From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 1 00:50:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA19964; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:50:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:48:33 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Ronald Minton To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list mss. 0278-0296 In-Reply-To: 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: 895 Every translation contains literal renderings, dynamic equivalency, and paraphrase. I am attempting to arrange these in order of literalness. Any suggestions on this revised list are appreciated. LITERAL 1901 American Standard Version 1970 New American Standard Version 1982 New King James Version 1611 King James Version LITERAL/DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT 1952 Revised Standard Version 1978 New International Version 1989 New Revised Standard Version DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT 1989 Revised English Bible 1995 Contemporary English Version 1996 New Living Translation DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT/PARAPHRASE 1976 Today' English Version 1995 God's Word 1996 New Century Version 1958 Phillips Version PARAPHRASE 1993 The Message 1971 Living Bible -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 2 02:49:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA26551; Sat, 2 May 1998 02:49:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 01:47:58 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Ronald Minton To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list 0149 In-Reply-To: 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: 367 Does 0149 = 0187? No note in NA27, pp. 689ff., but Aland _Text_, pp. 123-4 says so. (I forgot my books but, I think those are the pages.) Does 0194 = 0124? What is the century date of 0300? Any help is 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 Sat May 2 03:00:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA26598; Sat, 2 May 1998 03:00:02 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 03:00:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199805020700.DAA26579@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6863 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enough of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). List archives may also be accessed on the Web at http://purl.org/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html. TC messages since 28 Feb 1997 are also archived by Reference.COM at http://www.reference.com. ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but some of these difficulties have already been overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in its second year of operation, and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://purl.org/TC), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 2 16:54:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28645; Sat, 2 May 1998 16:54:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 16:54:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list new article in Hugoye 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: 531 An article that will be of interest to many on this list has recently appeared in _Hugoye: A Journal of Syriac Studies_ (http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye/index.html): "Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development of the Harklean Margin," by Andreas Juckel of the University of Muenster. 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 <-------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 3 15:53:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01258; Sun, 3 May 1998 15:53:05 -0400 Message-ID: <354CCDAC.C3BFBA51@historian.net> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 15:03:56 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: b-greek@virginia.edu CC: b-hebrew@virginia.edu, crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com, ane@oi.uchicago.edu Subject: tc-list Scribal fonts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by picard.accesscomm.net id TAA03710 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 868 Lister friends: I have repaired the Zayin in my Lachish palaeohebrew fonts and have also created Moabite Stele Palaeohebrew and Codex Sinaiticus Scribal Uncial. I am also constructing Elephantine Aramaic, Qumran Herodian and Hasmonean scripts and Samaritan Pentateuch..all True Type font sets. Besides being a helluva lotta fun, I am making these available to all of you that so wish as a token of my appreciation for the many months of productive discussions. Until I get them set up on my website (where other fonts are available), I will be glad to upload them (zipped with keys) to anyone who wants them. If you see some corrections I can make, please let me know. Jack --=20 D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net) =20 =20 =20 http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 4 11:17:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04484; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:17:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 11:14:08 -0400 From: Jim West X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980504151408.0067357c@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: 387 Our friend, Jack Kilmon, has done a really excellent job at developing some very good fonts: sinaiticus uncial moabite elephantine aramaic lachish If you have not seen these, you really should take a look at them. They are excellent! jack's email is jkilmon@historian.net best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 6 21:45:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15507; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:45:53 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 20:44:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list N.T. facsimiles X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Glen Thompson" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19980506204632.6853828d.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 211 Prompted by the recent release of the Leningrad Codex, our library is wondering if there are any Greek New Testament manuscripts in facsimile edition that are currently in print. Any ideas? Glen L. Thompson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 6 23:00:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA15677; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:00:32 -0400 Message-ID: <355126DE.3E253958@historian.net> Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 22:13:34 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Fonta References: <19980506204632.6853828d.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by picard.accesscomm.net id CAA20844 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 586 For those of you that have expressed interested in the fonts I have been creating, I have placed the ones so far completed on my website in the "downloads." Scroll through the fonts to "Jack's Fonts" and have at em. The ones created so far are: Codex Sinaiticus Uncial Greek Moabite Stone Palaeohebrew Lachish Ostraca Cursive Palaeohebrew Elephantine Papyrus Aramaic Samaritan Palaeohebrew Jack --=20 D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net) =20 =20 =20 http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 7 09:40:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17382; Thu, 7 May 1998 09:40:30 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980507133224.0131f318@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 09:32:24 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. facsimiles Cc: thompsgl@mlc-wels.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 914 Glen: Try: Comfort, Philip W. and David P. Barrett. _The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. ISBN 0-8010-2136-7 656 pages, $49.99 It is the reproductions of more than 50 of the papyri manuscripts At 08:44 PM 5/6/98 -0600, you wrote: >Prompted by the recent release of the Leningrad Codex, our library is >wondering if there are any Greek New Testament manuscripts in >facsimile edition that are currently in print. Any ideas? > >Glen L. Thompson > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 7 10:06:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17619; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:06:03 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 09:04:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list N.T. facsimiles X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Glen Thompson" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19980507090640.6af91e30.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 211 Prompted by the recent release of the Leningrad Codex, our library is wondering if there are any Greek New Testament manuscripts in facsimile edition that are currently in print. Any ideas? Glen L. Thompson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 7 10:13:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17688; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:13:30 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980507140856.0131df00@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 10:08:56 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. facsimiles Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1431 Uh that's 1997.. I'm a lousy typist At 09:32 AM 5/7/98 -0400, you wrote: >Glen: > >Try: > > Comfort, Philip W. and David P. Barrett. _The Complete Text of the Earliest >New Testament Manuscripts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. ISBN 0-8010-2136-7 >656 pages, $49.99 > >It is the reproductions of more than 50 of the papyri manuscripts > >At 08:44 PM 5/6/98 -0600, you wrote: >>Prompted by the recent release of the Leningrad Codex, our library is >>wondering if there are any Greek New Testament manuscripts in >>facsimile edition that are currently in print. Any ideas? >> >>Glen L. Thompson >> >> > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. >Library Director/Reference Librarian >Cierpke Memorial Library >Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary >1815 Union Ave. >Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 >United States of America >423/493-4252 (office) >423/698-9447 (home) >423/493-4497 (FAX) >Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) >kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) >http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 8 00:12:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA20014; Fri, 8 May 1998 00:12:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:10:40 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Ronald Minton To: Textual Criticism list Subject: tc-list 0149 (second time) 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: 569 I received no replies to the last post, so I want to recycle these questions. I am having difficulty because the two sources below seem to conflict. If anyone can give assistance, please do. Does 0149 = 0187? No note in NA27, pp. 689ff., but Aland _Text_, pp. 123-4 says so. (I forgot my books but, I think those are the pages.) Does 0194 = 0124? What is the century date of uncial 0300? Any help is 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 Fri May 8 09:02:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21228; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:02:33 -0400 Message-ID: <6490C9C9F7B6D11195E50000F803CA9F061B5C@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list 0149 (second time) Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:01:09 -0500 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 885 According to the Kurzgefasste Liste (2nd ed.), 0149=0187. 0194 and 0124 plus many others = 070 0300 is 6th/7th century -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Minton [SMTP:rminton@mail.orion.org] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 11:11 PM To: Textual Criticism list Subject: tc-list 0149 (second time) I received no replies to the last post, so I want to recycle these questions. I am having difficulty because the two sources below seem to conflict. If anyone can give assistance, please do. Does 0149 = 0187? No note in NA27, pp. 689ff., but Aland _Text_, pp. 123-4 says so. (I forgot my books but, I think those are the pages.) Does 0194 = 0124? What is the century date of uncial 0300? Any help is 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 Fri May 8 11:56:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA22248; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:56:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:54:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199805081554.KAA25157@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: tc-list 0149 (second time) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 694 Ron, A key resource for questions such as these is K. Aland, *Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments*, 2nd ed. (De Gruyter, 1994). The answers below are all from that reference. At 11:10 PM 5/7/98 -0500, you wrote: >Does 0149 = 0187? No note in NA27, pp. 689ff., but Aland _Text_, pp. >123-4 says so. (I forgot my books but, I think those are the pages.) Yes; in fact, 0187 is the primary number for this MS. > >Does 0194 = 0124? Sort of; on p. 36 it reads "[0194] = [0124]", and then on p. 31, where 0124 is listed, it reads "[0124] see 070". So, yes, 0194=0124, which is part of 070. > >What is the century date of uncial 0300? > VI/VII Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 9 20:37:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA26179; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:37:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199805100036.UAA30405@camel14.mindspring.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "TRB - S.M. Kelly" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 20:30:02 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Re: Comfort, Barrett Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199805080630.CAA20349@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: 1345 > Uh that's 1997.. I'm a lousy typist > > At 09:32 AM 5/7/98 -0400, you wrote: > >Glen: > > > >Try: > > > > Comfort, Philip W. and David P. Barrett. _The Complete Text of the Earliest > >New Testament Manuscripts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. ISBN 0-8010-2136-7 > >656 pages, $49.99 > > > >It is the reproductions of more than 50 of the papyri manuscripts Uh, actually try 1998. It is scheduled to be released this coming August. Apparently Philip has discovered a good number of manuscripts previously unreleased. At least, that's my understanding from talking to both a pastor from his church and Baker Books last week. It should be a real breakthrough release. He keeps finding more to include in the publication. It'd be nice to get a response from him. A good friend of mine is his pastor and surfs (real waves, not cyber) regularly with him off the coast of South Carolina, USA. Go figure.... Sean M. Kelly aletheias_biblion@usa.net ************************************************************* Biblical Languages "The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever." -Dr.John Piper- ************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 9 21:18:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26283; Sat, 9 May 1998 21:18:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 21:13:15 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list comfort X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980510011315.0067ba4c@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: 403 I am extremely interested in: "Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts" Philip Wesley Comfort, David P. Barrett. Is this book what the title implies- i.e., the Greek text of the actual mss., or is it a translation of those? And which mss. are included? P1-P75? or what? