romanos' hymns *can* be read at a very profound, deep, mystical level; but their brilliance is that they can also be read at a superficial level--and be equally significant for either audience. And finally: >As for holiness being subjective, if so, then remember that the book all >of us devote so much effort to studying commands us in quite unequivocal >terms to be subjective: "be holy, for I am Holy". Quite so. Which is why some Southern Baptists (and other "good" Christians) thought owning slaves was consistent with "holiness," while other Protestants did not. Which is why some German Lutherans thought killing Jews was equal to "holiness," while others did not. Which is why some Roman Catholics went off on bloody crusades, to "be Holy," while others did not. Which is why some Christians permit remarriage after divorce, while others do not. Why some require celibacy for their clergy and others can have "holy" clergy who are not celibate. Why some Christians are pacifists, and others are not. What is so difficult about church history? It's all pretty straightforward isn't it? --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 14 09:04:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04732; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:04:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:06:49 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: JETS To: TC-List Message-ID: <199707140907_MC2-1AD0-A276@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 526 Has anyone mentioned that fact that the Fee half of the discussion is now= available in a revised and updated version, incorporating the contents of= two JETS articles and one from _The Bible Translator_ 31(1980)107-18? It= is in _Studies in the theory and method of New Testament textual criticism_, by Fee and Eldon J. Epp, chapter 10, pp. 183 - 208 (Eerdmans,= 1993). The book includes 16 other essays by Epp and Fee. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 14 13:48:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05800; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:48:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:52:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199707141752.NAA16089@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Diatessaron query Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 922 The recent diatessaron discussion has reminded me of a question that I had upon first reading Wm Petersen's book on "Tatian's Diatessaron" (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Bill, please permit the question of a novice in matters diatessaronic. On pp.374-75 you discuss Quispel's second criterion for determining the likelihood of a proposed diatessaronic reading being original. If we apply this criterion strictly in reconstructing readings, would it not mean that the value of the diatessaron as an independent witness to the text of the canonical gospels is highly problematic at best, even though it is often cited in the apparatus to UBS4 and NA27? Perhaps we would have attestation of a stage in the gospel tradition, but it seems that hope of reaching an ur-text of the gospels with the help of the diatessaron would elude us. How would you assess this relationship? Interested to hear your reply, thanks-- Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 14 17:52:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06423; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:52:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:56:18 -0400 Message-Id: <199707142156.RAA25094@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: diatessaron query Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1056 (tried to send this earlier, don't know if it got through, someone pls let me know) The recent diatessaron discussion has reminded me of a question I had in reading Wm Petersen's book "tatian's Diatessaron," (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Bill please allow the question of a novice in matters diatessaronic. On p.374-75 of your book you discuss Quispel's second criterion for determining the lilely authenticity of a reading, viz., that the reading should have minimal support from canonical gospel mss and patristic authors. If we apply that criterion strictl in reconstructing readings, would it not mean that the value of the diatessaron as an independent witness in reconstructing the text of the canonical gospels is problematic at best, even though it is often cited in UBS4 and NA27? Perhaps we would have attestation of a stage in the gospel tradition, but it seems that home of using the diatessaron to reach an "original text" of the gospels would elude us. How would you assess this relationship? Interested to hear your repl, thanks-- Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 14 20:00:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06628; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:00:04 -0400 Message-ID: <01BC9095.52A80080@207159782.bellatlantic.net> From: David Large To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: JETS Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:31:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 1475 On Monday, July 14, 1997 9:06 AM, Harold P. = Scanlin[SMTP:scanlin@CompuServe.COM] wrote: > Has anyone mentioned that fact that the Fee half of the discussion is = now > available in a revised and updated version, incorporating the contents = of > two JETS articles and one from _The Bible Translator_ 31(1980)107-18? = It > is in _Studies in the theory and method of New Testament textual > criticism_, by Fee and Eldon J. Epp, chapter 10, pp. 183 - 208 = (Eerdmans, > 1993). The book includes 16 other essays by Epp and Fee. >=20 > Harold P. Scanlin > United Bible Societies > 1865 Broadway > New York, NY 10023 > scanlin@compuserve.com Thank you for taking the time to point this out. I do, in fact, have the = volume that you mention, sent to me by Fee in response to some queries I = sent to him a while ago. I did hope, however, to acquire the original = articles with the hope of reading their interaction in context = (especially Hodge's side which, as you mention, is missing from the = above volume) and as originally published. Thank you for the post :-) David --=20 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Large PO Box 484 Smyrna, DE 19977 USA (302) 653-1252 - TEL (302) 659-1178 - FAX dlarge@bellatlantic.net |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 16 12:54:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01163; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:54:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199707161657.MAA28806@r02n02.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: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:56:07 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Answer to the Diatessaron query (long post) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 19664 Rod Mullen asked: >The recent diatessaron discussion has reminded me of a question that I had >upon first reading Wm Petersen's book on "Tatian's Diatessaron" (Leiden: >Brill, 1994). Bill, please permit the question of a novice in matters >diatessaronic. On pp.374-75 you discuss Quispel's second criterion for >determining the likelihood of a proposed diatessaronic reading being >original. If we apply this criterion strictly in reconstructing readings, >would it not mean that the value of the diatessaron as an independent >witness to the text of the canonical gospels is highly problematic at best, >even though it is often cited in the apparatus to UBS4 and NA27? Perhaps we >would have attestation of a stage in the gospel tradition, but it seems that >hope of reaching an ur-text of the gospels with the help of the diatessaron >would elude us. How would you assess this relationship? Interested to hear >your reply, thanks-- Rod Mullen An excellent question, Rod. I'll try to answer you, but first a couple preliminaries to set the stage, and make sure some distinctions and phenomena I'll speak of later are clear. (1) When Tatian composed the Diatessaron (circa 172), he obviously had to use the gospels in the form they then had. He may also have incorporated/used/relied upon the synoptic harmony apparently used by his teacher, Justin Martyr. If so, that does not change the situation, for *Justin's* harmony also had to have been created from the gospels as *he* (or whoever created the harmony) knew them, circa 140-160. (2) As a broad, general statement, scholarship (regardless of whether on the Diatessaron or on a version) has found that (gospel) texts which deviate from the *then* "standard" gospel text are bowdlerized (in Diatessaronic studies, we say "vulgatized") by having the deviating reading excised and replaced with the "standard" reading of the day. An example of this phenomenon, independent of the Diatessaron, is in the Syriac versions, and alluded to in my review of George Kiraz's parallel line edition of the Vetus Syra (Syr-sin, Syr-cur), the Peshitta, and the Harclean, just posted in TC. One sees how the earliest Syriac (Syr-sin) deviates the furthest from the TR, while each successive step (Syr-cur, Pesh, Harc) moves closer and closer to the TR type of text. The process reaches its apotheosis in the Harclean, which attempts a literal, word-for-word translation of the Greek, even to the point of violating the rules of Syriac grammar and syntax. It's text represents (with a wink to Harnack) "the acute Hellenization" of the ancient, pre-Pauline, Semitic church. The parallel situation exists with the Vetus Latina, where the earlier MSS are "wilder" (deviate further from the TR or NA or UBS--whatever base you want), and the later MSS move closer to the Greek. And then comes the Vulgate, which is a systematic attempt to replace the Vetus Latina with a text more in tune with the Greek used elsewhere. Within the Diatessaronic tradition, Codex Fuldensis (Vulgate MS F; date 546 CE) is a magnificent example of "vulgatization," for it can be empirically demonstrated from the MS itself that *in the process of copying, the old, deviating Diatessaronic readings were excised, and replaced with the standard Vulgate reading*. This has been known for over a century (it was first noted by Th. Zahn: see my *Tatian's Diatessaron*, pp. 85-86; esp. 126-129). The telltale signs are the "capitularia" (the "table of contents") and the manuscript's *corpus*: while the readings and sequence of the *corpus* are Vulgate, the readings and sequence of the "capitularia" agree with other Diatessaronic witnesses, and deviate from the Vulgate. Conclusion: in the process of "purifying" the text of Codex Fuldensis, only the *corpus* was "vulgatized"--through oversight, laziness, or chance, the "capitularia" were left untouched. [Comment: This is empirical evidence that scribes were "up-dating" and "modernizing" the text of the gospels to the standards of their day, and discarding older readings.] (3) From a text-critical standpoint, the interesting phenomenon is the "distance" from the TR/UBS/NA text, which is found in the Vetus Syra *and also* in the Vetus Latina. Since both of these are "versions" and, thus, translated from a Greek base, we may presume that they reflect a Greek base which *also* had these same deviating readings. This, of couse, suggests that the early Greek gospels--upon which these versions were based--were different from those current in the fourth and later centuries. (Note: Such a suggestion is also supported by the deviating readings found in the earliest fathers [Justin, Clem. Al, Origen, Irenaeus, Ephrem, Aphrahat, Novatian, Cyprian, etc.], esp. when they *agree* with the Vetus Syra or the Vetus Latina and against the TR/NA/UBS or other modern collation base.) So far we are hypothesizing, which requires nothing more than imagination. One leaves the realm of hypothesis, however, when one finds the *identical* deviating reading in *both* the Vetus Latina *and* in the Vetus Syra. The only way scholars have been able to explain this is to point to the early Greek gospels--which were the base of *both* versions--as having at one time contained such a deviating reading. And when an early Father or two (such as Justin and Clement) *also* has the same deviating reading *in his Greek text*, then we are on pretty firm ground: such a deviating (= non-standard reading by *later* points of reference, such as the TR, UBS, NA, whatever...) reading must have circulated in the early Christian centuries, in a *Greek* gospel. [Comment: This is empirical evidence that the gospel text of the second, third and fourth centuries did *not* agree with the later gospel text(s), at least in some passages.] With this as prologue, we may now turn to Rod's question directly, and address the Diatessaron: (1) The Diatessaron is regarded as a version of the gospels, as is shown by its treatment as such in the handbooks of Voeoebus and Metzger. In fact, all handbooks on either the text of the NT or the versions treat the Diatessaron, and usually (as Voeoebus and Metzger do) as the *oldest* of the versions. (2) Since the "autograph" Diatessaron is lost, its text must be reconstructed from the various "witnesses" to its text, that is, from translations (the Arabic Harmony, the Venetian Harmony, the Tuscan Harmony, various Latin Harmonies [Codices Fuldensis, Sangallensis, etc., etc.; more than 20 MSS are known], the Middle Dutch family of harmonies [the Liege Harmony being the most famous, although the Cambridge, Stuttgart, Haaren, and The Hague harmonies are also important], the Middle and Old High German Harmonies [the Zurich, Sankt Gallen, and Kassel MSS being important], the Middle English Pepysian Harmony, and a miscellany of other MSS in other languages), quotations (in Ephrem, Aphrahat, Romanos, Augustine, the Liber Graduum, the Acts of Archaleus, the Acts of Thomas, etc., etc., etc.), and from texts influenced by the Diatessaron (the Vetus Syra, Vetus Latina, the Arabic, Armenian, and Georgian versions). This is only a partial list; some of these are better sources, others poorer. Experts know the difference on the basis of long and intimate work with them; I provide pointers and caveats in *Tatian's Diatessaron.* It must be noted that *each* of these sources has undergone "vulgatization." In some cases (such as in the case of Codex Fuldensis) it was quite thorough; in other cases (as in the case of the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony) it was much less thorough. Here, Rod, is now the crux of your question and the answer: (3) Much of even the original ("autograph") Diatessaron agreed verbatim with our current UBS/NA text. "Blessed are the poor" seems to have stood in all the versions, in virtually all of the texts. (See p. 369 in *Tatian's Diatessaron*.) The *problem* for the Diatessaronic scholar, however, is: Given that all Diatessaronic texts have undergone vulgatization, which sought to erase deviating readings, and substitute the "standard" Vulgate reading, *how can we be sure we have isolated the text of the ancient Diatessaron, and are not mistaking a later, vulgatized passage for the text of the original Diatessaron?* It follows logically that, in those cases where the original Diatessaron's text agreed with our present collation base (TR, UBS, NA, whatever), we *cannot* be sure that we have the text of the Diatessaron, for *all* of the Diatessaronic witnesses might have been "vulgatized" at this point. Note carefully: It is possible that *none* of the Diatessaronic witnesses have been "vulgatized," and that they *are* preserving accurately the 2nd century text of the Diatessaron (and possibly the 2nd century gospels upon which it was based); the problem is that we cannot be *sure* of that. Because of our logical inability to distinguish between a genuine Diatessaronic reading and a "vulgatized" reading *in and only in cases such as this,* where the Diatessaronic witnesses text agrees with the "standard" text of today, we must remain silent about the contribution of the Diatessaron at these points. Some might say that the Diatessaron agrees with the "aleph-B" text, or with the TR--but experts will know and recognize the worthlessness of that statement, for it is based on defective logic. (4) "Because of this, the text of the Diatessaron can be recovered *with certainty* *only* when it *deviates* from the vast majority of gospel manuscripts" (i.e., the TR, aleph-B, etc.) (*Tatian's Diatessaron*, p. 369) What this means is that we must find places in the Diatessaronic witnesses where they have *not* been vulgatized--where the "standard" reading has *not* been substituted for the genuine Diatessaronic reading. And the laws of logic dictate that that can only be done where we find a "non-standard" (= "deviating") reading. Finding a deviating reading in one Diatessaronic witness means little (in my opinion: Baarda differs, and I agree with him, with qualifications, in specific instances: see the discussion on pp. 375-377 in *Tatian's Diatessaron*), for each witness has its own transmission history, with scribal errors, and its own distinct language, with its own syntax, idioms, and grammar. BUT, at those points--and they stick out to the trained eye like a sore thumb--where *multiple* Diatessaronic witnesses *all* deviate in the *same* precise manner, *then* we have the distinct possibility of having found a reading which dates back to the early Diatessaron, probably to the second century. In my own research, I always insist (unless there are clear reasons for transgressing this rule) that the Diatessaronic witnesses with the identical reading be split between "eastern" witnesses and "western" witnesses: that is, for example, the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony must agree with Ephrem's Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron. The reason I insist upon "bilateral" support (as I call it)--east and west agreeing--is to guard against the influence of "local texts." Example: If the Old High German Codex Sangallensis agreed with Latin Codex Fuldensis, I would be cautious about calling that a Diatessaronic reading. Both MSS were copied in the West, in fairly close geographic proximity. Perhaps this reading was generated by an early medieval tradition floating around in southern Europe during the sixth to ninth centuries. In that case, the reading has nothing to do with the Diatessaron. Similarly--and here we come to the "second criteria" of your question, which is one I, not Quispel, developed (Quispel developed the first criterion, that is, requiring eastern and western support [read p. 374 carefully])--the deviating reading should *not* be prominent in texts *outside* of the Diatessaronic family of texts. This criterion is *specifically* designed to help us *solely* in identifying genuine *Diatessaronic* readings. How readings which pass these criteria relate to the gospels must be decided later. In my experience, the readings which pass muster *sometimes* seem to be ancient gospel readings, commended by various internal and external factors. (Remember, if we *have* identified a genuine Diatessaronic reading, then we are holding in our hands a text of which it can be said--on an empirical basis--that it circulated in the final decades of the second century....) The question remains whether the deviating reading is a "Tatianism"--that is, a reading introduced into the Diatessaron by Tatian (contrary to the view of a century ago [e.g., v. Soden], subsequent research suggests Tatain contributed little to the Diatessaron [the *only* obvious case would seem to be some Encratite readings]; see *Tatian's Diatessaron*, pp. 79-82)--or whether it accurately reflects the second-century gospel text used by Tatian when creating his Diatessaron. The reason for requiring limitation to the Diatessaronic family of texts is meant to guard against the possible influence of local texts (it serves as a double-check on and back-up to the first criterion, which requires eastern and western support). Example: A deviating reading is widespread in the Vetus Latina, but absent from the Vulgate, aleph-B, and the TR; yet the same deviating reading shows up in both eastern and western Diatessaronic witnesses. What does one do? I toss it out, with my very high standard of proof. Why? After all, it has bilateral support, doesn't it? The reason why I discard it is simple: *In the WEST* one cannot be sure that the Diatessaronic witnesses obtained the reading from the *Diatessaron*, for they *might* have obtained it from the Vetus Latina. In that case, the bilateral support is questionable, as is the Diatessaronic status of the reading. (5) The key to your question, Rod, is to remember that (a) the criteria (1, 2, 3 in the book) are intended to insure that we get to the text of the *Diatessaron,* and *not* get hoodwinked by a "vulgatized" reading, or by a "local text" in either the east or the west; and (b) *if*, with these stringent criteria, we can recover a genuinely Diatessaronic reading, *then* we have a versional text from the second century. At that point, depending on one's tastes, one can assume that the reading is either from the pen of Tatian himself, or that it is--aah!--the text of a gospel known to Tatian and accurately appropriated by him at that early date. Since, Rod, I assume you are working your way through the book, it may be helpful to look back at the two examples given on pp. 14-20, which address this very point; also take a look at "F. The Character of the Diatessaron's Text" on pp. 437-438 (ahead of where you are now), which also addresses exactly this point, but in prose, and with categories (there are 4 types of readings in the Diatessaron: (a) textual trivia [probably from its own transmission history and the influence of "local texts"], (b) glosses/clarifications (perhaps from Tatian or later revisors], (c) liturgical /theological changes [perhaps from Tatian or later revisors], and (d) ancient gospel readings) and "H. Examination of Tatian's Methods and Motives" on pp. 443-444 (which deals with "Tatianisms" and changes perhaps due to Tatian). The four types of readings in the Diatessaron (a-d above) can be disentangled and categorized, and while all are (because of their antiquity and link with Semitic Christianity) highly significant, the NT textual critic will probably be most intersted in "d," "ancient gospel readings." For the uninitiated, and to illustrate one of these possible "ancient gospel readings," an example: In the East: Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron (4th cent.; composed in Syriac, here Arm. [Syr. *hiat*]), Isho'dad of Merv's Commentary (ninth cent.; Syriac), Romanos the Melodist (6th cent.; Greek, but knew Syrian traditions as he was born in Syria, grew up there, and was bilingual), and in the West: the Middle English Pepysian Harmony (1400) and the Latin *Vita Rhythmica* (c. 1220) both report that a "great light" shown in the Jordan River when Jesus was baptized. This variant is completely absent from the Greek gospel MS tradition as it has come down to us. In the Latin, it is found in two MSS of the Vetus Latina, MSS *a* (4th cent) and *g1* (6th cent.). It is *possible* that our western Diatessaronic witnesses were influenced by the Vetus Latina MSS, and do not genuinely reflect the tradition of the Diatessaron. However, we know that the Vetus Latina was also influenced by the Diatessaron (which has been thought by some scholars [Baumstark and others] to be the first gospel in Latin); therefore, it is possible that the reading in the West *does* stem from the Diatessaron. Since, however, the only other sources in the West to preserve this reading are gospel harmonies (= the Pepysian Harmony) or works influenced by the Diatessaron (= the *Vita Rhythmica*), it tips the scales in the direction of the Diatessaron. Further, in the East, Isho'dad specifically states "And straightway, *as the Diatessaron testifies*, a *powerful light* shone, and above the Jordan...", and Ephrem's commentary is specifically written on the text of the Diatessaron. Hence, this is apparently a Diatessaronic reading. The question remains: Did it stand in an ancient (2nd cent) Greek gospel text? I suggest it did, for Justin also quotes the passage (Dial. 88.3). It is also cited by the Sibylline Oracles, 7.81-84. How does the Diatessaron's reading help us here? Three ways: (1) It provides us with a *third* fix on this reading in the second century. (2) It prevents one from writing off the *Sib. Or.* reading as "poetic licence" and Justin's citation as a "memory lapse." (3) Since, upon examination, the Diatessaron appears to have been a rather straight-foward harmonization of the text of the gospels as known in the 2nd cent., it suggests that this reading was part of the gospel text as known in the 2nd cent.