From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 1 17:44:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04445; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 17:44:25 -0500 From: "Mark and Wendy Proctor" To: "Textual Criticism Discussion Group" Subject: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 16:43:26 -0600 Message-ID: <01bd4563$73beb9c0$d372ebcf@wendy-proctor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD4531.292D7180" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6605 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD4531.292D7180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A few weeks ago I sent a message to the group requesting some = information on Lectionary 866. From the help I received at that time I = was able to locate and borrow a microfilm copy of this text through the = Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Center in Berkely, CA. Now I have a whole = new set of problems. First, I need some help in locating the reading I need within the = Lectionary. The readings in question are Mark 1:40-45 (the cleansing of = the leper story) and the Synoptic parallels in Matt 8:1-4 and Luke = 5:12-16. Lectionary 866 is a 12th century MS that is a total of 286 = pages long. It is listed in the apparatus of the UBSGNT4 for the = variant at Mark 1:41, and therein lies my interest in this particular = text. Since my paleographical skills are next to non-existant, and = since I am not familiar with the layout of lectionary texts such as this = one, I thought I would make my plea for help to the TC discussion group. = I called a local Greek Orthodox Church and inquired about when Mark = 1:40-45 fell in their lectionary schedule only to learn that the Lukan = account was the only version of this story that they still read. The = priest said that Luke 5:12-16 is read during the second week of Lukan = readings on a Tuesday. Is this accurate, or is there some difference in = the lectionary system of the 12th and 20th centuries? I assumed this = system was fairly old and well-established, but perhaps I am wrong. I = feel as if I'm rambling a bit, so I'll list my needs below: 1. I need to locate the reading of Mark 1:41 and its Synoptic parallels = in Lectionary 866. 2. Hence, I need to know something about the layout of such 12th = century lectionary texts. Any advice (bibliographical or otherwise) = would be quite welcome. 3. If one version of the cleansing of the leper is contained in this MS, = would the parallel accounts also be there? 4. Does anyone know how to get in contact with J. Karavidopoulos of the = Lectionaries Research Center of the University of Thessaloniki? He is = the person responsible for selecting the lectionary texts for inclusion = in the apparatus of the UBSGNT4. The intro to UBSGNT4 mentions that = "the lectionaries . . . have . . . been thoroughly reviewed, with a = fresh selection of manuscripts and completely new collations." This = suggests to me that there may be a collation of Lectionary 866 available = someplace. Does anyone know how I can get ahold of that information? Well, that's enough for now. Please help me if you can. Sincerely, Mark Proctor ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD4531.292D7180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A few weeks ago I sent a message to = the group=20 requesting some information on Lectionary 866.  From the help I = received at=20 that time I was able to locate and borrow a microfilm copy of this text = through=20 the Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Center in Berkely, CA.  Now I have = a whole=20 new set of problems.
 
First, I need some help in locating = the reading=20 I need within the Lectionary.  The readings in question are Mark = 1:40-45=20 (the cleansing of the leper story) and the Synoptic parallels in Matt = 8:1-4 and=20 Luke 5:12-16.  Lectionary 866 is a 12th century MS that is a total = of 286=20 pages long.  It is listed in the apparatus of the UBSGNT4 for the = variant=20 at Mark 1:41, and therein lies my interest in this particular = text.  Since=20 my paleographical skills are next to non-existant, and since I am not = familiar=20 with the layout of lectionary texts such as this one, I thought I would = make my=20 plea for help to the TC discussion group.  I called a local Greek = Orthodox=20 Church and inquired about when Mark 1:40-45 fell in their lectionary = schedule=20 only to learn that the Lukan account was the only version of this story = that=20 they still read.  The priest said that Luke 5:12-16 is read during = the=20 second week of Lukan readings on a Tuesday.  Is this accurate, or = is there=20 some difference in the lectionary system of the 12th and 20th = centuries?  I=20 assumed this system was fairly old and well-established, but perhaps I = am=20 wrong.  I feel as if I'm rambling a bit, so I'll list my needs=20 below:
 
1.  I need to locate the = reading of Mark=20 1:41 and its Synoptic parallels in Lectionary 866.
2.  Hence, I need to know = something about=20 the layout of such 12th century lectionary texts.  Any advice=20 (bibliographical or otherwise) would be quite welcome.
3. If one version of the cleansing = of the leper=20 is contained in this MS, would the parallel accounts also be = there?
4.  Does anyone know how to get = in contact=20 with J. Karavidopoulos of the Lectionaries Research Center of the = University of=20 Thessaloniki?  He is the person responsible for selecting the = lectionary=20 texts for inclusion in the apparatus of the UBSGNT4.  The intro to = UBSGNT4=20 mentions that "the lectionaries . . . have . . . been thoroughly = reviewed,=20 with a fresh selection of manuscripts and completely new = collations." =20 This suggests to me that there may be a collation of Lectionary 866 = available=20 someplace.  Does anyone know how I can get ahold of that=20 information?
 
Well, that's enough for now.  = Please help=20 me if you can.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark Proctor
------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD4531.292D7180-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 1 17:55:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04522; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 17:55:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199803012245.XAA18418@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 Date: Lun, 2 Mar 98 00:05:19 +0100 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: 974 >1. I need to locate the reading of Mark 1:41 and its Synoptic parallels >in Lectionary 866. Judging from the Syropalestinian and Arabic lectionaries on which I'm working, the pericope which you are searching should be included in your lectionary. Aland TNT has a chpater on the lectionaries (p. 160 of the English edition) in which the general structure of the Byzantine lectionary is shortly presented. The edition of the Syropalestinian lectionary (Lewis-Gibson) has a table of the readings. This should help you locate your passage by the comparison with your Greek manuscript. It can take you some time, but I am confident that you will find it! Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Als liefde het antwoord is, kunt U dan misschien de vraag nog een keer stellen?" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 1 18:12:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04663; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:12:03 -0500 Message-ID: <19980301231923.24501.qmail@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:23:59 +0000 Subject: Re: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 857 Dear Colleagues, Mark Proctor inquires: > 4. Does anyone know how to get in contact with J. Karavidopoulos of the = > Lectionaries Research Center of the University of Thessaloniki? Have you asked the ABMC in Claremont (not Berkeley), from which you got the microfilm, about contact information for Prof. Karavidopoulos? If I'm not mistaken, they have carried on conversations with the institute in Thessaloniki. Regards, Richard Weis ******************************************************************************* Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-732-246-5613 17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-732-249-5412 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA ******************************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 1 22:06:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05314; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 22:06:13 -0500 From: "Mark and Wendy Proctor" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 21:05:08 -0600 Message-ID: <01bd4588$0476b840$e572ebcf@wendy-proctor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1532 I was able to locate Prof. Karavidopoulos' e-mail address on the U. of Thessaloniki's home page. Hope he replies soon since I only have the microfilm copy of Lectionary 866 until the 13th of this month. I have looked at the Aland's intro text, but its discussion of the Byzantine lectionary system is somewhat sketchy (as one might expect in a work of this nature). I'll follow the other hints and do my best. Thanks for your help everyone, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Richard D. Weis To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sunday, March 01, 1998 5:24 PM Subject: Re: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 >Dear Colleagues, > >Mark Proctor inquires: > >> 4. Does anyone know how to get in contact with J. Karavidopoulos of the = >> Lectionaries Research Center of the University of Thessaloniki? > >Have you asked the ABMC in Claremont (not Berkeley), from which you >got the microfilm, about contact information for Prof. >Karavidopoulos? If I'm not mistaken, they have carried on >conversations with the institute in Thessaloniki. > >Regards, >Richard Weis >*************************************************************************** **** >Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu >New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-732-246-5613 >17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-732-249-5412 >New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA >*************************************************************************** **** > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 2 00:37:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA05795; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 00:37:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:44:55 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list OLB text is correct. In-Reply-To: <199802270730.CAA18738@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 378 Vincent Broman wrote, > My copy of Stephanus from the OLB reads: > hebr-06-10 OU GAR ADIKOS O QEOS EPILAQESQAI TOU ERGOU UMWN KAI TOU KOPOU > THS AGAPHS HS ENEDEICASQE EIS TO ONOMA AUTOU DIAKONHSANTES TOIS AGIOIS > KAI DIAKONOUNTES My copy of the same text has ENDEICASQE, but it must be corrupt because Vincent's reply shows that the OLB text is correct. Thanks Vincent. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 2 07:25:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA06831; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 07:25:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 07:32:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199803021232.HAA02469@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: Re: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1777 Most microfilm readers have the capability to make paper copies, so even if you have to return the microfilm you could have a copy of the pertinent section. --rlm At 09:05 PM 3/1/98 -0600, you wrote: >I was able to locate Prof. Karavidopoulos' e-mail address on the U. of >Thessaloniki's home page. Hope he replies soon since I only have the >microfilm copy of Lectionary 866 until the 13th of this month. I have >looked at the Aland's intro text, but its discussion of the Byzantine >lectionary system is somewhat sketchy (as one might expect in a work of this >nature). I'll follow the other hints and do my best. > >Thanks for your help everyone, > >Mark >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard D. Weis >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Date: Sunday, March 01, 1998 5:24 PM >Subject: Re: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 > > >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>Mark Proctor inquires: >> >>> 4. Does anyone know how to get in contact with J. Karavidopoulos of the >= >>> Lectionaries Research Center of the University of Thessaloniki? >> >>Have you asked the ABMC in Claremont (not Berkeley), from which you >>got the microfilm, about contact information for Prof. >>Karavidopoulos? If I'm not mistaken, they have carried on >>conversations with the institute in Thessaloniki. >> >>Regards, >>Richard Weis >>*************************************************************************** >**** >>Richard D. Weis >rweis@rci.rutgers.edu >>New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-732-246-5613 >>17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-732-249-5412 >>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA >>*************************************************************************** >**** >> > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 2 11:17:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA08404; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:17:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:17:43 -0500 From: HPS.Bakker@nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: <199803021617.LAA08399@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:44:35 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: karavido@evia.ccf.auth.gr Subject: Re: tc-list Locating a reading in Lectionary 866 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3053 >1. I need to locate the reading of Mark 1:41 and its Synoptic parallels >in Lectionary 866. >2. Hence, I need to know something about the layout of such 12th century >lectionary texts. Any advice (bibliographical or otherwise) would be >quite welcome. >3. If one version of the cleansing of the leper is contained in this MS, >would the parallel accounts also be there? >4. Does anyone know how to get in contact with J. Karavidopoulos of the >Lectionaries Research Center of the University of Thessaloniki? He is the >person responsible for selecting the lectionary texts for inclusion in the >apparatus of the UBSGNT4. The intro to UBSGNT4 mentions that "the >lectionaries . . . have . . . been thoroughly reviewed, with a fresh >selection of manuscripts and completely new collations." This suggests to >me that there may be a collation of Lectionary 866 available someplace. >Does anyone know how I can get ahold of that information? If you have to deal with NT lectionaries, it is very handy to have the lectionary books currently in use in the Greek Orthodox Church available. I bought an Apostolos and Gospel lectionary in Thessaloniki, but you probably can also order it from the church publisher: Apostoliki Diakonia (address: Iasiou 1, 11521 Athens). The text contained in these editions is basically Byzantine. Antioniadis, who was mainly responsible for this work conducted under the auspices of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, relied in the first place on lectionary MSS (in the places where no lections are read, continuous-text MSS were of course used). An enlightening publication of Yannis Karavidopoulos is 'L' Edition patriarcale du Nouveau Testament (1904)' in Kleronomia XX (1988): 195-204. The current Greek NT lectionaries are of course only the final stage of a liturgical development of many centuries. From my own experience, however, I know that especially in the most stable part of a lectionary, the synaxarion (dependent on the Easter-cycle), has not has changed much during the last 1000 years (the Menologion, with its feasts and saints, is more dependent on the fashion of the day). It is probably indicative that the study I use most is only available in Bulgarian. It is written by B.D. Tchiflianof and tries to reconstruct the services translated in the 9th century by SS. Cyril and Methodius into Old Slavic (I will try to find out about the Greek translation that was being planned). With the caveat regarding the liturgical development in mind, here follow the days on which the appropriate lections are read: Mark 1:35-44 Saturday of the second week in Great Lent (Nhsteiwn) Luke 5:12-16 Tuesday of the second week of Lukan lections (after Matthean lections) Matt 7:24-29 & 8:1-4: Saturday of the third week of Matthean lections. Good luck! Michael Bakker Dr H.P.S. Bakker Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS) Meijboomlaan 1 2242 PR Wassenaar The Netherlands tel.: +31 70 512 2700 fax: +31 70 511 7162 Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 2 18:16:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11303; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:16:27 -0500 From: "Douglas F. Salmon" To: Subject: tc-list Text-Type of Old Syriac Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 08:22:21 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 681 I am concerned by a statement I recently read in Wikenhauser's, New Testament Introduction (ET, 1958) : "In recent times, however, competent textual critics (Burkitt, Lake, Kenyon, and others) have insisted that the Old Syriac Gospel text does not belong to the Western form" (p. 142). This is contrary to the usual discussions of the Western witnesses I am familiar with, e.g. most recently Eldon J. Epp listed the Old Syriac version as a witness in his article on "Western Text" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. My question to the list is: Are there scholars today who _DON'T_ feel that the Old Syriac is a witness to the Western text-type. Doug Salmon dfsalmon@xmission.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 2 18:54:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11413; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:54:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:02:27 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Text-Type of Old Syriac Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2333 On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, "Douglas F. Salmon" wrote: >I am concerned by a statement I recently read in Wikenhauser's, New >Testament Introduction (ET, 1958) : > >"In recent times, however, competent textual critics (Burkitt, Lake, >Kenyon, and others) have insisted that the Old Syriac Gospel text does not >belong to the Western form" (p. 142). > >This is contrary to the usual discussions of the Western witnesses I am >familiar with, e.g. most recently Eldon J. Epp listed the Old Syriac >version as a witness in his article on "Western Text" in the Anchor Bible >Dictionary. My question to the list is: Are there scholars today who >_DON'T_ feel that the Old Syriac is a witness to the Western text-type. Most of the statements I've seen on this subject have in fact been old. (So, for instance, Baarda's essay in Ehrman & Holmes, _The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research_, does not address the question.) But I'm going to be aggressive and ask, How would one *know*? The Old Syriac certainly has readings characteristic of the "Western" text. It also has readings *not* associated with that text -- e.g. the omission of the ending of Mark in the Sinai manuscript. So before one can answer the question, one must offer a definition of the "Western" text. The text of D? The text of the old latins? _Which_ old latins? Or is it the consensus of the above? And what is a text-type anyway? And how does one determine if a version belongs to it? This is not a case of being obtuse. Various people on the list have different definitions of a text-type -- or at least have different feelings about what is and is not a text-type. So until we know how *you* define the term, we can't give an answer. Speaking solely for myself, I suspect the Old Syriac does belong to a distinct text-type. However, this is based on sketchy information and on analogies to Paul and the Catholics. I do not consider this an established conclusion. Particularly since I don't read Syriac. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 2 21:37:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA12248; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:37:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:44:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199803030244.VAA24027@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: Re: tc-list Text-Type of Old Syriac Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 934 Burkitt's position, in his edition of the Curetonian Syriac Ms of the Gospels (one of the two Old Syriac manuscripts), was that it is an inconsistent witness to the Western text form. -Rod Mullen At 08:22 AM 3/2/98 -0700, you wrote: >I am concerned by a statement I recently read in Wikenhauser's, New >Testament Introduction (ET, 1958) : > >"In recent times, however, competent textual critics (Burkitt, Lake, >Kenyon, and others) have insisted that the Old Syriac Gospel text does not >belong to the Western form" (p. 142). > >This is contrary to the usual discussions of the Western witnesses I am >familiar with, e.g. most recently Eldon J. Epp listed the Old Syriac >version as a witness in his article on "Western Text" in the Anchor Bible >Dictionary. My question to the list is: Are there scholars today who >_DON'T_ feel that the Old Syriac is a witness to the Western text-type. > >Doug Salmon >dfsalmon@xmission.com > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 3 04:44:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA13216; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 04:44:19 -0500 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:20:32 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: tc-list Text-Type of Old Syriac Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2290 Doug Salmon wrote: >I am concerned by a statement I recently read in Wikenhauser's, New >Testament Introduction (ET, 1958) : > >"In recent times, however, competent textual critics (Burkitt, Lake, >Kenyon, and others) have insisted that the Old Syriac Gospel text does not >belong to the Western form" (p. 142). > >This is contrary to the usual discussions of the Western witnesses I am >familiar with, e.g. most recently Eldon J. Epp listed the Old Syriac >version as a witness in his article on "Western Text" in the Anchor Bible >Dictionary. My question to the list is: Are there scholars today who >_DON'T_ feel that the Old Syriac is a witness to the Western text-type. > >Doug Salmon >dfsalmon@xmission.com The question is not a simple one. It would be best to go back and see to what from Burkitt, Lake and Kenyon, Wikenhauser is referring. One problem is (as Bob Waltz pointed out) that there is no definition as to what the "Western Text" is. Is it Bezae? Is it the Vetus Latina? Is it the Vetus Syra itself? This lack of a definition makes any "tight" categorization of the Vetus Syra difficult. A second problem is: even if one had such a definition ("the Western Text = Codex Bezae"), then what would it take to "be" Western? 90% agreement? 50% agreement? And agreement in what? Variants? Harmonizations? All readings? A third problem is: what part of the gospels are you talking about? Certain pericopes are "more" in agreement with Bezae (if that is the standard of reference), and others are less. If one takes (as I do) agreements among at least two of the following (but the more the better) as a "marker" (artificial designator of; the point at which I deem something worthy of a closer look) for the Western text-- -non-Alexandrian, non-Byzantine, -deviating readings in Codex Bezae, -deviating readings in the Vetus Latina, -deviating readings in the Vetus Syra, -deviating early Patristic readings (pre-250 or so), -deviating readings from early apocryphal works (also roughly pre-250), and -deviating readings in Diatessaronic witnesses --then the Vetus Syra is obviously, by definition, "Western," for it has significant agreements with all of these witnesses. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 3 15:00:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16289; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:00:38 -0500 From: "Mark and Wendy Proctor" To: "Textual Criticism Discussion Group" Subject: tc-list In need of more lectionary help Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:50:38 -0600 Message-ID: <01bd46dd$a8f22480$ce72ebcf@wendy-proctor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01BD46AB.5E57B480" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6920 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BD46AB.5E57B480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A few days ago I sent a message out requesting some help on Lectionary = 866. Thanks to everyone who responded. I now have a few more = questions: (1) Lectionary 866 begins with the Gospel of John, and the various = readings are fairly easy to pick out. Am I correct in assuming that the = readings in the lectionary are arranged day-by-day? Do the readings for = one week begin with Sunday and proceed through the course of the next = seven days to Saturday, or are the Saturday-Sunday lections fall into a = separate category than the weekday lections? Put simply, I'm wondering = if I'll be able to locate my texts (Mark 1:40-45; Matt 8:1-4; Luke = 5:12-16) by counting days in the lectionary (since Lectionary 866 is = complete and since I now know the days these three passages are read = on). (2) How many weeks are there between Easter and Pentecost? This should = help me locate the ending of John with ease. (3) How many weeks are there between Holy Cross Day and the start of = Lent? In case you are curious why I need to know these questions, I'll give = you my proposed strategy for locating the passages I listed above. Mark 1:35-44 is read on Saturday of the second week in Great Lent. Luke 5:12-16 is read on Tues of the second week of Lukan lections. Matt 7:24-29; 8:1-4 is read on Sat of the third week of Matthean = lections. With this data and the info from the Aland's intro text in mind (pp 176 = ff), I came up with the following strategy for locating the passages I = need in the text of Lectionary 866. I assume that the the readings are = organized within the lectionary from Sun through Sat. (1) Find the end of John. John is read in the period from Easter to = Pentecost, and that is why I need to know the length of this period. (2) Matt 8:1-4 should be on Sat of the third week after the end of = John. (3) Count 13 more weeks (273 days) to reach Holy Cross day. (4) Lk 5:12-16 is read on Tues of the second week after Holy Cross day, = therefore count 10 days after Holy Cross day (5) Count "x" weeks ("y" days) from Holy Cross day to reach the = beginning of Lent. As my third question indicates, I need more data to = be precise in this regard. (6) Count to Sat of the second week in Great Lent to locate Mark = 1:35-44. I must be oversimplifying my task (or perhaps I'm making it more = difficult than necessary), but I'll only know if you help me. Any = assistance will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mark Proctor ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BD46AB.5E57B480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A few days ago I sent a message out = requesting=20 some help on Lectionary 866.  Thanks to everyone who = responded.  I now=20 have a few more questions:
 
(1) Lectionary 866 begins with the = Gospel of=20 John, and the various readings are fairly easy to pick out.  Am I = correct=20 in assuming that the readings in the lectionary are arranged = day-by-day? =20 Do the readings for one week begin with Sunday and proceed through the = course of=20 the next seven days to Saturday, or are the Saturday-Sunday lections = fall into a=20 separate category than the weekday lections?  Put simply, I'm = wondering if=20 I'll be able to locate my texts (Mark 1:40-45; Matt 8:1-4; Luke 5:12-16) = by=20 counting days in the lectionary (since Lectionary 866 is complete and = since I=20 now know the days these three passages are read on).