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 10 01:08:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA26697; Sun, 10 May 1998 01:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 06:06:08 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1199 Does Bruce Metzger give a date of 75-100 AD for p64 and p67? I 'quote' him as follows :- Last year, amid much criticism from my colleagues, I stepped out upon a limb to offer an early second century date for Ps 64 and 67. At that time it was my opinion that, unless further evidence were to be presented, a date earlier than 100 CE would not be warranted. As is true in all fields of academic endeavor, further evidence has been forthcoming. While I shall continue to stand by the early date of 100 CE for these two papyri, I no longer consider such to be the early date. The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE. While such a date will cause significant difficulty (nay, consternation) for many of my colleagues, I urge them to recognize that even if a date slightly earlier than 85 were to be chosen, it would still not destroy the traditional range of dates for Matthew's Gospel.' (Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL, pp 38-39.) Is this accurate? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 10 11:49:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27547; Sun, 10 May 1998 11:49:16 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:46:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger 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: 1608 May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation seems uncharacteristic to me) -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Sun, 10 May 1998, Steven Carr wrote: > Does Bruce Metzger give a date of 75-100 AD for p64 and p67? > I 'quote' him as follows :- > > Last year, amid much criticism from my colleagues, I stepped out upon a > limb to offer an early second century date for Ps 64 and 67. At that > time it was my opinion that, unless further evidence were to be > presented, a date earlier than 100 CE would not be warranted. As is true > in all fields of academic endeavor, further evidence has been > forthcoming. While I shall continue to stand by the early date of 100 CE > for these two papyri, I no longer consider such to be the early date. > The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical > to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should > be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE. While such a date > will cause significant difficulty (nay, consternation) for many of my > colleagues, I urge them to recognize that even if a date slightly > earlier than 85 were to be chosen, it would still not destroy the > traditional range of dates for Matthew's Gospel.' > > (Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A > Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL, pp > 38-39.) > > Is this accurate? > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 10 12:03:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27590; Sun, 10 May 1998 12:03:27 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:00:18 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2176 In message , Bart Ehrman writes > May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger >having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data >are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation >seems uncharacteristic to me) > >-- Bart Ehrman > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal. It seems strange to me too. Are people are spreading false rumours about Bruce Meztger? BTW, I have just finished your book 'The New Testament - A Historical Introduction to the Earliest Christian Writings' and I thought it was extremely good. >On Sun, 10 May 1998, Steven Carr wrote: > >> Does Bruce Metzger give a date of 75-100 AD for p64 and p67? >> I 'quote' him as follows :- >> >> Last year, amid much criticism from my colleagues, I stepped out upon a >> limb to offer an early second century date for Ps 64 and 67. At that >> time it was my opinion that, unless further evidence were to be >> presented, a date earlier than 100 CE would not be warranted. As is true >> in all fields of academic endeavor, further evidence has been >> forthcoming. While I shall continue to stand by the early date of 100 CE >> for these two papyri, I no longer consider such to be the early date. >> The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical >> to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should >> be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE. While such a date >> will cause significant difficulty (nay, consternation) for many of my >> colleagues, I urge them to recognize that even if a date slightly >> earlier than 85 were to be chosen, it would still not destroy the >> traditional range of dates for Matthew's Gospel.' >> >> (Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A >> Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL, pp >> 38-39.) >> >> Is this accurate? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 10 12:53:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27692; Sun, 10 May 1998 12:53:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 12:51:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger 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: 2579 Well, I could collect Metzger Traditions from a range of sources and publish them in a small book. In fact, I've thought about it! :-) Thanks for the kind words about my book. It was actually a lot of fun to write. (No footnotes!) -- Bart Ehrman On Sun, 10 May 1998, Steven Carr wrote: > In message 100000@login5.isis.unc.edu>, Bart Ehrman writes > > May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger > >having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data > >are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation > >seems uncharacteristic to me) > > > >-- Bart Ehrman > > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page > > http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html > > The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal. > > It seems strange to me too. > Are people are spreading false rumours about Bruce Meztger? > > BTW, I have just finished your book 'The New Testament - A Historical > Introduction to the Earliest Christian Writings' and I thought it was > extremely good. > > >On Sun, 10 May 1998, Steven Carr wrote: > > > >> Does Bruce Metzger give a date of 75-100 AD for p64 and p67? > >> I 'quote' him as follows :- > >> > >> Last year, amid much criticism from my colleagues, I stepped out upon a > >> limb to offer an early second century date for Ps 64 and 67. At that > >> time it was my opinion that, unless further evidence were to be > >> presented, a date earlier than 100 CE would not be warranted. As is true > >> in all fields of academic endeavor, further evidence has been > >> forthcoming. While I shall continue to stand by the early date of 100 CE > >> for these two papyri, I no longer consider such to be the early date. > >> The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical > >> to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should > >> be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE. While such a date > >> will cause significant difficulty (nay, consternation) for many of my > >> colleagues, I urge them to recognize that even if a date slightly > >> earlier than 85 were to be chosen, it would still not destroy the > >> traditional range of dates for Matthew's Gospel.' > >> > >> (Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A > >> Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL, pp > >> 38-39.) > >> > >> Is this accurate? > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 10 15:14:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA27967; Sun, 10 May 1998 15:14:52 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:23:22 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1735 Steven Carr wrote; >In message 100000@login5.isis.unc.edu>, Bart Ehrman writes >> May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger >>having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data >>are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation >>seems uncharacteristic to me) >> >>-- Bart Ehrman >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > >I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page > >http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html > >The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal. > I checked the site and found the following quote attributed to Metzger with no biblio given. "Instead of saying "uncredible" we should say "incredible." In the case of 7Q5, we dare not throw out this papyrus fragment simply because it doesn't fit with our long-held theories. It is an anomaly of the highest and most perplexing order, and one which demands our attention if we are honest in our field. Our pride as scholars has often lead us into saying what the facts help determine our theories. This is the case here. If the facts indicate that Mark was written PRIOR to 68 AD, then all the theories regarding later dates for its authorship MUST bend to the facts." It seems to me, if in fact Metzger said this, it is simply saying we must not reject evidence just because it does not fit another theory that we hold. I find no indication that Metzger in any way agreed with the identification or the dating of other mss. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 10 19:11:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA28420; Sun, 10 May 1998 19:11:22 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:11:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199805102311.TAA23228@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 Quote by Bruce Metzger Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2019 Re the quotation attributed to Metzger re P64 & P 67, I agree it doesn't sound like Metzger to me, but has anyone thought of asking him? How about it Bart, you probably know him best. --Rod Mullen At 02:23 PM 5/10/98 +0400, you wrote: >Steven Carr wrote; > >>In message >100000@login5.isis.unc.edu>, Bart Ehrman writes >>> May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger >>>having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data >>>are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation >>>seems uncharacteristic to me) >>> >>>-- Bart Ehrman >>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill >> >>I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page >> >>http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html >> >>The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal. >> >I checked the site and found the following quote attributed to Metzger with >no biblio given. > >"Instead of saying "uncredible" we should say "incredible." In the case of >7Q5, we dare not throw out this papyrus fragment simply because it doesn't >fit with our long-held theories. It is an anomaly of the highest and most >perplexing order, and one which demands our attention if we are honest in >our field. Our pride as scholars has often lead us into saying what the >facts help determine our theories. This is the case here. If the facts >indicate that Mark was written PRIOR to 68 AD, then all the theories >regarding later dates for its authorship MUST bend to the facts." > >It seems to me, if in fact Metzger said this, it is simply saying we must >not reject evidence just because it does not fit another theory that we >hold. I find no indication that Metzger in any way agreed with the >identification or the dating of other mss. > > > >Carlton L. Winbery >Fogleman Professor of Religion >Louisiana College >Pineville, LA 71359 >winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net >winbery@andria.lacollege.edu > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 10 21:55:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA28904; Sun, 10 May 1998 21:55:35 -0400 From: RE Elliott Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:54:07 EDT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger 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: 554 Tc'ers I just got off the phone with Bruce Metzger and he informed me that he wrote NO such paper! In regards to the dating of P 64 and 67 he referred to the dating put forth by Nestle-Aland of about 200 CE. This should put an end to this supposed quotation. Rich Elliott p.s. perhaps the next step in finding the truth to this quotation (if any) is to contact SBL and ask for a copy of this paper. Perhaps it does exist, and somewhere along the line Metzger's name was incorrectly used. I look forward to checking the list and see what transpires. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 11 01:02:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA29365; Mon, 11 May 1998 01:02:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 01:06:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list: Adoptionism: the earliest Christian faith? 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: 18911 Dear friends, Here's an essay I wrote about Adoptionism, based on Bart Ehrman's book. A slightly different version was posted already to Crosstalk-l where people seemed to like it. All opinions and criticisms are welcome. Best wishes, Yuri. ----------------- ADOPTIONISM: THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN FAITH? -- or when did Jesus become the Son of God? by Yuri Kuchinsky What was the earliest Christian faith? What did the earliest Christians really believe in? Did they really see Jesus as God, as the Son of God, or perhaps even as a mere mortal man? Of course our present orthodox creed, formulated in 325 AD at Nicea, insists that Jesus was both man and God at the same time, and in equal measure. But was this really the original belief? This doesn't seem so. It is very likely, on the other hand, that while the earliest Christians may have seen Jesus as a great teacher and healer, extraordinarily righteous and wise, and possessed of certain very special gifts and powers, they still saw him primarily as a flesh and blood human being. And they seemed to consider him as such until a certain crucial moment in his life when God adopted him as His Son. Such a view was seen as heretical by the Church Fathers of the second century and later, and it is known as "Adoptionism". Who were the early Adoptionists? Quite a wide variety of Adoptionist Christians are attested in the early Christian times from various sources. Among them were both the Jewish-Christian groups such as the Ebionites, and the Gentile Christians, such as the followers of the "heretical teacher" Theodotus who was active in Rome at the end of the second century. So the Adoptionists' beliefs were clearly far from uniform. TWO TYPES OF ADOPTIONISM In general, two types of Adoptionism are found in our earliest sources: the Resurrection-Adoptionism, and the Baptism-Adoptionism. Resurrection-Adoptionist Christians believed that Jesus became the Son of God only at the moment of his Resurrection, whereas, on the other hand, the Baptism-Adoptionists saw the moment of the Baptism of Jesus as a big turning point. Both these types of Adoptionism are well attested in the NT, and this should indicate that the roots of Adoptionism may indeed go back to the most primitive layers of the Christian tradition. I will consider here the material for the very early Adoptionism as adduced by Bart Ehrman in his book THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE. [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.] In this book as a whole, Ehrman sets as his goal to determine which passages of the NT are likely to be "the orthodox corruptions of the Scripture", i.e. added by the later orthodox editors in order to counter various beliefs that they charged were "later heresies". And he finds quite a few of these. I agree with Ehrman for the most part. Many such corruptions are to be found in the NT, or so it seems. Of course, one may naturally assume that these "later heresies" that the later orthodox (or "proto-orthodox", as Ehrman styles them) editors tried to eradicate may have in fact been actually the _genuine earliest traditions_ that they were trying hard to suppress. This, indeed, seems quite likely to me. So, in other words, the later "proto-orthodox" editors may have been trying to impose on the Christian believers views that were, in themselves, later corruptions of the original faith. Ehrman focuses on the large number of key NT passages the readings of which are in doubt, and the mss evidence for which is often quite contradictory. His procedure is to try to determine the earliest readings of these important passages. He finds and discusses many such questionable passages that, according to him, the later orthodox editors and commentators tried, on their own authority, and often without much real validity, to impose as the authoritative Scriptural texts. Of course, today's conservative commentators will tend to reject outright any idea that the early orthodox editors of the NT would do such a thing as try to tamper with the Scriptures. But such a view is rather naive. We have quite a lot of evidence demonstrating that the earliest doctrinal struggles in various early churches were very common and also very bitter. And we also know that all sides in these disputes accused each other of altering the texts of the Scriptures. In particular, the doctrinal struggles at the time of Marcion (in Rome ca. 140 AD) are a very important case in point, because this was precisely the time when the basic canon of the NT was being finalized. This was the time when the four canonical gospels were first assembled together, so a lot of editing was surely being done at that time. It is useful to remember that no special reverence was accorded to the texts of the gospels previous to that time, since none of them were "canonical" previous to the time of Marcion, whose idea it was in the first place to compile the first Christian canon. ADOPTIONISM IN THE NT Ehrman deals in some detail with the early Adoptionists in Chapter 2 of his book, and he outlines carefully the two types of Adoptionist beliefs as mentioned above. As he makes clear, the roots of Adoptionism may indeed go back even to the foundational layers of the Christian tradition, ... adoptionistic Christologies can be traced to sources that predate the books of the New Testament. (p. 48) According to Ehrman, the earliest such tradition can be found in Paul's letter to the Romans. And this tradition is clearly Resurrection-Adoptionist, i.e. it maintains that Jesus was adopted by God, His Father, at the moment of his Resurrection from the dead: [Christ Jesus ...] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God _in power_ according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. (Rom 1:3-4) According to Ehrman (p. 48), the words "in power", (underlined above) are a late addition; this is just one of the many examples of the later "orthodox corruptions" of the original Pauline text, a corruption that was meant to lessen this text's Adoptionist implications. Of course this addition merely lessens the Adoptionist meaning of this passage, and doesn't quite eliminate it completely. If we take this quite Adoptionistic statement of Rom 1:3-4 as originally written by Paul, and there's no reason we should doubt it, this would place this sort of a belief very early indeed. Further support for the view that Jesus became the Son of God only at the moment of Resurrection can be found also in Acts 13:32-33. Ehrman considers that the speech of Paul in Chapter 13 contains some valuable preliterary sources embedded in the Book of Acts: ... a form-critical analysis of Paul's speech in Acts 13 reveals traditional material that has been incorporated in a surprisingly unedited form. Here Paul makes the following pronouncement: What God promised to the [Jewish] fathers he has fulfilled to us their children, by raising Jesus from the dead -- as it is written in the second Psalm, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you". (Acts 13:32-33) And Ehrman adds, The force of the final clause should not be minimized: it is on the day of his resurrection that Jesus receives his sonship. (p. 49) Ehrman also analyses a number of other similar passages, such as Acts 2:36, 10:42, and 17:31, where the Sonship is most likely associated with the Resurrection. WHICH FORM OF ADOPTIONISM WAS THE EARLIEST? Of the two types of very early Adoptionism, the tradition that God adopted Jesus as his son at the moment of his Resurrection seems like the more ancient one. This tradition may have been the earliest form of Christian belief. Indeed, it may be the original tradition that formed in the first days and weeks post-Easter under the influence of Peter (or perhaps under the influence of Mary Magdalene, according to some). I should add that there is also substantial evidence elsewhere to indicate that the earliest Christian tradition was that Jesus was assumed into the Heavens right at the moment of his death on the Cross (e.g. from the analysis of the various disputed endings of the gospel of Mark). From this it would follow that the various traditions of "the 3 days in the Tomb" can also be considered as later additions to the faith. (This matter is quite complex since these Tomb burial traditions, with their various chronologies of the amount of time spent in the Tomb, are quite confused, and betray rather abundant signs of later editorial work. Alfred Loisy has dealt with all these matters in some detail. The problem is that various canonical accounts would indicate variously either 3, or 2, or even less than 2 days in the Tomb.) The view that the earliest post-Easter movement may have been Resurrection-Adoptionist was formulated as far back as in 1901 by the German scholar William Wrede in his book THE MESSIANIC SECRET. According to Wrede, Mk's famous doctrine of the Messianic Secret was really primarily an attempt by Mk to hide and to disguise this fact. I.e. Mk was attempting to explain away why the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, so widespread later when Mk was composed, was not well known from early on. On this theory, Mk is really suggesting that, when Jesus was still alive, nobody could really understand that he was the Messiah; the disciples understood finally only _after_ Jesus was already crucified. So, accordingly, Mk's was a bold attempt to pre-date the Messianic status of Jesus back into his earthly ministry, an attempt that on the whole succeeded quite brilliantly. WRITINGS OF LUKE Since the last example of Adoptionist theology as analysed by Ehrman was in the Book of Acts, composed by the author of Luke, can the author of Luke therefore really be said to have been an Adoptionist? Not so, according to Ehrman, since our canonical text of Lk also contains other passages that are explicitly anti-Adoptionist. So what we have here on the whole is the generally orthodox Lukan text where some remnants of ancient Adoptionist doctrine are buried. And Ehrman is helping us to discern these semi-submerged bits and pieces of the older traditions. Thus, the canonical texts of the "writings of Luke", as a whole, will certainly not give us an obvious Adoptionist reading, because, as Ehrman suggests, the thrust of these Adoptionist passages in strongly countered by ... their incorporation into the wider context of Luke-Acts, where Jesus is the Son of God already at his birth (Lk 1:35). (p. 49) Nevertheless, perhaps we can go here even further than Ehrman goes in his book. The question may be asked if the text of Lk as we have it was really the original text of Lk. It is entirely possible, and, as seems to me, even probable that there originally was an earlier and shorter (basically Adoptionist) gospel of Lk that was later substantially re-edited and expanded. (And the same theory also applies to the text of Acts.) These views were proposed many years ago by Alfred Loisy. According to this theory, in the course of this secondary reworking and expansion, there would have been added to Lk e.g. the Infancy Narrative, the first 2 Chapters, with their explicit anti-Adoptionist theology. So I think it is possible to make a case that the earliest version of Lk was Adoptionist after all. Further examples of Adoptionist theology contained in Lk, as adduced below, can add strength to this hypothesis. EARLY DEBATES It is clear that the debates between the Adoptionist and the proto-orthodox commentators were going strong for many generations in the early centuries of Christianity. Both sides in these debates were offering scriptural passages that seemed to support their views. Since we possess such a large number of variant readings for certain key passages, it is clear that for great long time these scriptural passages were not fixed permanently, but remained rather fluid on the whole. Editors and scribes of all persuasions did tinker with the text -- that much is clear: ...the wording of these passages was by no means etched in stone. To the contrary, scribes who transmitted the texts occasionally changed them to make them "say" what they were already known to "mean". (p. 97) Ehrman demonstrates in his book that the orthodox editors were far from averse to altering some key scriptural passages in order to enhance the theological positions they favoured. And since the orthodox side eventually prevailed in these controversies, it is not so surprising that many texts with such evident "emendations", or "corruptions" of the scriptures are well preserved. Scholars generally agree that the stories of Miraculous Birth became accepted as standard Christian belief rather late along the trajectory of the historical evolution of the dogma. An important question to ask here is, Were these stories, found in Mt, and in Lk, really a part of the earliest versions of Mt and of Lk? The general belief among scholars at this time is that this is the case. But, according to Alfred Loisy, and some others, these stories may have actually been added to Mt and to Lk at a rather late stage in the redactional history of these gospels. The assumption of the "basic textual unity of the gospels" is very common in the NT field at this time, and this both among the liberal and among the conservative commentators. And so, such an assumption would clearly tend to stand in the way of seeing that, for instance, the Infancy Narratives of Lk, including Lk's version of the miraculous birth, seem, for a number of reasons, quite out of place when compared with the rest of Lk. Mk and Jn lack the Nativity Stories altogether, of course. This is where Bart Ehrman perhaps didn't go far enough in his analysis. In this case, the matter goes far beyond merely changing the meaning of a few words here and there. Here we are talking about "proto-orthodox editors" adding whole chapters to the gospels. And the evidence for this is quite strong. BAPTISM-ADOPTIONISM As mentioned above, the second type of early Adoptionist theology was associated with the belief that Jesus became the Son of God at the moment of his baptism. According to Ehrman, in comparison with the Resurrection-Adoptionist belief discussed above, the existence of such a Baptism-Adoptionist belief seems to be attested far wider in our NT sources. This may be the case perhaps because the belief that Jesus was adopted as a Son of God at baptism supplanted the earlier Resurrection-Adoptionist belief at a very early stage. According to Ehrman, Lk preserves our earliest textual witness for the belief that Jesus was adopted by God at his Baptism. When Jesus was baptised, the voice from heaven was heard: You are my Son, today I have begotten you. (Lk 3:22) Some mss also preserve an alternative reading of this passage (which is a harmonisation with Mk 1:11), You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. Ehrman argues strongly in his book that "today I have begotten you" was original to Lk, a view that some commentators tended to dispute. He shows that the orthodox editors of the second century, or even later perhaps, consciously altered the meaning of this sentence to introduce "in you I am well pleased". And so, this harmonizing variant reading would have been introduced because the orthodox editors would have been uncomfortable with the Adoptionistic character of the original verse. Also, Ehrman cites many other such passages where the idea of adoption at baptism is evident as an early tradition (p. 67ff; e.g. Lk 9:35, 23:35, Acts 10:38, Jn 1:34, 1 John 5:18). And he also cites other texts where, according to him, the idea that Jesus was the Son of God already _before_ his baptism was introduced by the same people and for the same purpose. Such orthodox corruptions would have been Mk 1:1, Lk 2:43, Lk 3:21, Mt 1:18, and Eph 4:9. PAUL'S VIEWS It is clear that the baptism and the resurrection were seen by the early Christians as the key events in the earthly career of Jesus. This is certainly how Paul sees the earthly career of Jesus. In his writings, we don't get to see much about what else happened to Jesus the man in his life, how he grew up, and how he became the man he became. Neither do we get from Paul much about what Jesus said, about his sayings and teachings. We certainly don't get from Paul too many details about what other things he accomplished in his earthly career besides getting to be crucified. In spite of the fact that baptism was so important in the Pauline theology, we don't even learn from Paul if Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist. And certainly we don't get to learn if Jesus, himself, baptised, and/or taught baptism to his disciples, certainly a very curious omission. (This area has been explored in detail by Morton Smith in his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA that deals with the Secret Mark fragment he discovered.) General secrecy that early Christians seemed to associate with the baptism may be one explanation for some of Paul's curious omissions in this area. Also, the role of John the Baptist was probably simply not yet introduced as an item of faith by the time of Paul. If we would judge only according to the witness of Paul, this Baptism/Resurrection perspective seems like a very narrow filter through which the earliest Christians saw their Saviour. -------- To come back to our general question of How the earliest Christians saw the Historical Jesus, the belief that Jesus was God already in his lifetime was still questioned even as late as in the fourth century. Indeed, Julian, writing ca. 361-3 CE, still claimed that: Neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark had the audacity to say that Jesus is God. (_The Apostate_, ix. 326) According to Julian, it was Jn who first introduced this idea into the canon. So, it seems, the resistance to this idea that Jesus was God was very strong and very widespread in the early centuries of Christianity. Those who usually tend to see Christian history through the rather ahistorical lens of the Nicean creed may do well to consider all the evidence that Bart Ehrman presents in his book for the earliest Christian beliefs being quite otherwise from what we usually assume them to be. Best wishes, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 11 13:52:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01103; Mon, 11 May 1998 13:52:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:52:15 -0400 From: alexander.mirkovic@vanderbilt.edu Message-Id: <199805111752.NAA01098@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 04:18:28 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. facsimiles Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 791 This is not an answer to your question, but I keep wondering why do we keep using the name Leningrad. Leningrad is no more! It is Peterburg or Petrovgrad now. Before 1917, that is, before the Soviet revolution this codex used to be called Petropolitanus. One can have a look at any tc book printed before the revolution. May be this is pedantry, but those people over there in Russia were pulling down Lenin's statues for some reason and Lenin and his camarades did not care much for biblical manuscripts. Yours, Alexander Mirkovic Vanderbilt University > Prompted by the recent release of the Leningrad Codex, our library is > wondering if there are any Greek New Testament manuscripts in > facsimile edition that are currently in print. Any ideas? > > Glen L. Thompson > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 11 14:18:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01251; Mon, 11 May 1998 14:18:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:18:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199805111818.OAA01246@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:55:12 GMT From: DC PARKER To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list 0149 (second time) Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 457 > > > Does 0149 = 0187? No note in NA27, pp. 689ff., but Aland _Text_, pp. > 123-4 says so. (I forgot my books but, I think those are the pages.) > According to Liste, 2nd ed., 0149=0187 > Does 0194 = 0124? > Again, acc. to Liste2, 0194=0124 > What is the century date of uncial 0300? > In Liste2, 0300 is dated VI/VII. 