--as does the presence of the same reading in the two Vetus Latina MSS, which are "canonical" gospels, and which insert the passage *ante* Matt 3:16. [For full disclosure: later, Epiphanius (late 4th cent.) states that the reading stood in "the Hebrew gospel" used by the Ebionites (Pan. 30.13); elsewhere, however, he states that "the Diatessaron gospel" was called by some "[the gospel] according to the Hebrews" (Pan. 46.1.8-9 ). Further, Jerome remarks that a "Gospel according to the Hebrews" was considered by "many" to be the "original/autograph" gospel of Matthew--and it is in Matthew that Vetus Latina MSS *a* and *g1* place this reading...] The value of the Diatessaron's reconstructed text is that it is ancient (clearly 2nd cent.) and that, in this instance, it corroborates other ancient evidence which might otherwise be ignored or dismissed becuase it is not clearly a "text" (Justin's is a "citation/allusion/memory lapse/paraphrase/oral tradition he knew," etc.; the Sib. Or. is "poetic/not a gospel," etc.). But the Diatessaron is based on the gospels as they circulated in the 2nd cent., as multiple examples show. For another example (discovered by Baarda and published in his "The Flying Jesus: Luke 4:29-30 in the Syriac Diatessaron", in VigChr 40 [1986], pp. 313-34), see my review in TC 1 of Baarda's *Essays on the Diatessaron*, which reprints the article. I summarize it there. Examine his arguments and evidence, and I think you'll see once again the immense value of the Diatessaron for reconstructing the earliest strata of the gospel tradition. Hope that helps, Rod. --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 21 01:20:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA13019; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 01:20:02 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9707210521.AA25889@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:23:01 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Need Heb. MS readings 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: 334 Zech 12:10 in BHS reads )"LAY )"T but has a textual note that says "var lect" and then suggests a couple of other readings. Could someone tell me what the Hebrew mss read here, i.e. what the variant readings actually are and how they are distributed? Thanks, Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 21 07:29:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA13519; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 07:29:42 -0400 Message-Id: <9707211232.AA26612@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Need Heb. MS readings Date: Lun, 21 Jul 97 13:36:07 +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: 1107 >Zech 12:10 in BHS reads )"LAY )"T but has a textual note that says >"var lect" and then suggests a couple of other readings. Could >someone tell me what the Hebrew mss read here, i.e. what the variant >readings actually are and how they are distributed? The edition of Gintzburg gives some details, though not references to manuscripts. Text is "elay et" "according to the Occidentals" (Ma(arbaye), but the "orientals" (MadinHaye) have "elayw". "Other books" (which one?) have "elay" as ketiv, "elayw" as qere. The Soncino edition of the prophets (1485-1486) has "elayw" as both ketiv and qere as have "other books". I noticed also that BHK suggests reading 'aley met ("to a dead one") and refers to 13.7-9. _________________________________________________ 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 Mon Jul 21 07:32:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA13539; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 07:32:41 -0400 Message-Id: <9707211235.AC26612@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: greek and hebrew fonts Date: Lun, 21 Jul 97 13:39:06 +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: 1149 A question about biblical texts and fonts that circulate for the Macintosh. Does anybody know the exact source of the SuperGreek and SuperHebrew fonts? Who is their maker, what is their copyright status? Are there fonts that share the same keyboard mappings? (In greek, I have already met with SymbolGreek and Agathos, and also Mounce, which comes with the programme FlashWorks and has the NA sigla. I would really like to have more information about these, thanks a lot. This is for a friend who is preparing a biblical program (in my opinion, it's going to be much stronger than the OLB) and he wants to incorporate Greek and Hebrew, but he also wants to stay legal... More news about this later if you are interested. Thanks for helping us. 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 Mon Jul 21 11:23:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14303; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:23:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:26:02 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: A Call for Help Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1747 TCers -- I'm writing to request your help. I've just posted an article about the Church Fathers at my web site. But it is very much a first draft. The problem is that I am not an expert on the Fathers. Sure, I have a good feeling for the text of Tertullian, say, or Ambrosiaster -- but Eugenius of Carthage? This is hardly my area of expertise.... The article as it now stands lists every Father cited in NA27 or Merk5. I've given brief biographies of about 90% of them, but there are some (mostly from Merk) about whom I know absolutely nothing. And even the biographies I do have are sometimes very sketchy. As noted, the article posted is a *first draft.* Having written articles based on the information in a few of the best sources in my library, I am now going to work through every other book and see what I can add. I also hope to compile some additional textual data. But I'm posting the rough draft so people can send in suggestions. One request: Please don't send me references. I need the actual information. Chances are that any references you send me will be to books that I don't have. Even the local seminary may not -- and even if it does, I can only spend a few hours a month there (at most). So I'd very much appreciate it if you could summarize the information for me. And if I wind up using information you supply, I will gladly credit you on the web page. Thanks, and I hope this will prove useful. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Tue Jul 22 09:31:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17071; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:31:56 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:33:27 GMT Subject: Re: A Call for Help 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: 507 Mr Waltz You don't indicate the purpose of this material on the Fathers that you have written, and without that knowledge one cannot offer any opinion on your undertaking. In any case, are you sure that it's wise to offer information based, as you yourself say, on limited knowledge and limited resources? You might mislead the ignorant and win the opprobium of the learned. 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 Jul 22 11:19:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17419; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:19:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:22:22 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: A Call for Help Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1372 On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, "DC PARKER" wrote: >Mr Waltz > >You don't indicate the purpose of this material on the Fathers that >you have written, and without that knowledge one cannot offer any >opinion on your undertaking. It's part of the Encyclopedia site, just like everything else I've made reference to. I have good (if incomplete) articles on the Greek manuscripts, and a tolerable one on the versions. I thought that information on the Fathers was also necessary. >In any case, are you sure that it's wise to offer >information based, as you yourself say, on limited knowledge and >limited resources? You might mislead the ignorant and win the >opprobium of the learned. I'm sure there are many who would say I'm *already* doing that. :-) The introduction to the Encyclopedia says that this is not necessarily the final form. But I felt that there had to be something there. The information on the site should all be accurate; it is taken from reputable sources. The problem is not accuracy, but *completeness.* -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 23 11:07:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20112; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:07:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:07:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: greek and hebrew fonts In-Reply-To: <9707211235.AC26612@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: 385 SuperGreek and SuperHebrew are products of Linguist's Software, and I assume that they still hold the copyright. The Linguist's home page is http://www.linguistsoftware.com. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 09:52:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22682; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:52:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:52:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: in memorium F E Deist 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: 934 I have been informed by Izak Cornelius of the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies at the University of Stellenbosch that Prof. F E Deist, a noted Hebrew Bible scholar and textual critic, has died while on sabbatical leave in Germany. Prof. Deist wrote several books and articles on Old Testament textual criticism (among other subjects) in both English and Afrikaans, including _Witnesses to the Old Testament: Introducing Old Testament Textual Criticism_ (Pretoria: N.G. Kerkboekhandel, 1988). He was also an early contributor to this list. He was a frequent participant in scholarly congresses both in South Africa and abroad, and he will be sorely missed by colleagues, students, and friends. 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 <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 11:06:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23034; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:06:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:09:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Opinions about Fathers article (I appeal especially to neophytes) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2732 TCers -- I know I'm opening myself up for all sorts of negative comments, but I have to ask. This question is addressed to the entire list, *especially* to the TC beginners. It's about the Patristic article I posted a few days ago at my web site. As I mentioned at the time, it was a rough draft. There were several authors about whom I had almost no information, and others for whom I was relying on a single source. This has led, inevitably, to some errors, and also to some places where I stated dogmatically things which are in fact uncertain. It also means, of course, that some of the articles are incomplete. The question becomes, *what next*? I will be going over the articles, consulting as many additional sources as possible. But chances are that there will still be areas where my sources are inaccurate, or at least don't tell the whole story. This leads to (at least) five possible remedies: 1. Eliminate the article entirely until someone comes along who can write something better. This has the advantage that it means I am propagating no errors. On the other hand, what I have now is (generally) better than nothing for someone who has no other reference to hand. 2. Give source notes for all the items included. This doesn't help users know what's accurate, but at least it lets me shift the blame. :-) 3. Confine the article exclusively to textual matters. This will mean the elimination of (I would guess) half its contents. What is left will generally be reliable, but it will have no context. To say that Origen used an Alexandrian text of John, without noting that he lived in Alexandria, is rather deceptive in its own right. 4. Confine the article only to items I can verify from two sources. This, too, will result in a significant reduction in its size. 5. Put a big warning at the top, saying that the information is unverified and should be used at the reader's own risk. Note that some of these can be combined. Ulrich Schmid makes the important point that I am not writing a Patrology. The purpose of the article is to tell how these authors should be used by textual critics. So a full biography is hardly necessary. But it seems to me that readers should know where and when the author lived. Opinions, anyone? Particularly from those who would *use* the Encyclopedia? Feel free to answer either on-list or off. Thanks to all. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Jul 24 11:40:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23165; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:40:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:34:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login6.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Opinions about Fathers article (I appeal especially to neophytes) 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: 3263 Let me speak on *behalf* of the neophytes as someone who's done a *lot* of text-critical work with the Fathers. In my opinion, the article should be eliminated (option one), for precisely the reasons David Parker mentioned, with characteristic insight and brevity, a few days ago. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > TCers -- > > I know I'm opening myself up for all sorts of negative comments, > but I have to ask. This question is addressed to the entire list, > *especially* to the TC beginners. It's about the Patristic article > I posted a few days ago at my web site. > > As I mentioned at the time, it was a rough draft. There were several > authors about whom I had almost no information, and others for whom > I was relying on a single source. > > This has led, inevitably, to some errors, and also to some places > where I stated dogmatically things which are in fact uncertain. > It also means, of course, that some of the articles are incomplete. > > The question becomes, *what next*? I will be going over the > articles, consulting as many additional sources as possible. > But chances are that there will still be areas where my sources > are inaccurate, or at least don't tell the whole story. > > This leads to (at least) five possible remedies: > > 1. Eliminate the article entirely until someone comes along who > can write something better. This has the advantage that it > means I am propagating no errors. On the other hand, what > I have now is (generally) better than nothing for someone who > has no other reference to hand. > > 2. Give source notes for all the items included. This doesn't > help users know what's accurate, but at least it lets me > shift the blame. :-) > > 3. Confine the article exclusively to textual matters. This will > mean the elimination of (I would guess) half its contents. > What is left will generally be reliable, but it will have no > context. To say that Origen used an Alexandrian text of John, > without noting that he lived in Alexandria, is rather > deceptive in its own right. > > 4. Confine the article only to items I can verify from two sources. > This, too, will result in a significant reduction in its size. > > 5. Put a big warning at the top, saying that the information is > unverified and should be used at the reader's own risk. > > Note that some of these can be combined. > > Ulrich Schmid makes the important point that I am not writing a Patrology. > The purpose of the article is to tell how these authors should be used > by textual critics. So a full biography is hardly necessary. But it > seems to me that readers should know where and when the author lived. > > Opinions, anyone? Particularly from those who would *use* the > Encyclopedia? Feel free to answer either on-list or off. > > Thanks to all. > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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 Thu Jul 24 11:54:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23237; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:54:57 -0400 From: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) Message-Id: <199707241558.IAA15170@netcom.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Opinions about Fathers article (I appeal especially to neophytes) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Jul 24, 97 10:09:58 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 700 > > TCers -- > > Opinions, anyone? Particularly from those who would *use* the > Encyclopedia? Feel free to answer either on-list or off. > As someone who has no aspirations to becoming an expert in TC, but who does have a serious interest I would like to thank you for making this information available. Perhaps marking the portions of the biographical information to indicate which portions are questionable would help. I for one also like to see copious footnotes for the references as I will on occasion check the original sources for things that interest me. And, please, continue to make anouncements on this list when you have made revisions to the material. Sincerely, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 14:11:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA23724; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:11:09 -0400 Message-ID: <33D79CBF.9B3B01A0@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:19:43 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Opinions about Fathers article (I appeal especially to neophytes) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) 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: 3549 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > TCers -- > > I know I'm opening myself up for all sorts of negative comments, > but I have to ask. This question is addressed to the entire list, > *especially* to the TC beginners. That's me! > This leads to (at least) five possible remedies: > > 1. Eliminate the article entirely until someone comes along who > can write something better. This has the advantage that it > means I am propagating no errors. On the other hand, what > I have now is (generally) better than nothing for someone who > has no other reference to hand. Until who comes along? When? What you have now is a greatdeal better than nothing and extremely useful. I often find myself scrambling from reference to reference for bits of information, rarely more than a few words, on specific fathers. This article is extremely useful. For those who would ask you to eliminate it for any real or perceived errors, I would ask instead to contribute and fix the errors. > 2. Give source notes for all the items included. This doesn't > help users know what's accurate, but at least it lets me > shift the blame. :-) > > 3. Confine the article exclusively to textual matters. This will > mean the elimination of (I would guess) half its contents. > What is left will generally be reliable, but it will have no > context. To say that Origen used an Alexandrian text of John, > without noting that he lived in Alexandria, is rather > deceptive in its own right. Correct. The biographical context of any of the "fathers" isimportant to the textual concerns. Your summary of Origen is a good example regarding his use of early Alexandrian and Caesarean texts. If anything, I would like to see the biographical information expanded over time. Much more could be written about Cyril of Alexandria and others. Don't reduce the article, expand it. > 4. Confine the article only to items I can verify from two sources. > This, too, will result in a significant reduction in its size. No, merely qualify single source information. On some of thesedudes, only single source information exists. > 5. Put a big warning at the top, saying that the information is > unverified and should be used at the reader's own risk. > > Note that some of these can be combined. > > Ulrich Schmid makes the important point that I am not writing a > Patrology. > The purpose of the article is to tell how these authors should be used > > by textual critics. So a full biography is hardly necessary. But it > seems to me that readers should know where and when the author lived. How can textual critics know how to use these authors without knowingthe geographical, political, religious and cultural context from whence he came? Case in point, your expanded treatment of Origen put his textual usages in greater context and clarity for me. Why not expand it into a Patrology with the inclusion of the textual data? More information is always preferable to single-focus snippets. > Opinions, anyone? Particularly from those who would *use* the > Encyclopedia? Feel free to answer either on-list or off. > My opinion? As a layman who "plays at TC" for the pure love of it (isn't that where the word "amateur" comes from?), a prosopography of the Fathers and the textual data, all in one article, is extremely useful and appreciated. To those who would ask you to eliminate the article, I ask to do a better job themselves or contribute to Bob's article. Jack Kilmon Houston, Tx jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 15:14:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA23955; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:14:18 -0400 Message-Id: <199707241917.PAA22588@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:21:05 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: The Fathers' articles Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1782 I am confused: We have two excellent *Patrologies* in English, Quasten's and Altaner's. Neither is expensive (Quasten has been reissued in paper; my Altaner in English was picked up for < $5 at a secondhand store years ago). If anyone is *really* interested in textual criticism and the Fathers, why not use these sources? If anyone is a *serious* amateur and has the money for a computer, then they certainly can afford a *Patrology*--which has an extensive bibliography. For those who wonder why others do not "better" the Fathers' page: (1) Professional academics have better things to do. We try to do *original* research. (2) Professional academics also see no need to reinvent the wheel: We already have two very satisfactory *Patrologies*, hundreds of pages in length, and giving articles on each father; why duplicate what has already been done? Finally, one other note: in his post on 22-7-97 @ 10:22, the author of the site obseved that "The information on the site should all be accurate; it is taken from reputable sources." Now, however, in his post on 24-7-97 @ 10:09, the same individual writes, "...This has led, inevitably, to some errors [in the articles]." What a difference two days makes! One of the great challenges of scholarship is to distinguish between "reputable" sources which are correct and reliable, and "reputable" sources which are incorrect and unreliable. And good scholarship is not ephemeral: it stands not just for days, but for centuries. The beginning of scholarship is digging in the original sources and secondary literature one's self. Sell the computer; use the money to buy good books. Sit and study. Examine the arguments and evidence. Then form an opinion. There is no other way. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 15:38:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA24074; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:38:33 -0400 X-Sender: daiken@mail.bakerbooks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199707241917.PAA22588@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:41:19 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Dave Aiken Subject: Re: The Fathers' articles Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 967 I'd like to second William Petersen's comments with regard to Robert Waltz's article on the church fathers. I constantly turn to Quasten's four-volume "Patrology" as a reliable source of information about the lives, theology, editions, and translations of the fathers. Until Waltz can provide material that matches Quasten in quality and comprehensiveness, I would encourage him to remove this material from his web site. Just because one has the physical or financial ability to put something on the internet does not mean one should necessarily do so. The web is cluttered with useless information and data. Let's make sure we are using only the finest resources in our text-critical research. (Here's an idea: what about getting permission to keyboard Quasten's "Patrology" and putting it on your website?) David Aiken Editor, Academic and Reference Books Baker Book House daiken@bakerbooks.com http://www.bakerbooks.com 616-682-8388 ext. 132 616-676-2315 fax From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 16:35:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24250; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:35:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:38:18 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199707241917.PAA22588@r02n02.cac.psu.