(2) How many weeks are there between = Easter and=20 Pentecost?  This should help me locate the ending of John with=20 ease.
(3) How many weeks are there between = Holy Cross=20 Day and the start of Lent?
 
In case you are curious why I need = to know these=20 questions, I'll give you my proposed strategy for locating the passages = I listed=20 above.
Mark 1:35-44 is read on Saturday of = the second=20 week in Great Lent.
Luke 5:12-16 is read on Tues of the = second week=20 of Lukan lections.
Matt 7:24-29; 8:1-4 is read on Sat = of the third=20 week of Matthean lections.
With this data and the info from the = Aland's=20 intro text in mind (pp 176 ff), I came up with the following strategy = for=20 locating the passages I need in the text of Lectionary 866.  I = assume that=20 the the readings are organized within the lectionary from Sun through=20 Sat.
(1)  Find the end of = John.  John is=20 read in the period from Easter to Pentecost, and that is why I need to = know the=20 length of this period.
(2)  Matt 8:1-4 should be on = Sat of the=20 third week after the end of John.
(3) Count 13 more weeks (273 days) = to reach Holy=20 Cross day.
(4)  Lk 5:12-16 is read on Tues = of the=20 second week after Holy Cross day, therefore count 10 days after Holy = Cross=20 day
(5)  Count "x" weeks=20 ("y" days) from Holy Cross day to reach the beginning of = Lent. =20 As my third question indicates, I need more data to be precise in this=20 regard.
(6)  Count to Sat of the second = week in=20 Great Lent to locate Mark 1:35-44.
 
I must be oversimplifying my task = (or perhaps=20 I'm making it more difficult than necessary), but I'll only know if you = help=20 me.  Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark = Proctor
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BD46AB.5E57B480-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 3 18:07:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17342; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:07:40 -0500 X-Sender: jean.valentin@pop.netaddress.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01bd46dd$a8f22480$ce72ebcf@wendy-proctor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora Light F3.1l Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 00:10:24 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: JEAN VALENTIN Subject: Re: tc-list In need of more lectionary help Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3967 Maybe the best way to get acquainted with the lectionary system is to take the time to make your own table of contents of the lectionary you are using. If you have an evening you want to use for this, it will be rewarding. Here's what I did with one of my Arabic lectionaries: for each reading, note the first one or two sentences, and the last ones (incipit and explicit). With this, you will easily be able to find the biblical references. Besides this, note the folio (the page in your manuscript). Do this for all readings. If it's important for you, note also the rubrics, that give you the time of the year when the text is read. You can also give a number to each reading, beginning with reading number one. So you will have a table of the readings in the order of the manuscript. Be careful, in the Holy Week there are harmonized readings which you will have to read entirely in order to find all the references. The rest of the year, there are also some, but they are shorter and can be easily found with the incipit and explicit (For example, I've noticed that my reading 56 has a few verses from Mt 10, then a few from Mt 19, and that my reading 96 has a few verses from Lk 8 followed by a few others from Lk 20). When you're finished with this, put everything in the order of the biblical references. You will have tables that allow you to quickly find the reading you are searching (and that, later, when you are confronted with other lectionaries, will be useful for comparisons). You will also notice that the lectionary generally begins with John, then follows with the other Gospels, but inside each Gospel it doesn't always follow the exact ("biblical") order. A text that is before another text in the biblical order can be read after it in the lectionary. Two examples (from an Arabic lectionary influenced by the Jerusalem rite, so don't take it for granted that you will meet exactly the same in your Greek lectionary!): (1) Reading 6 is Jn 3.22-33. Reading 7 is Jn 20.19-31. Then with reading 8, we come back to John 2.1-11 and with reading 9, to Jn 3.16-21. (2) Reading 34 is Jn 10.28-38, then reading 35 is Jn 9.1-38. Reading 4 is a reading from Lk, in the middle of a whole series from Jn. Etc, etc... All of this is due to the necessities of having a reading appropriate for the time of the year. Of course, you need to take some time to do this. It might seem a bit boring to do this job, but it probably is the best way to get a first-hand acquaintance with the system, which is the same in all the lectionaries of the Byzantine rite (nearly all Greek lectionaries follow it, and a good number in other languages). When you have this, you will be able to easily find a reference in your lectionary if you have noted the page where each reading occurs. And when you get used to it, you can also use it with the other lectionaries (except that the page numbers will change of course, but not the relative position of the readings). This is what I did as I had no introduction to the Byzantine lectionary available. For the Jerusalem rite, we have several good works on the subject, including the invaluable work of Tarchnishvili on the Georgian lectionary. The edition of the Syropalestinian lectionary can be of good help, as two manuscripts are closer to the Byzantine system, while the third one shows influences from the Jerusalem rite. I'm also a beginner in the use of the lectionaries, so if you or somebody else on the list has other informations (especially bibligraphical), I'll be glad to use them! A suggestion for the TC web site: wouldn't it be nice to have there a little intro to the lectionary system(s), with a table of the readings, as this information seems difficult to find in the current introductions to the discipline? Greetings, Jean V. ____________________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique jgvalentin@arcadis.be / jean.valentin@usa.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 4 09:17:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20032; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:17:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:17:40 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List , "Graphai: NT Discussion List" , Synoptic-L Subject: tc-list new TC articles on ECM 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: 1169 Six new articles presenting and evaluating the new _Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior_ have now been published in _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, volume 3 (1998). Barbara Aland, General Editor of the ECM, presents the volume, and critiques are offered by three text critics--Bart Ehrman, D. C. Parker, and William Petersen--and one exegete, Peter Davids. Klaus Wachtel, Co-Editor of the ECM, then responds to some of the critiques. These articles are based on papers delivered at the New Testament Textual Criticism section of the annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Francisco in November 1997. The ECM is the product of the labors of the Institut fuer Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Muenster; the other co-editors of the ECM are Gerd Mink and the late Kurt Aland. Many thanks to the authors of these articles for submitting them for publication to TC. I want to remind others interested in biblical textual criticism that TC is always looking for high-quality submissions. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 4 09:22:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20127; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:22:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:22:08 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list new TC look 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: 624 In conjunction with the publication of six new articles on the _Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior_, TC also has a new look. TC pages now make use of frames in an effort to ease navigation through the online journal. In addition, pages that contain Greek, Hebrew, etc., in the original scripts will load by default when an article is selected, although transliteration and text-only pages are also available. For more information, see TC Notes 5 in TC volume 3 (1998). Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 5 12:21:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28071; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:21:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:29:09 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1553 Below is a list of tc books that desire/require a good home; they have been on my shelves too long, so long in fact that I am beginning to think of them as my own...so, take a chance, adopt-a-book; all that is required is a love of ot/nt tc, and the desire to write a tc review.. let me know as soon as possible; at this "price," these books should all be spoken-for very quickly. leonard leonard greenspoon Dirksen, P. B. and A. van der Kooij, ed. The Peshitta as a Translation: Papes Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19-21 August 1993 [Brill, 1995] Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997] Taylor, Benard A., ed. IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Cambridge, 1995) [Scholars, 1997] Petersen, William. L et al.,ed. Sayings of Jesus: Canonical & Non-Canonical -- Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda [Brill, 1997] Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. I: The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period [Styx (Groningen), 1997] Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. III: The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert, Eulogios, the Stone-Cutter, and Anastasia [Styx (Groningen), 1996] Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters [Oxford 1997] Person, Jr., Raymond F. The Kings/Isaiah and Kings/Jeremiah Recensions [de Gruyter, 1997] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 5 15:50:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA29571; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:50:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:50:03 -0500 From: HPS.Bakker@nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: <199803052050.PAA29566@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:02:55 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: karavido@evia.ccf.auth.gr Subject: Re: tc-list In need of more lectionary help Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4212 >A few days ago I sent a message out requesting some help on Lectionary >866. Thanks to everyone who responded. I now have a few more questions: First of all it is important to remember that a lectionary usually consists of a Synaxarion and a Menologion (please note that these terms are not always used consistently by Byzantine bookman in liturgical books). The Synaxarion gives the lections for the days dependent on the Easter cycle, consisting of the following parts: (1) the period between Easter and Pentecost: Johannean lections; (2) the period after pentecost, subdivided in (2a) the Matthean readings (until the Exaltation of the Cross) and (2b) the Lukan readings; (3) the period of Great Lent (mostly Mark), the start of which depends on the following Easter date; (4) Holy Week (pericopes and compilations from all four Gospels). The Menologion gives the lections for the 'fixed' days of the Byzantine calendar, which starts with the month September. Nowadays the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (14 Sept) governs the start of period 2b of the Synaxarion. However, I have the impression this is later adaptation of the Byzantine 'Typikon': in most MSS I have examined the counting of the 'Lukan' weeks does not start anew. As a result, Tuesday of the second week of the Lukan period, may be counted as Tuesday of the 19th week after Easter (in the rubric something like 'G ths ITh'). >(1) Lectionary 866 begins with the Gospel of John, and the various >readings are fairly easy to pick out. Am I correct in assuming that the >readings in the lectionary are arranged day-by-day? Do the readings for >one week begin with Sunday and proceed through the course of the next >seven days to Saturday, or are the Saturday-Sunday lections fall into a >separate category than the weekday lections? Put simply, I'm wondering if >I'll be able to locate my texts (Mark 1:40-45; Matt 8:1-4; Luke 5:12-16) >by counting days in the lectionary (since Lectionary 866 is complete and >since I now know the days these three passages are read on). Yes, the Gospel lectionary starts with John 1:1 (as does the Diatessaron). Although officiallly Sunday is of course the first day of the week, it is important to note that after Pentecost first the lections of Monday (= Deutera = second day) thru Saturday of, for instance, week 3 are given; they are then followed by the third Sunday lection. This can be confusing: carefully read the rubrics. I do not have access here to the new Kurzgefasste Liste (in the old one I discovered a number of mistakes), because it is important to know what type of lectionary you are dealing with. The major division is between 'long' and 'short' lectionaries (see p. 81* of NA27, where the first group is indicated with 'le' the second with 'lesk' and 'lsk'). Usually in short lectionaries weekday lections are only provided for period 1. That means that if your lectionary is of type 'lesk' or 'lsk', you will not find the Lukan lection you are after. If one looks at the selection of pericopes, one has the impression that the historical development of the lectionary may have been as follows: first the Sunday cycle, then the Saturday lections were added and only later were lections for the weekdays appointed. This means that the textual character of the weekday lections may be different, because they could have been taken from continuous-text MSS at a later stage (something similar holds for lections for more recent feasts in the Menologion). A lectionary is a living organism. Before using one as a textual witness, one should get acquainted with its own structure and historical development. >(2) How many weeks are there between Easter and Pentecost? This should >help me locate the ending of John with ease. That's a tough one: 7. >(3) How many weeks are there between Holy Cross Day and the start of Lent? Here the two cycles interact, so the number differs from year to year. Kalh epituchia! Michael Bakker Dr H.P.S. Bakker Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS) Meijboomlaan 1 2242 PR Wassenaar The Netherlands tel.: +31 70 512 2700 fax: +31 70 511 7162 Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 5 23:20:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA00812; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:20:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 21:27:33 -0700 (MST) From: GILBERTO LOZANO Subject: Re: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books In-reply-to: X-Sender: glozano@odin.cair.du.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2052 Leonard: Thanks for the offering. I am interested in William Petersen's Sayings of Jesus," and Muller-Kessler's and Sokoloff's volumes --I and III-- of "A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic." I am willing to pay the shipping. My mailing address is Gilbert Lozano 2355 E Iliff Ave #3 Denver CO 80210-5442 Ph: (303) 744-8502 e-mail: glozano@du.edu On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Leonard Greenspoon wrote: > Below is a list of tc books that desire/require a good home; they have > been on my shelves too long, so long in fact that I am beginning to think > of them as my own...so, take a chance, adopt-a-book; all that is required > is a love of ot/nt tc, and the desire to write a tc review.. > > let me know as soon as possible; at this "price," these books should all > be spoken-for very quickly. > > leonard > > leonard greenspoon > > > > Dirksen, P. B. and A. van der Kooij, ed. The Peshitta as a Translation: > Papes Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19-21 August 1993 > [Brill, 1995] > > Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997] > > Taylor, Benard A., ed. IX Congress of the International Organization for > Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Cambridge, 1995) [Scholars, 1997] > > Petersen, William. L et al.,ed. Sayings of Jesus: Canonical & > Non-Canonical -- Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda [Brill, 1997] > > Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian > Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. I: The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old > Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period [Styx (Groningen), > 1997] > > > Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian > Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. III: The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert, > Eulogios, the Stone-Cutter, and Anastasia [Styx (Groningen), 1996] > > Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline > Letters [Oxford 1997] > > Person, Jr., Raymond F. The Kings/Isaiah and Kings/Jeremiah Recensions [de > Gruyter, 1997] > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 6 02:33:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01274; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 02:33:35 -0500 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:35:32 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <21A30E80FE9@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2202 > Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:29:09 -0600 > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) > Subject: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Below is a list of tc books that desire/require a good home; they have > been on my shelves too long, so long in fact that I am beginning to think > of them as my own...so, take a chance, adopt-a-book; all that is required > is a love of ot/nt tc, and the desire to write a tc review.. > > let me know as soon as possible; at this "price," these books should all > be spoken-for very quickly. > > leonard > > leonard greenspoon > > > > Dirksen, P. B. and A. van der Kooij, ed. The Peshitta as a Translation: > Papes Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19-21 August 1993 > [Brill, 1995] > > Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997] > > Taylor, Benard A., ed. IX Congress of the International Organization for > Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Cambridge, 1995) [Scholars, 1997] > > Petersen, William. L et al.,ed. Sayings of Jesus: Canonical & > Non-Canonical -- Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda [Brill, 1997] > > Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian > Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. I: The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old > Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period [Styx (Groningen), > 1997] > > > Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian > Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. III: The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert, > Eulogios, the Stone-Cutter, and Anastasia [Styx (Groningen), 1996] > > Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline > Letters [Oxford 1997] > > Person, Jr., Raymond F. The Kings/Isaiah and Kings/Jeremiah Recensions [de > Gruyter, 1997] > > Dear Leonard If nobody else wants to take Sokoloff's Christian Palestinian Aramiac, I will gladly do so. Greetings Johann > > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 6 02:53:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01336; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 02:53:33 -0500 From: "Hermann-Josef Stipp" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:56:02 GMT+0200 Subject: tc-list Offering a good home for tc books Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <21A881831CD@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 217 Dear Leonard Greenspoon, I'd be interested in writing a review of Raymond Person's book. Please note my new mailing address: Hermann-Josef Stipp Eschenweg 34 D-72076 Tuebingen Germany Regards, Hermann-Josef Stipp From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 6 10:17:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02662; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:17:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:17:41 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list In need of more lectionary help 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: 559 On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, JEAN VALENTIN wrote: > A suggestion for the TC web site: wouldn't it be nice to have there a > little intro to the lectionary system(s), with a table of the readings, as > this information seems difficult to find in the current introductions to > the discipline? Jean, If you (or someone else) are willing to put together a short intro of this nature, I'll be glad to add it to the TC Links page. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 6 10:25:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02739; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:25:12 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980306222132.009ec4f0@pop.surabaya.indo.net.id> X-Sender: kerberos@pop.surabaya.indo.net.id (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 22:21:32 +0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Martin Subject: Re: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books In-Reply-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: 2197 Dear Leonard: Many many thanks for the offering. If it's still there I am interested in William Petersen's Sayings of Jesus," and Muller-Kessler's and Sokoloff's volumes --I and III-- of "A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic." If not let me take Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters [Oxford 1997] I am willing to pay the shipping (DHL if possible). My snail mail and e-mail address : Martin PT.Kompakindo Media Dewata Kombes Pol. M. Duriyat 39 Surabaya 60262 Indonesia e-mail: kerberos@another-world.com At 11:29 AM 3/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >Below is a list of tc books that desire/require a good home; they have >been on my shelves too long, so long in fact that I am beginning to think >of them as my own...so, take a chance, adopt-a-book; all that is required >is a love of ot/nt tc, and the desire to write a tc review.. > >let me know as soon as possible; at this "price," these books should all >be spoken-for very quickly. > >leonard > >leonard greenspoon > > > >Dirksen, P. B. and A. van der Kooij, ed. The Peshitta as a Translation: >Papes Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19-21 August 1993 >[Brill, 1995] > >Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997] > >Taylor, Benard A., ed. IX Congress of the International Organization for >Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Cambridge, 1995) [Scholars, 1997] > >Petersen, William. L et al.,ed. Sayings of Jesus: Canonical & >Non-Canonical -- Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda [Brill, 1997] > >Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian >Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. I: The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old >Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period [Styx (Groningen), >1997] > > >Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian >Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. III: The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert, >Eulogios, the Stone-Cutter, and Anastasia [Styx (Groningen), 1996] > >Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline >Letters [Oxford 1997] > >Person, Jr., Raymond F. The Kings/Isaiah and Kings/Jeremiah Recensions [de >Gruyter, 1997] > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 6 19:46:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06084; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:46:25 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980306222132.0099b500@pop.surabaya.indo.net.id> X-Sender: kerberos@pop.surabaya.indo.net.id X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 22:21:32 +0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Martin Subject: Re: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books In-Reply-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: 2197 Dear Leonard: Many many thanks for the offering. If it's still there I am interested in William Petersen's Sayings of Jesus," and Muller-Kessler's and Sokoloff's volumes --I and III-- of "A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic." If not let me take Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters [Oxford 1997] I am willing to pay the shipping (DHL if possible). My snail mail and e-mail address : Martin PT.Kompakindo Media Dewata Kombes Pol. M. Duriyat 39 Surabaya 60262 Indonesia e-mail: kerberos@another-world.com At 11:29 AM 3/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >Below is a list of tc books that desire/require a good home; they have >been on my shelves too long, so long in fact that I am beginning to think >of them as my own...so, take a chance, adopt-a-book; all that is required >is a love of ot/nt tc, and the desire to write a tc review.. > >let me know as soon as possible; at this "price," these books should all >be spoken-for very quickly. > >leonard > >leonard greenspoon > > > >Dirksen, P. B. and A. van der Kooij, ed. The Peshitta as a Translation: >Papes Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19-21 August 1993 >[Brill, 1995] > >Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997] > >Taylor, Benard A., ed. IX Congress of the International Organization for >Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Cambridge, 1995) [Scholars, 1997] > >Petersen, William. L et al.,ed. Sayings of Jesus: Canonical & >Non-Canonical -- Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda [Brill, 1997] > >Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian >Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. I: The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old >Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period [Styx (Groningen), >1997] > > >Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian >Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. III: The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert, >Eulogios, the Stone-Cutter, and Anastasia [Styx (Groningen), 1996] > >Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline >Letters [Oxford 1997] > >Person, Jr., Raymond F. The Kings/Isaiah and Kings/Jeremiah Recensions [de >Gruyter, 1997] > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 7 19:06:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA08703; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:06:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199803072356.AAA03971@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: tc-list Lk 16.19 in D and old syriac ? Date: Dim, 8 Mar 98 01:15:59 +0100 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: 1322 I don't understand what I see in the apparatus of NA27 about this passage. According to NA27, there's a short addition at the beginning of the verse (EIPEN DE KAI ETERAN PARABOLHN) which is supported by D and syc. The curetonian Syriac is put between parentheses, which probably means that there's a small difference with the Greek text cited from D. Now here's my problem: when I look at Metzger EVNT p. 37 (and at my Syriac editions!), I see that the curetonian manuscript doesn't contain this text, neither do the additional folios discovered later (the one closest to our text stops at 16.12). My question then is twofold: (1) which is the source for the inclusion of syc in the apparatus of NA, and (2) what is its text? Origin of the question: I just discovered the same variant in one of my Arabic manuscripts - so this would be one of the rare instances where it has a variant that is distinctively Western. Any help will be greatly appreciated, as this relates to my thesis! Thank you, Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Als liefde het antwoord is, kunt U dan misschien de vraag nog een keer stellen?" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 7 20:32:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08814; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:32:38 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:39:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199803080139.UAA32502@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: Re: tc-list Lk 16.19 in D and old syriac ? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1666 Indeed, both Burkitt's edition of the SyrC and Lewis' edition of SyrS indicate that SyrC is lacunose at from 16:12 to 17:1, but the bibliographic note on p.66* in NA27 indicates that an article in Biblica 68 (1987): 85-88, contains the missing page of SyrC. --Rod Mullen At 01:15 AM 3/8/98 +0100, you wrote: >I don't understand what I see in the apparatus of NA27 about this >passage. According to NA27, there's a short addition at the beginning of >the verse (EIPEN DE KAI ETERAN PARABOLHN) which is supported by D and >syc. The curetonian Syriac is put between parentheses, which probably >means that there's a small difference with the Greek text cited from D. > >Now here's my problem: when I look at Metzger EVNT p. 37 (and at my >Syriac editions!), I see that the curetonian manuscript doesn't contain >this text, neither do the additional folios discovered later (the one >closest to our text stops at 16.12). > >My question then is twofold: (1) which is the source for the inclusion of >syc in the apparatus of NA, and (2) what is its text? > >Origin of the question: I just discovered the same variant in one of my >Arabic manuscripts - so this would be one of the rare instances where it >has a variant that is distinctively Western. > >Any help will be greatly appreciated, as this relates to my thesis! > >Thank you, > >Jean V. > > >_________________________________________________ >Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique >e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be >_________________________________________________ >"Als liefde het antwoord is, kunt U dan misschien de vraag nog een keer >stellen?" >_________________________________________________ > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 8 22:19:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA11136; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:19:58 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:26:50 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: Ronald Minton To: TC-List Subject: tc-list Dissertations In-Reply-To: <199803072356.AAA03971@mail1.arcadis.be> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rminton@orions0.orion.org 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: 433 I am interested in reading some recent theses or doctoral dissertations (in English and from the 1990s) that deal with textual criticism and/or translation issues. I recently read dissertations by James A. Price and Timothy J. Ralston. Any additional suggestions will be appreciated. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 9 01:33:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA11511; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 01:33:54 -0500 From: RE Elliott Message-ID: <60c208de.35038f12@aol.com> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 01:41:19 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: tc-list Apologies to TC'ers Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 251 TC'ers My sincere apologies for the lousy list of questions that I posted for a friend. I shall never do this again. To all who responded, many thanks and to those who were annoyed with such garbage, my apologies again. Carry on! Rich Elliott, ENTTC From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 9 02:08:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA11578; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 02:08:38 -0500 From: "Thomas Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:15:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books Cc: "Thomas Kraus" Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <5720DD0814@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2474 > Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:29:09 -0600 > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) > Subject: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Below is a list of tc books that desire/require a good home; they have > been on my shelves too long, so long in fact that I am beginning to thin= k > of them as my own...so, take a chance, adopt-a-book; all that is requir= ed > is a love of ot/nt tc, and the desire to write a tc review.. > > let me know as soon as possible; at this "price," these books should al= l > be spoken-for very quickly. > > leonard > > leonard greenspoon > > > > Dirksen, P. B. and A. van der Kooij, ed. The Peshitta as a Translation: > Papes Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19-21 August 1993 > [Brill, 1995] > > Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge Univ. Press, 1= 997] > > Taylor, Benard A., ed. IX Congress of the International Organization for > Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Cambridge, 1995) [Scholars, 1997] > > Petersen, William. L et al.,ed. Sayings of Jesus: Canonical & > Non-Canonical -- Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda [Brill, 1997] > > Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian > Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. I: The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old > Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period [Styx (Groningen)= , > 1997] > > > Muller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff, ed. A Corpus of Christian > Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. III: The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert, > Eulogios, the Stone-Cutter, and Anastasia [Styx (Groningen), 1996] > > Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline > Letters [Oxford 1997] > > Person, Jr., Raymond F. The Kings/Isaiah and Kings/Jeremiah Recensions = [de > Gruyter, 1997] Dear Leonard, if nobody else is interested in Lim=B4s Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries (and/or Parker=B4s Living Text of the Gospels), I would be looking forward to receive and comment about them. Please, let me know, if there is any chance of getting it (them). Of course, I=B4ll be willing of paying shipping or the like. By the way, thanks for the offer. Good books are always hard to find, if you don=B4t want to wait for ages and if you want to avoid hustle with your bookseller. Best wishes, Thomas thomas-juergen.kraus@uni-regensburg.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 9 02:15:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA11604; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 02:15:31 -0500 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:18:28 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: tc-list Dissertations X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <261EA317C79@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 944 > Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:26:50 -0600 (Central Standard Time) > From: Ronald Minton > To: TC-List > Subject: tc-list Dissertations > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > I am interested in reading some recent theses or doctoral dissertations > (in English and from the 1990s) that deal with textual criticism and/or > translation issues. I recently read dissertations by James A. Price and > Timothy J. Ralston. Any additional suggestions will be appreciated. > -- > Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 > I recommend you read Jimmy Adair's dissertation. > > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 9 04:31:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA12048; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 04:31:50 -0500 X-Sender: joannest@mail.let.uva.nl (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199803072356.AAA03971@mail1.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:05:28 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "j.g. van der tak" Subject: Re: tc-list Dissertations Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1239 >I am interested in reading some recent theses or doctoral dissertations >(in English and from the 1990s) that deal with textual criticism and/or >translation issues. I recently read dissertations by James A. Price and >Timothy J. Ralston. Any additional suggestions will be appreciated. >-- >Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 >Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 I suggest you read: M. Bakker, Towards a Critical Edition of the Old Slavic New Testament, Diss. Amsterdam 1996. This book has been reviewed on this list and you'll find it in its archives. Bakker has a lot of real critical remarks on textual criticism, and they are not limited to the Slavic version of the NT. An other book you could turn to, but dealing more with translations and in a less critical tone, is: S.C. Munger, Russian New Testaments, a comparative study, Diss Amsterdam (VU = Free University), 1966. Johannes G. van der Tak Johannes G. van der Tak Slavic Seminar, University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam/NL Tel.: (+31) 20 525 38 11/Fax: (+31) 20 525 3052 Private: Icaruslaan 18, NL 1185 JM Amstelveen Tel/fax: (+31) 20 641 45 28 E-mail: joannest@let.uva.nl From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 17 15:16:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12649; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:16:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:16:26 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list versions of the eucharist (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: 6564 I'm forwarding this message from the Synoptic-L list, since it deals with a well-know crux interpretum, the text of the Lukan version of eucharist. Do any list members have comments? 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://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:45:10 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Subject: versions of the eucharist Esteemed listmembers, In the last few months I've been working on the problem of the earliest eucharistic texts as we find them in Mk, Lk, and 1 Cor, as well as in the Didache. Which of them is the earliest one? Is it possible that some of this liturgical material may go back to the Historical Jesus himself? With these questions in mind, I've investigated the texts of Lk 22:14ff, Mk 14:17ff, and 1 Cor 11:23ff, and their history of interpretation. (I should note that Mark G., our listowner, is quite familiar with this subject since he took part in previous discussions of these matters on Crosstalk list.) And the case is further complicated by the existence of the 'longer Lk' textual tradition that many scholars believe is the more original version of Lk; the critical opinion on this seems to be rather divided. (Myself, I incline to the view of Jeremias that the 'longer Lk' is the earlier text on which the shorter version of Lk was based.) To outline the situation briefly, the eucharist traditions of Mk and of Lk seem to be, on the whole, rather different and distinct. Myself, I incline to the view that Mk tradition is the earlier one, and that it goes back to the early Christian movement in Jerusalem. This view is argued in the following very interesting article: PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE? by J. M. Van Cangh, on pp. 623-637 in: TITLE: The Corinthian correspondence / edited by R. Bieringer. PUBLISHED: Leuven : Leuven University Press : Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996. The next big question is the rather amazing similarity of the 'longer Lk' eucharist and the text of 1 Cor 11:24,25. What exactly is the relationship between Lk 22:19,20 and 1 Cor 11:24,25? Let us compare the two texts. ...he took the bread, said ... [he] took bread, and the blessing, broke it, after he had given and gave it to them, thanks, broke it and said, saying, "This is my body, "This is my body that is which will be given for for you. you; do this in memory of Do this in remembrance me." And likewise the of me." In the same way cup after they had eaten, also the cup, after saying, "This cup is the supper, saying, "This cup new covenant in my is the new covenant in blood, which will be shed my blood." for you." Lk 22:19,20 1Cor 11:24,25a This is THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE translation. The basic similarity of these two texts is pretty obvious. I have also compared the Greek originals of these texts, and the similarity in Greek is even more apparent. What are we to make of such a close similarity? Isn't it very likely that one of these texts depends on the other directly? But if so, which way does the dependence go? Of course the overwhelming majority of scholars at this time accept the eucharistic text of 1 Cor 11 as an authentic early writing of Paul. And yet, Alfred Loisy has argued many years ago that this passage is a later interpolation into the text of 1 Cor. In such a case, the text of 1Cor 11:24ff would have been an insertion based on the text of Lk. This seems like a very vexing question. Now, I would like to return to the arguments about the 'longer' and the 'shorter' Lk, and here I would like to quote some information I've found on the Internet recently. The authorship of this article is not clear to me, but the whole text is available at: http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/luk/luketheo.htm The title of this article is THE ATONEMENT IN LUCAN THEOLOGY IN RECENT DISCUSSION, and the textual arguments are only a small part of the article. [begin quote:] Regarding critical study of Luke 22:15-20, one author [G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, Westminster Pelican Series (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963): 237.] says, The Lucan account of the Last Supper is a scholar's paradise and a beginner's nightmare; for it raises problems in almost every department of New Testament study and has provided a basis for a welter of conflicting theories. As concerns the text-critical problem of Luke 22:19b, 20 it was commonplace up until the 1950's to regard the shorter version as original and to dismiss 19b, 20 as the result of later scribal additions. [Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke,(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 799.] Such is not the case presently and the debate surrounding the authenticity of these texts is still ongoing. [the following comes from the endnote] The various suggested reasons for the inclusion of the two verses are stated below. Regarding the apparent consensus on the shorter reading prior to 1950 cf. Klyne Snodgrass, "Western Non-interpolations," Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 372-74. He argues that the consensus appears to go back to the work of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort who, in their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, referred to Luke 22:19b, 20 as "Western Non-interpolations; " that is, not original. Cf. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Cambridge-London, I, 1881, 177 (text); II, 1882, Appendix, 63f. It has not been until recently (i.e. 1950's-1990's) that their theory has been sharply criticized by the work of men such as Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966): 139-159; see our discussion below; Kurt Aland, "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri II" New Testament Studies 12 (1965, 66): 193-210 and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962): 170-79. [end quote] So I would like to ask for listmembers' opinions in this area. What do people think about all this? It seems that these matters are quite pertinent to the history of early Christianity, and also involve the Synoptic Problem. Best regards, Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 17 17:59:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13511; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:59:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:05:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login6.isis.unc.edu To: TC List Subject: Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist (fwd) 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: 7230 For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of this problem in the _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter text is original, and the longer form was added by proto-orthodox scribes as an anti-docetic polemic (see pp. 197-209). -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, James R. Adair wrote: > I'm forwarding this message from the Synoptic-L list, since it deals with > a well-know crux interpretum, the text of the Lukan version of eucharist. > Do any list members have comments? > > 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://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:45:10 -0500 (EST) > From: Yuri Kuchinsky > To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk > Subject: versions of the eucharist > > > Esteemed listmembers, > > In the last few months I've been working on the problem of the earliest > eucharistic texts as we find them in Mk, Lk, and 1 Cor, as well as in the > Didache. Which of them is the earliest one? Is it possible that some of > this liturgical material may go back to the Historical Jesus himself? With > these questions in mind, I've investigated the texts of Lk 22:14ff, Mk > 14:17ff, and 1 Cor 11:23ff, and their history of interpretation. (I should > note that Mark G., our listowner, is quite familiar with this subject > since he took part in previous discussions of these matters on Crosstalk > list.) And the case is further complicated by the existence of the 'longer > Lk' textual tradition that many scholars believe is the more original > version of Lk; the critical opinion on this seems to be rather divided. > (Myself, I incline to the view of Jeremias that the 'longer Lk' is the > earlier text on which the shorter version of Lk was based.) > > To outline the situation briefly, the eucharist traditions of Mk and of Lk > seem to be, on the whole, rather different and distinct. Myself, I incline > to the view that Mk tradition is the earlier one, and that it goes back to > the early Christian movement in Jerusalem. > > This view is argued in the following very interesting article: > > PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE? by J. M. Van Cangh, on > pp. 623-637 in: > > TITLE: The Corinthian correspondence / edited by R. > Bieringer. > PUBLISHED: Leuven : Leuven University Press : Uitgeverij Peeters, > 1996. > > The next big question is the rather amazing similarity of the 'longer Lk' > eucharist and the text of 1 Cor 11:24,25. > > What exactly is the relationship between Lk 22:19,20 and 1 Cor 11:24,25? > Let us compare the two texts. > > ...he took the bread, said ... [he] took bread, and > the blessing, broke it, after he had given > and gave it to them, thanks, broke it and said, > saying, "This is my body, "This is my body that is > which will be given for for you. > you; do this in memory of Do this in remembrance > me." And likewise the of me." In the same way > cup after they had eaten, also the cup, after > saying, "This cup is the supper, saying, "This cup > new covenant in my is the new covenant in > blood, which will be shed my blood." > for you." Lk 22:19,20 1Cor 11:24,25a > > This is THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE translation. The basic similarity of these > two texts is pretty obvious. I have also compared the Greek originals of > these texts, and the similarity in Greek is even more apparent. > > What are we to make of such a close similarity? Isn't it very likely that > one of these texts depends on the other directly? But if so, which way > does the dependence go? > > Of course the overwhelming majority of scholars at this time accept the > eucharistic text of 1 Cor 11 as an authentic early writing of Paul. And > yet, Alfred Loisy has argued many years ago that this passage is a later > interpolation into the text of 1 Cor. In such a case, the text of 1Cor > 11:24ff would have been an insertion based on the text of Lk. This seems > like a very vexing question. > > Now, I would like to return to the arguments about the 'longer' and the > 'shorter' Lk, and here I would like to quote some information I've found > on the Internet recently. The authorship of this article is not clear to > me, but the whole text is available at: > > http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/luk/luketheo.htm > > The title of this article is THE ATONEMENT IN LUCAN THEOLOGY IN RECENT > DISCUSSION, and the textual arguments are only a small part of the > article. > > [begin quote:] > > Regarding critical study of Luke 22:15-20, one author [G. B. Caird, Saint > Luke, Westminster Pelican Series (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, > 1963): 237.] says, > > The Lucan account of the Last Supper is a scholar's paradise and a > beginner's nightmare; for it raises problems in almost every > department of New Testament study and has provided a basis for a > welter of conflicting theories. > > As concerns the text-critical problem of Luke 22:19b, 20 it was > commonplace up until the 1950's to regard the shorter version as original > and to dismiss 19b, 20 as the result of later scribal additions. [Howard > Marshall, The Gospel of Luke,(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing > Company, 1978), 799.] Such is not the case presently and the debate > surrounding the authenticity of these texts is still ongoing. > > [the following comes from the endnote] > > The various suggested reasons for the inclusion of the two verses are > stated below. Regarding the apparent consensus on the shorter reading > prior to 1950 cf. Klyne Snodgrass, "Western Non-interpolations," Journal > of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 372-74. He argues that the consensus > appears to go back to the work of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort who, in > their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, referred to Luke > 22:19b, 20 as "Western Non-interpolations; " that is, not original. Cf. B. > F. Westcott and F. J. A Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, > Cambridge-London, I, 1881, 177 (text); II, 1882, Appendix, 63f. It has not > been until recently (i.e. 1950's-1990's) that their theory has been > sharply criticized by the work of men such as Joachim Jeremias, The > Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966): 139-159; see our > discussion below; Kurt Aland, "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri II" New > Testament Studies 12 (1965, 66): 193-210 and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Papyrus > Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke," Catholic Biblical > Quarterly 24 (1962): 170-79. > > [end quote] > > So I would like to ask for listmembers' opinions in this area. What do > people think about all this? It seems that these matters are quite > pertinent to the history of early Christianity, and also involve the > Synoptic Problem. > > Best regards, > > Yuri. > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 17 18:18:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA13690; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:18:00 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:26:11 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist (fwd) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1444 On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Bart Ehrman wrote: > For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of this problem in >the _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter >text is original, and the longer form was added by proto-orthodox scribes >as an anti-docetic polemic (see pp. 197-209). Whereas I've always thought the two forms a conflation. There is good evidence that Luke is using two different sources in the Passion account. One is Mark, but one is something else (probably something that uses John's chronology of the passion; note the reading in Luke 22:16, which clearly implies that it is not yet Passover). Presumably one of these sources used the sequence one cup-bread and the other bread-cup. Luke combined them to produce the present three-item sequence. In assessing this, of course, it should be noted that I incline to believe the Johannine rather than the Synoptic chronology of the Passion (without being in any way dogmatic about it; I could easily be wrong). My personal list shows 6 points in favour of Mark's chronology and 11 in favour of John's. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 18 09:14:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15310; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:14:40 -0500 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:08:29 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist (fwd) Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 205 I discuss the problem as well, in The Living Text of the Gospels, pp. 151-7. 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 Wed Mar 18 12:19:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA15993; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:19:48 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:27:21 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: tc-list Re: CD for review Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1111 TC'ers--I have just received the first CD-ROM for TC review. Titled THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE: from papyri to King James, it is produced by the University of Michigan and draws upon papyri, parchment, and paper texts in their Special Collections Library. It can be used on both DOS and Mac machines...I have reviewed this CD for another pubication and (for what it's worth) think very highly of it. Please let me know if you are interested in reviewing this...in a few days I will be sending out books for review from the previous list..There were more offers to review than books to review, so it's taken a while to sort things out.. thanks for your patience and understanding leonard ********************************************** * Leonard Jay Greenspoon, Chairholder * * Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization * * Creighton University * 2500 California Plaza Admin Bldg #333, Omaha, Nebraska 68178 * * phone (402)-280-2304 fax (402)-280-4731 * * e-mail: LJGRN@creighton.edu * ********************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 19 04:58:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA18283; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:58:07 -0500 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:03:40 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list Re: CD for review Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 175 Dear Leonard I would like to review it, please. 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 Mar 20 16:29:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24776; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:29:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:36:48 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: tc-list Re: TC/CD Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3133 In response to my search for reviewers for a TC/CD, several TC'ers have asked for further particulars on this product. First let me provide you with a brief review I just did for CHOICE, which as many of you know is a journal widely used by librarians: East to load, easy to use, easy to read--and easy on the pocketbook--this CD, prepared by the University of Michigan on the basis of materials from its Special Collections Library, is an absolute delight. Pages and leaves from more than thirty texts and in a number of different languages are easily accessed by even the most timid of computer users. We learn about the documents themselves (dating from the second to the seventeenth centuries CE), the materials (papyrus, parchment, or paper) of which they were written, and their place within the history of both textual development and technological evolution. Users can zoom in on selected texts, learn valuable nuggets of information from well-conceived and -written running commentaries, and manipulate the data chronologically through a timeline or in several other ways. There are hard-copy transcriptions and translations of several texts, and the Shepherd of Hermas appears on the CD in Edgar Goodspeed's edition. Although it might appear that limiting its examples to the contents of the University of Michigan Library would diminish the utility of this interactive tool, that is certainly not the case, inasmuch as the examples are well chosen and not easily available elsewhere. In short, almost all academic libraries and learning centers will want to purchase this valuable resource, which will aid vast numbers of biblical researchers and students--whether or not their primary interest is the King James and the English Bible. As should be apparent, I think very highly of it and would note that it is valuable whether or not you have any particular interest in English Bibles. In addition to the Goodspeed version on the CD, there are three "supplemental transcriptions and translations" furnished in hard-copy: The Book of Enoch, Melito: Homily on the Passion, and The Epistles of Paul--the last-mentioned included "to show the reader as accurately as possible both the physical condition of the Michigan texts and the probable intended meaning of those texts in cases where the papyri deviate fom the expected New Testament readings." The ISBN number is 0-472-00249-X, and the Publisher is listed as The University of Michigan Press in Ann Arbor. Again, the full name is THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE: FROM PAPYRI TO KING JAMES. When others of you have gotten a copy and used it, I'd be interested in your reactions, whether or not they confirm my enthusiasm.. leonard ********************************************** * Leonard Jay Greenspoon, Chairholder * * Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization * * Creighton University * 2500 California Plaza Admin Bldg #333, Omaha, Nebraska 68178 * * phone (402)-280-2304 fax (402)-280-4731 * * e-mail: LJGRN@creighton.edu * ********************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 20 16:34:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24845; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:34:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:41:40 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: tc-list Re: TC/CD Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 366 Oops, in my previous posting I left it some data that may be of interest to you (well, it IS Friday afternoon!): cost: $59.95 (American); editors: Kathryn L. Beam and Traianos Gagos. Basic System Requirements: Windows 3.1 or later; Macintosh, System 7.0 or later. And just to allay anyone's concerns--I have no fiscal/financial interest in this CD! leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 20 17:37:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25045; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:37:26 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980320164642.006ee820@pop.flash.net> X-Sender: logsdon@pop.flash.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:46:42 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mike Logsdon Subject: Re: tc-list Re: TC/CD In-Reply-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: 881 Being a PhD student makes purchasing useable software difficult. I am looking for a reasonable Greek text of the New Testament. Does any one know of one that is windows compatible and inlcudes a critical apparatus. Any suggestions would be helpful. Also, how far away from viewing texts as Internet hypertexts are we? This would greatly facilitate TC tasks? Thanks, Michael Logsdon Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Fort Worth, Texas At 03:41 PM 3/20/98 -0600, Leonard Greenspoon wrote: >Oops, in my previous posting I left it some data that may be of interest to >you (well, it IS Friday afternoon!): cost: $59.95 (American); editors: >Kathryn L. Beam and Traianos Gagos. Basic System Requirements: Windows >3.1 or later; Macintosh, System 7.0 or later. > >And just to allay anyone's concerns--I have no fiscal/financial interest in >this CD! > >leonard > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 21 14:46:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26806; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:46:35 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980321155435.00690c18@mail.geocities.com> X-Sender: dylan-j@mail.geocities.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:54:35 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Jonathan Dixon Subject: tc-list Hebrews 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: 1364 Hello, I am doing an undergrad thesis on the Canonical placement of the book of Hebrews and the plausible reasoning behind each of its placements in the canon. I'll also be looking at the interpretational effects of each placement in an attempt to prove that the current location of the book is the best location theologically. the question that I have for this mailing list is first of all (1) Can you reccomend and sources to me that may be useful for my thesis? and second (2) Do you know of anyone else who has done anyting similar to my topic before, and if so. how I can get in contact with them. Thank you very much, In Christ, Jonathan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Jonathan M. Dixon (Student, Atlantic Baptist University) A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J c/o Atlantic Baptist University Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada E1C 9L7 dylan-j@geocities.com jdixon@abu.nb.ca My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 21 14:46:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26823; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:46:50 -0500 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:53:23 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list Re: TC/CD To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199803211454_MC2-378F-FD0E@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: 488 My enthusiasm for the Michigan CD is tempered only by one flaw (as I see it) of a technical nature. You MUST set your monitor to 640 x 480 resolution and 256 colors, then reboot your computer if changes are necessary to your monitor settings. For individual users this is merely = a nuisance, but in libraries it can be a fatal flaw. Otherwise, the conten= ts are as touted by Leonard. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 21 16:48:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA27026; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:48:33 -0500 Message-ID: <6490C9C9F7B6D11195E50000F803CA9F061AE0@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Hebrews Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:57:54 -0600 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) 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: 2750 Jonathan, The place to start would probably be William P. Hatch, "The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament," Harvard Theological Review 29 (1936) 133-151. Other works of interest would be: Charles P. Anderson, "The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection," Harvard Theological Review 59 (1966) 429-438. Kurt Aland, "Die Entstehung des Corpus Paulinum," Neutestamentliche Entwuerfe (Munich: Kaiser, 1979) 302-350. David Trobisch, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfaengen christlicher Publizistik (NTOA 10; Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1989). Trobisch has another book out in which he argues for the theological reading of the New Testament based on a canonical order. Although unconvincing, it may give you ideas about how to approach the question. David Trobisch, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments (NTOA 31; Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996). I would remind you, however, that there is no "current order" of NT books, so others will certainly question your judgment that the particular order you follow is theologically superior (should you come to that conclusion). Curt Niccum -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Dixon [SMTP:dylan-j@geocities.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 1998 1:55 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Hebrews Hello, I am doing an undergrad thesis on the Canonical placement of the book of Hebrews and the plausible reasoning behind each of its placements in the canon. I'll also be looking at the interpretational effects of each placement in an attempt to prove that the current location of the book is the best location theologically. the question that I have for this mailing list is first of all (1) Can you reccomend and sources to me that may be useful for my thesis? and second (2) Do you know of anyone else who has done anyting similar to my topic before, and if so. how I can get in contact with them. Thank you very much, In Christ, Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- --- If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- --- Jonathan M. Dixon (Student, Atlantic Baptist University) A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J c/o Atlantic Baptist University Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada E1C 9L7 dylan-j@geocities.com jdixon@abu.nb.ca My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 21 17:30:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27098; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:30:51 -0500 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:37:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199803212237.RAA26935@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: Re: tc-list Hebrews Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1607 I seem to recall a presentation by Moises Silva about 3 years ago at AAR/SBL on the order of books in the Pauline Corpus. You might try to contact him. --Rod Mullen At 03:54 PM 3/21/98 -0400, you wrote: >Hello, > >I am doing an undergrad thesis on the Canonical placement of the book of >Hebrews and the plausible reasoning behind each of its placements in the >canon. I'll also be looking at the interpretational effects of each >placement in an attempt to prove that the current location of the book is >the best location theologically. the question that I have for this mailing >list is first of all (1) Can you reccomend and sources to me that may be >useful for my thesis? and second (2) Do you know of anyone else who has >done anyting similar to my topic before, and if so. how I can get in >contact with them. > >Thank you very much, >In Christ, >Jonathan >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to >know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >Jonathan M. Dixon >(Student, Atlantic Baptist University) > >A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J > >c/o Atlantic Baptist University >Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada >E1C 9L7 > >dylan-j@geocities.com >jdixon@abu.nb.ca > >My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ >My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 21 20:11:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27324; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 20:11:45 -0500 Message-ID: <35146718.6D1AB462@inetport.com> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:19:21 -0600 From: Burkenstock X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 i86pc) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Hebrews References: <3.0.2.32.19980321155435.00690c18@mail.geocities.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: 2325 Jonathan Dixon wrote: > Hello, > > I am doing an undergrad thesis on the Canonical placement of the book of > Hebrews and the plausible reasoning behind each of its placements in the > canon. I'll also be looking at the interpretational effects of each > placement in an attempt to prove that the current location of the book is > the best location theologically. the question that I have for this mailing > list is first of all (1) Can you reccomend and sources to me that may be > useful for my thesis? and second (2) Do you know of anyone else who has > done anyting similar to my topic before, and if so. how I can get in > contact with them. > Use Bruce Metzger's _The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance_. It has quite a section on Hebrews. It just came out in paperback as well, but it may be difficult to find in a bookstore. My copy was backordered since Xmas and I only recently acquired it. Try your local seminary library. Also, you might try Raymond E. Brown's _An Introduction to the New Testament_. It MAY be of help. I don't know. Good luck. You've picked quite an interesting project. I'd like to see what your conclusions are. May I have a copy when you're finished? sincerely, Burke Gerstenschlager > Thank you very much, > In Christ, > Jonathan > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to > know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Jonathan M. Dixon > (Student, Atlantic Baptist University) > > A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J > > c/o Atlantic Baptist University > Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada > E1C 9L7 > > dylan-j@geocities.com > jdixon@abu.nb.ca > > My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ > My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- "I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use - silence, exile, and cunning. - Stephen Dedalus _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 22 02:39:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA27822; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 02:39:07 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 23:43:04 -0800 Subject: Re: tc-list Hebrews Message-ID: <19980321.234305.12190.1.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19980321155435.00690c18@mail.geocities.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-6,8-11,14-19,21-67 From: jeffcate@juno.com (James J. Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2391 Jonathan, Since Hebrews tended to circulate in the midst of the Pauline Corpus (cf. P46), you may want to consult studies on the Pauline Corpus. The following articles discuss the order of the Pauline Corpus (and thus Hebrews) in early mss: Charles H. Buck, Jr. "The Early Order of the Pauline Corpus" *JBL* 68 (1949): 351-57. Jerome D. Quinn, "P46--The Pauline Canon?" *CBQ* 36 (1974): 379. There are more recent studies on the Pauline Corpus, but I don't have the bibliographic info handy at the moment. These articles have good information despite being dated. Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. of Christian Studies California Baptist College On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:54:35 -0400 Jonathan Dixon writes: >Hello, > >I am doing an undergrad thesis on the Canonical placement of the book >of >Hebrews and the plausible reasoning behind each of its placements in >the >canon. I'll also be looking at the interpretational effects of each >placement in an attempt to prove that the current location of the book >is >the best location theologically. the question that I have for this >mailing >list is first of all (1) Can you reccomend and sources to me that may >be >useful for my thesis? and second (2) Do you know of anyone else who >has >done anyting similar to my topic before, and if so. how I can get in >contact with them. > >Thank you very much, >In Christ, >Jonathan >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought >to >know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. >8:2-3) >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >Jonathan M. Dixon >(Student, Atlantic Baptist University) > >A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J > >c/o Atlantic Baptist University >Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada >E1C 9L7 > >dylan-j@geocities.com >jdixon@abu.nb.ca > >My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ >My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 22 18:19:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29501; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 18:19:33 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980322192445.00689d8c@mail.geocities.com> X-Sender: dylan-j@mail.geocities.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:24:45 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Jonathan Dixon Subject: tc-list Hebrews 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: 278 To the person who recently emailed me..... I'm sorry, but in my haste I accidentally deleted your email before I could print it off and make use of it. If you can, could you please send it to me again. Thank you very much, and sorry for the inconvience. In Christ, Jonathan From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 08:14:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00967; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 08:14:16 -0500 Message-Id: <199803231321.JAA23127@garlic.acadiau.ca> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glenn Wooden" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:22:10 +0400 Subject: Re: tc-list Hebrews Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.2.32.19980322192445.00689d8c@mail.geocities.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 290 Jonathan, If the message that you are looking for is one of the four answers to your question that were posted to TC-LIST, then I have all four. I can forward one or all of them to you. Let me know. Glenn Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 09:07:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01096; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:07:45 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980323101530.0069167c@mail.geocities.com> X-Sender: dylan-j@mail.geocities.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:15:30 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Jonathan Dixon Subject: Re: tc-list Hebrews In-Reply-To: <199803231321.JAA23127@garlic.acadiau.ca> References: <3.0.2.32.19980322192445.00689d8c@mail.geocities.