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 Mon May 11 16:45:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02041; Mon, 11 May 1998 16:45:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:43:20 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list Re: Leningradensis To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199805111643_MC2-3C9E-DF94@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: 1209 The names given to manuscripts often derive from historical circumstances= =2E For example the NT ms Codex Bezae retains that name even though Theodore Bezae died centuries ago. Likewise, Codex Leningradensis (Evr. II.B.19a)= became the standard name for that manuscript ever since the appearance of= BHK, based on that manuscript. To maintain a degree of continuity with t= he standard name and abbreviation, Leningradensis has been retained; St. Petersburg is used, of course, when identifying the library in which it i= s housed. Petropolitanus is a different manuscript, housed in the same library and numbered Firk. I B 3. This name was used ever since Strack published an edition of it in 1876. On the other hand B19a was described, if at all, = in the pre-1917 literature in a variety of ways. Ginsburg, for example, called it "the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009," to distinguish it from what most textual scholars considered at the time to be a more important manuscript, "the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916," or just= "the St. Petersburg manuscript," i. e. Codex Petropolitanus. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 11 19:57:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02723; Mon, 11 May 1998 19:57:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199805112356.TAA30350@camel8.mindspring.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "TRB - S.M. Kelly" To: jwest@highland.net Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 08:33:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Comfort, Barrett... CC: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Priority: normal 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: 964 Jim, I'm pretty sure after speaking to Baker Books that "Complete texts of the Earliest NT Manuscripts" will contain the various papyri sources in GREEK. I was asking them emphatically because I was to be sorely disappointed if it was one of those "translated in English with the Strong's #'s" books. I'm not sure which manuscripts, but I know that it was originally to be around 50(?) but then Comfort kept finding and adding more. It seems from what Baker said, he will be publishing some papyri for the 1st. time. We'll see! Sean M. Kelly aletheias_biblion@usa.net ************************************************************* Biblical Languages "The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever." -Dr.John Piper- ************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 02:23:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA03483; Tue, 12 May 1998 02:23:30 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 06:57:32 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 874 In message , RE Elliott writes >Tc'ers >I just got off the phone with Bruce Metzger and he informed me that he wrote >NO such paper! In regards to the dating of P 64 and 67 he referred to the >dating put forth by Nestle-Aland of about 200 CE. >This should put an end to this supposed quotation. >Rich Elliott The owner of http://www.jude3.org/ insists that the source has been verified and checked and will not withdraw his article which claims that Professor Metzger regards the scholarly dating of 200 AD for p64 and p67 as wrong. > >p.s. perhaps the next step in finding the truth to this quotation (if any) is >to contact SBL and ask for a copy of this paper. Perhaps it does exist, and >somewhere along the line Metzger's name was incorrectly used. I look forward >to checking the list and see what transpires. -- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 10:54:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05099; Tue, 12 May 1998 10:54:21 -0400 From: PMoore4733 Message-ID: <9178f954.355860c0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:46:23 EDT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 395 Check out TEKTON's page at http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_TOC.html They are withholding the article to check the references on Gregory Neal's article "On 7Q5 and the Magdalen Papyri." This article gave several Metzger sources in reference to the Magdalen Papyrus. As I recall, some were yet to be published monographs, I assume which were given at SBL events. Paul From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 12:10:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05889; Tue, 12 May 1998 12:10:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:10:24 -0400 From: alexander.mirkovic@vanderbilt.edu Message-Id: <199805121610.MAA05884@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 01:22:06 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Petropolitanus? Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4591 > The names given to manuscripts often derive from historical circumstances. > For example the NT ms Codex Bezae retains that name even though Theodore > Bezae died centuries ago. Likewise, Codex Leningradensis (Evr. II.B.19a) > became the standard name for that manuscript ever since the appearance of > BHK, based on that manuscript. To maintain a degree of continuity with the > standard name and abbreviation, Leningradensis has been retained; St. > Petersburg is used, of course, when identifying the library in which it is > housed. This is my problem, we call the library by its proper name but use another name for the manuscript. Yes the continuity is maintained, but a wrong kind of continuity. We do not change the name of Codex Bezae without a sufficient reason and that is good. That is exactly my point. Yes, Theodore Beza is dead, but we still call the manuscript Codex Bezae. That is the way it should be. On the other hand, Codex Leningradensis is a change of name, since before 1917 the manuscript was known under other name(s), but never Lenigradensis. So Leningradensis does not maintain a degree of continuity! It constitutes a rather unwarranted change due to political circumstances. My guess is that the name was "disseminated" by BHK and other popular editions probably without much contemplation and with no sinister motives. Simply Leningradensis means "of Leningrad," it is not a proper name, but an adjective. The name Leningradensis was appropriate as long as the city had that name. I will look for pre-1917 names to see which was commonly accepted and would appreciate any input on this matter. > Petropolitanus is a different manuscript, housed in the same library and > numbered Firk. I B 3. This name was used ever since Strack published an > edition of it in 1876. On the other hand B19a was described, if at all, in > the pre-1917 literature in a variety of ways. Ginsburg, for example, > called it "the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009," to distinguish it > from what most textual scholars considered at the time to be a more > important manuscript, "the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916," or just > "the St. Petersburg manuscript," i. e. Codex Petropolitanus. I am not sure that I understand this. H. B. Sweete in his "Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek" has "Codex Petropolitanus" (p. 138), but this is a Greek manuscript not Hebrew. Do you have the Greek manuscript in mind when you write "the St. Petersburg Codex dated AD 916 under the number Firk I B 3? As I see it manuscripts are named after: (1) the library or place where they were discovered, like Sinaiticus although now in London (2) the name of the owner or a person associated with it, like Bezae, Jung codex, or Brucianus. (3) the library and the city in which the codex is stored, like Vaticanus, Washingtoniensis, Bodleianus. This is the case with Leningradensis, it means "of Leningrad." As you write, pre-1917 names reflect the fact that the manuscript was in St. Petersburg. Therefore, to use the name Leningrad Codex or Leningradensis is wrong for three reasons: 1. It is not the original name of the codex 2. It does not reflect the fact that the codex is now (again) in St. Petersburg library. 3. It associates the codex with the city of Leningrad only out of habit, and a bad habit I would say. St. Petersburg was called Leningrad only from 1917 to 1991. Thus, if the name of the manuscript reflects the name of the library and the city which preserves it, than, I think, Petropolitanus or St. Petersburg Codex is much more appropriate then Leningradensis or Leningrad Codex. If, on the other hand, we want to keep the original name, that we should use a pre-1917 name. If there is possibility of confusion that a mark of distinction could be added like Petropolitanus Graece or Petropolitanus Hebraice (I hope my Latin is correct here and elsewhere). Finally, I very much appreciate the facsimile edition of the manuscript in St. Petersburg public library under the number B19a, but to call it Leningrad Codex now nine years after the fall of Berlin wall is an oversight. For years to come the students will call it Leningrad Codex. I only want some consistency here, if we switched the name after 1917 when the city became Leningrad, why not switch now in 1998 since the city is called St. Petersburg. This seems not only fair but politically neutral. Yours, Alexander Alexander Mirkovic Vanderbilt University alexander.mirkovic@vanderbilt.edu 615-421-8331 Summus ius, summa iniuria - Cicero From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 12:31:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05967; Tue, 12 May 1998 12:31:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:31:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199805121631.MAA05962@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:18:13 GMT From: DC PARKER To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 616 > They are withholding the article to check the references on Gregory Neal's > article "On 7Q5 and the Magdalen Papyri." This article gave several Metzger > sources in reference to the Magdalen Papyrus. As I recall, some were yet to > be published monographs, I assume which were given at SBL events. > > That explains why my curiosity was baulked this morning when I tried to examine this strange production for myself. I hope that they correct 'Magulen' (sic) at the same time. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 13:11:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06204; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:11:20 -0400 Message-ID: <32WCQDAXIIW1EwZ8@bowness.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:08:39 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger In-Reply-To: <9178f954.355860c0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 685 In message <9178f954.355860c0@aol.com>, PMoore4733 writes >Check out TEKTON's page at >http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_TOC.html >They are withholding the article to check the references on Gregory Neal's >article "On 7Q5 and the Magdalen Papyri." This article gave several Metzger >sources in reference to the Magdalen Papyrus. As I recall, some were yet to >be published monographs, I assume which were given at SBL events. The article has now been restored to the Web page listed above. Presumably, the author and the owner of the Web site are sure it is genuine. It seems incredible to me that Professor Metzger would say such things. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 13:47:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06326; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:47:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:39:40 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Allegations vis-a-vis Metzger X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980512173940.0066c5e4@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: 494 I just checked the web page given and it is still a closed link. Further, M. is too good a paleographer and text critic to have said what has been claimed. It is either a case of poor reporting (which is certainly not outside the pale of reality), or a simple >lapsus lingua<. Reporters and interviewers frequently mis-state what they hear. This I know from personal experience. Best, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 15:02:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06803; Tue, 12 May 1998 15:02:27 -0400 From: PMoore4733 Message-ID: <65faf623.35589c6a@aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:00:57 EDT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 780 Regarding the dating of the Magdalen Papyri and Dr. Metzger: The following is out of the Reverend Gregory Neal's Paper on TEKTON: http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html (A page from the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf). "The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE" This passage comes out of the paragraph that has been in question on this site regarding Dr. Metzger. Neal cites the follow source: ("Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL. pp. 38-39. )" The above appears on page 6 of Neal's document. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 16:46:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07422; Tue, 12 May 1998 16:46:43 -0400 X-Sender: daiken@mail.bakerbooks.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:45:22 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Dave Aiken Subject: tc-list Comfort and Barrett Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1019 Jimmy Adair asked me to post for the benefit of TC-ers the table of contents of Comfort and Barrett's book, since it has been mentioned several times in recent days. The book contains transciptions (in Greek characters) of the manuscripts indicated. David Aiken Editor, Academic and Reference Books Baker Book House daiken@bakerbooks.com http://www.bakerbooks.com/catalogs/academic/new.html 616-682-8388 ext. 132 616-676-2315 fax -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE EARLIEST NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS Edited by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett CONTENTS List of Manuscript Photos Acknowledgments Introduction List of Manuscripts in Canonical Order List of Abbreviations PAPYRI P1 P4/P64/P67 P5 P9 P12 P13 P15/P16 P17 P18 P20 P22 P23 P24 P27 P28 P29 P30 P32 P35 P37 P38 P39 P40 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49/P65 P50 P52 P53 P66 P69 P70 P72 P75 P77/P105/P103 P78 P80 P86 P87 P90 P91 P92 P95 P98 P. Antinoopolis 2.54 P101 P102 P104 EARLY UNCIALS 0162 0171 0189 0220 0232 Name Index From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 18:20:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07726; Tue, 12 May 1998 18:20:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:23:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list: Adoptionism: the earliest Christian faith? 