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: The Fathers' articles Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4935 On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: >I am confused: We have two excellent *Patrologies* in English, Quasten's >and Altaner's. Neither is expensive (Quasten has been reissued in paper; >my Altaner in English was picked up for < $5 at a secondhand store years >ago). If anyone is *really* interested in textual criticism and the >Fathers, why not use these sources? If anyone is a *serious* amateur and >has the money for a computer, then they certainly can afford a >*Patrology*--which has an extensive bibliography. I don't know if I should get into this, but there is a comment I would make here: I, for one, have a computer for work. I could not afford one for personal use. And I would make a point: The article at the web site is not by any means intended as a substitute for a patrology. Rather, it is intended to give information of use to textual critics. It's not the same thing, though the two are related. I am not expert in this part of the field (as I keep saying!), but it seems to me that there is no work which really approaches the Fathers from the text critic's viewpoint. If we (not necessarily me!) can offer such a tool, even a brief one, I think it would be very helpful. >For those who wonder why others do not "better" the Fathers' page: (1) >Professional academics have better things to do. Surely you don't mean that you have better things to do than supply information to the next generation of textual critics. And if that *is* what you mean, then how can you object if I -- in my admittedly limited way -- attempt to do what I can. >We try to do *original* >research. (2) Professional academics also see no need to reinvent the >wheel: We already have two very satisfactory *Patrologies*, hundreds of >pages in length, and giving articles on each father; why duplicate what has >already been done? As noted, I do not think this is a duplication. For that matter, the whole point of an "Encyclopedia" is to summarize information. An encyclopedia never covers a subject in complete detail. But encyclopedias still exist -- not because they supply complete information, but because they supply a place to start. I will concede that it would be good to supply bibliographic information for the patrologies. I hadn't thought of it. >Finally, one other note: in his post on 22-7-97 @ 10:22, the author of the >site obseved that "The information on the site should all be accurate; it is >taken from reputable sources." Now, however, in his post on 24-7-97 @ >10:09, the same individual writes, "...This has led, inevitably, to some >errors [in the articles]." What a difference two days makes! Yes, it does. Kind people have offered me information about errors and oversimplifications in certain sources. Problems not mentioned in any reviews I have seen. I concede the error. I am trying to correct it in the best way possible. >One of the great challenges of scholarship is to distinguish between >"reputable" sources which are correct and reliable, and "reputable" sources >which are incorrect and unreliable. And good scholarship is not ephemeral: >it stands not just for days, but for centuries. You mean no one ever makes discoveries in TC? Then why is anyone doing research? :-) Enough. I'm getting rabid here. *** Dave Aiken wrote, in part: >Just because one has the physical or financial ability to put something on >the internet does not mean one should necessarily do so. The web is >cluttered with useless information and data. Let's make sure we are using >only the finest resources in our text-critical research. (Here's an idea: >what about getting permission to keyboard Quasten's "Patrology" and putting >it on your website?) I don't have that much web space. :-) I agree that this would be wonderful. But is anyone going to volunteer to retype it? I may not have a life, but my carpal tunnels aren't up to the job. And again, the Encyclopedia article is devoted, as best I can, to the needs of the textual critic. I'm willing to take the page down if it has enough problems, or to remove the biographical information that seems to be generating the controversy. But before we make a choice, let's try to decide what the real issues are. I do find it interesting that, of the responses so far, the lay people like the idea of the site, and the professionals do not. That may reflect on the site -- but it probably reflects also on the tools available. Sounds like *somebody* needs to write a book on the Fathers devoted to the needs of the textual critic. And I promise it won't be me. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Jul 24 16:42:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24298; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:42:37 -0400 Message-ID: <33D7C03D.1DFB727C@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:51:09 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The Fathers' articles X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199707241917.PAA22588@r02n02.cac.psu.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: 4085 William L. Petersen wrote: > I am confused: We have two excellent *Patrologies* in English, > Quasten's > and Altaner's. Neither is expensive (Quasten has been reissued in > paper; > my Altaner in English was picked up for < $5 at a secondhand store > years > ago). If anyone is *really* interested in textual criticism and the > Fathers, why not use these sources? If anyone is a *serious* amateur > and > has the money for a computer, then they certainly can afford a > *Patrology*--which has an extensive bibliography. This is true but for several factors. As one of those "serious amateurs" andas a layman, my personal library is extensive, however, my "books to buy" list grows in leaps and bounds beyond my book budget. We serious amateurs are consumers of the products of Professional academics. We have no grants or university funds from which to draw. Your position seems to dismiss the value of the WWW as a resource every bit as useful as the print medium. > For those who wonder why others do not "better" the Fathers' page: > (1) > Professional academics have better things to do. We try to do > *original* > research. (2) Professional academics also see no need to reinvent the > > wheel: We already have two very satisfactory *Patrologies*, hundreds > of > pages in length, and giving articles on each father; why duplicate > what has > already been done? Resources in print are static. As you develop more information from your*original* research, publishers do not send out "updates" to the books that are no longer quite as accurate. Instead, you publish in the peer-reviewed journals. WWW Articles, such as Bob Waltz's, can be updated from those articles, therefore it is not a reinvention of the wheel but a new wheel altogether. It is more "alive" than the print medium. > Finally, one other note: in his post on 22-7-97 @ 10:22, the author > of the > site obseved that "The information on the site should all be accurate; > it is > taken from reputable sources." Now, however, in his post on 24-7-97 @ > > 10:09, the same individual writes, "...This has led, inevitably, to > some > errors [in the articles]." What a difference two days makes! He also said that it was a rough draft. Even those precious printed tomesstarted out as such. Dr. Waltz also points out that the site is directed particularly at those such as I, moreso than the "professional academic." The site has to have a beginning and I, as a serious amateur, am delighted that Dr. Waltz (also with "better things to do") finds the time to consider the serious amateurs in his labors. > One of the great challenges of scholarship is to distinguish between > "reputable" sources which are correct and reliable, and "reputable" > sources > which are incorrect and unreliable. And good scholarship is not > ephemeral: > it stands not just for days, but for centuries. Again, this is an article in a new medium that is coming into its own asan academic tool. Unlike many of the books on my shelves, it is a medium that allows constant "reprinting" without additional cost to the consumer. Familiar as well with the printed publications you cite, I see no glaring "incorrect and unreliable" information which if overlooked can be easily corrected with the help of those professional academics who appreciate the value of this new medium. > > > The beginning of scholarship is digging in the original sources and > secondary literature one's self. Sell the computer; use the money to > buy > good books. Sit and study. Examine the arguments and evidence. Then > form > an opinion. There is no other way. > Again you dismiss, even disparage, the use of the computer and thevalue of a "living" WWW as a resource in addition to the works in print. I have, on my hard disk, and printable, 38 volumes of the works of the Patristics downloaded from a url...at no cost, thanks to the efforts and labors of the site owners who, like Bob, offer information (the wares of the academic) to us "serious amateurs." Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 18:32:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA24532; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:32:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:10:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33D7C03D.1DFB727C@accesscomm.net> References: <199707241917.PAA22588@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Just have to remind people that I'm a nobody.... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 848 In his recent post, Jack Kilmon () referred to me several times as "Dr. Waltz." So I'd better remind people that I don't have a doctorate -- and certainly not in theology or textual criticism or the like. Whatever I know I know from books, occasional conversations, and some thousands of hours with critical apparati and manuscript databases. But I'm not an official expert. If anyone was operating under the assumption that I was -- well, either learn to disrespect me now or forever hold your peace. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Jul 24 22:13:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA24835; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:13:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:16:45 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Just have to remind people that I'm a nobody.... X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970724221313.27978a52@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: 990 At 05:10 PM 7/24/97 -0500, you wrote: >In his recent post, Jack Kilmon () referred >to me several times as "Dr. Waltz." So I'd better remind people >that I don't have a doctorate -- and certainly not in theology >or textual criticism or the like. Just for info's sake, I would remind the list that Karl Barth never earned a doctorate either- and only the most foolish would suggest that his contributions to theology (whether one agrees with him or not) were small. >Whatever I know I know from >books, occasional conversations, and some thousands of hours >with critical apparati and manuscript databases. > >But I'm not an official expert. If anyone was operating under >the assumption that I was -- well, either learn to disrespect me >now or forever hold your peace. :-) A doctors cap does not a wise man make; nor a shovel a fool. > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 23:32:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA24930; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:32:09 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970725033916.28ef0bfe@pop.washdc.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.washdc.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:39:16 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Matthew 12:47 and the Diatessaron Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 815 Matthew 12:47 ("But someone said to him, Behold your mother and your brothers are standing outside asking to speak to you.") is enclosed in brackets and given a grade of {C} for its inclusion. Although reasons for and against including the verse are interesting (and would be appreciated), the focus of my question is the following: My UBS4 lists the Diatessaron as a witness for inclusion. If it is possible that Mt12:47, if not original, is a harmonization to Mk3:32 and/or Lk8:20, how can the Diatessaron, itself a harmony, be evidence one way or another on this passage of Matthew? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 24 23:51:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA25013; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:51:03 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9707250352.AA26820@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:53:53 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Just have to remind people that I'm a nobody.... 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: 551 > >Whatever I know I know from > >books, occasional conversations, and some thousands of hours > >with critical apparati and manuscript databases. > > > >But I'm not an official expert. If anyone was operating under > >the assumption that I was -- well, either learn to disrespect me > >now or forever hold your peace. :-) > > A doctors cap does not a wise man make; nor a shovel a fool. Speaking to Bob as one who also never got the chance to earn a doctorate: what Jim said. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 02:07:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA25161; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 02:07:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:10:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: The Fathers' articles 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: 2484 On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: > > >I am confused: We have two excellent *Patrologies* in English, Quasten's Hear, hear! Let me my whole-hearted agreement with the opinions now repeates so often in this thread that QUasten's Patrology is an excellent book, a vital reference for English speaking students of Patristics, whether they study for TC reasons or not. > And I would make a point: The article at the web site is not by > any means intended as a substitute for a patrology. Rather, it > is intended to give information of use to textual critics. It's > not the same thing, though the two are related. Well, I hope you will make much use of Quasten's Patrology while writing your own article. Even if you are not trying to write a Patrology yourself, there is so much in Quasten's book you should know when trying to write even just an encyclopedia article. > I am not expert in this part of the field (as I keep saying!), > but it seems to me that there is no work which really approaches > the Fathers from the text critic's viewpoint. If we (not necessarily > me!) can offer such a tool, even a brief one, I think it would > be very helpful. Actually, there is quite a bit of work on various Fathers that analyzes their texts. But most of it seems to still be only in journal articles. You will find references to quite a number of such articles if you dig through the archives for this mailing list. Besides, "such a tool" is helpful only if it is not misleading. One of the reasons so many are asking to have it removed is that they fear that any "encyclopedia" article on this topic _will_ be misleading. > For that matter, the whole point of an "Encyclopedia" is to summarize > information. An encyclopedia never covers a subject in complete > detail. Which is exactly why an encyclopedia is such a poor forum for discussing the text of the Fathers. Let's not forget that when Diderot first conceived of the idea of writing a modern encyclopedia he was subject to the same criticism, not without good cause. Even the best encyclopedias can be horribly misleading. Try looking up the different ways of computing the date of Easter/Passover in the encyclopedias "Encyclopedia Americana" and "Encyclopedia Brittanica" for a good example. 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 Fri Jul 25 09:35:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA25771; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:35:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:35:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The Fathers' articles 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: 2955 I couldn't let this pass without comment. On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Dave Aiken wrote: > Just because one has the physical or financial ability to put something on > the internet does not mean one should necessarily do so. The web is > cluttered with useless information and data. True, true. And so are books (and I speak as someone who works for a publisher!). CLearly Bob's online articles are no substitute for Quasten, nor do they claim to be. As I understand it, what he is trying to do is to provide a convenient online location where one can gather a little bit of general information about the church fathers, and I think there is validity and value in that. Even leading scholars in a particular field write books and articles that are aimed at the non-professional, and they sometimes even write about topics that they do not claim to be experts in! Should Bob's online articles be used as though they were authoritative statements of a leading patristic, or even textual, scholar? Of course not. They have not been through the peer-review process and thus cannot claim to be "scholarship" in that sense. If they are taken as I think they are intended, however, as sources of general, widely accepted information about various fathers (providing, of course, that Bob has done a good job of choosing reliable sources and has accurately reflected their points of view), I think they can be useful resources, especially if references to the sources of the information are provided. To give one example of a setting in which these articles might be of value, a teacher might assign students to do some elementary research on a church father of their choice. Finding Bob's information online, the student might read the brief information in the articles, choose a church father that is of interest on the basis of what he/she reads, and do further research in the library, perhaps on the basis of the sources Bob cites in the article. Since many students nowadays are so well-versed in using the Web and enjoy doing so, why not use that interest to advantage in teaching? Yes, students will need guidance about which Web pages are valid sources of information and which are pure garbage (the same can be said, again, for printed books), so maybe teachers should include in the bibliographies they hand to their students Web sites that contain useful information. Who knows, maybe some interested student will actually enjoy an assignment that involves a little Web surfing, and might learn something in the process! I think Bob is to be commended for his work, and we should encourage his efforts, and those of other people who are attempting to perform a public service by putting good, high quality information on the Web. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 10:13:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA25905; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:13:52 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199707251416.QAA27924@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 16:35:41 +0100 Subject: Re: Opinions about Fathers article (I appeal especially to neophytes) 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: 2802 Despite the justified criticism levelled against the "Fathers' article" there seems to be a remarkable agreement among the *styloi* of TC that we possess good patrological referrence tools. The praises of ST. JOHaNnes Quasten was almost universally sung. Therefore, in principle I can see no obstacle against compiling a list of short information on patristic sources found in the various critical aparatus. This information should include: a.) Localization of the patristic sources in time and space; conflicting evidence and/or insecure ascriptions should be noted, b.) Bibliography (editions and secondary literature). This information should rely on: c.) reputable patrologies (e.g., J. Quasten), clearly indicating the referrence tool(s). It is hard to imagine that scholars like Bart Ehrman, author of (inter alia) a NT introduction, and Bill Petersen, author of (inter alia) articles in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, should firmly contest that (inter alia) _their_ publications can and should be used as referrence tools in order to gather solid information. The actual performance of such a short list of information is open to dispute, no doubt about that, but the possibility of compiling one can not be ruled out. BTW-- Contemplating the history of encyclopedic enterprises in our disciplines (Biblical studies, church history, theology) I am really puzzled. The Germans, e.g., started the *Theologische Realenzyklopaedie* in 1977, published 26 vols. so far, yet did not come to an end. Even more perplexing, the *Reallexikon fuer Antike und Christentum* started in 1950, published 17 vols. so far, yet did not come to an end. No doubt, the Germans want it all, but they don't want it now. The ambitious German projects want to represent the actual state of the art as well as covering research history as well as a making significant contributions. In the end it turns out that when they reach the five vols. on the letter "Z" the first 20 vols (at least) are partly outdated, for they represent the state of the art from half a century ago (at best). On the other hand, British-American projects, e.g., the *Anchor Bible Dictionary* (prepared within six years, with nearly a thousand contributors, published in six vols.) or *The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium* (prepared within roughly a decade, published in three vols.), display quite different results. No doubt there are differences between the mentioned encyclopedical enterprises. However, the British-American scholars on the TC-list seem to incline more towards the "German" encyclopedical attitude, whereas I find myself (moderately) favouring the "British-American" encyclopedical attitude. Maybe we all tend to prefer what we are lacking over what we actually have. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 11:01:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26010; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:01:44 -0400 Message-ID: <33D949F2.2280@sn.no> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:50:58 -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: The Fathers' articles 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: 608 James R. Adair wrote, in conclusion: > > I think Bob is to be commended for his work, and we should encourage his > efforts, and those of other people who are attempting to perform a public > service by putting good, high quality information on the Web. Jim, you took the words right out of my mouth! I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, as I am one among very many net users who will profit greatly from this kind of electronic articles. Bob, thank you for your effort in making such articles available to net users. Such efforts should be commended, not discouraged! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 11:04:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26037; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:04:20 -0400 Message-ID: <33D94A9F.2B34@sn.no> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:53:51 -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: Just have to remind people that I'm a nobody.... References: <1.5.4.16.19970724221313.27978a52@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: 583 Jim West wrote: > > At 05:10 PM 7/24/97 -0500, you wrote: > >In his recent post, Jack Kilmon () referred > >to me several times as "Dr. Waltz." So I'd better remind people > >that I don't have a doctorate -- and certainly not in theology > >or textual criticism or the like. > > Just for info's sake, I would remind the list that Karl Barth never earned a > doctorate either- and only the most foolish would suggest that his > contributions to theology (whether one agrees with him or not) were small. What about Samuel Tregelles? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 14:16:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26568; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:16:33 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9707250349.AA26559@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:50:53 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Fathers' articles 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: 3324 Jack Kilmon wrote: > > For those who wonder why others do not "better" the Fathers' page: > > (1) > > Professional academics have better things to do. We try to do > > *original* > > research. (2) Professional academics also see no need to reinvent the > > > > wheel: We already have two very satisfactory *Patrologies*, hundreds > > of > > pages in length, and giving articles on each father; why duplicate > > what has > > already been done? > > Resources in print are static. As you develop more information from > your*original* research, publishers do not send out "updates" to the > books that are > no longer quite as accurate. Instead, you publish in the peer-reviewed > journals. > > WWW Articles, such as Bob Waltz's, can be updated from those > articles, therefore > it is not a reinvention of the wheel but a new wheel altogether. It is > more "alive" > than the print medium. Yes. To cite a recent example, Dave Aiken, who so disparaged Bob's article and spoke of unnecessary material being put on the Web, recently rejected my book "A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls" because it would cost too much to update it periodically and release new editions. I began this work in 1982, and because of this kind of attitude on the part of publishers it STILL has not seen the light of day. Jimmy Adair and I are now in the process of working it up into a searchable web site that I will be able to update daily if I want to (not that I would want to!). This is a perfect example of what I said in another post: the Net is the future. > > The beginning of scholarship is digging in the original sources and > > secondary literature one's self. Sell the computer; use the money to > > buy > > good books. Sit and study. Examine the arguments and evidence. Then > > form > > an opinion. There is no other way. > > > > Again you dismiss, even disparage, the use of the computer and > thevalue of a "living" WWW as a resource in addition to the works in > print. > I have, on my hard disk, and printable, 38 volumes of the works of the > Patristics downloaded from a url...at no cost, thanks to the efforts and > > labors of the site owners who, like Bob, offer information (the wares > of the academic) to us "serious amateurs." Yep. The computer has allowed some phenomenal leaps in areas of biblical research, including TC. One need only look at the programs now available to do collation and comparison. Sell the computer? Ha. Join the 20th century! My own chosen field of research is Hebrew grammar, and the computerized resources available now allow investigations of types that couldn't even be imagined in the pre-computer days. "Sit and study," yes. Definitely. But the real up-to-date information these days is accessed via the computer. So get the books, but sit at the computer just as much as you sit at the table with the books. And contributions such as Bob's encyclopedia are a big part of this new trend in up-to-date, easy-to-get information. If I want to look in a particular book, I frequently have to wait weeks for Inter-Library Loan. I can get info that's on the Web in a matter of seconds. Guess which one is preferrable. Thanks, Bob. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 14:17:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26587; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:17:42 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9707250349.AB26559@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:50:53 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Fathers' articles 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: 4891 Bob Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: > > >I am confused: We have two excellent *Patrologies* in English, Quasten's > >and Altaner's. Neither is expensive (Quasten has been reissued in paper; > >my Altaner in English was picked up for < $5 at a secondhand store years > >ago). If anyone is *really* interested in textual criticism and the > >Fathers, why not use these sources? If anyone is a *serious* amateur and > >has the money for a computer, then they certainly can afford a > >*Patrology*--which has an extensive bibliography. > > I don't know if I should get into this, but there is a comment I would > make here: I, for one, have a computer for work. I could not afford > one for personal use. I would also have to point out that Peterson's statement, though I'm sure it wasn't intended this way, sounds more than a little arrogant. Until recently, I lived in a town in Wyoming where my chances of getting my hands on such books was about as likely as winning the Wyoming lottery (Wyoming doesn't have a lottery). There are many, many resources on the Net that I couldn't get - in some cases still can't get - any other way. The Net is the future; get used to it or get left behind. > And I would make a point: The article at the web site is not by > any means intended as a substitute for a patrology. Rather, it > is intended to give information of use to textual critics. It's > not the same thing, though the two are related. Agreed. An encyclopedia by nature is not a complete compendium, but I don't see anybody throwing out their Brittanicas because they don't contain as much information on desert tortoises as some major research papers. > I am not expert in this part of the field (as I keep saying!), > but it seems to me that there is no work which really approaches > the Fathers from the text critic's viewpoint. If we (not necessarily > me!) can offer such a tool, even a brief one, I think it would > be very helpful. And it is! I refer to it a lot. I confess I just read the article on the Fathers a little while ago (largely because of Peterson's complaints, I wanted to see what all the gripe was about) and found it excellent. It is accurate as far as I can see, well organized, easy to follow, and immensely informative. I don't understand what the beef is. So it's not the same thing as a huge book. So what? > >For those who wonder why others do not "better" the Fathers' page: (1) > >Professional academics have better things to do. > > Surely you don't mean that you have better things to do than supply > information to the next generation of textual critics. And if that > *is* what you mean, then how can you object if I -- in my admittedly > limited way -- attempt to do what I can. My first thought when I read Peterson's statement above was "Then what are you doing fiddling around in this list? Why aren't you out doing that 'original research'?" Better things to do? The only difference is that Bob is writing his material on the Web and some others aren't. > >We try to do *original* > >research. (2) Professional academics also see no need to reinvent the > >wheel: We already have two very satisfactory *Patrologies*, hundreds of > >pages in length, and giving articles on each father; why duplicate what has > >already been done? > > As noted, I do not think this is a duplication. To say nothing of the fact that he missed the point of the encyclopedia... > For that matter, the whole point of an "Encyclopedia" is to summarize > information. An encyclopedia never covers a subject in complete > detail. But encyclopedias still exist -- not because they supply > complete information, but because they supply a place to start. > > I will concede that it would be good to supply bibliographic information > for the patrologies. I hadn't thought of it. > > >Finally, one other note: in his post on 22-7-97 @ 10:22, the author of the > >site obseved that "The information on the site should all be accurate; it is > >taken from reputable sources." Now, however, in his post on 24-7-97 @ > >10:09, the same individual writes, "...This has led, inevitably, to some > >errors [in the articles]." What a difference two days makes! > > Yes, it does. Kind people have offered me information about errors > and oversimplifications in certain sources. Problems not mentioned > in any reviews I have seen. I concede the error. I am trying to > correct it in the best way possible. I can't help wondering if the above-mentioned compendia of patristic material are completely without errors, oversights, typograpical errors, etc. etc. etc. Bob is doing something to help the general community be better informed about TC. And Bob, there are plenty of us who appreciate it. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 16:18:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26934; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:18:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:54:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login2.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Fathers (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: 2760 I've now looked at Waltz's web page and understand it's allure. It is nice to have brief overviews of information so handily set out, and I understand why he's getting some vocal support here. But let me emphasize that if the information provided is by the admission of its author based on incomplete research and inadequate sources, and that it contains to-this-stage-undetected inaccuracies, I still think it would be better to *wait* until it is responsibly done before posting it for the world to see. That's what all of us have to do when we're publishing, and I should think that this kind of minimal standard isn't too much to ask of internet publication. Several other comments and queries: (1) For those who have access to a reasonably OK public or college library, I'd suggest consulting not only the patrologies that Bill Petersen mentioned, but also the standard reference tool (which is thoroughly researched and highly accurate), _The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_, ed. by F. L. Cross and, now, E. A. Livingstone. It provides much briefer info on all of the important patristic than the patrologies, more like Waltz's entries, and is for the most part completely reliable (though there are places where each of us might put a different spin on things here and there). Anecdotally, I might add that when I was a graduate student, Bruce Metzger told me that he kept this volume on his desk, and that this is the one book he told graduate students that they should buy if they could buy only one. (2) Several times Mr. Waltz has indicated that the info about the Fathers that he provides (unlike the patrologies) is only that which is of importance for textual criticism. But I'm confused by this. What information about a father would *not* be of importance for textual criticism? (3) M. Johnson mentions that most information about Patristic sources for textual criticism is in the journals. No one has referred, though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill Petersen). Two issues: (a) If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions for improving the seriest, I'd be good to know. (I found V. Broman's comments on Rod Mullen's contribution to be very useful, e.g.) (b) There are several volumes "in the works" for the series, including disssertations being finished or having been finished on Origen, Athanasius, and Basil. If anyone is interested in thinking about making a contribution, please contact me. The fields are white for harvest! -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 17:34:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27056; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:34:54 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:35:51 GMT Subject: Re: Opinions about Fathers article 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: 2350 May we stick to the basic issue? If something is erroneous and misleading, then the originator should not make it available and the user should avoid consulting it. Whether people have one or a thousand degrees, and whether the medium is paper or a web-site is quite irrelevant. The question of access is apparently more complicated, but it is hard to see why confusion is preferable to blissful ignorance. I for one am resigned to the fact that for the moment people are so in love with things electronic that they'll prefer anything in it to looking out a decent book or to leaving the matter alone. But I absolutely support Bart Ehrman's plea for a gestation period in publishing electronically just as in the book production. Post in haste and repent at leisure. In passing, the claim that there is little available on patristic textual questions but a few articles is misleading. One could compile a long bibliography, of both general and specialist materials, without too much thought. But that's not an offer. It's just underlining the point that one should at least know these sources before writing on the subject, even briefly. There is an underlying point to these exchanges, which I want to speak to frankly: The more interest in textual studies the better, I'm all for that. But please will self-confessed amateurs listen carefully to those of us who have given our lives to these matters, and who spend every available moment in their study? After 25 years at it, I have at least discovered my ignorance. I think that not everyone on the list realises that there is such a stage. To be honest, there is a huge gap in knowledge and critical training across this list, and in expectation of what constitutes proper scholarship. People are at many different levels of knowledge, of course, that's fine. But the standards and quality of the discipline will not be widely improved if those who should be listening, reading and learning are talking and writing and trying to teach. And please remember, before you rush to scold me, that this is not an arrogant piece of imperialism, but an attempt to encourage recognition of the high standards of our discipline. 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 Fri Jul 25 17:41:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27087; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:41:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:44:27 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4721 On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > I've now looked at Waltz's web page and understand it's allure. It is >nice to have brief overviews of information so handily set out, and I >understand why he's getting some vocal support here. But let me emphasize >that if the information provided is by the admission of its author >based on incomplete research and inadequate sources, and that it contains >to-this-stage-undetected inaccuracies, I still think it would be >better to *wait* until it is responsibly done before posting it for the >world to see. That's what all of us have to do when we're publishing, and >I should think that this kind of minimal standard isn't too much to ask of >internet publication. I'm going to shock some of you by agreeing, in outline, with Ehrman's comment. Certainly, if I/we decide to keep the page up, I am going to make some immediate changes: 1. I will add a warning that the page is incomplete 2. I'm going to add information about my sources. 3. I made some misguided attempts to harmonize my sources. I will eliminate that. And, of course, I will work to improve the entries. But if the page is a good idea, then it seems to me worthwhile to keep it up while we work on it. Why? Because it's the best way to get feedback. Jean Valentin gave me some useful information about Armenian fathers. Vincent Broman pointed me to some useful work on Cyril of Jerusalem. Ulrich Schmid supplied information about all sorts of topics. There is a vast amount of TC knowledge on this list. If anyone wants to help out, I will gladly give full credit. For example, Ehrman knows more about the text of Didymus than I will ever learn in my life. If he would write, say, 200 words on the topic, I would be thrilled. I would also point out that the *entire site* is inspired by Rich Elliot's Encyclopedia. Eventually there *will* be a better product. (Well, better on every subject except text-types and mathematics, anyway. :-) In the interim, I am including as much as I can. I think a TC Encyclopedia *requires* an article on the Fathers. I would much, *much*, MUCH rather someone else had written it. (Believe me, folks, writing te article was not fun.) But I've opened my web space to others, and -- other than the contributions mentioned above and -- no one has come forward. The offer is still open, BTW. If someone else wants to create a similar article, of roughly equal length, I will happily convert it to HTML and post it. [ ... ] > (2) Several times Mr. Waltz has indicated that the info about the >Fathers that he provides (unlike the patrologies) is only that which is of >importance for textual criticism. But I'm confused by this. What >information about a father would *not* be of importance for textual >criticism? This is a good point, too. But I can think of a few examples. Take, say, ethnicity. Obviously it matters that Ulfilas lived among the Goths. And spoke their language, and translated their Bible, and was their bishop, and was rather Arian. But does it really matter, for our purposes, whether he was born a Goth or a Roman? I don't see how. (I know, I know, we have no writings of Ulfilas other than the Gothic Bible. But it's an example, OK?) > (3) M. Johnson mentions that most information about Patristic >sources for textual criticism is in the journals. No one has referred, >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill >Petersen). Two issues: While this is an important series to mention, I don't see that its existence affects the Encyclopedia, or similar works, at all. Obviously people who have those volumes should consult them, rather than the Encyclopedia, for full details. On the other hand, how many of you have the entire set on your desks? And the very fact that the series is ongoing shows that people cannot rely on it for everything. Obviously they can't rely on an encyclopedia for everything, either. But let's not confuse the purposes of the two. Please note: I am not saying I will keep the Fathers page up (though, right now, it's clear that a majority want it retained). The question remains open. I just want the discussion to remain focussed on what I consider the actual issue. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Jul 25 20:56:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27313; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:56:39 -0400 Date: 26 Jul 97 03:02:23 +0200 Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) From: "Jean Valentin" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: 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: 4371 A few thoughts about this whole debate about the Informations that Bob Waltz has put on the Encyclopedia site about the fathers. Once again, we are stumbling over the issue of vulgarization. This reminds me the thread about "academic imperialism" that took place some months ago, and I'm really perplex about the issue. Vulgarization of scholarly knowledge seems to cause difficulties. On the one hand, there _are_ many people wishing to find short and accessible information about our discipline. On the other hand, professional scholars are often very critical when such information is provided. And judging by their standards, we can only understand them. Vulgarization is necessary, but then good vulgarization. But what is good vulgarization? Probably the one that is done by the real specialists. But they don't have time for it... It is probably not what their institutions are paying them for. This is just one of the many frustrating realities of life. The problem then is that there is a growing gap between the preoccupations of the scholars and those of the "lay" people who want to get information because for some reason the subject is existential to them (and we're dealing with matters related to religious faith, right?). There is a difficulty of communication. What can we do about it? To give a personal example, the congregation of which I've been a member for years considers me now as "dangerous" just because I study textual criticism and eastern christianity... I experience a growing gap, or difficulty of communication that becomes really conflictual, between them and me. And on my side, the way these brave believers and their leaders are speaking about things they don't know about irritates me. This happens to many studying people: there comes a point where they can no more communicate with the public, and the public gets also frustrated because it probably expects something else from them. It's a sociological reality we all have to live with, I don't know if there's a solution... but sometimes it hurts. And probably it hurts some of you too. Seems like we live "in two different worlds" like the song says! This raises other issues like: what's the use of scholarship anyway, what is its contribution to the construction of a better world? But I guess I'm getting off-topic... So coming back to Bob's work and to the remarks of many of you, I think it's good that Bob thought about providing information to "the public". And when he wrote to us, it was with the intention of making his informations more accurate. If somebody like Bob wants to build bridges between scholarship and the public, maybe it will prevent these frustrations I was mentioning... So why not help him, this would become _our_ contribution to the setting of an information that would be both correct when judged by academic standards, and accessible for those who just need short information. BTW, a very important work about the fathers and the text they used are the volumes of the "Biblia Patristica" published by the CNRS. To my knowledge, there are already five volumes in this collection. These books follow the order of the Bible texts and give references of quotations in the patristic sources. In front of a biblical reference you find references in a father's work. It makes hundreds of pages, just of references. No text, nothing else than references to chapters and verses and pages of patristic editions, nearly like a telephone book. An essential tool for the study of the text of the Greek and Latin Fathers... It's worth using for us, and it's worth mentioning to the public that such things exist, just for information... It was just a few reflections in disorder, because this all makes me feel very perplex... Peace to all! --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium email: jgvalentin@arcadis.be --------------------------------------------------------- A proud user of: NISUS WRITER - The best word processor for the Macintosh!! Support for HTML, best WorldScript implementation, best Search and Find capabilities. THE solution for writing in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Chinese, Japanese... Find more about it at: http://www.nisus-soft.com http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/grads/maschke/nisus_overview/toc.html --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 25 22:39:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA27427; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:39:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:42:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) 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: 5393 On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > > > I've now looked at Waltz's web page and understand it's allure. It is > >nice to have brief overviews of information so handily set out, and I > >understand why he's getting some vocal support here. But let me emphasize > > [snip] > I'm going to shock some of you by agreeing, in outline, with Ehrman's > comment. > > Certainly, if I/we decide to keep the page up, I am going to make > some immediate changes: > > 1. I will add a warning that the page is incomplete > 2. I'm going to add information about my sources. > 3. I made some misguided attempts to harmonize my sources. I will > eliminate that. > > And, of course, I will work to improve the entries. > All excellent ideas! > But if the page is a good idea, then it seems to me worthwhile to > keep it up while we work on it. Why? Because it's the best way > to get feedback. Jean Valentin gave me some useful information > about Armenian fathers. Vincent Broman pointed me to some > useful work on Cyril of Jerusalem. Ulrich Schmid supplied > information about all sorts of topics. Given your resolve to add the warning of its incompleteness, I agree that this is a good idea, the volunteered info is a good example of why. > [snip] > > (2) Several times Mr. Waltz has indicated that the info about the > >Fathers that he provides (unlike the patrologies) is only that which is of > >importance for textual criticism. But I'm confused by this. What > >information about a father would *not* be of importance for textual > >criticism? > > This is a good point, too. But I can think of a few examples. Take, > say, ethnicity. Obviously it matters that Ulfilas lived among the > Goths. And spoke their language, and translated their Bible, and > was their bishop, and was rather Arian. But does it really matter, > for our purposes, whether he was born a Goth or a Roman? I don't > see how. Well, but even this example _could_ turn out to be important. So, for example, if he was born Roman learning Gothic only later in life, even after many years of being their bishop he might still speak and write Gothic as an obvious non-native. Look at any immigrant church in the US for many examples of such bishops. This in turn would affect his choice of vocabulary for translating passages with significant variants. If I recall correctly, the article reviewed at http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol02/Bakker1997rev.html has an interesting example of this problem in the Slavonic translation of "censum" in Acts. The article itself is not on the web. > > > (3) M. Johnson mentions that most information about Patristic > >sources for textual criticism is in the journals. No one has referred, > >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt > >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've > >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill > >Petersen). Two issues: > [snip] > While this is an important series to mention, I don't see that its > existence affects the Encyclopedia, or similar works, at all. > Obviously people who have those volumes should consult them, rather > than the Encyclopedia, for full details. On the other hand, how many > of you have the entire set on your desks? One way in which its existence affects the Encyclopedia is that you could compare your judgement concerning what information about the Fathers is relevant to TC with the selection of information about the Fathers actually used in the monographs. Now one difference this whole thread illustrates between the Web and a peer-reviewed forum is that sometimes the best way to get feedback comparable to peer-review is to put something out there and filter through the resulting criticism to decide which is useful correction and which is not. I hope you will find my comments useful. My first comment after finally being able to connect is that I wish you had an indication of for which of these Fathers a critical edition is available. This would certainly be of great relevance to TC. The next omission I notice is that you seem to discuss the various Fathers works only from the standpoint of _New_ Testament criticism, even when his works are potentially useful for Old Testament (Old Latin & Vulgate) criticism, such as Cassiodorus, who wrote a very complete commentary on the Psalms. Surely this in turn is significant for New Testament TC. Nor do I see mention of one of the very few Fathers who managed to write commentary on the _entire_ New Testament, namely Theophylact. True, some of the commentaries on Paul and Acts are scarcely different from copies of Chrysostom, but his works are still quite important for TC. NA27 makes frequent reference to him as well. Finally, since we are so lucky as to have a "terminus ad quem" for the loss of Origen's Hexapla, I think it is worth mentioning when Caesarea was burnt by invading Moslems, so that we know when the last date was (no, I don't remember the date) that any other Father could have consulted Origen's original manuscript (the copies were quickly corrupted to the point of uselessness). 