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: 1106 Glenn, I'm from ABU in Moncton :-) Nice to meet a fellow Maritimer. Anyway, what I was looking for specifically is an email that someone sent with a long list of sources. I think that It was sent privatly, not over the list. However, I do want to thank all members of this list for their help... if you have any more suggestions I'd love to here them. Thanks again. In Christ, Jonathan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Jonathan M. Dixon (Student, Atlantic Baptist University) A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J c/o Atlantic Baptist University Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada E1C 9L7 dylan-j@geocities.com jdixon@abu.nb.ca My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 09:57:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01317; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:57:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:07:02 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list: versions of the eucharist In-Reply-To: <199803231321.JAA23127@garlic.acadiau.ca> 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: 9752 Greetings, all. First of all, I would like to thank James R. Adair who thought my recent research on the eucharist good enough to be offered to this honoured audience. And also thanks to Bart Ehrman and to D. C. Parker for their helpful replies. It is with some trepidation that I write this post, since the opinion I wish to defend seems to go against such competent scholars as Bart and D.C. Parker. But I still feel that my position has something to recommend itself. Bart wrote in reply to my article: > For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of > this problem in the _Orthodox Corruption of > Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter text is > original, and the longer form was added by > proto-orthodox scribes as an anti-docetic polemic (see > pp. 197-209). And DC Parker also wrote: > I discuss the problem as well, in The Living Text of the > Gospels, pp. 151-7. The full citations are as follows: Ehrman, Bart D. _The Orthodox corruption of scripture: the effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the NT_, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Parker, D. C. (David C.) _The living text of the Gospels_, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. I have now read both of these analyses. Since DC Parker was aware or Bart's much longer treatment, and seems to be in basic agreement with it, I will focus primarily on Bart's treatment of the problem of the two eucharist texts in Lk, the longer and the shorter one. As another preliminary, I'm somewhat reassured by the fact that the position I'm defending in fact seems like a majority position overall. As DC Parker said in his volume, "The tide of scholarly opinion has long flowed in favour of the longer text. Verses 19b-20 were included in Nestle-Aland 25th ed. within double brackets. They appear in the 26th and 27th editions without reservation as an integral part of the text." (p. 155) (To this, I would like to add a comment that this majority opinion apparently was formed only since about the 1950's, which indeed may be considered as pretty long ago.) Now, to remind, my basic position is that the longer Lk text is the earlier one. I also think, after Jeremias [Joachim Jeremias, _The Eucharistic Words of Jesus_ (London: SCM Press, 1966)] that this longer Lukan eucharist does not really belong to the larger body of Lk/Acts, and was based on a pre-existent liturgical formula. I also think that this longer eucharistic text (ET) was imported into the body of Lk at a later stage. On the other hand, Bart thinks that the shorter ET is the more original one, and that Lk 19b-20 were the expansions imported into the text at a later stage. So, one may say that perhaps our positions are not really that different. Both of us accept that a later editing of Lk took place. Except that I think the whole of the eucharist was added up as a piece, but he thinks only parts of it were added up. There's also the problem of how to deal with the ET in 1 Cor 11. Since it is so close to the longer Lk, Bart seems to think that the longer Lk was a later assimilation to the 1 Cor eucharist. My own position on 1 Cor 11 ET is that it is a later insertion into the Pauline epistle, that (seeing that it is related so closely to Lk) both represent the same liturgical tradition, and that both texts are quite late (dating at the earliest from ca. 100). The extended treatment Bart gives to this matter in his book is rather impressive. He sets out in detail the arguments that the longer ET stands apart from the larger body of Lk. I prefer to grant him this point. (Certain parallels with Acts 20:28 is the only place where Bart's argument may be challenged with some hope of success, but I will not try to do this.) I'll accept that the longer ET is lacking substantial parallels in the rest of Lukan writings. Bart also adduces quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian that stress the importance of the realistic understanding of the eucharist; both authors use this view as a weapon against docetists. This, so Bart, provides the motive of why the later additions would have been made, viz. in order to counter the docetist opponents of these "proto-orthodox" authors. All I can add to this is that these arguments may be reinterpreted also to provide support for my hypothesis. See below. But the crux of Bart's case, as I understand it, is the lack of a plausible scenario for how and why the ostensibly more original longer text may have been abridged. "In point of fact, no one has been able to provide a convincing explanation for how the shorter text came into existence if the longer text is original." (p. 207) Bart surveys the reasons that have been offered so far, and finds them wanting. Perhaps they are, at least the ones that he surveyed. And yet there's another other reason that he didn't mention. If indeed nobody has offered it before, then I would like to claim it. (Although I may have read something similar in one of the works of Alfred Loisy who was very interested in the problem of eucharistic texts in the later part of his career. I'll have to check about this.) Here's my explanation. I believe 19b-20 were omitted from the longer Lk because the idea of drinking blood and eating human flesh were a problem for Jewish-Christians who were probably members in the congregations where this shorter text was used. In other words, the longer Lk was simply "too radical" for some Christians, and that is why the shorter Lk came into being. I have offered the above reason already in a related discussion on Synoptic-l. But now, after I've read Bart's analysis, I would like to show how the information he provides about the antidocetic agenda of Irenaeus and Tertullian can be reinterpreted also to support my thesis. To wit, if docetists were such a problem at the time, i.e. if they were so widely attested among early Christians, one can easily suppose that Lk/Acts as a whole was, at an early stage, a gospel circulating among Christians influenced by docetism. This, after all, seems to be the editorial tendency of Lk, in which the idea of atonement through the death of Christ on the Cross seems so singularly lacking. Bart demonstrates the latter rather convincingly in his analysis. Thus, in my view, - the first stage: antidocetic Lk. - second stage: a longer Lk, including the "antidocetic eucharist". - after some resistance among some congregations, an abridged Lk, including a shorter ET. And it seems to me that these two explanations I've provided here cannot be seen as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they may reinforce each other. After all, the earliest Lk may have been current among Jewish-Christian docetists... And now for some idea when these developments may have been occurring. (In fact, I think that the events that both I and Bart postulate may have been happening at a similar historical period.) J. M. Van Cangh, in PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE?, [in _The Corinthian correspondence_, edited by R. Bieringer, Leuven, Leuven University Press: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996 (pp. 623-637)] argues that the ET of Lk/1Cor would not have been the earliest stage of the eucharistic liturgy. He gives very strong arguments for the temporal priority of Markan eucharist. This is good evidence for the general lateness of the longer Lukan/1 Cor ET. As Van Cangh suggests, this version of the eucharist probably arose among the Hellenistic Christians who were most likely based in Syria, especially in Antioch. Thus, these developments could not have been taking place too early on in the history of the canon creation. As I said, the period ca. 100 seems likely to me. Perhaps Bart may wish to correct me about his own view of this chronology. The close parallel between the Lukan ET and the ET in the 1 Cor may be seen as providing further support for my position. Let's take a look at this for a moment. Indeed, if one sees that even the shorter Lukan ET contains so many parallels to the 1 Cor ET, isn't it much more sensible to suppose that whoever inserted the ET into Lk has borrowed the pre-existent liturgical tradition _as a whole_? I think it is much less likely that this inserter would have inserted an abridged version of the tradition right from the beginning, only to add the missing pieces of this traditional liturgy later. Finally, the strongest arguments for my position seem to come from the mss evidence that goes very strongly in support of the longer Lk. The textual evidence for each position is as follows [I'm using in the following some materials from the website I've referenced previously]: In favor of the shorter reading is the following: D a d ff2 i l syh (and perhaps c r2 d). The longer reading is attested by the following: 1) all the Greek manuscripts, including p75 (AD 175/225); 2) all the versions with the exception of the Old Syriac and part of the itala and 3) by all early Christian writers beginning with Marcion, Justin and Tatian. Therefore, the bulk of the manuscript evidence supports the longer reading. Also cf. Pierson Parker, "Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts," Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1965): 165-170. He says, "the textual evidence for rejecting vss. 19b, 20 is so scanty that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. Against the [driblets of support for the shorter reading] is the overwhelming mass of evidence from all the great uncials and cursives, Byzantine, Caesarean, and Alexandrian, that Luke 22 19b, 20 is authentic." Best wishes to all, Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 11:18:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01698; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:18:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:25:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199803231625.LAA18666@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: Re: tc-list: versions of the eucharist Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11577 On the basis of the manscript traditions, and on what I perceive as the general development of eucharistic traditions, a la Gregory Dix in THE SHAPE OF THE EUCHARIST, I tend to favor the longer text of Luke. Bart Ehrman and I had this discussion when I was doing my dissertation under him, and I had some similar comments from D.C. Parker following a presentation I made at AAR/SBL some years back. It seems to me that what one decides about this text depends in part on what types of evidence one prefers. It also seems that the shorter reading tends to get more respect among scholars in the U.K., so perhaps there is something of a scholarly tradition at work here. Both Ehrman and Parker lean heavily on internal criteria at this point. As far as the external evidence of the textual tradition goes, an important point to be made is that not only do the Alexandrian mss. support the longer reading against their customary brevity, but that the "Western" mss. support the shorter reading against their customary fulness. Since both early ms. groups run counter to type in this reading, one cannot simply suggest that either group deserves our confidence a priori. What does impress me is the wide range of textual groups and patristic witnesses in favor of the longer reading. I'm not sure I would care to argue on textual grounds that the entire pericope dates to a later stage of Lucan composition. What I am curious about though is how you reach the conclusion that I Corinthians 11 is a later insertion into the Pauline material? --Rod Mullen At 10:07 AM 3/23/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Greetings, all. > >First of all, I would like to thank James R. Adair who thought my recent >research on the eucharist good enough to be offered to this honoured >audience. And also thanks to Bart Ehrman and to D. C. Parker for their >helpful replies. > >It is with some trepidation that I write this post, since the opinion I >wish to defend seems to go against such competent scholars as Bart and >D.C. Parker. But I still feel that my position has something to recommend >itself. > >Bart wrote in reply to my article: > >> For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of >> this problem in the _Orthodox Corruption of >> Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter text is >> original, and the longer form was added by >> proto-orthodox scribes as an anti-docetic polemic (see >> pp. 197-209). > >And DC Parker also wrote: > >> I discuss the problem as well, in The Living Text of the >> Gospels, pp. 151-7. > >The full citations are as follows: > >Ehrman, Bart D. _The Orthodox corruption of scripture: the effect of early >Christological controversies on the text of the NT_, New York; Oxford: >Oxford University Press, 1993. > >Parker, D. C. (David C.) _The living text of the Gospels_, New York: >Cambridge University Press, 1997. > >I have now read both of these analyses. Since DC Parker was aware or >Bart's much longer treatment, and seems to be in basic agreement with it, >I will focus primarily on Bart's treatment of the problem of the two >eucharist texts in Lk, the longer and the shorter one. > >As another preliminary, I'm somewhat reassured by the fact that the >position I'm defending in fact seems like a majority position overall. As >DC Parker said in his volume, > > "The tide of scholarly opinion has long flowed in favour of the > longer text. Verses 19b-20 were included in Nestle-Aland 25th > ed. within double brackets. They appear in the 26th and 27th > editions without reservation as an integral part of the > text." (p. 155) > >(To this, I would like to add a comment that this majority opinion >apparently was formed only since about the 1950's, which indeed may be >considered as pretty long ago.) > >Now, to remind, my basic position is that the longer Lk text is the >earlier one. I also think, after Jeremias [Joachim Jeremias, _The >Eucharistic Words of Jesus_ (London: SCM Press, 1966)] that this longer >Lukan eucharist does not really belong to the larger body of Lk/Acts, and >was based on a pre-existent liturgical formula. I also think that this >longer eucharistic text (ET) was imported into the body of Lk at a later >stage. > >On the other hand, Bart thinks that the shorter ET is the more original >one, and that Lk 19b-20 were the expansions imported into the text at a >later stage. > >So, one may say that perhaps our positions are not really that different. >Both of us accept that a later editing of Lk took place. Except that I >think the whole of the eucharist was added up as a piece, but he thinks >only parts of it were added up. > >There's also the problem of how to deal with the ET in 1 Cor 11. Since it >is so close to the longer Lk, Bart seems to think that the longer Lk was a >later assimilation to the 1 Cor eucharist. My own position on 1 Cor 11 ET >is that it is a later insertion into the Pauline epistle, that (seeing >that it is related so closely to Lk) both represent the same liturgical >tradition, and that both texts are quite late (dating at the earliest from >ca. 100). > >The extended treatment Bart gives to this matter in his book is rather >impressive. He sets out in detail the arguments that the longer ET stands >apart from the larger body of Lk. I prefer to grant him this point. >(Certain parallels with Acts 20:28 is the only place where Bart's argument >may be challenged with some hope of success, but I will not try to do >this.) I'll accept that the longer ET is lacking substantial parallels in >the rest of Lukan writings. > >Bart also adduces quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian that stress the >importance of the realistic understanding of the eucharist; both authors >use this view as a weapon against docetists. This, so Bart, provides the >motive of why the later additions would have been made, viz. in order to >counter the docetist opponents of these "proto-orthodox" authors. All I >can add to this is that these arguments may be reinterpreted also to >provide support for my hypothesis. See below. > >But the crux of Bart's case, as I understand it, is the lack of a >plausible scenario for how and why the ostensibly more original longer >text may have been abridged. > > "In point of fact, no one has been able to provide a convincing > explanation for how the shorter text came into existence if the > longer text is original." (p. 207) > >Bart surveys the reasons that have been offered so far, and finds them >wanting. Perhaps they are, at least the ones that he surveyed. And yet >there's another other reason that he didn't mention. If indeed nobody has >offered it before, then I would like to claim it. (Although I may have >read something similar in one of the works of Alfred Loisy who was very >interested in the problem of eucharistic texts in the later part of his >career. I'll have to check about this.) > >Here's my explanation. I believe 19b-20 were omitted from the longer Lk >because the idea of drinking blood and eating human flesh were a problem >for Jewish-Christians who were probably members in the congregations where >this shorter text was used. In other words, the longer Lk was simply "too >radical" for some Christians, and that is why the shorter Lk came into >being. > >I have offered the above reason already in a related discussion on >Synoptic-l. But now, after I've read Bart's analysis, I would like to show >how the information he provides about the antidocetic agenda of Irenaeus >and Tertullian can be reinterpreted also to support my thesis. To wit, if >docetists were such a problem at the time, i.e. if they were so widely >attested among early Christians, one can easily suppose that Lk/Acts as a >whole was, at an early stage, a gospel circulating among Christians >influenced by docetism. This, after all, seems to be the editorial >tendency of Lk, in which the idea of atonement through the death of Christ >on the Cross seems so singularly lacking. Bart demonstrates the latter >rather convincingly in his analysis. Thus, in my view, > >- the first stage: antidocetic Lk. >- second stage: a longer Lk, including the "antidocetic eucharist". >- after some resistance among some congregations, an abridged Lk, >including a shorter ET. > >And it seems to me that these two explanations I've provided here cannot >be seen as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they may reinforce each >other. After all, the earliest Lk may have been current among >Jewish-Christian docetists... > >And now for some idea when these developments may have been occurring. (In >fact, I think that the events that both I and Bart postulate may have been >happening at a similar historical period.) > >J. M. Van Cangh, in PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE?, >[in _The Corinthian correspondence_, edited by R. Bieringer, Leuven, >Leuven University Press: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996 (pp. 623-637)] argues >that the ET of Lk/1Cor would not have been the earliest stage of the >eucharistic liturgy. He gives very strong arguments for the temporal >priority of Markan eucharist. This is good evidence for the general >lateness of the longer Lukan/1 Cor ET. As Van Cangh suggests, this version >of the eucharist probably arose among the Hellenistic Christians who were >most likely based in Syria, especially in Antioch. Thus, these >developments could not have been taking place too early on in the history >of the canon creation. As I said, the period ca. 100 seems likely to me. >Perhaps Bart may wish to correct me about his own view of this chronology. > >The close parallel between the Lukan ET and the ET in the 1 Cor may be >seen as providing further support for my position. Let's take a look at >this for a moment. Indeed, if one sees that even the shorter Lukan ET >contains so many parallels to the 1 Cor ET, isn't it much more sensible to >suppose that whoever inserted the ET into Lk has borrowed the pre-existent >liturgical tradition _as a whole_? I think it is much less likely that >this inserter would have inserted an abridged version of the tradition >right from the beginning, only to add the missing pieces of this >traditional liturgy later. > >Finally, the strongest arguments for my position seem to come from the mss >evidence that goes very strongly in support of the longer Lk. > >The textual evidence for each position is as follows [I'm using in the >following some materials from the website I've referenced previously]: > >In favor of the shorter reading is the following: D a d ff2 i l syh (and >perhaps c r2 d). The longer reading is attested by the following: > >1) all the Greek manuscripts, including p75 (AD 175/225); >2) all the versions with the exception of the Old Syriac and part of the >itala and >3) by all early Christian writers beginning with Marcion, Justin and >Tatian. > >Therefore, the bulk of the manuscript evidence supports the longer >reading. > >Also cf. Pierson Parker, "Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts," Journal >of Biblical Literature 83 (1965): 165-170. > >He says, "the textual evidence for rejecting vss. 19b, 20 is so scanty >that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. Against the >[driblets of support for the shorter reading] is the overwhelming mass of >evidence from all the great uncials and cursives, Byzantine, Caesarean, >and Alexandrian, that Luke 22 19b, 20 is authentic." > >Best wishes to all, > >Yuri. > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 15:37:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02602; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 15:37:41 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:46:32 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list first church building X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <11E0C0F6570@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 488 This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it: when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130 (Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify. Vinton Dearing. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 15:51:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02706; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 15:51:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 15:51:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199803232051.PAA02701@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:21:11 -0800 From: Mark Gipe To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Hebrews Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1817 Hebrews - where in the canon? A book on the order of the books in the New Covenant canon that gave me some food for thought was - "Restoring the Original Bible" by Ernest L. Martin even though I do not agree with everything he says, he does have some very good ideas. You can find him on the web at www.askelm.com in the name of the God and Father of Yeshua Mark Gipe At 03:54 PM 3/21/98 -0400, you wrote: >Hello, > >I am doing an undergrad thesis on the Canonical placement of the book of >Hebrews and the plausible reasoning behind each of its placements in the >canon. I'll also be looking at the interpretational effects of each >placement in an attempt to prove that the current location of the book is >the best location theologically. the question that I have for this mailing >list is first of all (1) Can you reccomend and sources to me that may be >useful for my thesis? and second (2) Do you know of anyone else who has >done anyting similar to my topic before, and if so. how I can get in >contact with them. > >Thank you very much, >In Christ, >Jonathan >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to >know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >Jonathan M. Dixon >(Student, Atlantic Baptist University) > >A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J > >c/o Atlantic Baptist University >Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada >E1C 9L7 > >dylan-j@geocities.com >jdixon@abu.nb.ca > >My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ >My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 15:52:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02731; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 15:52:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 15:52:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199803232052.PAA02726@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: 23 Mar 1998 05:34:27 -0000 From: Yuri Kuchinsky Subject: Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist Content-Type: text Apparently-To: tc-list@globalserve.net Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 10170 Greetings, all. First of all, I would like to thank James R. Adair who thought my recent research on the eucharist good enough to be offered to this honoured audience. And also thanks to Bart Ehrman and to D. C. Parker for their helpful replies. It is with some trepidation that I write this post, since the opinion I wish to defend seems to go against such competent scholars as Bart and D.C. Parker. But I still feel that my position has something to recommend itself. Bart wrote in reply to my article: > For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of > this problem in the _Orthodox Corruption of > Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter text is > original, and the longer form was added by > proto-orthodox scribes as an anti-docetic polemic (see > pp. 197-209). And DC Parker also wrote: > I discuss the problem as well, in The Living Text of the > Gospels, pp. 151-7. The full citations are as follows: Ehrman, Bart D. _The Orthodox corruption of scripture: the effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the NT_, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Parker, D. C. (David C.) _The living text of the Gospels_, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. I have now read both of these analyses. Since DC Parker was aware or Bart's much longer treatment, and seems to be in basic agreement with it, I will focus primarily on Bart's treatment of the problem of the two eucharist texts in Lk, the longer and the shorter one. As another preliminary, I'm somewhat reassured by the fact that the position I'm defending in fact seems like a majority position overall. As DC Parker said in his volume, "The tide of scholarly opinion has long flowed in favour of the longer text. Verses 19b-20 were included in Nestle-Aland 25th ed. within double brackets. They appear in the 26th and 27th editions without reservation as an integral part of the text." (p. 155) (To this, I would like to add a comment that this majority opinion apparently was formed only since about the 1950's, which indeed may be considered as pretty long ago.) Now, to remind, my basic position is that the longer Lk text is the earlier one. I also think, after Jeremias [Joachim Jeremias, _The Eucharistic Words of Jesus_ (London: SCM Press, 1966)] that this longer Lukan eucharist does not really belong to the larger body of Lk/Acts, and was based on a pre-existent liturgical formula. I also think that this longer eucharistic text (ET) was imported into the body of Lk at a later stage. On the other hand, Bart thinks that the shorter ET is the more original one, and that Lk 19b-20 were the expansions imported into the text at a later stage. So, one