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: 2559 Dear list members, I would like to correct an inaccuracy in my previous post. It was very helpfully pointed out to me in private email. On Mon, 11 May 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: ... > According to Ehrman, the earliest such tradition can be found in Paul's > letter to the Romans. And this tradition is clearly > Resurrection-Adoptionist, i.e. it maintains that Jesus was adopted by > God, His Father, at the moment of his Resurrection from the dead: > > [Christ Jesus ...] who came from the seed of David according > to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God _in power_ > according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the > dead. (Rom 1:3-4) > > According to Ehrman (p. 48), the words "in power", (underlined > above) are a late addition; So far, what I said in my essay was accurate. But next, there's a problem. > this is just one of the many examples of > the later "orthodox corruptions" of the original Pauline text, a > corruption that was meant to lessen this text's Adoptionist > implications. Here's the problem. According to what Ehrman actually writes in his book, while the expression "in power = en dinamei" _is_ intrusive in what appears clearly like a pre-Pauline credal formula (here he cites the works by Schlier, and Werner Kramer), according to Ehrman, the words in question were added by Paul himself. So he does not consider this as an "orthodox corruption" of the original text. I'm sorry for the confusion. Here's what Ehrman says in the footnote about the phrase being intrusive: "That it [the phrase _en dinamei_] is intrusive in the creed itself is shown by the fact that there is nothing in the first clause with which it is parallel, unlike every other component of the second clause." (p. 100) The rest of what I wrote about this passage is still accurate: > Of course this addition merely lessens the Adoptionist > meaning of this passage, and doesn't quite eliminate it completely. > > If we take this quite Adoptionistic statement of Rom 1:3-4 as > originally written by Paul, and there's no reason we should doubt > it, this would place this sort of a belief very early indeed. I would like to add that the question of who added the phrase to the pre-existent credal formula is on the whole rather marginal to the main thesis of my essay. I think a case can be made that this phrase _was_ a later orthodox corruption after all. But of course the words _en dinamei_ are generally considered as part of Pauline vocabulary, and Ehrman notes this. Best wishes, Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 18:34:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07874; Tue, 12 May 1998 18:34:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:34:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199805122234.SAA00948@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 N.T. facsimiles Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1082 The editors of the facsimile indicate that "Leningrad" is used at the request of the museum/library administrators in St. Petersburg. Odd, I know, but isn't the official name of the regions still Leningrad Oblast? --Rod Mullen At 01:52 PM 5/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >This is not an answer to your question, but I keep wondering why do >we keep using the name Leningrad. Leningrad is no more! It is >Peterburg or Petrovgrad now. Before 1917, that is, before the Soviet >revolution this codex used to be called Petropolitanus. One can have >a look at any tc book printed before the revolution. May be this is >pedantry, but those people over there in Russia were pulling down >Lenin's statues for some reason and Lenin and his camarades did not >care much for biblical manuscripts. > >Yours, > >Alexander Mirkovic >Vanderbilt University > >> Prompted by the recent release of the Leningrad Codex, our library is >> wondering if there are any Greek New Testament manuscripts in >> facsimile edition that are currently in print. Any ideas? >> >> Glen L. Thompson >> > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 19:58:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA08097; Tue, 12 May 1998 19:58:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:01:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger In-Reply-To: <65faf623.35589c6a@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3856 On Tue, 12 May 1998, PMoore4733 wrote: > Regarding the dating of the Magdalen Papyri and Dr. Metzger: The > following is out of the Reverend Gregory Neal's Paper on TEKTON: > http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html (A page > from the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf). Friends, In case someone is interested to see what kind of scholarship is really featured on this website, I would like to draw your attention to another highly problematic article there. This is an article by J.P. Holding, who I think is the owner of this website. This article, and some obvious doctoring of an important quote in it, has been the subject of some discussion on Crosstalk-l recently. Here's part of a longer article I posted to Crosstalk. Re: an article in the JOURNAL OF HIGHER CRITICISM at: http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html And a reply by Holding at: http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_01_05_02.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:22:50 -0400 From: y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Subject: Re: Fallback Jesus ... And I found one actual case of blatant doctoring of a quote from Price. Quite shameful. Here're Price's actual words: http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html For this tradition there is no thought of any conversion of James from unbeliever to believer. The resurrection appearance vouchsafed him is simply of a piece with the others: an appearance granted to a disciple. Indeed nowhere in the tradition of early Christianity do we find the appearance [WORDS OMITTED BY HOLDING: to James likened unto that of Paul: the apprehension] of an enemy of Christ to turn him into a friend. This notion, which serves the agenda of modern apologists[47]47 seeking to disarm the suspicions of those who point out that Jesus appeared only to believers, is quite common among critical scholars as well.[48]48 Nonetheless, it is an exegetical phantom. Nowhere is this connection made in the texts. Note that Paul is mentioned in the full quote. And here's the quotation as given by Holding: For this tradition there is no thought of any conversion of James from unbeliever to believer. The resurrection appearance vouchsafed him is simply of a piece with the others: an appearance granted to a disciple. Indeed nowhere in the tradition of early Christianity do we find the appearance [THE SMOKING GUN: Holding omitted a whole phrase here!] of an enemy of Christ to turn him into a friend. This notion, which serves the agenda of modern apologists seeking to disarm the suspicions of those who point out that Jesus appeared only to believers, is quite commong (sic) among critical scholars as well. Nevertheless, it is an exegetical phantom. Nowhere is this connection made in the texts. And Holding continues: "First, notice once again that Price is going against consensus, both conservative and "critical" alike, without major evidence to overturn the standard! Second, re no tradition of turning an enemy of Christ into a friend, appearing only to friends - have we forgotten the Apostle Paul here?" [end quotes] So here we can see Holding first doctoring an important quote (probably on purpose) and THEN trying to make rhetorical capital on this basis. Unethical. This is the only way to describe this. Yuri. ----------------------end quote------------------- So it seems we shall soon see another article on Holding's website "closed for renovations"? Best wishes, Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 12 20:10:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08148; Tue, 12 May 1998 20:10:37 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32WCQDAXIIW1EwZ8@bowness.demon.co.uk> References: <9178f954.355860c0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:19:10 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 625 Steven Carr wrote, >The article has now been restored to the Web page listed above. >Presumably, the author and the owner of the Web site are sure it is >genuine. It seems incredible to me that Professor Metzger would say such >things. I just (7:16, 12/May/98) tried to access this page again and was told that it was still being with held in order to check the accuracy of the quotes. I still wait to convinced that Metzger actually made the comments attributed to him. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 13 02:42:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA08938; Wed, 13 May 1998 02:42:07 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 06:17:39 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 648 Carlton Winbery writes >Steven Carr wrote, >>The article has now been restored to the Web page listed above. >>Presumably, the author and the owner of the Web site are sure it is >>genuine. >I just (7:16, 12/May/98) tried to access this page again and was told that >it was still being with held in order to check the accuracy of the quotes. >I still wait to convinced that Metzger actually made the comments >attributed to him. I had forgotten that the article was still on my Internet Service Provider's cache, which only gets updated every couple of hours or so. I was picking up an old version of the page. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 13 15:21:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11328; Wed, 13 May 1998 15:21:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:21:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger 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: 751 I wrote to the SBL executive office to see if they were familiar with the article cited as: Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis," 1997 Monograph before SBL, pp 38-39. They were not aware of the article or of the book which supposedly contains it, either in print or in production (and Scholars Press, which publishes most SBL books, is not aware of any such book either). If the quote is genuine, certainly the author of the Web page should supply an accurate book title. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 13 15:58:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11639; Wed, 13 May 1998 15:58:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:56:55 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list Re: Petropolitanus To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199805131557_MC2-3CEB-A911@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: 346 There is a Septuagint manuscript designated by the siglum "H," and named "Codex Petropolitanus" (by Swete), but the manuscript I mentioned is a Hebrew manuscript containing the Latter Prophets and vocalized with the Babylonian supralinear system. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 13 16:55:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA11969; Wed, 13 May 1998 16:55:49 -0400 From: "Mark and Wendy Proctor" To: "Textual Criticism Discussion Group" Subject: tc-list Old Latin MS e (Codex Palatinus) at Mark 1:41 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:34:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01bd7eae$9c44b640$2b7cebcf@wendy-proctor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD7E84.B3A8AA00" 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: 2363 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD7E84.B3A8AA00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings everyone, I need some help with an OL text. UBSGNT4 lists the OL MS e (Codex = Palatinus) as a witness for "splagchnistheis" at Mark 1:41, but the = Julicher-Aland edition of the Itala for Mark's Gospel surprisingly has = no information about e's text of this verse. If someone out there knows = where to find the complete reading of e for Mark 1:41, please forward = that info to me. What would probably be easiest is if you could give me = the reading itself, but please be sure not to make any transcriptional = errors and also let me know where you got your information. Once again, = I need the text of the entire verse. Sincerely, Mark Proctor ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD7E84.B3A8AA00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings everyone,
 
I need some help with an OL = text.  UBSGNT4=20 lists the OL MS e (Codex Palatinus) as a witness for = "splagchnistheis"=20 at Mark 1:41, but the Julicher-Aland edition of the Itala for Mark's = Gospel=20 surprisingly has no information about e's text of this verse.  If = someone=20 out there knows where to find the complete reading of e for Mark 1:41, = please=20 forward that info to me.  What would probably be easiest is if you = could=20 give me the reading itself, but please be sure not to make any = transcriptional=20 errors and also let me know where you got your information.  Once = again, I=20 need the text of the entire verse.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark = Proctor
------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BD7E84.B3A8AA00-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 13 20:13:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA12524; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:13:08 -0400 Message-ID: <19980514001112.18624.qmail@gehenna2.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:13:32 +0000 Subject: Re: tc-list Petropolitanus? 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: 1876 Dear Colleagues, Alexander Mirkovic has written: > way it should be. On the other hand, Codex Leningradensis is a change > of name, since before 1917 the manuscript was known under other > name(s), but never Leningradensis. So Leningradensis does not maintain > a degree of continuity! It constitutes a rather unwarranted change > due to political circumstances. [snip ...] > 1. It is not the original name of the codex As Harold Scanlin has already pointed out, essentially, the "name" of B19a in the Second Firkovich collection in what is now the Russian National Library has always been "Leningradensis". The name "Petropolitanus" has *always* referred to other manuscripts. So Mr. Mirkovic's premise does not stand. > 2. It does not reflect the fact that the codex is now (again) in St. > Petersburg library. > > 3. It associates the codex with the city of Leningrad only out of > habit, and a bad habit I would say. St. Petersburg was called > Leningrad only from 1917 to 1991. In respect to these two points, I recall James Sanders reporting that the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, after the change in the city's name back to St. Petersburg, asked the library whether the name of the codex should be changed. Prof. Sanders remarked that the library in St. Petersburg requested the ABMC to continue to use the name "Leningradensis" or "Leningrad Codex" since that has become the name of the manuscript. 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 Thu May 14 03:26:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA13500; Thu, 14 May 1998 03:26:48 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 09:25:54 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list MS e at Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1650 Mark Proctor wrote: >I need some help with an OL text. UBSGNT4 lists the OL MS e (Codex >Palatinus) as a witness for "splagchnistheis" at Mark 1:41, but the >Julicher-Aland edition of the Itala for Mark's Gospel surprisingly has no >information about e's text of this verse. If someone out there knows >where to find the complete reading of e for Mark 1:41, please forward that >info to me. What would probably be easiest is if you could give me the >reading itself, but please be sure not to make any transcriptional errors >and also let me know where you got your information. Once again, I need >the text of the entire verse. The apparatus of UBS4--while displaying the problems associated with not reproducing versional evidence in the original language--is correct. And the reading stands clearly in my copy of J=FClicher-Aland (2nd revised edition of 1970), p. 9, at verse 41. J=FClicher's apparatus gives the "Itala" family on the top of two lines, wit= h variations in this family cascading below it. The reading of the "Afra" family is on the bottom line: in this verse, "e" is the only "Afra" MS. The arrangement can be clearly seen on the facing page, p. 8, in verse 39, where the top line is the "Itala," and the bottom line is the "Afra." =46ollowing J=FClicher-Aland, then (1970 2nd ed., p. 9), the reading of v.= 41 is: Et *misericordia actus* extendens manum suam et tetigit eum et dixit illi: Volo, mundare. Note that the apparatus of UBS fails to distinguish between "misertus [est]" of aur c f l q Vg, and "misericordia actus" of e. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 14 03:27:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA13517; Thu, 14 May 1998 03:27:10 -0400 From: alexander.mirkovic@vanderbilt.edu Message-Id: <199805140725.CAA25467@mailer2.mail.vanderbilt.edu> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 02:24:41 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Petropolitanus? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19980514001112.18624.qmail@gehenna2.rutgers.