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 Sat Jul 26 08:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA28177; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:37:05 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:40:10 -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: Fathers (fwd) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4223 On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: [ ... ] >> > (3) M. Johnson mentions that most information about Patristic >> >sources for textual criticism is in the journals. No one has referred, >> >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt >> >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've >> >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill >> >Petersen). Two issues: >> [snip] >> While this is an important series to mention, I don't see that its >> existence affects the Encyclopedia, or similar works, at all. >> Obviously people who have those volumes should consult them, rather >> than the Encyclopedia, for full details. On the other hand, how many >> of you have the entire set on your desks? > >One way in which its existence affects the Encyclopedia is that you could >compare your judgement concerning what information about the Fathers is >relevant to TC with the selection of information about the Fathers >actually used in the monographs. Oh, agreed. I was just pointing out that the series is not a substitute for the Encyclopedia, or vice versa. >Now one difference this whole thread illustrates between the Web and a >peer-reviewed forum is that sometimes the best way to get feedback >comparable to peer-review is to put something out there and filter through >the resulting criticism to decide which is useful correction and which is >not. I hope you will find my comments useful. My first comment after >finally being able to connect is that I wish you had an indication of for >which of these Fathers a critical edition is available. This would >certainly be of great relevance to TC. Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't have enough information at my disposal to do this well. If someone else does, again, I will include it. >The next omission I notice is that you seem to discuss the various Fathers >works only from the standpoint of _New_ Testament criticism, even when his >works are potentially useful for Old Testament (Old Latin & Vulgate) >criticism, such as Cassiodorus, who wrote a very complete commentary on >the Psalms. Surely this in turn is significant for New Testament TC. Again I plead lack of knowledge and information. I'd also ask a question. This is not an argument, I'm simply curious: What is the significance of Cassiodorus's commentary on Psalms for NT criticism? (Apart, of course, from any NT passages it cites.) Not having seen the commentary, I feel like I'm missing something. >Nor do I see mention of one of the very few Fathers who managed to write >commentary on the _entire_ New Testament, namely Theophylact. True, some >of the commentaries on Paul and Acts are scarcely different from copies of >Chrysostom, but his works are still quite important for TC. NA27 makes >frequent reference to him as well. Er -- that turns out not to be the case. If you look on pp. 74*-76* in the NA27 introduction, you'll see an (allegedly) complete list of fathers cited. (I say "allegedly" because it contains a couple of minor errors -- e.g. it does not list the Pseudo Dionysus, who is quoted, I think, twice). Theophylact does not appear in the list. The list of fathers for whom I provided entries was chosen according to a very simple principle: If the author is cited in NA27 or Merk, I included him. Otherwise, no. I know there are some important sources omitted -- Ignatius springs to mind. But I had to have some principle. And I decided that the lists in UBS4 and (even more so) Souter were too much work. If enough people want me to add the fathers cited in UBS4, I guess I'll try -- but the results won't be as good. (I refuse even to consider trying to add everyone in Souter. Some of those I can't even figure out the official English name for. :-) Incidentally -- it turns out that Merk's list of Fathers cited is very inaccurate. I haven't finished going through the gospels yet, but I've already found three (I think it was) authors he cites who do not appear in his list, and several more whom he cites under the wrong abbreviation. So that's one more thing to be added to the article.... :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 26 09:36:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28244; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:36:01 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199707261339.PAA22210@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 26 Jul 97 15:57:56 +0100 Subject: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) 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: 4015 On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > No one has referred, >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill >Petersen). Two issues: > (a) If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions >for improving the seriest, I'd be good to know. (I found V. Broman's >comments on Rod Mullen's contribution to be very useful, e.g.) >From my own experience with the series as well as with patristic testimonies in general I would like to add three suggestions for (IMHO) improving the series: 1) It is absolutely vital for readers of the series to have exact information on which readings are judged to be part of the body of readings subjected to quantitative analysis. When working, e.g., with Bart Ehrman's *Didymus the Blind* it takes a lot of stupid, even confusing work to make your way through the aparatus in order to figure out the units of variation judged to be genetically significant. I do not claim that this is impossible, but it's boaring and prone to error. Just as a service for the reader, why not highlightening the units of variation judged to be significant within the aparatus itself or adding lists? 2) Quantitative analysis requires _complete_ collation of all witnesses included in the pool. To perform this task is relatively easy, though not without occasional problems, as long as we are solely dealing with MSS. As soon as Church Father testimonies are involved we face the problem of insecure ascriptions of readings due to loose citation or allusion. In case of exploiting allusions, which no doubt is a tricky business, one would like to know why out of a possible range of variant units only one or two are accepted while others are rejected. For example, in *Didymus the Blind* (p. 88) out of an allusion judged to refer to Mark 4:10 only the variation unit TAS PARABOLAS was accepted while the possible unit ERWTWSIN has been passed with silence. I have no doubts that Bart Ehrman had his reasons for this judgement. However, I simply wished he would have told us, for, in order to arrive at the conclusion presented, a set of highly complex individual decisions had to be made. The more difficult judgements are involved the more transparency is appreciated. 3) Somehow related to point 2) is the quest for how to assess what is judged to be a "genetically significant" unit of variation. G.D. Fee (in a review, published in CBQ 53 [1991] 320f) made the important point that what might be considered genetically significant when dealing with MSS, must not be automatically considered genetically significant when Church Father testimonies are involved. Fee suggests that within patristic testimonies (especially allusions) addition/omission of particles, articles, exchange of tempora, singular/plural, synonymic prepositions/conjunctions are suspect to be "textual trivia" (Fee's expression), displaying no genealogical relationship. Granted this point has at least some merit, it seems vital to address this issue within a broader scope, thus giving it a more prominent role in future studies on Church Fathers' texts. It may well turn out that the Fathers can not be treated all the same, for some, e.g., may well prefer to adjust their own argument to the biblical text over the opposite attitude for which we have plenty of evidence. Some may even change their attitude towards the biblical text when writing in different genres or addressing different audiences (c.f. Clement of Alexandria's Protreptikos vs. Paidagogos + Stromateis). However, this has to be assessed, documented, and applied to the evaluation of the evidence. To sum up: In my mind, increasing transparency on various levels is appreciated to improve the series. A lot has already been done. Nevertheless, still more could be achieved. Ulrich Schmid (Muenster) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 26 21:53:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA29254; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:53:34 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:56:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [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: 7676 These are excellent points by Ulrich Schmidt, and my sense is that subsequent studies in the series (including a couple that are now in the pipeline) have done a better job at explaining the logic behind the necessary decisions than I did as I sloshed through the Didymus material. When I was doing this study (it was my dissertation), by the way, I was struck by at how even in this sub-discipline (i.e., t-c) which is commonly touted as the most "objective" of all NT studies, *decisions* have to be made at every step along the way, human fallible decisions that totally belie the idea even that grouping witnesses is a non-subjective enterprise. Oddly enough (too oddly, some might think), it started me down the slippery slopes to become the postmodernist you see before you pecking at his keyboard today! With respect to Mark 4:10, all I can do at this stage is try to reconstruct my thinking back when I was grinding away at this in the early 80's. I don't have all my data right here, but it looks to me like Didymus's text clearly does support the plural _parabolas_, even in the allusion; but I'm not sure how his present tense _erwtwsin_ *could* be used to support either the imperfect or the aorist tense found, e.g., in the TR and UBS. (Recall, I provided an asterisk for allusions that could be used for one variant or another, and then indicated *those* variants, rather than give full collations at those points ((since what would be the point of knowing that other witnesses vary at points for whom the father's text is indeterminable?)); in this case, I decided that it could be used for one variant in the tradition but not the other). Ulrich, did I miss something here? (i.e., *is* there a variation among the MSS that I used for which Didymus's text could be used to adjudicate by his _erwtwsin_)? The point about textual trivia is also important, though I must say that Gordon Fee and I have argued about this for years, and I disagree with him in discounting *everything* that he would want to discount. Sometimes the presence of articles, changes in tenses and word orders, etc. *can* be counted on in a father's text. It has to be decided on a case-by-case basis (by Father and by variant), which, of course, calls again into question the objective character of the enterprise. (And, in my judgment, as I've pointed out on this list before, there's nothing that can be done about that, because this *is* a human venture, and decisions have to be made -- even if one decides to try to set up a system in which no decisions have to be made!) (i.e., that's a decision, and is not self-evidently the best way to proceed -- so there's already a value-judgment involved ; and the guidelines one chooses then for the system are *still*, precisely, chosen!). Gordon and I have had to come to terms with our disagreement on this issue, since we've been doing the Origen project together (with Mike Holmes and now Bruce Morrill) (not that one can notice any significant progress being made, I might add...); Gordon has eased up a bit on his hard line on this, and I've conceded some of his major points, esp. dealing with variations at the outset of a quotation, where things tend to get *really* loose. But it would be a good idea, I agree, at least to indicate where variation is thought to be significant and where not. Thanks again for the suggestions. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > > > No one has referred, > >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt > >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've > >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill > >Petersen). Two issues: > > > (a) If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions > >for improving the seriest, I'd be good to know. (I found V. Broman's > >comments on Rod Mullen's contribution to be very useful, e.g.) > > >From my own experience with the series as well as with patristic testimonies in > general I would like to add three suggestions for (IMHO) improving the series: > > 1) It is absolutely vital for readers of the series to have exact information on > which readings are judged to be part of the body of readings subjected to > quantitative analysis. When working, e.g., with Bart Ehrman's *Didymus the > Blind* it takes a lot of stupid, even confusing work to make your way through > the aparatus in order to figure out the units of variation judged to be > genetically significant. I do not claim that this is impossible, but it's > boaring and prone to error. Just as a service for the reader, why not > highlightening the units of variation judged to be significant within the > aparatus itself or adding lists? > > 2) Quantitative analysis requires _complete_ collation of all witnesses included > in the pool. To perform this task is relatively easy, though not without > occasional problems, as long as we are solely dealing with MSS. As soon as > Church Father testimonies are involved we face the problem of insecure > ascriptions of readings due to loose citation or allusion. In case of exploiting > allusions, which no doubt is a tricky business, one would like to know why out > of a possible range of variant units only one or two are accepted while others > are rejected. For example, in *Didymus the Blind* (p. 88) out of an allusion > judged to refer to Mark 4:10 only the variation unit TAS PARABOLAS was accepted > while the possible unit ERWTWSIN has been passed with silence. I have no doubts > that Bart Ehrman had his reasons for this judgement. However, I simply wished he > would have told us, for, in order to arrive at the conclusion presented, a set > of highly complex individual decisions had to be made. The more difficult > judgements are involved the more transparency is appreciated. > > 3) Somehow related to point 2) is the quest for how to assess what is judged to > be a "genetically significant" unit of variation. G.D. Fee (in a review, > published in CBQ 53 [1991] 320f) made the important point that what might be > considered genetically significant when dealing with MSS, must not be > automatically considered genetically significant when Church Father testimonies > are involved. Fee suggests that within patristic testimonies (especially > allusions) addition/omission of particles, articles, exchange of tempora, > singular/plural, synonymic prepositions/conjunctions are suspect to be "textual > trivia" (Fee's expression), displaying no genealogical relationship. Granted > this point has at least some merit, it seems vital to address this issue within > a broader scope, thus giving it a more prominent role in future studies on > Church Fathers' texts. It may well turn out that the Fathers can not be treated > all the same, for some, e.g., may well prefer to adjust their own argument to > the biblical text over the opposite attitude for which we have plenty of > evidence. Some may even change their attitude towards the biblical text when > writing in different genres or addressing different audiences (c.f. Clement of > Alexandria's Protreptikos vs. Paidagogos + Stromateis). However, this has to be > assessed, documented, and applied to the evaluation of the evidence. > > To sum up: In my mind, increasing transparency on various levels is appreciated > to improve the series. A lot has already been done. Nevertheless, still more > could be achieved. > > Ulrich Schmid (Muenster) > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 27 13:38:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00187; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 13:38:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 13:42:02 -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: <1.5.4.16.19970727134014.0c074f68@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: 614 Colleagues, A new article is available in the Journal of Biblical Studies: VOICI VENIR TON ROI: L=92entr=E9e messianique et le roi pacifique dans la= Bible et dans l=92Orient Ancien, by Lucien-Jean BORD Just go to the journal home page and follow the 'articles' link. The Journal is found at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Let me again mention that the Journal and its editors are happy to review articles for publication in the field of Biblical and related studies. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 28 02:33:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01208; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:33:17 -0400 From: TIE-MAILER-DAEMON@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Sun Jul 27 23:34:24 1997 Subject: Return Mail--Invalid TAO ID(s) To: 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: 18706 The TAO Internet E-mail Gateway could NOT deliver your message to the following invalid @avnet.com TAO mail ID's (all other @avnet.com TAO recipients addressed received your message): MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com ----------------------> Document Follows <--------------------- Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu (gabriel.cc.emory.edu [170.140.30.75]) by stout.avnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA23377 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:35:05 -0700 (MST) From: owner-tc-list-digest@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) by gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id CAA29148; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01196; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:30:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:30:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199707280630.CAA01196@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> To: tc-list-digest@shemesh Subject: tc-list-digest V2 #133 Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Errors-To: owner-tc-list-digest@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Subjects of Messages in this Digest: Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) Subject: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) Subject: Re: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) Subject: new article tc-list-digest Monday, 28 July 1997 Volume 02 : Number 133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert B. Waltz" Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:40:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: [ ... ] >> > (3) M. Johnson mentions that most information about Patristic >> >sources for textual criticism is in the journals. No one has referred, >> >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt >> >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've >> >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill >> >Petersen). Two issues: >> [snip] >> While this is an important series to mention, I don't see that its >> existence affects the Encyclopedia, or similar works, at all. >> Obviously people who have those volumes should consult them, rather >> than the Encyclopedia, for full details. On the other hand, how many >> of you have the entire set on your desks? > >One way in which its existence affects the Encyclopedia is that you could >compare your judgement concerning what information about the Fathers is >relevant to TC with the selection of information about the Fathers >actually used in the monographs. Oh, agreed. I was just pointing out that the series is not a substitute for the Encyclopedia, or vice versa. >Now one difference this whole thread illustrates between the Web and a >peer-reviewed forum is that sometimes the best way to get feedback >comparable to peer-review is to put something out there and filter through >the resulting criticism to decide which is useful correction and which is >not. I hope you will find my comments useful. My first comment after >finally being able to connect is that I wish you had an indication of for >which of these Fathers a critical edition is available. This would >certainly be of great relevance to TC. Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't have enough information at my disposal to do this well. If someone else does, again, I will include it. >The next omission I notice is that you seem to discuss the various Fathers >works only from the standpoint of _New_ Testament criticism, even when his >works are potentially useful for Old Testament (Old Latin & Vulgate) >criticism, such as Cassiodorus, who wrote a very complete commentary on >the Psalms. Surely this in turn is significant for New Testament TC. Again I plead lack of knowledge and information. I'd also ask a question. This is not an argument, I'm simply curious: What is the significance of Cassiodorus's commentary on Psalms for NT criticism? (Apart, of course, from any NT passages it cites.) Not having seen the commentary, I feel like I'm missing something. >Nor do I see mention of one of the very few Fathers who managed to write >commentary on the _entire_ New Testament, namely Theophylact. True, some >of the commentaries on Paul and Acts are scarcely different from copies of >Chrysostom, but his works are still quite important for TC. NA27 makes >frequent reference to him as well. Er -- that turns out not to be the case. If you look on pp. 74*-76* in the NA27 introduction, you'll see an (allegedly) complete list of fathers cited. (I say "allegedly" because it contains a couple of minor errors -- e.g. it does not list the Pseudo Dionysus, who is quoted, I think, twice). Theophylact does not appear in the list. The list of fathers for whom I provided entries was chosen according to a very simple principle: If the author is cited in NA27 or Merk, I included him. Otherwise, no. I know there are some important sources omitted -- Ignatius springs to mind. But I had to have some principle. And I decided that the lists in UBS4 and (even more so) Souter were too much work. If enough people want me to add the fathers cited in UBS4, I guess I'll try -- but the results won't be as good. (I refuse even to consider trying to add everyone in Souter. Some of those I can't even figure out the official English name for. :-) Incidentally -- it turns out that Merk's list of Fathers cited is very inaccurate. I haven't finished going through the gospels yet, but I've already found three (I think it was) authors he cites who do not appear in his list, and several more whom he cites under the wrong abbreviation. So that's one more thing to be added to the article.... :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com ------------------------------ From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Date: Sat, 26 Jul 97 15:57:56 +0100 Subject: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > No one has referred, >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill >Petersen). Two issues: > (a) If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions >for improving the seriest, I'd be good to know. (I found V. Broman's >comments on Rod Mullen's contribution to be very useful, e.g.) >From my own experience with the series as well as with patristic testimonies in general I would like to add three suggestions for (IMHO) improving the series: 1) It is absolutely vital for readers of the series to have exact information on which readings are judged to be part of the body of readings subjected to quantitative analysis. When working, e.g., with Bart Ehrman's *Didymus the Blind* it takes a lot of stupid, even confusing work to make your way through the aparatus in order to figure out the units of variation judged to be genetically significant. I do not claim that this is impossible, but it's boaring and prone to error. Just as a service for the reader, why not highlightening the units of variation judged to be significant within the aparatus itself or adding lists? 