may say that perhaps our positions are not really that different. Both of us accept that a later editing of Lk took place. Except that I think the whole of the eucharist was added up as a piece, but he thinks only parts of it were added up. There's also the problem of how to deal with the ET in 1 Cor 11. Since it is so close to the longer Lk, Bart seems to think that the longer Lk was a later assimilation to the 1 Cor eucharist. My own position on 1 Cor 11 ET is that it is a later insertion into the Pauline epistle, that (seeing that it is related so closely to Lk) both represent the same liturgical tradition, and that both texts are quite late (dating at the earliest from ca. 100). The extended treatment Bart gives to this matter in his book is rather impressive. He sets out in detail the arguments that the longer ET stands apart from the larger body of Lk. I prefer to grant him this point. (Certain parallels with Acts 20:28 is the only place where Bart's argument may be challenged with some hope of success, but I will not try to do this.) I'll accept that the longer ET is lacking substantial parallels in the rest of Lukan writings. Bart also adduces quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian that stress the importance of the realistic understanding of the eucharist; both authors use this view as a weapon against docetists. This, so Bart, provides the motive of why the later additions would have been made, viz. in order to counter the docetist opponents of these "proto-orthodox" authors. All I can add to this is that these arguments may be reinterpreted also to provide support for my hypothesis. See below. But the crux of Bart's case, as I understand it, is the lack of a plausible scenario for how and why the ostensibly more original longer text may have been abridged. "In point of fact, no one has been able to provide a convincing explanation for how the shorter text came into existence if the longer text is original." (p. 207) Bart surveys the reasons that have been offered so far, and finds them wanting. Perhaps they are, at least the ones that he surveyed. And yet there's one other reason that he didn't mention. If indeed nobody has offered it before, then I would like to claim it. (Although I may have read something similar in one of the works of Alfred Loisy who was very interested in the problem of eucharistic texts in the later part of his career. I'll have to check about this.) Here's my explanation. I believe 19b-20 were omitted from the longer Lk because the idea of drinking blood and eating human flesh were a problem for Jewish-Christians who were probably members in the congregations where this shorter text was used. In other words, the longer Lk was simply "too radical" for some Christians, and that is why the shorter Lk came into being. I have offered the above reason already in a related discussion on Synoptic-l. But now, after I've read Bart's analysis, I would like to show how the information he provides about the antidocetic agenda of Irenaeus and Tertullian can be reinterpreted also to support my thesis. To wit, if docetists were such a problem at the time, i.e. if they were so widely attested among early Christians, one can easily suppose that Lk/Acts as a whole was, at an early stage, a gospel circulating among Christians influenced by docetism. This, after all, seems to be the editorial tendency of Lk, in which the idea of atonement through the death of Christ on the Cross seems so singularly lacking. Bart demonstrates the latter rather convincingly in his analysis. Thus, in my view, - the first stage: antidocetic Lk. - second stage: a longer Lk, including the "antidocetic eucharist". - after some resistance among some congregations, an abridged Lk, including a shorter ET. And it seems to me that these two explanations I've provided here cannot be seen as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they may reinforce each other. After all, the earliest Lk may have been current among Jewish-Christian docetists... And now for some idea when these developments may have been occurring. (In fact, I think that the events that both I and Bart postulate may have been happening at a similar historical period.) J. M. Van Cangh, in PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE?, [in _The Corinthian correspondence_, edited by R. Bieringer, Leuven, Leuven University Press: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996 (pp. 623-637)] argues that the ET of Lk/1Cor would not have been the earliest stage of the eucharistic liturgy. He gives very strong arguments for the temporal priority of Markan eucharist. This is good evidence for the general lateness of the longer Lukan/1 Cor ET. Therefore, these developments could not have been taking place too early on in the history of the canon creation. As I said, the period ca. 100 seems likely to me. Perhaps Bart may wish to correct me about his own view of this chronology. The close parallel between the Lukan ET and the ET in the 1 Cor may be seen as providing further support for my position. Let's take a look at this for a moment. Indeed, if one sees that even the shorter Lukan ET contains so many parallels to the 1 Cor ET, isn't it much more sensible to suppose that whoever inserted the ET into Lk has borrowed the pre-existent liturgical tradition _as a whole_? I think it is much less likely that this inserter would have inserted an abridged version of the tradition right from the beginning, only to add the missing pieces of the tradition later. Finally, the strongest arguments for my position seem to come from the mss evidence that goes very strongly in support of the longer Lk. The textual evidence for each position is as follows [I'm using in the following some materials from the website I've referenced previously]: In favor of the shorter reading is the following: D a d ff2 i l syh (and perhaps c r2 d). The longer reading is attested by the following: 1) all the Greek manuscripts, including p75 (AD 175/225); 2) all the versions with the exception of the Old Syriac and part of the itala and 3) by all early Christian writers beginning with Marcion, Justin and Tatian. Therefore, the bulk of the manuscript evidence supports the longer reading. Also cf. Pierson Parker, "Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts," Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1965): 165-170. He says, "the textual evidence for rejecting vss. 19b, 20 is so scanty that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. Against the [driblets of support for the shorter reading] is the overwhelming mass of that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. Against the [driblets of support for the shorter reading] is the overwhelming mass of evidence from all the great uncials and cursives, Byzantine, Caesarean, and Alexandrian, that Luke 22 19b, 20 is authentic." Best wishes to all, Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 16:11:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02897; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:11:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199803232114.QAA00571@maestro.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Franz Schredl" Organization: WTBS Research To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:17:43 +0500 Subject: tc-list Cosmas Indicopleustes Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199803232052.PAA02726@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 522 Hi, Please forgive me if this should be a little off-topic. I'm doing some research in connection with St. Peter's epistles and ran across some comments indicating that Cosmas Indicopleustes wrote about St. Peter's staying in Babylon for some time. However, I do not have a reference as to where he said this. It is obviously not in his "Christian Topography" but must be in one of the fragments. Is there anyone who would know WHERE? And if, would this be available anywhere electronically? Thanks, Franz Schredl From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 16:50:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03045; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:50:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3516DBCC.F8CF96D2@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:01:49 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list first church building References: <11E0C0F6570@113hum4.humnet.ucla.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: 1300 Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it: > when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed > by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to > was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130 > (Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the > questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I > suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify. > Vinton Dearing. I assume that the question of the first "church" would make a distinction between the synagogues in which the original Yeshuine Jews met and the "Ekklesia" of gentile Christians. If there was an actual building dedicated solely as a Christian meeting place (probably a dangerous enterprise in the ante-Nicene period), I would highly suspect it would have been in Ephesus or Antioch and would have come about as a result of the expulsion of the "minim" from the synagogues. This was a time when gentile participation was growing (80-85ish CE) and Jewish participation declining..probably sufficient to stimulate the Matthean scribe to write his gospel. I would bet the olive grove that the first "churches" as meeting places for gentiles began at this time. Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 17:30:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03229; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:30:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199803232220.XAA15511@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: tc-list first church building Date: Lun, 23 Mar 98 23:41:11 +0100 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: 921 >> This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it: >> when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed >> by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to >> was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130 >> (Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the >> questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I >> suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify. >> Vinton Dearing. What about Dura-Europos in Syria? if I remember well, this brings us back in the early third century. Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Als liefde het antwoord is, kunt U dan misschien de vraag nog een keer stellen?" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 23 19:30:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA03506; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:30:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:40:18 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist In-Reply-To: <199803232052.PAA02726@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 665 Dear listmembers, Sorry for the duplicate post that appeared this afternoon. It was due to some malfunction of the FindMail system. What happened, I tried to post my article through their website yesterday evening, but it failed to appear, and I reposted it in the morning. But the first post now appeared this afternoon. And also, I would like to make the following correction. I see the three stages of the composition of Lk as follows: - the first stage: a "docetic Lk." - second stage: a longer Lk, including the "antidocetic eucharist". - after some resistance among some congregations, an abridged Lk, including a shorter ET. Best wishes, Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 04:20:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA04440; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:20:44 -0500 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:28:33 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list First church building(s) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1645 Vinton Dearing wrote: >This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it: >when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed >by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to >was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130 >(Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the >questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I >suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify. Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would: "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was elsewhere. This seems anachronistic for the Pauline period, and suggests that these verses are not genuinely Pauline. If this is so, and if one could date these (interpolated) verses, then one might have a fix on the date of very early church buildings. The echo of I Tim. 2:11-12 here has been noted by many commentators. If the Corinthian passage is actually derived from the I Timothy passage, then the date of I Tim. would be an indication of the date of separate church buildings. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 07:08:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA04607; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:08:43 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:14:59 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list first church building Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3516DBCC.F8CF96D2@accesscomm.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <11B490F2EBD@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 382 The place to begin inquiries about church-buldings in the early centuries is now L. Michael White, _Building God's House in the Roman World_ (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1990; reprinted Trinity Press Internatl., 1996). L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 08:16:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04772; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:16:50 -0500 From: Brrolan@ra.rockwell.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: ROCKWELL To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-ID: <852565D1.00488D8D.00@ramilwsmtp01.ra.rockwell.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:23:52 -0500 Subject: tc-list First church building(s) 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: 917 WLPeterson wrote: [Begin Snip] Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would: "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was elsewhere. [End Snip] >From my experience, (attending Old Order Amish church services, which are always in members homes), "in church" in no way requires a church house. The distinction is as natural to them as it is to those that worship is dedicated buildings. Bret R. Rolan BRRolan@ra.rockwell.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 09:02:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04875; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:02:32 -0500 Organization: Universidad Nacional Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:10:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199803241410.IAA08456@una.ac.cr> X-Sender: jstam@samara.una.ac.cr 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: Juan Stam Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1202 This makes sense to me. I understand EN EKKLESIA in Paul's early epistles as "in assembly" during your meetings, with no reference to the building. Cf Barth, Leuba (INSTITUTION & EVENT) etc Juan Stam, Costa Rica At 08:23 AM 3/24/98 -0500, you wrote: > >WLPeterson wrote: > >[Begin Snip] >Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note >that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In >fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would: >"be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." >This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the >period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the >understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a >"home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was >elsewhere. >[End Snip] > >>From my experience, (attending Old Order Amish church services, which are >always in members homes), "in church" in no way requires a church house. >The distinction is as natural to them as it is to those that worship is >dedicated buildings. > >Bret R. Rolan >BRRolan@ra.rockwell.com > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 09:23:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04987; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:23:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:31:29 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: tc-list Re: CD for review Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 603 David, I mailed the "English Bible" CD to you yesterday. It may take a while to arrive. Let me know when you receive it. We don't publish any guidelines for TC reviews. The best thing to do is to look at some of the reviews that have already been published. Please don't worry about making your review too long. We have never asked anyone to shorten a review. Often, it's quite the opposite, which is one of the advantages of electronic publishing. Another advantage is timely publication. Please try to have a copy of your review ready in 6-8 weeks. Thanks so much. All the best Leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 09:27:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05020; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:27:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:34:50 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: tc-list Offering a good home for tc books Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 623 Yesterday I sent off a copy of Person's book for you to review for TC. Please let me know when you receive it; it may take a while, I realize. We don't publish any guidelines for TC reviews. The best thing to do is to look at some of the reviews that have already been published. Please don't worry about making your review too long. We have never asked anyone to shorten a review. Often, it's quite the opposite, which is one of the advantages of electronic publishing. Another advantage is timely publication. Please try to have a copy of your review ready in 6-8 weeks. Thanks so much. All the best Leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 09:28:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05048; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:28:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:35:48 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: tc-list Wanted: Good homes for tc books Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 600 Yesterday I sent off to you a copy of vol. III of Muller-Kessler for TC review. Please let me know when you receive it. We don't publish any guidelines for TC reviews. The best thing to do is to look at some of the reviews that have already been published. Please don't worry about making your review too long. We have never asked anyone to shorten a review. Often, it's quite the opposite, which is one of the advantages of electronic publishing. Another advantage is timely publication. Please try to have a copy of your review ready in 6-8 weeks. Thanks so much. All the best Leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 09:48:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05162; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:48:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:55:53 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: tc-list Re: Mea culpa (meae culpae) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 681 I was just sending out notes to people concerning TC books/CDs for review. I had mailed out all of the material yesterday and was using e-mail to provide a "cover letter." In sending them out to each of eight people, I simply hit the reply key without noticing that for three of the eight, tc-list was the "reply" address. I immediately noticed this and sent messages directly to those individuals. Beyond that, there is nothing "personal' in any of these messages. In fact, as you'll note, I repeat myself in terms of what we are looking for in our TC reviews.. Sorry for the confusion--I haven't made this mistake in a while, but undoubtedly will again some day.. leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 10:58:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05465; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:58:15 -0500 Message-ID: <3517DCF0.CAB932F8@accesscomm.net> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:18:56 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns2.accesscomm.net id KAA20027 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3621 William L. Petersen wrote: >=20 > Vinton Dearing wrote: >=20 > >This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it: > >when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed > >by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to > >was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130 > >(Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the > >questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I > >suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify. >=20 > Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Not= e > that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS."= In > fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we woul= d: > "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." > This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude = the > period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the > understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not= a > "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was > elsewhere. >=20 > This seems anachronistic for the Pauline period, and suggests that thes= e > verses are not genuinely Pauline. If this is so, and if one could date > these (interpolated) verses, then one might have a fix on the date of v= ery > early church buildings. The echo of I Tim. 2:11-12 here has been noted= by > many commentators. If the Corinthian passage is actually derived from = the > I Timothy passage, then the date of I Tim. would be an indication of th= e > date of separate church buildings. The Greek word EKKLHSIA fr. EKKLEIW is to "shut out" or "to turn out of doors" and refers to a group of citizens "called out of their homes." It would not, therefore, be used for a gathering at home. This "shutting out" element does not seem to be inferred by the Greek SUNAGWGH for an assembly of *men* for prayer which was the LXX for qhl or odh. What I take from this is that EKKLHSIA may have been more gender egalitarian. =20 When therefore did a qhl/synagogue become an EKKLHSIA/church? Was it when women were allowed at the assembly, although expected to be silent? It does seem to be a natural trajectory from the men-only gathering to a mixed gathering but women silent. If the mixed genders is the defining factor between a synagogue and a church, when and where did this transition occur? In this respect, I think we can indeed look to Corinth and Paul's reminder for the women to keep silent, hence I don't think that this is a later interpolation (bringing this discussion back to a TC focus so the moderator doesn't beat me over the head with a box of parity bits ). Corinth was a turning point, I believe. The city was a hot bed of pagan crosscurrents that were being "innoculated" into the various factions. Agape meals were becoming virtual orgies necessitating four letters from Paul. Did the synagogue become an ekklesia in Corinth in 50 CE? The novelty of women at the gathering along with the various pagan influences may have contributed to the Corinthian "let's make it a party" situation that so vexed Paul. Perhaps Priscilla brought this practice of a mixed gender gathering back to Ephesus and somewhere between Corinth and Ephesus the separate gathering place was born...one for both sexes to attend. Jack D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) =20 =20 =20 http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 11:18:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05569; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:18:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:26:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) 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: 1485 On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, William L. Petersen wrote: > Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note > that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In > fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would: > "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." > This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the > period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the > understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a > "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was > elsewhere. I found your note very interesting and thought incourageing. They clearly met in houses (1 Cor.16:19 and Rom 16:23 indicates many house churches, otherwise, there is no need to mention "the whole church") and there were likely very many of them (Acts 18:11), but they often seem to have met in a sort of area or city or what I call a geographical use of ekklesia ,for communion, special gatherings, etc. (14:23). We also read "When ye come together therefore into one place." (11:20) and vs 22 "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in"? Now let me see, how is this related to tc again? Oh yes, is tou kuriou in 11:27 as in Aleph correct, or de we follow P46 B A C and the TR? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 11:52:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05846; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:52:21 -0500 From: tynell@mindspring.com Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:56:58 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: tynell@pop.mindspring.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3517DCF0.CAB932F8@accesscomm.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 776 >> Vinton Dearing wrote: > > The Greek word EKKLHSIA fr. EKKLEIW is to "shut out" or "to turn >out of doors" and refers to a group of citizens "called out of their >homes." >Jack TTD: Doesn't ekklesia, the abstract noun, come from the verb "Kalew" meaning to "summon" or "invite"? It's been a while since my classical Greek days, but since then, I still remember the principle parts: Pres., Fut, Aorist Perf. Act Perf. Midd. Aorist Passive Kalew, Kaleso, ekalhsa, kekleka, keklemai, eklhthhn, The noun comes from the 6th priniciple part, no? Timothy T. Dickens Georgia Department of Education 1752 Twin Towers East Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 656-2600 WK Check out my webpage at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6099/index.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 11:54:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05893; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:54:14 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:01:34 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1464 On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote, in part: >Now let me see, how is this related to tc again? Oh yes, is tou kuriou in >11:27 as in Aleph correct, or de we follow P46 B A C and the TR? Seems to me the UBS reading (omitting TOU KURIOU after ANAXIWS) is correct. The evidence is: add TOU KURIOU: Aleph D** L 69 326 462 1505 1611 2423*(?) al hark Ambst omit: P46 A B C D* F G K P Psi 6 33 81 104 330 365 630 876 1022 1175 1739 1881 2412 2464 pm latt Thus the only textual grouping to unequivocally contain the questionable words is family 1611, which is of minimal importance. Three of the major text-types (P46/B, "Western," 1739) unequivocally omit it; so do three of the four chief Alexandrian witnesses (A C 33, supported by 81 1175 family 2127 etc.; only Aleph has the longer reading). Even the Byzantine text has the shorter reading. Nor can I see any sort of error that would lead to the omission of the words. The only reason I can think of for omitting them is that they are repetitious -- something that rarely bothers scribes. In my apparatus, I wouldn't even mark this reading as doubtful. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 24 12:11:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06028; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:11:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:16:28 -0500 From: Mike Parsons Subject: Re: tc-list First church bu To: "tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory." Message-id: X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3342 Reply to: RE>>tc-list First church building(s) the oldest EXTANT identifiably christian building, of course, is the one at dura-europas (c. 250s c.e.). it was a domus ecclesiae, a private residence converted for christian worship (had an assembly hall, baptistery, etc.). michael white has done interesting work on the movement from the house church to the domus ecclesiae to post-constantinian christian architecture (ie. old st. peter's). the only connection i can think of in relation to tc is that a fragment of tatian's diatessaron was evidently found in the vicinity of the christian chapel at dura! mikeal parsons -------------------------------------- Date: 3/24/98 10:31 AM To: Mike Parsons From: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory. On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, William L. Petersen wrote: > Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note > that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In > fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would: > "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." > This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the > period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the > understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a > "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was > elsewhere. I found your note very interesting and thought incourageing. They clearly met in houses (1 Cor.16:19 and Rom 16:23 indicates many house churches, otherwise, there is no need to mention "the whole church") and there were likely very many of them (Acts 18:11), but they often seem to have met in a sort of area or city or what I call a geographical use of ekklesia ,for communion, special gatherings, etc. (14:23). We also read "When ye come together therefore into one place." (11:20) and vs 22 "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in"? Now let me see, how is this related to tc again? Oh yes, is tou kuriou in 11:27 as in Aleph correct, or de we follow P46 B A C and the TR? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by QMGatewy.baylor.edu with SMTP;24 Mar 1998 10:29:18 -0500 Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #27028) with ESMTP id <01IV1I0WDCB4CDYX2Z@baylor.edu> for Mike_Parsons@QMGATEWY.BAYLOR.EDU; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:28:56 CST Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) by gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA16858; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05569; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:18:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:26:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) In-reply-to: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 13:28:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06720; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:28:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3517FDF3.F2DFA332@accesscomm.net> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:39:47 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tynell@mindspring.com CC: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: tc-list First church building(s)] References: <3517ECF4.EFE8DF16@accesscomm.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: 1444 > > The Greek word EKKLHSIA fr. EKKLEIW is to "shut out" or "to turn > >out of doors" and refers to a group of citizens "called out of their > >homes." > > >Jack > > TTD: Doesn't ekklesia, the abstract noun, come from the verb "Kalew" > meaning to "summon" or "invite"? It's been a while since my classical > Greek days, but since then, I still remember the principle parts: > > Pres., Fut, Aorist Perf. Act Perf. Midd. Aorist Passive > Kalew, Kaleso, ekalhsa, kekleka, keklemai, eklhthhn, > > The noun comes from the 6th priniciple part, no? > Yes, KALEW is part of the root with EK (out), to "call out." andreferring to citizens "called out" of their homes to a public place for a meeting. 1Cor 14:33, hoowever, H EKKLHSIA KAR OIKON TINOJ, tells me that this meeting could be in someone's house, hence the in the home/ out of the home definition blurs. Christian meetings seem to have broken new ground since they were not held in a temple and no longer in synagogues. The concept of a non-domecile meeting places could have ariisen from the necessity for conducting meetings in secret during persecutions. Yeshuine Jews continued to meet and gather at the synagogues until the institution of the Birkhat haMinim but it would be interesting to look closer at what was happening among gentile Christians. I still think a closer look at the language of Paul in Corinthians may give us some clues. Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 13:58:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06813; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:58:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:08:18 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list: versions of the eucharist In-Reply-To: <199803231625.LAA18666@server1.netpath.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4839 On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Roderic L. Mullen wrote: > On the basis of the manscript traditions, and on what I perceive > as the general development of eucharistic traditions, a la Gregory Dix > in THE SHAPE OF THE EUCHARIST, I tend to favor the longer text of Luke. > Bart Ehrman and I had this discussion when I was doing my dissertation > under him, and I had some similar comments from D.C. Parker following a > presentation I made at AAR/SBL some years back. It seems to me that > what one decides about this text depends in part on what types of > evidence one prefers. Dear Rod, This may be so. > It also seems that the shorter reading tends to > get more respect among scholars in the U.K., so perhaps there is > something of a scholarly tradition at work here. This is interesting. It is true that there are also other instances where scholarly opinions seem to diverge depending on which side of the Big Pond one finds oneself. > Both Ehrman and Parker > lean heavily on internal criteria at this point. I agree. > As far as the external evidence of the textual tradition goes, > an important point to be made is that not only do the Alexandrian mss. > support the longer reading against their customary brevity, but that the > "Western" mss. support the shorter reading against their customary > fulness. Since both early ms. groups run counter to type in this > reading, one cannot simply suggest that either group deserves our > confidence a priori. What does impress me is the wide range of textual > groups and patristic witnesses in favor of the longer reading. Yes, this is so. > I'm not sure I would care to argue on textual grounds that the > entire pericope dates to a later stage of Lucan composition. Well, at least it seems pretty clear that this pericope does stand apart from the main body of Lk. Since it is very likely that this text originally represented a liturgical formula, and a key one at that, it may have a different history compared to the rest of Lk. > What I am > curious about though is how you reach the conclusion that I Corinthians > 11 is a later insertion into the Pauline material? --Rod Mullen Yes, this indeed is my position. As I understand it, this theory is virtually completely unknown at this time, and yet it was formulated in great detail by Alfred Loisy many years ago. He has dealt with this matter specifically in: Alfred Loisy, LES ORIGINES DE LA CENE EUCHARISTIQUE in CONGRES D'HISTOIRE DU CHRISTIANISME (A. LOISY FESTSCHRIFT), p. 83f., Paris, 1928, But other treatments by him are also available in his other publications, including in: Loisy, Alfred Firmin (1857-1940), _The birth of the Christian religion (La naissance du Christianisme)_; authorized translation from the French by L.P. Jacks, London, G. Allen [and] Unwin [1948]. In order to appreciate his arguments for 1 Cor. 11.23-26 being an interpolation, one needs to take into consideration his much bigger theory about what he saw as numerous and wide-ranging interpolations in the Pauline literature. His arguments re: 1 Cor. 11.23-26 are only a small part of his larger thesis. To put it briefly, most commentators are well aware that the (presumably) genuine letters of Paul often seem confusing and inconsistent. But usually this is explained either as indicating that Paul's theology went through various developments over time, or that he wrote in different styles for different audiences. Well, Loisy was bold enough to suggest that these usual explanations are inadequate, and that the way out is to accept that Paul's writings were in fact widely interpolated in later periods. Such theories were actually first apparently pioneered by Joseph Turmel, who was a friend and co-worker of Loisy, e.g.: Turmel, Joseph (1859-1943) _Histoire des dogmes_, Paris, Rieder, 1933. But Loisy has developed them in his own way. His theories were not accepted too widely at the time. While these theories are still very little known, some modern scholars are working in this area. In particular, the best development of Loisy's theories in this area is found in Winsome Munro, AUTHORITY IN PAUL AND PETER, Cambridge UP, 1983. Also William O. Walker published quite a lot on this subject, e.g. William O. Walker, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN IDENTIFYING INTERPOLATIONS IN THE PAULINE LETTERS, NTS 33 (1987): 610-618. Now, specifically re: 1 Cor. 11.23-26, I think the best argument for this being an interpolation would be a textual argument based on proving that the Markan eucharist is a much older one. Since Mk, written ca. 70, contains what seems like the older eucharist, it is hard to believe that the seemingly later eucharistic text of 1 Cor/Lk (the epistle as a whole dating mostly from the 50s) would have been really written by Paul. Best regards, Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 21:25:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08720; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:25:21 -0500 Message-ID: <35186CDC.D335FAD4@inetport.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 20:33:00 -0600 From: Burkenstock X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 i86pc) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list First church bu 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: 1132 Mike Parsons wrote: > Reply to: RE>>tc-list First church building(s) > > the oldest EXTANT identifiably christian building, of course, is the one at > dura-europas (c. 250s c.e.). it was a domus ecclesiae, a private residence > converted for christian worship (had an assembly hall, baptistery, etc.). > michael white has done interesting work on the movement from the house church to > the domus ecclesiae to post-constantinian christian architecture (ie. old st. > peter's). the only connection i can think of in relation to tc is that a > fragment of tatian's diatessaron was evidently found in the vicinity of the > christian chapel at dura! > mikeal parsons Having studied under Dr. White, I would say that his work and Wayne Meeks (his advisor) would be of the best sources in which to examine. He's good. Trust me on this. Burke Gerstenschlager -- "I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use - silence, exile, and cunning. - Stephen Dedalus _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 21:42:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08848; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:42:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:49:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199803250249.VAA27717@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: Re: tc-list First church bu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3972 For literary evidence of church buildings, you might want to look at the comments in Adolf Harnack, MISSION AND EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY, (ET, 1908). Check the entry "Buildings, church" in the general index to vol. 2 of the english translation. Harnack said (bear in mind he said this in 1908, but he repeated it in the German edition of 1924) that there is no indication for buildings built as churches or modified to serve as churches before the time of Emperor Commodus, who began to reign in 180 C.E. --Rod Mullen At 11:16 AM 3/24/98 -0500, you wrote: > Reply to: RE>>tc-list First church building(s) > >the oldest EXTANT identifiably christian building, of course, is the one at >dura-europas (c. 250s c.e.). it was a domus ecclesiae, a private residence >converted for christian worship (had an assembly hall, baptistery, etc.). >michael white has done interesting work on the movement from the house church to >the domus ecclesiae to post-constantinian christian architecture (ie. old st. >peter's). the only connection i can think of in relation to tc is that a >fragment of tatian's diatessaron was evidently found in the vicinity of the >christian chapel at dura! >mikeal parsons > >-------------------------------------- >Date: 3/24/98 10:31 AM >To: Mike Parsons >From: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory. >On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, William L. Petersen wrote: >> Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note >> that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In >> fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would: >> "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." >> This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the >> period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the >> understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a >> "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was >> elsewhere. > >I found your note very interesting and thought incourageing. They clearly >met in houses (1 Cor.16:19 and Rom 16:23 indicates many house churches, >otherwise, there is no need to mention "the whole church") and there were >likely very many of them (Acts 18:11), but they often seem to have met in >a sort of area or city or what I call a geographical use of ekklesia ,for >communion, special gatherings, etc. (14:23). We also read "When ye come >together therefore into one place." (11:20) and vs 22 "have ye not houses >to eat and to drink in"? >Now let me see, how is this related to tc again? Oh yes, is tou kuriou in >11:27 as in Aleph correct, or de we follow P46 B A C and the TR? > >-- >Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 >Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 > > >------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ >Received: by QMGatewy.baylor.edu with SMTP;24 Mar 1998 10:29:18 -0500 >Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #27028) > with ESMTP id <01IV1I0WDCB4CDYX2Z@baylor.edu> for > Mike_Parsons@QMGATEWY.BAYLOR.EDU; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:28:56 CST >Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) > by gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA16858; Tue, > 24 Mar 1998 11:28:03 -0500 (EST) >Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05569; Tue, > 24 Mar 1998 11:18:54 -0500 >Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:26:19 -0600 (CST) >From: "Ronald L. Minton" >Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) >In-reply-to: >Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Message-id: >MIME-version: 1.0 >Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Precedence: bulk > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 24 21:53:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08909; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:53:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:00:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199803250300.WAA28628@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: Re: [Fwd: tc-list First church building(s)] Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1843 For what it's worth, Hatch and Redpath show that in the LXX, EKKLHSIA and its derivitives translate a variety of Hebrew words, usually based on the verbal root QAHAL, "summon, assemble, etc.," so Kohler/Baumgartner. The noun "assembly" could then refer to a gathering either in or out of a private home. --Rod Mullen At 12:39 PM 3/24/98 -0600, you wrote: > > > >> > The Greek word EKKLHSIA fr. EKKLEIW is to "shut out" or "to turn >> >out of doors" and refers to a group of citizens "called out of their >> >homes." >> >> >Jack >> >> TTD: Doesn't ekklesia, the abstract noun, come from the verb "Kalew" >> meaning to "summon" or "invite"? It's been a while since my classical >> Greek days, but since then, I still remember the principle parts: >> >> Pres., Fut, Aorist Perf. Act Perf. Midd. Aorist Passive >> Kalew, Kaleso, ekalhsa, kekleka, keklemai, eklhthhn, >> >> The noun comes from the 6th priniciple part, no? >> > >Yes, KALEW is part of the root with EK (out), to "call out." andreferring to >citizens "called out" of their homes to a public place >for a meeting. > >1Cor 14:33, hoowever, H EKKLHSIA KAR OIKON TINOJ, tells >me that this meeting could be in someone's house, hence the in the home/ >out of the home definition blurs. Christian meetings seem to have >broken new ground since they were not held in a temple and no >longer in synagogues. > > The concept of a non-domecile meeting places could have ariisen >from the necessity for conducting meetings in secret during persecutions. >Yeshuine Jews continued to meet and gather at the synagogues until >the institution of the Birkhat haMinim but it would be interesting to >look closer at what was happening among gentile Christians. > > I still think a closer look at the language of Paul in Corinthians may >give us some clues. > >Jack > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 25 00:45:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA09237; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:45:00 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980325015019.0068fbd4@mail.geocities.com> X-Sender: dylan-j@mail.geocities.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:50:19 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Jonathan Dixon Subject: tc-list Psalms 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: 1363 Hi, I'm also working on a paper for a class on the psalms about the psalm titles. I think that the editorship of the psalter was designed to have a Davidic focus, and am trying to prove it. Does anyone know of anyone who has written about the editorship of the psalter? I've read Wilson's thesis on the topic and while I agree with his stance that the epilogue of the psalter is not simply 150 but is actually 146-150, I don't agree with with his conclusion that the psalm titles do not provide a Davidic focus. I think that they do. Anyway, anyone who can provide other sources for this paper will be greatly apreciated. In Christ, Jonathan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Jonathan M. Dixon (Student, Atlantic Baptist University) A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J c/o Atlantic Baptist University Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada E1C 9L7 dylan-j@geocities.com jdixon@abu.nb.ca My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 25 01:06:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA09280; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:06:49 -0500 X-Sender: joxford@hobby.easy.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:19:11 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: JOxford@easy.com (Jim Oxford) Subject: Re: tc-list Psalms Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1072 At 12:50 AM 3/25/98, Jonathan Dixon wrote: >Hi, > >I'm also working on a paper for a class on the psalms about the psalm >titles. I think that the editorship of the psalter was designed to have a >Davidic focus, and am trying to prove it. Does anyone know of anyone who >has written about the editorship of the psalter? I've read Wilson's thesis >on the topic and while I agree with his stance that the epilogue of the >psalter is not simply 150 but is actually 146-150, I don't agree with with >his conclusion that the psalm titles do not provide a Davidic focus. I >think that they do. Anyway, anyone who can provide other sources for this >paper will be greatly apreciated. you may want to have a look at childs' "introduction to the ot as scripture" (wilson's mentor). if memory serves me correctly, he discusses psalm superscriptions and their significance in his chapter on the psalter. you may also want to have a look at james mays' "the lord reigns," which discusses the "davidic focus" of the psalter. jim oxford phd candidate in nt baylor university From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 25 01:06:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA09295; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:06:51 -0500 X-Sender: joxford@hobby.easy.