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3218 Dr. Richard Weis wrote: > As Harold Scanlin has already pointed out, essentially, the "name" > of B19a in the Second Firkovich collection in what is now the Russian > National Library has always been "Leningradensis". The name > "Petropolitanus" has *always* referred to other manuscripts. So Mr. > Mirkovic's premise does not stand. As far as I know B19a in the Second Firkowitsch collections are not in the Russian National Library, but in the State Public Library in St. Petersburg, which was Leningrad's city library from 1917 to 1991, hence manuscript's "wrong" name. (Moscow became Russia's capital only after the Revolution). Before 1917, the library was called "the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg." But more importantly, if you say *always*, could you point me to an instance in the literature before 1917 or even up to 1937 where the manuscripts is called "Leningradensis"? This is just a rhetorical question; There is no such reference :-) "Leningradensis" has been very common for some 60 years (since BHK 3rd edition - Kahle 1937), so it could seem that it has been around for ever. As Dr. Harold Scanlin has already mentioned, before 1917, the manuscripts was known under various names, none of those was, however, "Leningradensis." My impression is that St. Petersburgs Codex (dated to 1009) was the most common. When translated into Latin it becomes Codex Petropolitanus (dated to 1009). Other names appear even well after Kahle's 3rd edition like Codex Firkowitsch, even ben Asher Codex. > > 2. It does not reflect the fact that the codex is now (again) in St. > > Petersburg library. > > > > 3. It associates the codex with the city of Leningrad only out of > > habit, and a bad habit I would say. St. Petersburg was called > > Leningrad only from 1917 to 1991. > > In respect to these two points, I recall James Sanders reporting that > the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, after the change in the > city's name back to St. Petersburg, asked the library whether the > name of the codex should be changed. Prof. Sanders remarked that > the library in St. Petersburg requested the ABMC to continue to use > the name "Leningradensis" or "Leningrad Codex" since that has become > the name of the manuscript. Since prof. Sanders had a conversation with the people in charge of the collection, it means that the question of the name was on the agenda, that it is a legitimate question, and that prof. Sanders and the publishers considered the possibility that the name "Leningrad Codex" is not appropriate. I am glad to hear that. During the symposium in the Smithsonian in 1990 prof. Sanders did not have many kind words for the personal of the library in question (with some notable exceptions). But, I am surprised that an unknown bureaucract "suggested" what was going to be, after the publication of the facsimile, "the name" of the most important manuscript of the Hebrew Bible. I, for one, would like the name of the facsimile edition changed. Thank you all for valuable information on the issue. Yours, Alexander Alexander Mirkovic Vanderbilt University alexander.mirkovic@vanderbilt.edu 615-421-8331 Summus ius, summa iniuria - Cicero From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 14 10:37:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14668; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:37:16 -0400 From: "Mark and Wendy Proctor" To: Subject: Re: tc-list MS e at Mark 1:41--Thanks! Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 09:35:02 -0500 Message-ID: <01bd7f45$7e4d2d60$1e7cebcf@wendy-proctor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2102 Thanks to everyone for the help. The layout of the Julicher-Aland edition is unfamiliar to me, and I was only working with a photocopy of p 9, so you can see how I got a bit confused. Anyway, thanks again for the help. Mark Proctor -----Original Message----- From: William L. Petersen To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 2:25 AM Subject: tc-list MS e at Mark 1:41 Mark Proctor wrote: >I need some help with an OL text. UBSGNT4 lists the OL MS e (Codex >Palatinus) as a witness for "splagchnistheis" at Mark 1:41, but the >Julicher-Aland edition of the Itala for Mark's Gospel surprisingly has no >information about e's text of this verse. If someone out there knows >where to find the complete reading of e for Mark 1:41, please forward that >info to me. What would probably be easiest is if you could give me the >reading itself, but please be sure not to make any transcriptional errors >and also let me know where you got your information. Once again, I need >the text of the entire verse. The apparatus of UBS4--while displaying the problems associated with not reproducing versional evidence in the original language--is correct. And the reading stands clearly in my copy of Jülicher-Aland (2nd revised edition of 1970), p. 9, at verse 41. Jülicher's apparatus gives the "Itala" family on the top of two lines, with variations in this family cascading below it. The reading of the "Afra" family is on the bottom line: in this verse, "e" is the only "Afra" MS. The arrangement can be clearly seen on the facing page, p. 8, in verse 39, where the top line is the "Itala," and the bottom line is the "Afra." Following Jülicher-Aland, then (1970 2nd ed., p. 9), the reading of v. 41 is: Et *misericordia actus* extendens manum suam et tetigit eum et dixit illi: Volo, mundare. Note that the apparatus of UBS fails to distinguish between "misertus [est]" of aur c f l q Vg, and "misericordia actus" of e. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 14 11:30:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15081; Thu, 14 May 1998 11:29:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 11:33:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by J.P. Holding: correction 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: 888 Dear friends, I was wrong. It seems like Mr. Holding is innocent of the charges. I was too rash in my judgement, and I apologize for what I said. Mr. Holding was contacted, and he has very good defence against these charges. Another, and earlier, version of Price's article exists on the web: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html This was the version that Holding was using when composing his critique. Later, Price changed the text of his article ever so slightly, obviously to accomodate the criticism by Holding. Neither Price nor Holding did anything unethical. Again, my apologies, Yuri. On Tue, 12 May 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: > Re: an article in the JOURNAL OF HIGHER CRITICISM at: > > http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html > > And a reply by Holding at: > > http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_01_05_02.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 15 08:52:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA19929; Fri, 15 May 1998 08:52:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 07:51:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199805151251.HAA17159@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 415 Colleagues, Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev. Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the webmaster put it. Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 15 09:49:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20151; Fri, 15 May 1998 09:49:49 -0400 Message-ID: <355C47B4.FC3A14CF@historian.net> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:48:36 -0500 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 Quote by Bruce Metzger References: <199805151251.HAA17159@homer.bethel.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: 911 Michael Holmes wrote: > Colleagues, > > Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev. > Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of > much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the > article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who > admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the > webmaster put it. This is the kind of thing that really "chaps my butt" (is there Greek for that?) If there was ever even a remote possibility that 7Q5 could have been part of an "Ur-Markus" it will never get a thorough "going over" because of all the nonsense. I would have been willing to listen to arguments about 7Q5 but it's pairing with the Magdalen Papyri as an "eyewitness" Matthew will insure that any arguments, no matter how valid or otherwise, will not be heard. Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 15 12:32:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21420; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: <002301bc614c$693dd540$8f589fc1@cherokee> From: "Dierk Vandenberg" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 18:23:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1056 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jack Kilmon An: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Datum: Freitag, 15. Mai 1998 15:49 Betreff: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger Jack wrote: >[... snip-snap ...] >If there was ever even a remote possibility that 7Q5 could have been part >of an "Ur-Markus" it will never get a thorough "going over" because of all >the nonsense. > [... ] >Jack ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ here comes 7Q5 for those who like to puzzle it out : (1) [ -- ].[ -- ] (2) [ -- ]. tô a.[ -- ] (3) [ -- ]ê kai tô[(?) -- ] (4) [ -- n]nês[ -- ] (5) [ -- ]têes[ -- ] that's all! Mk 6:52-53 possibly only in line (4) and (5) if a shorter text is assumed !!! Other possibilities are: Ex 36:10-11 2Ki 5:13-14 Zech 7:4-5 (!) Regards, Dierk ............................................................................ ... "Where were you when the page was blank?" Truman Capote ............................................................................ ... From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 16 14:33:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA24707; Sat, 16 May 1998 14:33:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 13:31:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Bruce Morrill To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger In-Reply-To: <199805151251.HAA17159@homer.bethel.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: 740 On Fri, 15 May 1998, Michael Holmes wrote: > Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev. > Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of > much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the > article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who > admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the > webmaster put it. This reminds me of gratitude I don't express enough to Jimmy Adair and others who are trying to give us the advantages of the Web and electronic publishing, while retaining the time-proven safeguards of peer review, etc that Larry Hurtado has stressed to us. Bruce Morrill bruce@math.ksu.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 18 01:08:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA28744; Mon, 18 May 1998 01:08:04 -0400 From: RE Elliott Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 01:06:44 EDT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger 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: 860 In a message dated 98-05-15 08:51:33 EDT, Mike Holmes wrote: << Colleagues, Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev. Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the webmaster put it. >> The above quote, in addition to the inquiry that Jimmy adair made to SBL and the personal telephone conversation that I had with Dr. Metzger himself should put this string of speculative postings to an end. I thank God that we don't believe everything we hear. We do diligence to do the research necessary to find the truth. Now, let's get on with some textual study! Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 18 17:04:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01566; Mon, 18 May 1998 17:04:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 16:02:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Textual Criticism list Subject: tc-list Mss of the gospels 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: 486 I know that Aland, _Text_, p. 83 says there are 2,361 mss that contain all or part of the gospels. I do not have sources with me, but can anyone tell me approximately how many mss contain all or part of Matthew. how many mss contain all or part of Mark. how many mss contain all or part of Luke. how many mss contain all or part of John. -- 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 May 18 18:46:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01842; Mon, 18 May 1998 18:46:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 17:45:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Bruce Morrill To: Textual Criticism list Subject: Re: tc-list Mss of the gospels 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: 913 On Mon, 18 May 1998, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > I know that Aland, _Text_, p. 83 says there are 2,361 mss that contain > all or part of the gospels. I do not have sources with me, but can anyone > tell me approximately how many mss contain all or part of Matthew. > how many mss contain all or part of Mark. > how many mss contain all or part of Luke. > how many mss contain all or part of John. For IGNTP work, I'd come up with counts as follows: Matt: 2121, Mark: 2034, Luke: 2077, John: 2083. These are Greek continuous text mss; but these counts don't account for mss whose unique G/A numbers have now been stripped in the 2nd ed Kurzgefasste Liste since they are now identified as part of another ms, mss which have a G/A number but are lost, etc (so my criteria likely don't match those behind the 2361 count you cited). But certainly these are approximate counts. Bruce Morrill bruce@math.ksu.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 18 19:29:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA01899; Mon, 18 May 1998 19:29:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 02:27:44 +0300 (EET DST) X-Sender: ioniccentre@mail.hol.gr (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Greek: GreekView v1.0 by ARTiFACT for Eudora Pro 2.1.4 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ioniccentre@hol.gr (Isidoros) Subject: tc-list Mt. Athos, Mone Iberwn mss Catalogue publication Cc: CLASSICS , Multiple recipients of ELENCHUS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7908 What thesauroi may be found yet in the bibliothekai of Mt. Athos, the "Agion Oros" of Christian monastic Orthodoxy (as in the other Orthodox - and in the "unorthodox" - monastic despotates of the ANE) is anybody's guess. But the work, which (re)started quietly several years ago, of publishing Athos mss' catalogues, with the "Iera Monh Ibhrwn" to go "on line" first, is noteworthy, and maybe ought to be made better known to the scholarly community, and be academically supported. The Athos autographs are known to start from about the 10th century, and their impressive collection of copies go down well into the classical period. Some we know about them; most are essentially unknown. This was intended to be a report to several Lists I subscribe (paying dues) on occasion of publication of the first of a planned series of 13 volumes for a "Greek Manuscripts Catalogue" of the collection of MONE IBERWN (or IVERON, to use different transliteration schemata) a volume that was produced two months ago, and of which I have seen not any notice outside of Greece. It is a report compiled after reading some newspaper articles and after talking with people involved here in this field. Though of obvious importance to the biblical scholar, the interest for classicists may be as great, as there may be some missing works to be found here yet, "patches" and "links" to the largely lost Hellenic cosmos. The "intended," above, refers to the fact that hours ago, and after procrastinating in gathering info for this notice, I learned that an Internet site on "Mone Iveron" publication (being its own publisher...) with much info and with ordering instructions for the volume, has been recently made available recently through Greece's Nat. Telecom. OTENet server. So, after having just read what's on it, I herewith inform the reader as well of this URL, adding, that though there is considerable overlapping betwwen what follows and what is on that server (with the server info coming obviously from the "horse's mouth," as, also, some of the elements I below) what may be extra in our "yours truly" effort is to put maybe a few things in perspective and, importantly, to point out also that, the phone and fax numbers to Monh Ibhrwn I provide (below) work (!) in getting through to the "men with the book" (I know.) Here is the URL: http://www.otenet.gr/moniiviron "Cataloguing Athos" has been a dream-plan that has been slowly and over many years coming into being, but the particular project of cataloguing Monh Ibhrwn may be taking the effort up to another level, one that may well open the way to the production of possibly faster and certainly authoritative editions. Over several centuries, but especially