2) Quantitative analysis requires _complete_ collation of all witnesses included in the pool. To perform this task is relatively easy, though not without occasional problems, as long as we are solely dealing with MSS. As soon as Church Father testimonies are involved we face the problem of insecure ascriptions of readings due to loose citation or allusion. In case of exploiting allusions, which no doubt is a tricky business, one would like to know why out of a possible range of variant units only one or two are accepted while others are rejected. For example, in *Didymus the Blind* (p. 88) out of an allusion judged to refer to Mark 4:10 only the variation unit TAS PARABOLAS was accepted while the possible unit ERWTWSIN has been passed with silence. I have no doubts that Bart Ehrman had his reasons for this judgement. However, I simply wished he would have told us, for, in order to arrive at the conclusion presented, a set of highly complex individual decisions had to be made. The more difficult judgements are involved the more transparency is appreciated. 3) Somehow related to point 2) is the quest for how to assess what is judged to be a "genetically significant" unit of variation. G.D. Fee (in a review, published in CBQ 53 [1991] 320f) made the important point that what might be considered genetically significant when dealing with MSS, must not be automatically considered genetically significant when Church Father testimonies are involved. Fee suggests that within patristic testimonies (especially allusions) addition/omission of particles, articles, exchange of tempora, singular/plural, synonymic prepositions/conjunctions are suspect to be "textual trivia" (Fee's expression), displaying no genealogical relationship. Granted this point has at least some merit, it seems vital to address this issue within a broader scope, thus giving it a more prominent role in future studies on Church Fathers' texts. It may well turn out that the Fathers can not be treated all the same, for some, e.g., may well prefer to adjust their own argument to the biblical text over the opposite attitude for which we have plenty of evidence. Some may even change their attitude towards the biblical text when writing in different genres or addressing different audiences (c.f. Clement of Alexandria's Protreptikos vs. Paidagogos + Stromateis). However, this has to be assessed, documented, and applied to the evaluation of the evidence. To sum up: In my mind, increasing transparency on various levels is appreciated to improve the series. A lot has already been done. Nevertheless, still more could be achieved. Ulrich Schmid (Muenster) ------------------------------ From: Bart Ehrman Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) These are excellent points by Ulrich Schmidt, and my sense is that subsequent studies in the series (including a couple that are now in the pipeline) have done a better job at explaining the logic behind the necessary decisions than I did as I sloshed through the Didymus material. When I was doing this study (it was my dissertation), by the way, I was struck by at how even in this sub-discipline (i.e., t-c) which is commonly touted as the most "objective" of all NT studies, *decisions* have to be made at every step along the way, human fallible decisions that totally belie the idea even that grouping witnesses is a non-subjective enterprise. Oddly enough (too oddly, some might think), it started me down the slippery slopes to become the postmodernist you see before you pecking at his keyboard today! With respect to Mark 4:10, all I can do at this stage is try to reconstruct my thinking back when I was grinding away at this in the early 80's. I don't have all my data right here, but it looks to me like Didymus's text clearly does support the plural _parabolas_, even in the allusion; but I'm not sure how his present tense _erwtwsin_ *could* be used to support either the imperfect or the aorist tense found, e.g., in the TR and UBS. (Recall, I provided an asterisk for allusions that could be used for one variant or another, and then indicated *those* variants, rather than give full collations at those points ((since what would be the point of knowing that other witnesses vary at points for whom the father's text is indeterminable?)); in this case, I decided that it could be used for one variant in the tradition but not the other). Ulrich, did I miss something here? (i.e., *is* there a variation among the MSS that I used for which Didymus's text could be used to adjudicate by his _erwtwsin_)? The point about textual trivia is also important, though I must say that Gordon Fee and I have argued about this for years, and I disagree with him in discounting *everything* that he would want to discount. Sometimes the presence of articles, changes in tenses and word orders, etc. *can* be counted on in a father's text. It has to be decided on a case-by-case basis (by Father and by variant), which, of course, calls again into question the objective character of the enterprise. (And, in my judgment, as I've pointed out on this list before, there's nothing that can be done about that, because this *is* a human venture, and decisions have to be made -- even if one decides to try to set up a system in which no decisions have to be made!) (i.e., that's a decision, and is not self-evidently the best way to proceed -- so there's already a value-judgment involved ; and the guidelines one chooses then for the system are *still*, precisely, chosen!). Gordon and I have had to come to terms with our disagreement on this issue, since we've been doing the Origen project together (with Mike Holmes and now Bruce Morrill) (not that one can notice any significant progress being made, I might add...); Gordon has eased up a bit on his hard line on this, and I've conceded some of his major points, esp. dealing with variations at the outset of a quotation, where things tend to get *really* loose. But it would be a good idea, I agree, at least to indicate where variation is thought to be significant and where not. Thanks again for the suggestions. - -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > > > No one has referred, > >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt > >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've > >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill > >Petersen). Two issues: > > > (a) If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions > >for improving the seriest, I'd be good to know. (I found V. Broman's > >comments on Rod Mullen's contribution to be very useful, e.g.) > > >From my own experience with the series as well as with patristic testimonies in > general I would like to add three suggestions for (IMHO) improving the series: > > 1) It is absolutely vital for readers of the series to have exact information on > which readings are judged to be part of the body of readings subjected to > quantitative analysis. When working, e.g., with Bart Ehrman's *Didymus the > Blind* it takes a lot of stupid, even confusing work to make your way through > the aparatus in order to figure out the units of variation judged to be > genetically significant. I do not claim that this is impossible, but it's > boaring and prone to error. Just as a service for the reader, why not > highlightening the units of variation judged to be significant within the > aparatus itself or adding lists? > > 2) Quantitative analysis requires _complete_ collation of all witnesses included > in the pool. To perform this task is relatively easy, though not without > occasional problems, as long as we are solely dealing with MSS. As soon as > Church Father testimonies are involved we face the problem of insecure > ascriptions of readings due to loose citation or allusion. In case of exploiting > allusions, which no doubt is a tricky business, one would like to know why out > of a possible range of variant units only one or two are accepted while others > are rejected. For example, in *Didymus the Blind* (p. 88) out of an allusion > judged to refer to Mark 4:10 only the variation unit TAS PARABOLAS was accepted > while the possible unit ERWTWSIN has been passed with silence. I have no doubts > that Bart Ehrman had his reasons for this judgement. However, I simply wished he > would have told us, for, in order to arrive at the conclusion presented, a set > of highly complex individual decisions had to be made. The more difficult > judgements are involved the more transparency is appreciated. > > 3) Somehow related to point 2) is the quest for how to assess what is judged to > be a "genetically significant" unit of variation. G.D. Fee (in a review, > published in CBQ 53 [1991] 320f) made the important point that what might be > considered genetically significant when dealing with MSS, must not be > automatically considered genetically significant when Church Father testimonies > are involved. Fee suggests that within patristic testimonies (especially > allusions) addition/omission of particles, articles, exchange of tempora, > singular/plural, synonymic prepositions/conjunctions are suspect to be "textual > trivia" (Fee's expression), displaying no genealogical relationship. Granted > this point has at least some merit, it seems vital to address this issue within > a broader scope, thus giving it a more prominent role in future studies on > Church Fathers' texts. It may well turn out that the Fathers can not be treated > all the same, for some, e.g., may well prefer to adjust their own argument to > the biblical text over the opposite attitude for which we have plenty of > evidence. Some may even change their attitude towards the biblical text when > writing in different genres or addressing different audiences (c.f. Clement of > Alexandria's Protreptikos vs. Paidagogos + Stromateis). However, this has to be > assessed, documented, and applied to the evaluation of the evidence. > > To sum up: In my mind, increasing transparency on various levels is appreciated > to improve the series. A lot has already been done. Nevertheless, still more > could be achieved. > > Ulrich Schmid (Muenster) > ------------------------------ From: Jim West Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 13:42:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: new article Colleagues, A new article is available in the Journal of Biblical Studies: VOICI VENIR TON ROI: L=92entr=E9e messianique et le roi pacifique dans la= Bible et dans l=92Orient Ancien, by Lucien-Jean BORD Just go to the journal home page and follow the 'articles' link. The Journal is found at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Let me again mention that the Journal and its editors are happy to review articles for publication in the field of Biblical and related studies. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net ------------------------------ End of tc-list-digest V2 #133 ***************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 28 02:37:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01233; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:37:04 -0400 From: TIE-MAILER-DAEMON@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Sun Jul 27 23:38:12 1997 Subject: Return Mail--Invalid TAO ID(s) To: 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: 19788 The TAO Internet E-mail Gateway could NOT deliver your message to the following invalid @avnet.com TAO mail ID's (all other @avnet.com TAO recipients addressed received your message): MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com ----------------------> Document Follows <--------------------- Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu (gabriel.cc.emory.edu [170.140.30.75]) by stout.avnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA23389 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:38:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) by gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id CAA29174; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01208; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:33:17 -0400 From: TIE-MAILER-DAEMON@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Sun Jul 27 23:34:24 1997 Subject: Return Mail--Invalid TAO ID(s) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu The TAO Internet E-mail Gateway could NOT deliver your message to the following invalid @avnet.com TAO mail ID's (all other @avnet.com TAO recipients addressed received your message): MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com ----------------------> Document Follows <--------------------- Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu (gabriel.cc.emory.edu [170.140.30.75]) by stout.avnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA23377 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:35:05 -0700 (MST) From: owner-tc-list-digest@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) by gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id CAA29148; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01196; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:30:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:30:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199707280630.CAA01196@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> To: tc-list-digest@shemesh Subject: tc-list-digest V2 #133 Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Errors-To: owner-tc-list-digest@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Subjects of Messages in this Digest: Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) Subject: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) Subject: Re: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) Subject: new article tc-list-digest Monday, 28 July 1997 Volume 02 : Number 133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert B. Waltz" Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:40:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: [ ... ] >> > (3) M. Johnson mentions that most information about Patristic >> >sources for textual criticism is in the journals. No one has referred, >> >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt >> >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've >> >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill >> >Petersen). Two issues: >> [snip] >> While this is an important series to mention, I don't see that its >> existence affects the Encyclopedia, or similar works, at all. >> Obviously people who have those volumes should consult them, rather >> than the Encyclopedia, for full details. On the other hand, how many >> of you have the entire set on your desks? > >One way in which its existence affects the Encyclopedia is that you could >compare your judgement concerning what information about the Fathers is >relevant to TC with the selection of information about the Fathers >actually used in the monographs. Oh, agreed. I was just pointing out that the series is not a substitute for the Encyclopedia, or vice versa. >Now one difference this whole thread illustrates between the Web and a >peer-reviewed forum is that sometimes the best way to get feedback >comparable to peer-review is to put something out there and filter through >the resulting criticism to decide which is useful correction and which is >not. I hope you will find my comments useful. My first comment after >finally being able to connect is that I wish you had an indication of for >which of these Fathers a critical edition is available. This would >certainly be of great relevance to TC. Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't have enough information at my disposal to do this well. If someone else does, again, I will include it. >The next omission I notice is that you seem to discuss the various Fathers >works only from the standpoint of _New_ Testament criticism, even when his >works are potentially useful for Old Testament (Old Latin & Vulgate) >criticism, such as Cassiodorus, who wrote a very complete commentary on >the Psalms. Surely this in turn is significant for New Testament TC. Again I plead lack of knowledge and information. I'd also ask a question. This is not an argument, I'm simply curious: What is the significance of Cassiodorus's commentary on Psalms for NT criticism? (Apart, of course, from any NT passages it cites.) Not having seen the commentary, I feel like I'm missing something. >Nor do I see mention of one of the very few Fathers who managed to write >commentary on the _entire_ New Testament, namely Theophylact. True, some >of the commentaries on Paul and Acts are scarcely different from copies of >Chrysostom, but his works are still quite important for TC. NA27 makes >frequent reference to him as well. Er -- that turns out not to be the case. If you look on pp. 74*-76* in the NA27 introduction, you'll see an (allegedly) complete list of fathers cited. (I say "allegedly" because it contains a couple of minor errors -- e.g. it does not list the Pseudo Dionysus, who is quoted, I think, twice). Theophylact does not appear in the list. The list of fathers for whom I provided entries was chosen according to a very simple principle: If the author is cited in NA27 or Merk, I included him. Otherwise, no. I know there are some important sources omitted -- Ignatius springs to mind. But I had to have some principle. And I decided that the lists in UBS4 and (even more so) Souter were too much work. If enough people want me to add the fathers cited in UBS4, I guess I'll try -- but the results won't be as good. (I refuse even to consider trying to add everyone in Souter. Some of those I can't even figure out the official English name for. :-) Incidentally -- it turns out that Merk's list of Fathers cited is very inaccurate. I haven't finished going through the gospels yet, but I've already found three (I think it was) authors he cites who do not appear in his list, and several more whom he cites under the wrong abbreviation. So that's one more thing to be added to the article.... :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com ------------------------------ From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Date: Sat, 26 Jul 97 15:57:56 +0100 Subject: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > No one has referred, >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill >Petersen). Two issues: > (a) If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions >for improving the seriest, I'd be good to know. (I found V. Broman's >comments on Rod Mullen's contribution to be very useful, e.g.) >From my own experience with the series as well as with patristic testimonies in general I would like to add three suggestions for (IMHO) improving the series: 1) It is absolutely vital for readers of the series to have exact information on which readings are judged to be part of the body of readings subjected to quantitative analysis. When working, e.g., with Bart Ehrman's *Didymus the Blind* it takes a lot of stupid, even confusing work to make your way through the aparatus in order to figure out the units of variation judged to be genetically significant. I do not claim that this is impossible, but it's boaring and prone to error. Just as a service for the reader, why not highlightening the units of variation judged to be significant within the aparatus itself or adding lists? 2) Quantitative analysis requires _complete_ collation of all witnesses included in the pool. To perform this task is relatively easy, though not without occasional problems, as long as we are solely dealing with MSS. As soon as Church Father testimonies are involved we face the problem of insecure ascriptions of readings due to loose citation or allusion. In case of exploiting allusions, which no doubt is a tricky business, one would like to know why out of a possible range of variant units only one or two are accepted while others are rejected. For example, in *Didymus the Blind* (p. 88) out of an allusion judged to refer to Mark 4:10 only the variation unit TAS PARABOLAS was accepted while the possible unit ERWTWSIN has been passed with silence. I have no doubts that Bart Ehrman had his reasons for this judgement. However, I simply wished he would have told us, for, in order to arrive at the conclusion presented, a set of highly complex individual decisions had to be made. The more difficult judgements are involved the more transparency is appreciated. 3) Somehow related to point 2) is the quest for how to assess what is judged to be a "genetically significant" unit of variation. G.D. Fee (in a review, published in CBQ 53 [1991] 320f) made the important point that what might be considered genetically significant when dealing with MSS, must not be automatically considered genetically significant when Church Father testimonies are involved. Fee suggests that within patristic testimonies (especially allusions) addition/omission of particles, articles, exchange of tempora, singular/plural, synonymic prepositions/conjunctions are suspect to be "textual trivia" (Fee's expression), displaying no genealogical relationship. Granted this point has at least some merit, it seems vital to address this issue within a broader scope, thus giving it a more prominent role in future studies on Church Fathers' texts. It may well turn out that the Fathers can not be treated all the same, for some, e.g., may well prefer to adjust their own argument to the biblical text over the opposite attitude for which we have plenty of evidence. Some may even change their attitude towards the biblical text when writing in different genres or addressing different audiences (c.f. Clement of Alexandria's Protreptikos vs. Paidagogos + Stromateis). However, this has to be assessed, documented, and applied to the evaluation of the evidence. To sum up: In my mind, increasing transparency on various levels is appreciated to improve the series. A lot has already been done. Nevertheless, still more could be achieved. Ulrich Schmid (Muenster) ------------------------------ From: Bart Ehrman Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) These are excellent points by Ulrich Schmidt, and my sense is that subsequent studies in the series (including a couple that are now in the pipeline) have done a better job at explaining the logic behind the necessary decisions than I did as I sloshed through the Didymus material. When I was doing this study (it was my dissertation), by the way, I was struck by at how even in this sub-discipline (i.e., t-c) which is commonly touted as the most "objective" of all NT studies, *decisions* have to be made at every step along the way, human fallible decisions that totally belie the idea even that grouping witnesses is a non-subjective enterprise. Oddly enough (too oddly, some might think), it started me down the slippery slopes to become the postmodernist you see before you pecking at his keyboard today! With respect to Mark 4:10, all I can do at this stage is try to reconstruct my thinking back when I was grinding away at this in the early 80's. I don't have all my data right here, but it looks to me like Didymus's text clearly does support the plural _parabolas_, even in the allusion; but I'm not sure how his present tense _erwtwsin_ *could* be used to support either the imperfect or the aorist tense found, e.g., in the TR and UBS. (Recall, I provided an asterisk for allusions that could be used for one variant or another, and then indicated *those* variants, rather than give full collations at those points ((since what would be the point of knowing that other witnesses vary at points for whom the father's text is indeterminable?)); in this case, I decided that it could be used for one variant in the tradition but not the other). Ulrich, did I miss something here? (i.e., *is* there a variation among the MSS that I used for which Didymus's text could be used to adjudicate by his _erwtwsin_)? The point about textual trivia is also important, though I must say that Gordon Fee and I have argued about this for years, and I disagree with him in discounting *everything* that he would want to discount. Sometimes the presence of articles, changes in tenses and word orders, etc. *can* be counted on in a father's text. It has to be decided on a case-by-case basis (by Father and by variant), which, of course, calls again into question the objective character of the enterprise. (And, in my judgment, as I've pointed out on this list before, there's nothing that can be done about that, because this *is* a human venture, and decisions have to be made -- even if one decides to try to set up a system in which no decisions have to be made!) (i.e., that's a decision, and is not self-evidently the best way to proceed -- so there's already a value-judgment involved ; and the guidelines one chooses then for the system are *still*, precisely, chosen!). Gordon and I have had to come to terms with our disagreement on this issue, since we've been doing the Origen project together (with Mike Holmes and now Bruce Morrill) (not that one can notice any significant progress being made, I might add...); Gordon has eased up a bit on his hard line on this, and I've conceded some of his major points, esp. dealing with variations at the outset of a quotation, where things tend to get *really* loose. But it would be a good idea, I agree, at least to indicate where variation is thought to be significant and where not. Thanks again for the suggestions. - -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > > > No one has referred, > >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt > >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've > >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill > >Petersen). Two issues: > > > (a) If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions > >for improving the seriest, I'd be good to know. (I found V. Broman's > >comments on Rod Mullen's contribution to be very useful, e.g.) > > >From my own experience with the series as well as with patristic testimonies in > general I would like to add three suggestions for (IMHO) improving the series: > > 1) It is absolutely vital for readers of the series to have exact