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:19:11 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: JOxford@easy.com (Jim Oxford) Subject: Re: tc-list Psalms Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1072 At 12:50 AM 3/25/98, Jonathan Dixon wrote: >Hi, > >I'm also working on a paper for a class on the psalms about the psalm >titles. I think that the editorship of the psalter was designed to have a >Davidic focus, and am trying to prove it. Does anyone know of anyone who >has written about the editorship of the psalter? I've read Wilson's thesis >on the topic and while I agree with his stance that the epilogue of the >psalter is not simply 150 but is actually 146-150, I don't agree with with >his conclusion that the psalm titles do not provide a Davidic focus. I >think that they do. Anyway, anyone who can provide other sources for this >paper will be greatly apreciated. you may want to have a look at childs' "introduction to the ot as scripture" (wilson's mentor). if memory serves me correctly, he discusses psalm superscriptions and their significance in his chapter on the psalter. you may also want to have a look at james mays' "the lord reigns," which discusses the "davidic focus" of the psalter. jim oxford phd candidate in nt baylor university From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 25 05:07:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA09782; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 05:07:46 -0500 From: CLeM Croll Message-ID: <5d7c9c4d.3518d93f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 05:15:24 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: tc-list Church Buildings Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 168 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1238 ********************** >From Charles Croll Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it: > when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed > by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to > was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130 > (Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the > questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I > suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify. > Vinton Dearing. I am certainly no expert in this field, but I offer this as being perhaps of some interest. In 1972 I was taking some time out to travel overland to Israel and passed through Antakya in what is now southern Turkey. This is the old Syrian Antioch of biblical days where believers where first called Christians. I was taken to a large cave there which is locally reputed to have been the first dedicated christian meeting place and was at that time still being used as such by some local Orthodox christians. I doubt if there is more to prove that than local legends, which undoubtedly go back a long way, but it interested me at the time. Charles Croll *************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 25 08:50:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA10432; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:50:20 -0500 Message-ID: <6490C9C9F7B6D11195E50000F803CA9F061AEE@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Psalms Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 07:59:46 -0600 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) 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: 2986 Jonathan, To which Psalter or editorship do you refer? Current Psalters vary in number (cf. the English, Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac). Even the numbering system in BHS differs (compare the chapters indicated with Roman numerals with those marked by Hebrew letters). The ancient evidence exhibits even more variation. For a Davidic focus in editing, you will certainly want to look at "David's Compositions" in 11QPsa-a (col. XXVII). Even here, however, a Davidic focus (or perhaps better, "presence") is presumed. At least in the first few centuries before the common era, the main issue appears to be the Psalter's relationship to the two established categories of authoritative writings, the Law and the Prophets, and not some connection to king David. "David's Compositions" and exegesis at Qumran and in the New Testament attest close ties to the Prophets. On the other hand, it is likely that Psalm 1 was an early appendage to connect the Psalter with the Torah. (Note the variation in Acts 13:33 which changes "second Psalm" to "first Psalm." Although it is possible that some mss may have considered the first two Psalms as one, since there is a distinct change in tone and context, it is more likely that there were still some Psalters circulating, whether Hebrew or Greek, without our Psalm 1.) Refining your question might help others on the tc-list direct you to more useful sources. Curt Niccum -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Dixon [SMTP:dylan-j@geocities.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 11:50 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Psalms Hi, I'm also working on a paper for a class on the psalms about the psalm titles. I think that the editorship of the psalter was designed to have a Davidic focus, and am trying to prove it. Does anyone know of anyone who has written about the editorship of the psalter? I've read Wilson's thesis on the topic and while I agree with his stance that the epilogue of the psalter is not simply 150 but is actually 146-150, I don't agree with with his conclusion that the psalm titles do not provide a Davidic focus. I think that they do. Anyway, anyone who can provide other sources for this paper will be greatly apreciated. In Christ, Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- --- If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to know; but if any man loves God, the same is known by him." (1 Cor. 8:2-3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- --- Jonathan M. Dixon (Student, Atlantic Baptist University) A.K.A. Lord Toran, Dylan-J c/o Atlantic Baptist University Box 6004 Moncton, NB, Canada E1C 9L7 dylan-j@geocities.com jdixon@abu.nb.ca My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 25 11:42:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA11430; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 11:42:48 -0500 Message-ID: <35193338.E44A15A2@home.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:39:21 -0800 From: Matt McGill Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list First Church Buildings 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: 2523 Please forgive my words if they seem a bit foolish. Most of the postings to this list are over my head, I have an interest in Biblical Studies, so normally I just read. I'm not sure I agree with the statements "the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would . . . This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was elsewhere." Venton's claim that these word are used "the way we would" assumes everyone goes to a different building for "Church." While this is certainly the norm, it is definitely not universal. When I was a little boy, I'd visit my Aunt every summer for a few weeks. Sunday mornings she'd wake me up saying, "It's time to get up, and get ready for church." The first time she said this, you could imagine my surprise as the church was at her house! This was their custom, and they always met in a member's house. At the risk of placing my experience upon Paul's (?) writing: Why must these two different words refer to two different physical settings. We see the picture of the early church in Acts as meeting in homes. If this was a common practice, then why can't the specific use of two different words refer to two different "social settings?" I guess my question is this: I agree that there is a "strict distinction" made between these two words, but what is the true nature of that difference? To leap from that assumption to define that difference as two different physical places seems to go beyond the text of 1 Cor 14:34-35. However, when one reads the account in Acts 18:7-11, you find that "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized." (18:8). It does not seem that the building used for the synagogue (18:4) became a "church" building (note a new synagogue ruler in 18:17, was he the replacement for Crispus?) But even the synagogue could have met in a person's house . . . but this doesn't seem likely to me, because the Jewish population of Corinth was big enough that they probably built a place for worship. Also: Paul spent at least a year and a half in Corinth (18:11,18), perhaps he gathered enough followers who build or converted a building into a "church." Anyhow, thanks for listening to my thoughts, Matt McGill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 25 16:27:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13454; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:27:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3517E96D.53E905D1@home.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:12:14 -0800 From: Matt McGill Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list First church building(s) 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: 4254 Please forgive my words if they seem a bit foolish. Most of the postings to this list are over my head, I have an interest in Biblical Studies, so normally I just read. I'm not sure I agree with the statements "the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would . . . This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was elsewhere." Venton's claim that these word are used "the way we would" assumes everyone goes to a different building for "Church." While this is certainly the norm, it is definitely not universal. When I was a little boy, I'd visit my Aunt every summer for a few weeks. Sunday mornings she'd wake me up saying, "It's time to get up, and get ready for church." The first time she said this, you could imagine my surprise as the church was at her house! This was their custom, and they always met in a member's house. At the risk of placing my experience upon Paul's (?) writing: Why must these two different words refer to two different physical settings. We see the picture of the early church in Acts as meeting in homes. If this was a common practice, then why can't the specific use of two different words refer to two different "social settings?" I guess my question is this: I agree that there is a "strict distinction" made between these two words, but what is the true nature of that difference? To leap from that assumption to define that difference as two different physical places seems to go beyond the text of 1 Cor 14:34-35. However, when one reads the account in Acts 18:7-11, you find that "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized." (18:8). It does not seem that the building used for the synagogue (18:4) became a "church" building (note a new synagogue ruler in 18:17, was he the replacement for Crispus?) But even the synagogue could have met in a person's house . . . but this doesn't seem likely to me, because the Jewish population of Corinth was big enough that they probably built a place for worship. Also: Paul spent at least a year and a half in Corinth (18:11,18), perhaps he gathered enough followers who build or converted a building into a "church." Anyhow, thanks for listening to my thoughts, Matt McGill William L. Petersen wrote: > Vinton Dearing wrote: > > >This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it: > >when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed > >by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to > >was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130 > >(Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the > >questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I > >suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify. > > Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note > that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In > fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would: > "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*." > This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the > period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the > understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a > "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was > elsewhere. > > This seems anachronistic for the Pauline period, and suggests that these > verses are not genuinely Pauline. If this is so, and if one could date > these (interpolated) verses, then one might have a fix on the date of very > early church buildings. The echo of I Tim. 2:11-12 here has been noted by > many commentators. If the Corinthian passage is actually derived from the > I Timothy passage, then the date of I Tim. would be an indication of the > date of separate church buildings. > > --Petersen, Penn State University, > Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 30 15:02:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01121; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:02:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:09:51 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Literal, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrase 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: 669 This is only indirectly related to tc. I know that every English translation has some literal, some dynamic equivalence, and some paraphrase renderings. However I am interested in how the newer translations would be classified (using the above three categories.) For example, the 1970 NASB is literal, the 1978 NIV is DE, and the 1971 Living Bible is paraphrase. How would you classify those below? 1901 ASV 1952 RSV 1958 Phillips 1976 TEV 1982 NKJV 1989 NRSV 1993 Message 1995 God's Word 1995 CEV 1996 NLT 1996 NCV -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 30 15:05:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01154; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:05:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:13:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list World English Bible 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: 284 For those of you who are into translations, what is the World English Bible, and what are a few good sources that evaluate or review it? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 30 15:15:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01267; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:15:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:18:36 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Literal, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrase X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980330201836.0066dc84@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 818 At 02:09 PM 3/30/98 -0600, you wrote: >This is only indirectly related to tc. I know that every English >translation has some literal, some dynamic equivalence, and some >paraphrase renderings. However I am interested in how the newer >translations would be classified (using the above three categories.) For >example, the 1970 NASB is literal, the 1978 NIV is DE, and the 1971 Living >Bible is paraphrase. How would you classify those below? > >1901 ASV = literal >1952 RSV = literal >1958 Phillips = paraphrase >1976 TEV = DE >1982 NKJV = literal >1989 NRSV = literal >1993 Message = paraphrase >1995 God's Word = paraphrase >1995 CEV = DE >1996 NLT = paraphrase >1996 NCV = paraphrase/DE my .01 cent worth, anyway. Best, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 30 16:03:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01568; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:03:31 -0500 Message-ID: <35200A77.E399C734@inetport.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:11:19 -0600 From: Burkenstock X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 i86pc) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Literal, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrase 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: 999 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > This is only indirectly related to tc. I know that every English > translation has some literal, some dynamic equivalence, and some > paraphrase renderings. However I am interested in how the newer > translations would be classified (using the above three categories.) For > example, the 1970 NASB is literal, the 1978 NIV is DE, and the 1971 Living > Bible is paraphrase. How would you classify those below? > What about the REB, the followup to the NEB? I like to use that one and would consider it in-between lit and DE. What you you guys think? > -- > Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 -- "I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use - silence, exile, and cunning. - Stephen Dedalus _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 30 16:38:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01831; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:38:52 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35200A77.E399C734@inetport.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:47:26 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Literal, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrase Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 727 Burkenstock wrote: >What about the REB, the followup to the NEB? I like to use that one and would >consider it in-between lit and DE. What you you guys think? I'd consider it somewhere between dynamic equivalence and paraphrase, though closer to the former. This is not to condemn it; I think the REB is a very good bible for reading. But it assuredly is not a literal translation! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 30 17:15:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02150; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:15:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199803302205.AAA13561@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: tc-list Fwd: Syriac Language Kit Date: Mar, 31 Mar 98 00:26:26 +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="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: 2522 Dear all, For those of us who work with a Macintosh, this is important news. = There is finally a complete solution for Syriac on the Macintosh: the = Assyrian/Syriac Language Kit by Xenotype Technologies. Having been a = beta-tester, I can tell you that this software is really a must for = the Macintosh user. Here under, a copy of the announcement made by Xenotype: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Objet : Assyrian/East Syriac Language Kit Envoy=E9 le : 30/03/98 08:59 Re=E7u le : 30/03/98 15:57 Exp=E9diteur : XenoType Technologies, bokai@nwlink.com Adress=E9 =E0 : Jean VALENTIN, jgvalentin@arcadis.be XenoType Technologies is proud to announce the first public release = of the Assyrian/East Syriac Language Kit. This product is the result of 4 = months of development and two months of beta testing, and was greatly enhanced = by the suggestions and comments of beta testers all around the world. To help you decide whether this product is worthy of your time, money = and support, we will make demo releases available to any interested = parties via our Beta Application and Non-Disclosure Agreement at = . Once you're convinced, take advantage of our special website offer = and pay only $79! You must order on-line to be eligible for this special = price but you can complete your order by fax, phone or bank transfer. But don't = wait too long because this special price is only valid through 5 April 1998 = and will never be available again! Once you've decided to order, you can use = our Order form (please note that this server is NOT secure at this time) at or any of the other = convenient options listed on the Order page. If you were an authorized beta tester at any time during the testing = phase of the Assyrian/East Syriac Language Kit, you will automatically receive = the demo version and need not re-apply. If you do not wish to receive the demo = release, you can let us know by reply e-mail. To obtain more information about this special product, go to our = website and follow the Assyrian = link. From there you can see samples of Assyrian text, fonts and much more. -- XenoType Technologies Providing solutions for uncommon languages Don't forget to visit our website at = for additional information on this and other uncommon language = products. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 30 20:57:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02739; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:57:59 -0500 Message-ID: <35204F7D.481702C0@inetport.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:05:49 -0600 From: Burkenstock X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 i86pc) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Literal, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrase 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: 1267 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Burkenstock wrote: > > >What about the REB, the followup to the NEB? I like to use that one and would > >consider it in-between lit and DE. What you you guys think? > > I'd consider it somewhere between dynamic equivalence and paraphrase, > though closer to the former. > > This is not to condemn it; I think the REB is a very good bible for > reading. But it assuredly is not a literal translation! > > What I like to do when I do my own Biblical translation is bounce my translation off a few different, well established translations and see how it sounds. I use the REB for a more contemporary sound and feel to round out some of my stilted sentences. I agree with you that it is definitely not a literal translation, but when most of my friends are quoting the NIV and very rarely anything else (except for ye olde KJV) it's a refreshing English rendition (also I've the Oxford annotated so I like the commentary and historical background). Burke -- "I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use - silence, exile, and cunning. - Stephen Dedalus _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 31 08:09:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA03925; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:09:03 -0500 From: Brrolan@ra.rockwell.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: ROCKWELL To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-ID: <852565D8.0044F136.00@ramilwsmtp01.ra.rockwell.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:16:09 -0500 Subject: tc-list Hebrews 6:2 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: 526 Martin Luther's German translation of Hebrews 6:2 has "Von der Taufe", which I believe has "baptisim" as singular. NA26 has "BAPTISMWN DIDAXHS" which is plural. Every English translation at hand (about 6) also has it as plural. The question: Is there a textual variant which changed the reading between the time of Luther's translation (1534, using Erasmus' 2nd, 1519 edition) and later Greek texts? Or did Luther, perhaps, have some theological preference for the singular? Bret R. Rolan P.E. BRRolan@ra.rockwell.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 31 09:39:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04334; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:39:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:41:59 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Hebrews 6:2 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980331144159.00664ce4@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 770 At 08:16 AM 3/31/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Martin Luther's German translation of Hebrews 6:2 has "Von der Taufe", >which I believe has "baptisim" as singular. NA26 has "BAPTISMWN DIDAXHS" >which is plural. Every English translation at hand (about 6) also has it >as plural. > >The question: >Is there a textual variant which changed the reading between the time of >Luther's translation (1534, using Erasmus' 2nd, 1519 edition) and later >Greek texts? Or did Luther, perhaps, have some theological preference for >the singular? > >Bret R. Rolan P.E. >BRRolan@ra.rockwell.com The latter. Luther's translation of the plural as singular was driven by his defense of infant baptism. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 31 16:17:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06174; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:17:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:17:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199803312217.RAA18150@smtp02.kent.edu> X-Sender: dodellsc@pop.kent.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: "David W. Odell-Scott" Subject: tc-list First church- Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2310 First point. As to the status of 1 Cor 14:34-35. Jack Kilmon wrote that "In this respect, I think we can indeed look to Corinth and Paul's reminder for the women to keep silent, hence I don't think that this is a later interpolation." I have argued that vv 34-35 were quotations from a letter from Corinth to which Paul replied in v 36. I contend that the reply at v 36 critiques the arrogance of those who assert their superiority over women, and therefore rejects the silencing of women in worship. In summary, the quotation (vv 34-35) expresses the views of a faction in Corinth whose views Paul quotes and critiques in his reply at v 36. Therefore, on this reading, I contend that I Tim 2:11-12 is not an echo of Paul's position, but if it is an echo of 1 Corinthians, it is an echo of Paul's opponents. So, the dating of Timothy does not aid the present discussion regarding the first church with respect to Corinth. Second point. Jack's contention that EKKLHSIA is from EKKLEIW (meaning "to shut out" or "to turn out of doors") of course plays upon the sense of EKKLHSIA as an assembly of citizens in a city. And our quick assumption that Paul means by EKKLHSIA "a" or "the" "church" may be to confuse very different conceptions of community. The EKKLHSIA as understood by Paul may not resemble the synagogue or the church, but may be expressive of an idea of community which Paul hopes for. Third point. It might be the case that many of the peoples who became christians in Corinth were not associated with a synagogue or made identification with the Jewish religious and cultural traditions. So, to suggest that everyone in the Corinthian Christian community had to go through some transformation in order to allow women into the gathering or that women in the cult was a "novelty" for them is to make what I judge to be questionable assumptions about the social, cultural and religious backgrounds of the population who identified themselves to be Christians in Corinth. The city of Rome-Corinth was populated by diverse peoples drawn from many different regions of the Roman empire. David W. Odell-Scott Associate Professor of Philosophy Coordinator of Religious Studies Philosophy Department Kent State University Kent, Ohio 44242-0001 Voice (330) 672-2315 FAX (330) 672-4867 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 31 17:30:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06615; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:30:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:38:20 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list World English Bible To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199803311738_MC2-3887-43D3@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: 367 The World English Bible (WEB) = The World English Bible is a 1997 revision of the American Standard Versi= on of the Holy Bible, first published in 1901. It is in the Public Domain. For the latest information, to report corrections, or for other correspondence: = Michael Paul Johnson = http://www.ebible.org/bible = mpj@ebible.org =