in the last one hundred or so years, rudimentary (for the most part) catalogues have been hand-written for about two-thirds of Athos' 16.000 (plus) Greek mss. Spyridwn Lamprou, with his students, catalogued over 6.500 of them at the turn of the century. In addition to the Monh Ibhrwn project, similar efforts have been taken up in the last few years at the Monai VATOPEDIOU (with over 2.000 mss) and at PHILOTHEOU, while consideration to the matter is given by the MONH MEGISTHS LAVRAS, which holds over 3.000 manuscripts. The 2.100+ Greek mss of Monh Ibhrwn (where there is also a large number of "Iberian" (Georgian), Russian and other language texts, as, too, a major collection of musical compositions) are being studied by a team of Greek papyrological and palaeographical experts, mostly from the Universities of Thessalonikh, Athena and Ioannina (names on the URL.) With the willing assent and assistance of younger and more progressive monastery heads, and with the collaboration of educated young monachs, this anyway major project (funded, initially, by the EU, with Greek gov. assistance, and with private donations following) is utilizing expert scientific knowledge and using state-of-the-art electronic equipment. Thus, the manuscripts of Monh Ibhrwn are being codified in accordance with the most modern scholarly standards, and in full detail; giving page dimensions, number of pages, type of script, probable dates, description of material, type of ink, description of decorations, and with, in many cases, sample photographs. And, importantly, with references to the known critical editions of the work under study, if there be any. To complete the study for the full series of the Ibhrwn Catalogue will likely take another ten years. The first volume (particularly slow in its production, for was used as a prototypical model for the volumes to follow) included just 100 mss! And not only will it take time, but will require, too, considerable monies, not the least of which is the cost of expensive paper publications, a cost that could have been largely maybe avoided, had the editions been confined to the modern electronic media and means - this might be an only criticism, though there are may be various valid reasons for the book format. Anyway, in trying to realize what the significance might be of what could be put out yet (something I have a hard time doing) it is said that, while the Greek mss of Mt. Athos constitute about the one fifth of the Greek mss in the world (kept in the eleven Monai and the about two dozen "sketai," of the Mountain, they may be likely, as a "collection," the least studied. The Athos mss have been sitting on shelves essentially dormant for eons; and even if "catalogued" for essentially internal accounting purposes, or if examined some by visiting Greek theologians and philologues (and more rarely by university level academics) the vast majority of them are unknown by, and to, critical scholarship. There, in addition to the Byzantine period theological texts, the hagiographiai and the hymnological poetic works and musical compositions, the collection includes patristic period type texts, as also biblical and classical Greek mss copies. The world biblical and classical scholars may have a "Mountain" of a work yet ahead of them - and some happy surprises likely in store. Athos monachs, known for the "out of this wordl" hymns they sing, in those magically transporting "orthros" monastery services, as, too, for the "(w)holistic" meals they provide generously the visitor (and for the fine wine!) could probably use some help here. For it is certain that the Monai would welcome serious, expert university scholarly interest nowadays, as also coming outside of Greece; and not only because the experts in Greece are relatively few and with limited time and resources, but also because Athos is international in its community make up, and as the status and spirit of "Athos"--a self governing legally independent (of Greece) entity (in status of similar standing to that of the Vatican) is ecumenical. ***** Contact and ordering information: The Monh Ibhrwn "Catalogos Ellhnikwn Xeirografwn" (Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts), (v.1) (not to be found (yet?) anywhere for purchase but is available only through the Mone Iveron offices. Its price in Greece is 11.000 drachmae, though I understand that the price for shipping abroad is considerable higher (see URL, or ask them). Here are some useful addresses and telephone numbers: IERA MONH IBHRWN Tel: -30 (Gr.) -377 (Mt. Athos) -23645 or -6 KARYES, AGION OROS Fax: " " " " -23248 63086 HELLAS and, for The "Holy Community" of Agion Oros, through which information may be sought for the other Monai: IERA KOINOTHTA Tel: -30 (Gr.) -377 (Mt. Athos) -23712 or -3 KARYES, AGION OROS 63086 HELLAS I should add that, any order made through the above (URL) site is forwarded to the Monh by more conventional means, as they do not as yet have Internet access (the problem may be with the old lines still used there) so one might, anyway, better fax or write directly. Best regards, Isidoros ioniccentre@hol.gr From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 19 11:39:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03722; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:39:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:42:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Franzmann on Nag Hammadi texts 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: 6432 Dear friends, This is a very stimulating work that deals with many much neglected subjects and source materials in the history of early Christianity: AUTHOR: Franzmann, Majella, 1952- TITLE: Jesus in the Nag Hammadi writings PUBLISHED: Edinburgh : T & T Clark, 1996. DESCRIPTION: xxv, 293 p. NOTES: Includes bibliographical references (p. 215-246) and indexes. ISBN: 0567085260 In her Chapter 1, Franzmann complains that, in spite of some rather unconvincing disclaimers, still far too few NT scholars are taking non-canonical materials seriously when dealing with early Christian literature, traditions, and beliefs. This is what has been described by some as "the tyranny of the canon" that is still very much with us. Franzmann writes that Helmut Koester has repeatedly called for a broadening of perspective to include more non-canonical materials, [Back in 1980] ... Koester calls attention once again to the problem of "deep-seated prejudices" reflected in the attitude of New Testament scholars towards the apocryphal writings [APOCRYPHAL AND CANONICAL GOSPELS, HTR 73 (1980): 105-30, p. 130], yet scholars continue to ignore the exhortation. There is little or no reference to non-canonical material, for example, in recent work in Meier, Green and Turner, and Charlesworth (1988). In the latter case, only Gos. Thom. in the Nag Hammadi texts is seen as essential for the historical Jesus quest (83-90) [In the footnote she says that Meier's second volume of his THE MARGINAL JEW "contains more detailed argumentation against using Gos. Thom.", but still, she finds his approach unsatisfying.]. Fredriksen's study makes no mention at all of any non-canonical text, even in the final chapter, "Jesus of Nazareth in Christian Tradition" (205-15). (p. 4) While Charlesworth and Evans in their article dedicated to this matter (Charlesworth and Evans, JESUS IN AGRAPHA AND APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, in Chilton and Evans, eds, STUDYING THE HISTORICAL JESUS, Brill, 1994) ...state that the agrapha and apocryphal gospels should be given "due consideration", Evans' later work [JESUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES, Brill, 1995, p. 17] is much more critical, suggesting that the only credible material for Jesus research "ultimately derives from the canonical Gospels themselves" (p. 5) Also, in the latter work, Craig A. Evans had authored some rather pointed polemics directed at what he describes as "influential coterie of American scholars", especially the "Jesus Seminar and its sympathisers" (26-40), i.e. at the scholars who are actually paying attention to these much-neglected sources. Franzmann notes that there are far too few scholars in N. America indeed, with few exceptions like James Robinson and Crossan, who are giving appropriate consideration to non-canonical materials. In particular, she also says this about recent surveys dealing with the gospel genre, With few exceptions within recent work devoted to gospel genre, scholars either fail to mention the apocrypha at all (e.g. Cantwell; Dahl; Dihle; and Thatcher), or make a footnote or two to Gos. Thom. (e.g. Stuhlmacher 1991b, 7), or they mention the apocrypha briefly only to dismiss them (e.g. Keck 117; Kee 1977, 271; Stanton 1989, 125-35; and Sanders 64-5). ... One gains the impression from such studies that the apocryphal material need not be taken seriously when dealing with "gospel". A similar approach can be found in recent works whose titles appear to promise a breadth of scholarship. [Here she cites recent works by David Aune and Robert M. Grant, and finds them rather unsatisfying.] (p. 7) Further on, she quotes John G. Gager who suggested some 20 years ago that, surprisingly enough, for too many scholars investigating the Historical Jesus, and pretending to historical objectivity, ...religious authority [of the NT writings] as sacred scripture has been extended to cover their historical authority as well" [Gager, THE GOSPELS AND JESUS: SOME DOUBTS ABOUT METHOD, Journal of Religion 54: p. 244-72] (p. 14) And such a methodological approach is hardly justified. Franzmann especially takes to task Robert M. Grant, A good example of the distortion which a misguided confessional stance can bring to the research enterprise is found in Grant's study of the Christ of the second century [Grant, JESUS AFTER THE GOSPELS: THE CHRIST OF THE SECOND CENTURY, 1990]. For Grant, christology is essentially to be derived from the canonical Gospels. ... One can only wonder in disbelief at the methodological perspective from which Grant can write: In spite of the exciting and valuable Gnostic documents recovered from Nag Hammadi in Egypt, the basic starting point for the study of the Gnostics has to lie in the earliest criticisms by Christians who wrote against heresies (41). (p. 21) The above survey of the situation in the field comes from Chapter 1 of Franzmann's book. The rest of her work is devoted to a detailed consideration of what insights about Jesus we can gain from Nag Hammadi writings. Some time later I will add more about what she says in the rest her book. It seems quite probable to me that the NH writings, besides containing a lot of later material dating perhaps to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, also preserve quite a bit of material that is rather early. Especially in the case of the Gospel of Thomas, most of the sayings definitely seem pre-canonical. By the way, I have found quite a bit of material in Franzmann's overview of NH texts that tends to support the view that the earliest post-Easter Christian faith was Adoptionist. Best regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 19 11:49:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03849; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:49:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3561A9D1.3632AE82@historian.net> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:48:33 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Scribal Fonts 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: 669 Friends: I have made a number of revisions to the "scribal" fonts, giving them standard keyboard placement consistent with other commonly used Greek and Hebrew fonts. So far they consist of: Codex Sinaiticus Uncial Lachish Ostracon Cursive Palaeohebrew Moabite/Mesha Stone Epigraphic Paleohebrew Elephantine Papyrus Script Samaritan Meissner Papyrus Script I am also working on a minuscule Greek and a DSS script. You can download them for free on my website in the "downloads" section. Scroll through the fonts to "Jack's Fonts" and help yourself. I hope you find some use for "scribal" fonts. Jack jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 20 16:01:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10857; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:01:12 -0400 Message-ID: <35633641.2AB11F50@inetport.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:00:01 -0500 From: Burkenstock X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 i86pc) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Concordances References: <199805151251.HAA17159@homer.bethel.edu> <355C47B4.FC3A14CF@historian.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: 629 > I have a question: a friend who does not know any ancient languages has asked > me to suggest a concordance. She doesn't want a Strong's and she'd like the > Metzger one with NRSV, but she says it's out of print. Any suggestions? She > would like to avoid KJV as well. Thanks, Burke -- Burke Gerstenschlager orpheus@inetport.com http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~charis "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 Wed May 20 17:42:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11273; Wed, 20 May 1998 17:42:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980520213830.013a1e7c@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:38:30 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Concordances Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1161 What type? Greek-English? Hebrew-English? NASB? NIV? NRSV? RSV? At 03:00 PM 5/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >> I have a question: a friend who does not know any ancient languages has asked >> me to suggest a concordance. She doesn't want a Strong's and she'd like the >> Metzger one with NRSV, but she says it's out of print. Any suggestions? She >> would like to avoid KJV as well. > >Thanks, >Burke > >-- >Burke Gerstenschlager >orpheus@inetport.com >http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~charis > >"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_ > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 20 18:47:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11473; Wed, 20 May 1998 18:47:01 -0400 X-Sender: nielsen@pop.uidaho.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35633641.2AB11F50@inetport.com> References: <199805151251.HAA17159@homer.bethel.edu> <355C47B4.FC3A14CF@historian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:40:53 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ralph Nielsen Subject: Re: tc-list Concordances Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 699 BERT GERSTENSCHLAGER >> I have a question: a friend who does not know any ancient languages has >>asked >> me to suggest a concordance. She doesn't want a Strong's and she'd like the >> Metzger one with NRSV, but she says it's out of print. Any suggestions? She >> would like to avoid KJV as well. > >Thanks, >Burke > RALPH NIELSEN Try Christian Book Distributors: E-mail: orders@christianbook.com Web: http://www.christianbook.com CBD has been closing out the Metzger NRSV concordance for only $9.95. I suspect that the publisher is working on a concordance to the NRSV which will contain Hebrew and Greek indexes as well, and at a substantially higher price. Ralph Nielsen Retired librarian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 20 20:18:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA11682; Wed, 20 May 1998 20:18:15 -0400 Message-ID: <35637282.201EB7C@inetport.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:17:06 -0500 From: Burkenstock X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 i86pc) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Concordances References: <1.5.4.32.19980520213830.013a1e7c@utc.campus.mci.