information on > which readings are judged to be part of the body of readings subjected to > quantitative analysis. When working, e.g., with Bart Ehrman's *Didymus the > Blind* it takes a lot of stupid, even confusing work to make your way through > the aparatus in order to figure out the units of variation judged to be > genetically significant. I do not claim that this is impossible, but it's > boaring and prone to error. Just as a service for the reader, why not > highlightening the units of variation judged to be significant within the > aparatus itself or adding lists? > > 2) Quantitative analysis requires _complete_ collation of all witnesses included > in the pool. To perform this task is relatively easy, though not without > occasional problems, as long as we are solely dealing with MSS. As soon as > Church Father testimonies are involved we face the problem of insecure > ascriptions of readings due to loose citation or allusion. In case of exploiting > allusions, which no doubt is a tricky business, one would like to know why out > of a possible range of variant units only one or two are accepted while others > are rejected. For example, in *Didymus the Blind* (p. 88) out of an allusion > judged to refer to Mark 4:10 only the variation unit TAS PARABOLAS was accepted > while the possible unit ERWTWSIN has been passed with silence. I have no doubts > that Bart Ehrman had his reasons for this judgement. However, I simply wished he > would have told us, for, in order to arrive at the conclusion presented, a set > of highly complex individual decisions had to be made. The more difficult > judgements are involved the more transparency is appreciated. > > 3) Somehow related to point 2) is the quest for how to assess what is judged to > be a "genetically significant" unit of variation. G.D. Fee (in a review, > published in CBQ 53 [1991] 320f) made the important point that what might be > considered genetically significant when dealing with MSS, must not be > automatically considered genetically significant when Church Father testimonies > are involved. Fee suggests that within patristic testimonies (especially > allusions) addition/omission of particles, articles, exchange of tempora, > singular/plural, synonymic prepositions/conjunctions are suspect to be "textual > trivia" (Fee's expression), displaying no genealogical relationship. Granted > this point has at least some merit, it seems vital to address this issue within > a broader scope, thus giving it a more prominent role in future studies on > Church Fathers' texts. It may well turn out that the Fathers can not be treated > all the same, for some, e.g., may well prefer to adjust their own argument to > the biblical text over the opposite attitude for which we have plenty of > evidence. Some may even change their attitude towards the biblical text when > writing in different genres or addressing different audiences (c.f. Clement of > Alexandria's Protreptikos vs. Paidagogos + Stromateis). However, this has to be > assessed, documented, and applied to the evaluation of the evidence. > > To sum up: In my mind, increasing transparency on various levels is appreciated > to improve the series. A lot has already been done. Nevertheless, still more > could be achieved. > > Ulrich Schmid (Muenster) > ------------------------------ From: Jim West Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 13:42:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: new article Colleagues, A new article is available in the Journal of Biblical Studies: VOICI VENIR TON ROI: L=92entr=E9e messianique et le roi pacifique dans la= Bible et dans l=92Orient Ancien, by Lucien-Jean BORD Just go to the journal home page and follow the 'articles' link. The Journal is found at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Let me again mention that the Journal and its editors are happy to review articles for publication in the field of Biblical and related studies. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net ------------------------------ End of tc-list-digest V2 #133 ***************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 28 16:09:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03135; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:09:19 -0400 Date: 28 Jul 1997 20:11:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19970728201141.4021.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Bart Ehrman on Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:54:17 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4322 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- behrman@email.unc.edu wrote: > If anyone -- now that we're on the subject -- has suggestions > for improving the series [tNTitGF], it'd be good to know. One consideration that I hope will receive due attention in the forthcoming works will be the question of how accurately the text of the Pater is transmitted to us in the extant MSS and critical editions, since so much patristic literature is preserved only in late medieval copies. This relates to two concerns, which I can illustrate from the work on Cyril of Jerusalem by Mullen that I just reviewed. The reliability of the biblical text reconstructed from quotations varies from verse to verse, even from syllable to syllable, because of variations in the opportunity or temptation to paraphrase, variations in the consensus of the Pater's MSS, in how many times a phrase gets quoted, etc. The Gospel of John was one of the books where Cyril's text leaned most heavily in the Byzantine direction, and I wondered whether that might be related to the fact that the Sermon on the Paralytic, which supplied many quotations from John, wasn't represented in the oldest MS of Cyril. Unfortunately, there was no easy way for me to find out how good the attestation for the Sermon was, or how much effect that it had on the statistics for John. It occurred to me that one way for Ehrman and Fee to compromise on the use of textual evidence that was likely to be compromised by the quotation process (substitution of introductory conjunctions, adjustment of tense, et al) would be to introduce some kind of weighting scheme, so that in points of variation where the quoted evidence has impaired credibility it is given a smaller numerical weight, and in points where explicit reasoning in the commentary or repeated use by the Pater give more substance to the text, it is given redoubled weight. Compared to the approach of discarding everything but the gold, you would have more usable data to draw on, and compared to the use-it-all approach, you would rely most strongly on the data you judge to be best. Of course, you would want the critic to attach the weights first to the abstract causes of credit/discredit, instead of to the points of variation directly, for the sake of transparency. My other concern is a kind of circularity that I see all the time. The editors of the critical editions of Cyril, by policy, discarded variant readings in the NT quotations that matched a Byzantine text, because of the overwhelming magnetic pull of the Greek Vulgate thought to operate in the minds of copyists of the Pater's text. Mullen made some additional suggestions of Byzantine variants that he would discard. Still, when we approach the bottom line, we find that Cyril of Jerusalem's NT text contains a very substantial Byzantine element, and Mullen said that not much conformation by copyists to a Byzantine standard seems to have actually occurred after all. Now I wonder whether we need to rethink the critical edition of Cyril without the assumption that anything Byzantine is a late/foreign intrusion into the text of the Pater. I'm reminded of the old-fashioned analyses of texts that only counted variations from the TR. Hoping to avoid such problems, I wonder what patristic literature IS preserved in early MS sources, say pre-ninth-century? Any specifics? I can think of Ephrem Syrus and Didymus the blind for whom we have fifth century MSS. We have some Apostolic Fathers in early MSS like Sinaiticus, which are mostly useful for OT quotations, because of their free attitude toward the NT text. Chrysostom, hugely popular as he was, has only fragments that are early, if I recall correctly. Others? Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM9z8SGCU4mTNq7IdAQEycAQAiTuFlH8JAbHT3nsV4jFehIQOeAa5EM5Z H+PR1OUYBngHBh7rJCcimVcMdHQ5NLiT9prJtUZGK6S4fUPwhN0OP/khmLFTCWX9 sCNbQxus3FGMp0/A2mirh964R2O/BomhhljGZ4r8jPwUNreBTFlqwdekLvsZbOAx JgNlwlslOig= =Xwty -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 29 08:55:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04705; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:55:27 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199707291258.OAA28658@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 29 Jul 97 15:16:44 +0100 Subject: Re: The NT in the Greek Fathers (was Fathers [fwd]) 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: 1266 On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > With respect to Mark 4:10, all I can do at this stage is try to >reconstruct my thinking back when I was grinding away at this in the early >80's. I don't have all my data right here, but it looks to me like >Didymus's text clearly does support the plural _parabolas_, even in the >allusion; but I'm not sure how his present tense _erwtwsin_ *could* be >used to support either the imperfect or the aorist tense found, e.g., in >the TR and UBS. (Recall, I provided an asterisk for allusions that could >be used for one variant or another, and then indicated *those* variants, point of knowing that other witnesses vary at points for whom the father's >text is indeterminable?)); in this case, I decided that it could be used >for one variant in the tradition but not the other). Ulrich, did I miss >something here? (i.e., *is* there a variation among the MSS that I used >for which Didymus's text could be used to adjudicate by his _erwtwsin_)? With respect to the HRWTWN unit of variation in Mark 4:10 I was thinking of the reading EPHRWTWN in D Theta 565 or EPHRWTHSAN in W family 13 (cf. Lk 8:9). Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 29 11:48:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05221; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:48:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:51:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Last Call: Fathers Article Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1079 TCers -- Just in case anyone missed all the fuss, I need your opinions on the article on the Church Fathers posted at the web site below. Should it go or should it stay? As it stands now, I count eight in favour of keeping it (some of whom replied off-list), four opposed (though their opposition has been on the list and very vocal :-), and three who have not expressed a strong opinion (though two of them supplied useful information -- hmmm). If you have't spoken up, I am going to give you until the end of Thursday, July 31. (Let's make that 23:59 GMT Thursday, so there are no disagreements. :-) Of course, if you want the page to stay, or even if you don't, additional information, or suggestions for improvement (if I can manage them), are welcome. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Tue Jul 29 12:13:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05376; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 12:13:15 -0400 From: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) Message-Id: <199707291616.JAA00573@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Last Call: Fathers Article To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Jul 29, 97 10:51:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 1416 I would not like to see you remove the information. If there is information that is inaccurate it can be fixed and I for one never take single source information as factual until I have verified it for myself anyway. Keep up the good work, some of us appreciate it. Larry > > TCers -- > > Just in case anyone missed all the fuss, I need your opinions on > the article on the Church Fathers posted at the web site below. > Should it go or should it stay? > > As it stands now, I count eight in favour of keeping it (some of > whom replied off-list), four opposed (though their opposition has been > on the list and very vocal :-), and three who have not expressed a > strong opinion (though two of them supplied useful information -- > hmmm). If you have't spoken up, I am going to give you until the > end of Thursday, July 31. (Let's make that 23:59 GMT Thursday, so > there are no disagreements. :-) > > Of course, if you want the page to stay, or even if you don't, > additional information, or suggestions for improvement (if I > can manage them), are welcome. > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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 Tue Jul 29 16:18:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06077; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:18:08 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9707292019.AA21112@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:21:08 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Last Call: Fathers Article 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: 314 > I would not like to see you remove the information. If there is > information that is inaccurate it can be fixed and I for one > never take single source information as factual until I have verified > it for myself anyway. > What he said. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 29 23:39:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06678; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:39:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd) 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: 5543 On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: > > [ ... ] > > >> > (3) M. Johnson mentions that most information about Patristic > >> >sources for textual criticism is in the journals. No one has referred, > >> >though, to the monograph series devoted to the subject, _The New Testaemnt > >> >in the Greek Fathers_ (Scholars Press), started by Gordon Fee, which I've > >> >edited for several years now (editorial board of Fee, Metzger, and Bill > >> >Petersen). Two issues: I am glad Ehrman mentioned this source, but I have not found it listed in either GRACE at GTU or MELVYL at University of California. So either it is in the periodicals database (in which case I did not err by much in calling it a "journal") or even these libraries do not yet have a copy. If the latter, I hope people will put pressure on the publisher to market the book more seriously. > >The next omission I notice is that you seem to discuss the various Fathers > >works only from the standpoint of _New_ Testament criticism, even when his > >works are potentially useful for Old Testament (Old Latin & Vulgate) > >criticism, such as Cassiodorus, who wrote a very complete commentary on > >the Psalms. Surely this in turn is significant for New Testament TC. > > Again I plead lack of knowledge and information. Quasten has much of this sort of information. You will find yourself pleasantly surprised at how much you can learn by spending even only a few hours reading it. > > I'd also ask a question. This is not an argument, I'm simply curious: > What is the significance of Cassiodorus's commentary on Psalms for > NT criticism? (Apart, of course, from any NT passages it cites.) Not > having seen the commentary, I feel like I'm missing something. > My reasoning was something like this: 1) This list is concerned with OT as well as NT criticism, so why restrict yourself to NT? 2) The psalms are themselves heavily quoted in the NT, so any imrovement in the knowledge of the history of the text of the psalms has the potential to lead to an improvement in the knowledge of the history of the text of their citations in the NT. 3) The commentary (aside from the history of its own text) tells us much about how people of Cassiodorus's own time and earlier thought about the psalms. This in turn influences what sort of modifications they made to the text, whether by accident or in a recension. Besides, you will find his method of explaining away the Old Latin translation gaffes quite amusing (e.g. "omnis homo mendax" which should really be "omnis homo fallax"). > >Nor do I see mention of one of the very few Fathers who managed to write > >commentary on the _entire_ New Testament, namely Theophylact. True, some > >of the commentaries on Paul and Acts are scarcely different from copies of > >Chrysostom, but his works are still quite important for TC. NA27 makes > >frequent reference to him as well. > > Er -- that turns out not to be the case. If you look on pp. 74*-76* in > the NA27 introduction, you'll see an (allegedly) complete list of fathers > cited. (I say "allegedly" because it contains a couple of minor errors -- > e.g. it does not list the Pseudo Dionysus, who is quoted, I think, twice). > Theophylact does not appear in the list. My copy of NA26 (yes, it is 26 not 27) is 40 miles away as I write this, so I cannot double check where I saw this but it was either NA26 or UBS where I saw him referenced on Heb 2:7 "KhWRIS TOU THEOU" instead of "KhARITI TOU THEOU", which Theophylact, like Oeconomicus, assumed was a Nestorian tendentious alteration. > > The list of fathers for whom I provided entries was chosen according to > a very simple principle: If the author is cited in NA27 or Merk, I > included him. Otherwise, no. I know there are some important sources > omitted -- Ignatius springs to mind. But I had to have some principle. The omission of Ignatius seems particularly serious, more so than that of Cassiodorus or Theophylact, since he is such an important witness to the (possibly pre-recensional readings of the) Western text-type. > And I decided that the lists in UBS4 and (even more so) Souter were > too much work. If enough people want me to add the fathers cited in > UBS4, I guess I'll try -- but the results won't be as good. (I refuse > even to consider trying to add everyone in Souter. Some of those I > can't even figure out the official English name for. :-) > > Incidentally -- it turns out that Merk's list of Fathers cited > is very inaccurate. I haven't finished going through the gospels > yet, but I've already found three (I think it was) authors he > cites who do not appear in his list, and several more whom he > cites under the wrong abbreviation. So that's one more thing to > be added to the article.... :-) This sounds more tedious than using the list in UBS4! Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). PS: Quasten also lists bibliographical references for critical editions of the Fathers. Of course, by now his list is rather incomplete, but it would at least give you a start on including some info in your own page about which Fathers have critical editions available. For more up-to-date info you could try "HELLENIKE^ PATROLOGIA" by Christou Panagiotis (1974). If you can read NT Greek, Christou's Katharevousa shouldn't be too hard! From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 29 23:48:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06763; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:48:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:52:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Fathers (fwd): correction 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: 102 In my previous reply, the reference to Theophylact should be on verse 2:9 in Hebrews, not 2:7. M.J. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 30 09:09:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07575; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:09:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:12:00 -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: Fathers (fwd) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5143 On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: [ ...many things on which I have no comment omitted... ] >> I'd also ask a question. This is not an argument, I'm simply curious: >> What is the significance of Cassiodorus's commentary on Psalms for >> NT criticism? (Apart, of course, from any NT passages it cites.) Not >> having seen the commentary, I feel like I'm missing something. >> >My reasoning was something like this: > 1) This list is concerned with OT as well as NT criticism, so why > restrict yourself to NT? The Encyclopedia is devoted to NT textual criticism. I'm imitating the Encyclopedia. If you want it broadened, talk to Rich Elliot. :-) Seriously, I have not devoted any space to OT topics elsewhere at the site, for the good and simple reason that I don't know enough. (I freely confess I have no Hebrew.) [ ... ] >> >Nor do I see mention of one of the very few Fathers who managed to write >> >commentary on the _entire_ New Testament, namely Theophylact. True, some >> >of the commentaries on Paul and Acts are scarcely different from copies of >> >Chrysostom, but his works are still quite important for TC. NA27 makes >> >frequent reference to him as well. >> >> Er -- that turns out not to be the case. If you look on pp. 74*-76* in >> the NA27 introduction, you'll see an (allegedly) complete list of fathers >> cited. (I say "allegedly" because it contains a couple of minor errors -- >> e.g. it does not list the Pseudo Dionysus, who is quoted, I think, twice). >> Theophylact does not appear in the list. > >My copy of NA26 (yes, it is 26 not 27) is 40 miles away as I write this, >so I cannot double check where I saw this but it was either NA26 or UBS >where I saw him referenced on Heb 2:7 "KhWRIS TOU THEOU" instead of >"KhARITI TOU THEOU", which Theophylact, like Oeconomicus, assumed was a >Nestorian tendentious alteration. This was, of course, corrected to Hebrews 2:9 in another post. And based on the data in UBS4, the above is presumably correct. But it's not in NA26 or NA27. For CWRIS QEOU (no TOU) NA26 and NA27 give the evidence 0243 (listed as 0121b in NA26) 1739* vg-ms Or-mss Ambr Hier-mss Fulg. I doubt that anyone would claim that this is a complete list of witnesses (e.g. 424** also supports the reading) -- but it's what NA says. I went back and checked the list of fathers in the NA26 iontroduction also. No Theophylact. Remember that I also recently tallied every citation in NA27. If Theophylact is cited, I missed it. Is it possible that this goes back to NA25? >> >> The list of fathers for whom I provided entries was chosen according to >> a very simple principle: If the author is cited in NA27 or Merk, I >> included him. Otherwise, no. I know there are some important sources >> omitted -- Ignatius springs to mind. But I had to have some principle. > >The omission of Ignatius seems particularly serious, more so than that of >Cassiodorus or Theophylact, since he is such an important witness to the >(possibly pre-recensional readings of the) Western text-type. Why do you think I mentioned him? :-) But remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a patrology. The idea is to help people using NA27 or Merk. As it turns out, Ignatius is not cited in NA27, Merk, or UBS4. So any articles on him belong in a different reference. >> And I decided that the lists in UBS4 and (even more so) Souter were >> too much work. If enough people want me to add the fathers cited in >> UBS4, I guess I'll try -- but the results won't be as good. (I refuse >> even to consider trying to add everyone in Souter. Some of those I >> can't even figure out the official English name for. :-) >> >> Incidentally -- it turns out that Merk's list of Fathers cited >> is very inaccurate. I haven't finished going through the gospels >> yet, but I've already found three (I think it was) authors he >> cites who do not appear in his list, and several more whom he >> cites under the wrong abbreviation. So that's one more thing to >> be added to the article.... :-) > >This sounds more tedious than using the list in UBS4! It is. :-) On the other hand, although Merk is incredibly inaccurate (remember that the apparatus is basically taken from von Soden, with mistakes of its own added), it offers many things not found in any other pocket edition. To begin with, it has a *full* critical apparatus. The number of variants is much higher than in NA27. Also, it includes the (Clementine) Vulgate with a significant critical apparatus (much fuller than the two-manuscript version in the bilingual Nestle). Now the simple truth is that Merk's apparatus can never be relied on; there are some manuscripts (e.g. 330) where it almost seems it would be more accurate to cite the inverse of his readings (yes, it's that bad), and others (e.g. 1739) which aren't that bad but which have errors on almost every page. But as a catalog of readings, there is nothing currently available to replace it. Hence my decision to make it one of the foundations for my article. But also my decision to try to show how reliable it is. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 31 00:23:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA09636; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:27:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199707310427.AAA16047@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: Mail Delivery Subsystem (by way of "Roderic L. Mullen" ) Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 13412 The original message was received at Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400 from Prlmullen.netpath.net [206.27.38.88] ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to shemesh.scholar.emory.edu.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 ... User unknown 550 ... User unknown Reporting-MTA: dns; server1.netpath.net Received-From-MTA: DNS; Prlmullen.netpath.net Arrival-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400 Final-Recipient: RFC822; tc--list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Action: failed Status: 5.2.0 Remote-MTA: DNS; shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 ... User unknown Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:28 -0400 Return-Path: rlmullen@netpath.net Received: from Rod (Prlmullen.netpath.net [206.27.38.88]) by server1.netpath.net (8.7.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id AAA15897 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:23:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199707310423.AAA15897@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Broman's reveiw of my book In the 1997 issue of TC, Vincent Broman reviewed my NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. While I thank Dr. Broman for his remarks, many of which are helpful, I'm afraid his choice of wording misrepresented my position and conclusions at several points. Here is a reply point by point. In 1., Broman writes "[Cyril's text is related to the Koridethi Gospels [ms Theta] and the miniscules 13, 28, and 565, as are also the last seventeen chapters of Matthew." This is misleading: what I argue is that in MARK, Cyril is related in different ways to two groups of mss-- Koridethi, 565, and 700 on the one hand and W, fam13, and 28 on the other hand. Neither of these two small groups stand up so far as I can tell in Matthew, where Cyril does seem to have some affinity with Koridethi and fam13 in Matthew 12-28. Under "the Data" in 3., Broman writes "The points of variation discarded seem to have been sigular and sub-singular variants, but Mullen fails to document just which points were used and which discarded..." A valid point, perhaps in future presentations of patristic witnesses we should give a serial number to each point of variation and refer to the accordingly in the analyses. Under "the Analysis" in 4, Borman writes "Mullen is not able to draw much meaningful information out of Colwell's statistics that is not more clearly observable in Ehrman's statistics. His description of the two methods as being complementary is overly gracious to the older method..." Here I must present an APOLOGIA PRO COLWELL, for I really do believe that use of his method is an essential first step for a clear understanding of manuscript relationships and for the understanding of patristic witnesses. The difficulty in leaping to the use of a profile method without applying Colwell first is that most of the profiles rely upon pre-defined groups of mss, and so far as I know the best way to make a preliminary judgment about ms relationships is by Colwell's method (See, for example, Tables 1 & 1A on pp.41-42 of my book. These tables are in line with analyses of ms relationships in Mark carried out by the likes of Ayuso, Hurtado, etc., esentially showing that there is no broadly unified group of mss that can be called "Caesarean" in Mark (nor outside of Mark for that matter.) Were we to use the manuscripts that B.H. Streeter designated as "Caesarean" without further analysis, we would be gravely misled regarding the character of ms (and consequently patristic) witnesses in Mark. (Examples could be multiplied on this point. Under "Analysis" in 5, Broman writes "His model of a binomial probability density for agreement counts is raesonable, but the numerical calculation on page 305 is incomprehensibly wrong." MEA CULPA! So far as I know I'm the first text critic to delve into the statistical basis for our work, and despite the generous help of James Murphy and Ken Hardy, I dont claim to be an expert in statistical method. [Just so the casual raeder will understand, the discussion of binomial probability density relates to Colwell's method.] Of course, Broman is right about the calculation. After consulting with Ken Hardy again, I think the confusion in footnote 12 on page 305 stems from my interpreting an ESTIMATED range of confidence related to the sample NUMBER [15 out of 20 in my example, for which the formula should be sqrt(N*P*Q)*Z] in terms of an exact sample PERCENTAGE (i.e. 75%). Thus in the footnote, my "plus/minus 3.88 percentage points" should be "plus/minus 3.18 points of variation." (obviously though, we can't count points of variation in anything other than integers, so it would be safer to say "plus/minus 4 points of variation." The same thing worked out for percentages [using the formula sqrt (p*q/n)*z] should read "plus/minus 15.88 percentage points." Hope it's right this time. Further on in "Analysis", 5, Broman writes "his concern about normal approximations to the binomial distribution is not to the point." O.K., I'm relying on my knowledge of calculus from 1979-80, but as I understand it, the approximation to the normal distribution curve is the theory that lies behind the analysis in the first place. In 7 under "analysis", Broman writes, "It might be argued that differences in percentages of agreement with different control witnesses are not really differences of independent binomial samples, but Mullen does not raise this issue..." True, that might be argued after the quantitative analysis is done, but at the beginning of a quantitative analysis the relationships are (in theory) unknown, therefore assumption is made that the witnesses are independent. The various profile methods that I have seen begin with the assumption of at least some group relationships. The danger of assuming this can be seen in the Profile Method developed by Wisse and McReynolds where (in attempting to dtermine the sub groups of Byzantine mss) ms D is grouped with ms B, etc. Again the problem is that most profile methods begin with assumed groups-- a problem that is especially acute with the falsely so-called "Caesarean" witnesses and one which I tried to address in my chapter 3. Also in 7 under analysis, Broman writes, "Also symptomatic of his confusion about how much accuracy the figures support is the fact that percentages are always cited with a decimal point--- even though most sample sizes are less that 100..." I had to go back to my freshman chemistry lab manual to reply to this one. Broman is referring to the question of significant digits, and I'm sure he's more up to date on this than I am. Since we're dealing with integers in a count it may be best as he suggests to stick with integers in the resultant percentages. All I can plead on this point is that since the 1960's text critics have often allowed themselves one digit beyond the decimal point. (Colwell & Tune in 1963 worked strictly with integers, but by 1968 Fee-- in his "Codex Sinaiticus" was making calculations to one digit beyond the decimal point. In 1974 though, Fee went back to using strictly integers in his "P75, P66, and Origen." I suspect that we later text-critics have become a bit over- confident. We could use some clarity here. QUOD SCRIPSI, SCRIPSI. (Jn.19:22) In section 8 under analysis, Broman seems more convinced of my results, but, unfortunately, his choice of wording here might severely mislead the uninitiated as to my position. In detail my reply is as follows: Broman says "Cyril is shown to join Eusebius and Origen in citing a text of Mark that relates to the Caesaraean manuscripts." Yes, Cyril joins Origen and Eusebius in some particulars, but I deliberately avoid using phrases like "Caesarean manuscripts," because, as indicated above, I'm not convinced that there is any such broad group in Mark (or elsewhere). What I think is clear is that Origen and Eusebius (and to a lesser degree Cyril) attest a text similar to Koridethi, 565, and 700 in MARK. Following Ayuso and Hurtado, I think that other so-called Caesarean mss in fact have little if anything to do with Caesarea. Further on in the same section, Broman says "In some other books Cyril provides one of the earliest witnesses to a Byzantine form of text." Reference is here made to John, and I cannot completely explain the phenomenon there. If there was later Byzantinization of mss of Cyril going on, why was it not so heavily carried out for readings from other gospels? Especially since Cyril's quotations from JN are laregely interspersed with the rest. One important observation is that at the points from JN qupted in Cyril, the Byz text has very few distinctive readings; more often Byz witnesses share their readings in common with Alexandrian or other witnesses. As Broman has pointed out in a more recent contribution to this list, further analysis of this phenomenon is needed. Still further on in the same section, Broman writes "Mullen's assumption that there was a single Palestinian text of the NT, the evolution of which can be traced through time from Origen through Eusebius, and Cyril to Epiphanius, seems tenuous..." I NEITHER ASSUME NOR CONCLUDE SUCH! In fact, much of my chapter 3 is devoted to showing what I say on p.58, namely that "From a survey of New Testament text-types and of patristic authors related to Palestine there is scant evidence for a distinct and independent text-type centered in the region. Indeed, only in Mark does there appear to be a distinctive group, group theta, related to Palestine. Outside Mark, Patristic writers of Palestine seem to have used manuscripts with a variety of text-types." Permit me to provide exegesis of my remarks: "From a survey OF New Testament text-types AND OF patristic authors..." should be read disjunctively. Had I wanted to associate any text-types with Palestine I would have written "From a survey OF New Testament text-types AND patristic authors..." Perhaps I should have italicized the word SCANT. Also, as I have noted above, my concept of "Group Theta is very limited (only three mss: koridethi, 565, and 700). Plaese note as well, I do not recall that I ever wrote of a PALESTINIAN TEXT. I did write of Patristic authors of Palestine, and perhaps even of the "Text of the New Testament in Palestine", but this is a far cry from writing about a "Palestinian text." Perhaps I should have entitled my chapter 3 "Refutation of the Caesarean text falsely so-called." I had hoped to put the last nail in the coffin of "the Caesarean text-type" under any name, but like some hoary old Dracula, the concept seems to keep rearing its head. Again please note that on pp.327-28 and 339-340 I studiously avoid mention of either the word "Caesarean" or the phrase "Palestinian text" in my conclusions. If I don't think such a thing exists, obviously I don't think it can be traced. What I do think is that the various authors mentioned (Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, and Epiphanius) allow us windows into the textual situation through which we can glimpse the evolution of texts (or textual usage) in Palestine over time. If that seems to be a dangerous proposition based on only four patristic witnesses, I'm sorry to say they are about all we've got for that region. Under "Improving Methods," section 9, Broman has several helpful comments. He writes "Imagine that behind each text-type lies a single ideal or archetypical text, which is only imperfectly represented in the extant witnesses belonging to the type... We might model our uncertain knowledge of that ideal text by means of a probability distribution, related to the voting consensus of the manuscripts. Based on that distribution, the statistically expected level of agreement between the testee and the ideal text can be computed." Broman's suggestion here sounds very much like the type of analysis developed by Bart Ehrman in Profile Four of his DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS (see pp.243ff. of that work) and used by me in studying Cyril's quotations in relation to the Alexandrian witnesses for Acts (pp.341ff. of my book). Now that we have the beginnings of an idea of how to calculate the percentages of variation for quantitative analysis, I would be very interested to see whether Broman can develop something similar for profile methods. I see two dangers to be avoided though. First, the suitability of certain witnesses in a group could only be determined when the profile is complete, hence I see the need for the continued use of quantitative analysis. Second, if we allow the voting consensus of the mss to determine the reading of the text-type at a given point of variation, how can we avoid falling into the trap of the majority text (only here at the level of the "text-type" rather than at the level of the always elusive "original text.") Would this not simply move majority rule back one level? Comments always welcome --Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 31 08:51:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA10254; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:51:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 07:54:31 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199707310427.AAA16047@server1.netpath.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: Returned mail: User unknown Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11441 On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, "Roderic L. Mullen" wrote: >In the 1997 issue of TC, Vincent Broman reviewed my NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF >CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. While I thank Dr. Broman for his remarks, many of which >are helpful, I'm afraid his choice of wording misrepresented my position and >conclusions at several points. Here is a reply point by point. I'm not going to review either the review or the book, but where mathematical issues come up, I can't avoid adding my two cents. :-) I'll omit anything that does not pertain to mathematics. And, BTW, this is directed as much to the list as to Mullen, since it has to do with our current methods of analysis. [ ... ] >Under "the Analysis" in 4, Borman writes "Mullen is not able to draw much >meaningful information out of Colwell's statistics that is not more clearly >observable in Ehrman's statistics. His description of the two methods as >being complementary is overly gracious to the older method..." > >Here I must present an APOLOGIA PRO COLWELL, for I really do believe that >use of his method is an essential first step for a clear understanding of >manuscript relationships and for the understanding of patristic witnesses. >The difficulty in leaping to the use of a profile method without applying >Colwell first is that most of the profiles rely upon pre-defined groups of >mss, It is absolutely true that systems of comparison rely on our current knowledge of manuscripts and text-types (a defect which is potentially fatal if, as seems entirely reasonable, there are undiscovered text-types). However, the "Quantitative Method" is not the answer. It is too dependent on the manuscripts sampled, and in any case its use of fixed percentages is ludicrous. Larry Richards has shown that Colwell's "gap" will not exist in large samples, and I have data that shows that the introduction or removal of *a single manuscript* from the sample set can change the relationships between other manuscripts by 8-10% -- often causing them to cross the 70% threshold. I'm still fathering data on this, but you can see some evidence in the text-types article on my web site. If you want more data, try the Munster Papyrus volumes. Try examining Colossians. Compare B and Aleph, and use all uncials as your comparison base. Then remove F from the comparison base. You may be surprised. [ ... ] >Under "Analysis" in 5, Broman writes "His model of a binomial probability >density for agreement counts is raesonable, but the numerical calculation on >page 305 is incomprehensibly wrong." > >MEA CULPA! So far as I know I'm the first text critic to delve into the >statistical basis for our work, and despite the generous help of James >Murphy and Ken Hardy, I dont claim to be an expert in statistical method. This could be interpreted as meaning that textual critics never use statistics (clearly false), but I assume it to mean that textual critics have not studied the statistical nature of variants. Which seems generally to be true. Oh, I've been working on it for years -- but I haven't come to any good conclusions, so I wouldn't have published even if I had a vehicle. :-) >[Just so the casual raeder will understand, the discussion of binomial >probability density relates to Colwell's method.] [ ... ] >Further on in "Analysis", 5, Broman writes "his concern about normal >approximations to the binomial distribution is not to the point." O.K., I'm >relying on my knowledge of calculus from 1979-80, but as I understand it, >the approximation to the normal distribution curve is the theory that lies >behind the analysis in the first place. It should be noted that this is a *guess* at the nature of variants. We have no hard data. And I believe this analysis leans too much on the Central Limits Theorem (to invoke jargon just this once). The Theorem, of course, states that once you reach a decent sample size (my textbooks give this as 30 samples), the deviation can be treated as a normal distribution. But it tells you *nothing* about the original distribution. If that doesn't mean anything to most of you (and I expect it doesn't :-), suffice it to say that -- unless somebody knows something I don't know -- we cannot assume anything in particular when using small sets of variants. >In 7 under "analysis", Broman writes, "It might be argued that differences >in percentages of agreement with different control witnesses are not really >differences of independent binomial samples, but Mullen does not raise this >issue..." > >True, that might be argued after the quantitative analysis is done, but at >the beginning of a quantitative analysis the relationships are (in theory) >unknown, therefore assumption is made that the witnesses are independent. Finally I get to act like my Abstract Algebra teacher and ask the eternal question: Why? A mathematical analysis cannot make assumptions until it is prepared to test them. >The various profile methods that I have seen begin with the assumption of at >least some group relationships. The danger of assuming this can be seen in >the Profile Method developed by Wisse and McReynolds where (in attempting to >dtermine the sub groups of Byzantine mss) ms D is grouped with ms B, etc. >Again the problem is that most profile methods begin with assumed groups-- a >problem that is especially acute with the falsely so-called "Caesarean" >witnesses and one which I tried to address in my chapter 3. With that I agree. My solution (with which Ehrman disagrees, of course) is to use *mechanically-created* classified profiles. (I fear that my difference with Ehrman here is irreconcilable; I cannot consider scientific any method that requires more than the absolute minimum of human intervention.) >Also in 7 under analysis, Broman writes, "Also symptomatic of his confusion >about how much accuracy the figures support is the fact that percentages are >always cited with a decimal point--- even though most sample sizes are less >that 100..." > >I had to go back to my freshman chemistry lab manual to reply to this one. >Broman is referring to the question of significant digits, and I'm sure he's >more up to date on this than I am. Since we're dealing with integers in a >count it may be best as he suggests to stick with integers in the resultant >percentages. All I can plead on this point is that since the 1960's text >critics have often allowed themselves one digit beyond the decimal point. >(Colwell & Tune in 1963 worked strictly with integers, but by 1968 Fee-- in >his "Codex Sinaiticus" was making calculations to one digit beyond the >decimal point. In 1974 though, Fee went back to using strictly integers in >his "P75, P66, and Origen." I suspect that we later text-critics have >become a bit over- confident. We could use some clarity here. There's nothing to be "up to date" about. This is very old. You only get as many significant digits as your data allow. Roughly speaking, you get one digit each time you multiply the sample size by ten. So if you have ten readings, your results get *one* significant digit (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%,... 90%, 100%). Move up to 100 readings and you get two digits. You have to get to *a thousand readings* to get that first decimal digit. That this is known to textual critics is shown by Wisse's remark in footnote 17 (p. 23) of his book on the Claremont Profile Method: For the Newberry Gospels, [Goodspeed] gives 42.758962% as the Syrian element in Mark. The six decimals tell us, of course, more about Goodspeed than about the MS. I'd almost like to see that remark framed. :-) I suppose this is one of the things that the mathematically trained among us should make more of an issue of. But for me, for instance, I've been dealing with the for half a lifetime. It doesn't occur to me until I see the rules violated. :-) [ ... ] >Under "Improving Methods," section 9, Broman has several helpful comments. >He writes "Imagine that behind each text-type lies a single ideal or >archetypical text, which is only imperfectly represented in the extant >witnesses belonging to the type... We might model our uncertain knowledge >of that ideal text by means of a probability distribution, related to the >voting consensus of the manuscripts. Based on that distribution, the >statistically expected level of agreement between the testee and the ideal >text can be computed." Broman's suggestion here sounds very much like the >type of analysis developed by Bart Ehrman in Profile Four of his DIDYMUS THE >BLIND AND THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS (see pp.243ff. of that work) and used by >me in studying Cyril's quotations in relation to the Alexandrian witnesses >for Acts (pp.341ff. of my book). Now that we have the beginnings of an idea >of how to calculate the percentages of variation for quantitative analysis, >I would be very interested to see whether Broman can develop something >similar for profile methods. I see two dangers to be avoided though. >First, the suitability of certain witnesses in a group could only be >determined when the profile is complete, hence I see the need for the >continued use of quantitative analysis. Second, if we allow the voting >consensus of the mss to determine the reading of the text-type at a given >point of variation, how can we avoid falling into the trap of the majority >text (only here at the level of the "text-type" rather than at the level of >the always elusive "original text.") Would this not simply move majority >rule back one level? The danger you outline is real, but it's a matter of careful algorithm preparation. I'll give an example of the right way to do things, based on a program I once used to prepare a text of family 1739. I was working with five witnesses for the most part: 1739, 1881, 6, 424**, 630. (In decending order of quality.) The algorithm went something like this: If 1739 is non-Byzantine and not singular, then the reading of family 1739 = 1739. If 1739 is Byzantine, and all other mss. of the group are Byzantine, then the reading of family 1739=Byz. If 1739 is Byzantine and 1881 is not Byzantine, then if 1881 has support from any of the other mss or B, then the reading of family 1739=1881. If 1739 is Byzantine and 424** is not Byzantine, then if 424** has support from any of the other mss or B, then the reading of family 1739=424**. If 1739, 1881, 424, and (6 or 630) are Byzantine, then the reading of family 1739=Byzantine. Admittedly this leaves a few special cases: 1881 non-Byzantine with no support, 424** Byzantine with no support, 6 and 630 both non-Byzantine. As I recall, this rule gave two instance in about 400 readings where it was not sure of the reading of family 1739 (and one of those proved to be a case where the Byzantine text was divided; I needed to add a rule for that). So one *can* determine a text-type or family text mechanically without resort to majority rule. It simply requires that one know the nature of the mixture in the family members. I realize this is only tangentially related to the topic of the remark -- but, hey, we all spout off once in a while. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Jul 31 14:50:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA11651; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 14:50:56 -0400 Message-Id: <9707311953.AA23189@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: codex Phillips 1388? Date: Jeu, 31 Jul 97 20:54:03 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste 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: 333 B. Metzger, in EVNT p. 50 and 60, mentions the Peshitto ms named codex Phillips 1388 kept in Berlin. I would like to obtain copies of this ms for the purpose of comparing it with another ms which I am exploring for the moment. Does anybody know which library it is and what is its address? Thank you, Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 31 21:59:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA12612; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 21:59:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:02:53 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: tc: J. Weingreen X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970731215903.1c773a7a@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: 342 I would appreciate it if anyone could direct me to a review of J. Weingreen's "Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible". Thanks (I ask because his "horizontal model" is very intriguing). Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net