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 975 Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > What type? > > Greek-English? > Hebrew-English? > NASB? > NIV? > NRSV? > RSV? > Sorry. I should've been more specific. I think she'd like a NRSV or NIV. > > > > > > > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. > Library Director/Reference Librarian > Cierpke Memorial Library > Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary > 1815 Union Ave. > Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 > United States of America > 423/493-4252 (office) > 423/698-9447 (home) > 423/493-4497 (FAX) > Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) > kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) > http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm -- Burke Gerstenschlager orpheus@inetport.com http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~charis "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 Thu May 21 03:30:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA12414; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:30:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 03:28:36 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: tc-list Re: Concordances To: tc list Message-ID: <199805210329_MC2-3DB7-A46B@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: 209 Hi, If you just want NIV or NRSV then why not use computer based bible software - these usually give a very fast search on words or phrases - are more selective and usually give links as well. Regards Mike From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 21 09:36:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13266; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:36:19 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980521132933.013aed30@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:29:33 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Concordances Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2187 The NIV Exhaustive concordance is one of the best! Amazon.com has it: The NIV Exhaustive Concordance (Regency Reference Library Book) by Edward W. Goodrick, John R., III Kohlenberger (Editor) List: $39.99 Our Price: $27.99 You Save: $12.00 (30%) Availability: This title usually ships within 24 hours. Hardcover, 1853 pages Published by Zondervan Pub House Publication date: December 1990 Dimensions (in inches): 2.42 x 11.30 x 8.75 ISBN: 0310436907 At 07:17 PM 5/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > >> What type? >> >> Greek-English? >> Hebrew-English? >> NASB? >> NIV? >> NRSV? >> RSV? >> > >Sorry. I should've been more specific. I think she'd like a NRSV or NIV. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. >> Library Director/Reference Librarian >> Cierpke Memorial Library >> Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary >> 1815 Union Ave. >> Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 >> United States of America >> 423/493-4252 (office) >> 423/698-9447 (home) >> 423/493-4497 (FAX) >> Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) >> kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) >> http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm > > > >-- >Burke Gerstenschlager >orpheus@inetport.com >http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~charis > >"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_ > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 21 12:41:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13810; Thu, 21 May 1998 12:41:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:40:39 -0500 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; good reviews for TC publication Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 824 It has been about two months since I sent out ten books to various individuals for TC review..I hope that some of you will be sending me your reviews soon. Summer can be a "catch-up" time for things like book reviewing. If you have any questions or if (mail service forbid!) you never received the book you "ordered," let me know.. In the meantime, I hope all is well with all of you thanks so much 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 May 22 09:16:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16749; Fri, 22 May 1998 09:16:38 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:07:48 -0400 Subject: tc-list Jude 5 Message-ID: <19980522.091415.10278.1.johnrrus@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-4,7-13 From: johnrrus@juno.com (John R Russell) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 779 I am looking at the placement of hAPAC in Jude 5 and noticed that UBS and NA did not list any Greek manuscripts as witnesses for any of the variants. Are there any Greek manuscipts in the Western text that have the book of Jude? If so, does anyone know what they read here? I also noticed that the critical Greek texts placed hAPAC later in the verse than the English translations (NASB, NIV). What are the thoughts out there on the placement of hAPAC? Thanks for your responses. John Russell ThM student Baptist Bible Seminary, PA _____________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri May 22 09:49:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16811; Fri, 22 May 1998 09:49:14 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980522.091415.10278.1.johnrrus@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:50:48 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2137 On Fri, 22 May 1998, johnrrus@juno.com (John R Russell) wrote: >I am looking at the placement of hAPAC in Jude 5 and noticed that UBS and >NA did not list any Greek manuscripts as witnesses for any of the >variants. Are there any Greek manuscipts in the Western text that have >the book of Jude? If so, does anyone know what they read here? This depends on how you define the "Western" text. Some scholars, such as Amphoux, have maintained that Family 2138 (429, 522, 614+2412, 630+2200, 1505+2495, 1611, 2138, etc., plus the Harklean Syriac) is the "Western" text. It should be noted, however, that this group does *not* stand close to the few Old Latin texts of the Catholic Epistles. Personally, I do not think Family 2138 is "Western." Apart from this possible "Western" family, there are no "Western" texts of the Catholic Epistles. >I also noticed that the critical Greek texts placed hAPAC later in the >verse than the English translations (NASB, NIV). What are the thoughts >out there on the placement of hAPAC? There are really two variants here: one the location of APAX (sorry, I use a different Greek keyboard layout :-) and one the title used. If we observe only the position of APAX, we find that it is FIRST in Alexandrian witnesses: Aleph Psi sa bo Family 1739 witnesses: C* 322 323 1241 1243 1739 1881 2297 Family 2138 witnesses: 630 1505 1611 2138 2412 2495 sy-hark LAST in Alexandrian witnesses: P72 A B 33 81 436 Family 1739 witnesses: 945 Byzantine witnesses: K L 049 (056) (0142) etc. As far as *I'm* concerned, the external evidence is decisive. Of the three early text-types (Alexandrian, Family 1739, Family 2138), the latter two clearly place APAX first. The Alexandrian text is split. The word belings in the front position, as in UBS. As for the choice betwee QEOS, KURIOS, etc., that's another matter. As far as the translations go, are you sure the differences aren't simply translational? If not, it's probably a case of blindly following the Alexandrian text. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 22 10:04:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16882; Fri, 22 May 1998 10:04:30 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:57:41 -0700 Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 Message-ID: <19980522.065742.12126.0.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <19980522.091415.10278.1.johnrrus@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,11-12,19-20,25-28,32-33,35-36,40-48,50-68 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: 3388 John, Due to the brevity of the letter, no firm evidence remains for the existence in the letter of Jude of the wild and somewhat paraphrastic textual tradition known as the "Western" type of text in the Gospels and Acts. The Western text has not even been established conclusively for the Catholic Epistles as a group. Unfortunately, for the Catholic Epistles the primary Western witness in the Gospels and Acts, the bilingual Codex Bezae, is extant only on the Latin side of 3 Jn. 11-15 due to a 67-page lacuna. Several Old Latin manuscripts (32, 55, 64, 65, 67) have some Western readings, but these mss are either not extant in Jude or they have Vulgate readings in the extant portion. Furthermore, whether these alleged Western readings in these OL mss originated in the process of translation or in Greek exemplars is still unknown. For example, Adolf von Harnack, "Zur Textkritik und Christologie der Schriften des Johannes," SPAW (1915): 534-73, felt that Greek mss which are no longer extant carried many of the peculiar Old Latin readings, but of course such speculation can neither be proven nor offer evidence as to which readings are Western. In my recent dissertation at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, "The Text of the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation in the Writings of Origen," I analyzed textually Origen's references to those works. Unfortunately, he only had references to four verses of Jude and verse 5 was not one of them. I would encourage you to consult: Sakae Kubo, "Textual Relationships in Jude," in *Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday,* ed. J. K. Elliott, NovTSup 44 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 276-82. Charles Landon, *A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude,* JSNTSup 135 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Kubo was only able to detect two text types in Jude: Alexandrian and Byzantine. Landon was trying to establish the original readings for the text of Jude, not textual groupings. I don't have his work here in front of me so I can't look up to see if he discusses verse 5. --jeff Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Christian Studies California Baptist College Riverside, California 92508 On Fri, 22 May 1998 09:07:48 -0400 johnrrus@juno.com (John R Russell) writes: >I am looking at the placement of hAPAC in Jude 5 and noticed that UBS >and NA did not list any Greek manuscripts as witnesses for any of the >variants. Are there any Greek manuscipts in the Western text that >have the book of Jude? If so, does anyone know what they read here? > >I also noticed that the critical Greek texts placed hAPAC later in the >verse than the English translations (NASB, NIV). What are the >thoughts out there on the placement of hAPAC? > >Thanks for your responses. > >John Russell >ThM student >Baptist Bible Seminary, PA >_____________________________________________________________________ >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] _____________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri May 22 11:55:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17319; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:55:13 -0400 From: "Peter R. Burton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Comments on Concordances Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: POPmail 2.3b8 Message-Id: <35659f9e0229102@mhub1.tc.umn.edu> Date: Fri, 22 May 98 10:54:07 -0500 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1748 Anyone interested in submitting views on concordances under any of the three headings below or others? - Already published: 1. Book Concordances perhaps just comments supplementary to the latest edition of J.A. Fitzmyer's <>. 2. Electronic Databases and Concordancing Software. - Desired (new) features of concordances for research: 3. Concordance Desiderata perhaps the most helpful of these three. A helpful report for the electronic journal associated with this list could be built from members' comments. The flexibility of electronic publishing could be used to link the report to sites demonstrating the use, or indicating the features, of various concordances. What do you think, Jimmy? ========= Re: tc-list Concordances: The out of print Eerdmans analytical concordance of the RSV was very well conceived and presented. The coming NRSV concordance should also prove to be, but I suspect it will be a little more difficult to achieve the same clarity because of the differences in translation methods between the RSV and the NRSV. NIV concordance one of the best? The problems of creating single English word based concordances of dynamic equivalence translations and correlating the English words to underlying Hebrew and Greek words are exemplified in the NIV concordance. It is also quite difficult to understand why a number of the Hebrew roots were assigned as they were in the NIV concordance list. For those with good library access or secondhand sources: <> compiled by Richard E. Whitaker 1988, William B. Eerdmans Peter Burton burto009@maroon.tc.umn.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 22 19:24:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA18721; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:24:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 19:24:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199805222324.TAA10061@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 Jude 5 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1320 What do you mean no Greek manuscripts for the variants? I see K, A, B, 33 P72, etc listed in various ways at Jude 5. So far as I'm aware bno one has shown clear evidence of a "Western" text anywhere in the Catholic epistles-- see Metzger, TEXT on this. For the Johannine epistles, see W. L. Richards, CLASSIFICATION OF THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES. The same holds true for JAMES if you check the NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECUM EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR. --Rod Mullen At 09:07 AM 5/22/98 -0400, you wrote: >I am looking at the placement of hAPAC in Jude 5 and noticed that UBS and >NA did not list any Greek manuscripts as witnesses for any of the >variants. Are there any Greek manuscipts in the Western text that have >the book of Jude? If so, does anyone know what they read here? > >I also noticed that the critical Greek texts placed hAPAC later in the >verse than the English translations (NASB, NIV). What are the thoughts >out there on the placement of hAPAC? > >Thanks for your responses. > >John Russell >ThM student >Baptist Bible Seminary, PA > >_____________________________________________________________________ >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 Sat May 23 14:53:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20398; Sat, 23 May 1998 14:53:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 14:47:33 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Ja 2:22 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980523184733.0066d07c@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: 645 Talk about external evidence that is nearly perfectly divided- here is a prime example. In Ja 2:22 do you think we have "sunhrgei" or "sunergei"? It seems to me more likely that the present would be changed to the imperfect rather than that the imperfect would be changed to the present. Nevertheless, NA 27 prints "sunhrgei" as the most likely reading. Metzger's Textual commentary does not discuss this- nor is it listed in Aland's TC manual. Any help would be appreciated- though I myself think the present is the more likely reading. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 23 15:35:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20487; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:35:01 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980523184733.0066d07c@highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 14:36:06 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2584 On Sat, 23 May 1998, Jim West wrote: >Talk about external evidence that is nearly perfectly divided- here is a >prime example. In Ja 2:22 do you think we have "sunhrgei" or "sunergei"? >It seems to me more likely that the present would be changed to the >imperfect rather than that the imperfect would be changed to the present. >Nevertheless, NA 27 prints "sunhrgei" as the most likely reading. Metzger's >Textual commentary does not discuss this- nor is it listed in Aland's TC manual. > >Any help would be appreciated- though I myself think the present is the more >likely reading. Seems to me that internal evidence isn't much help here. So we have to turn to the external evidence. Unfortunately, I don't have the new edition of James, nor am I near the local seminary library. But here's what I can draw from Nestle and Merk: SUNERGEI -- Aleph* A 33 630 2138* ff s (here s is vg) SUNHRGEI -- Aleph** B C K L P Psi 049 81 323 614 1505 1611 1241 1739 2298 Byz am ful sy co Analysing by types: SUNERGEI SUNHRGEI Alexandrian Aleph* A 33 B Psi 81 co Family 1739 C 323 1241 1739 2298 Family 2138 630 2138* 614 650 1505 1611 hark Misc. ff s P am ful pesh Byzantine (all) Since the members of family 2138 have all suffered Byzantine mixture, the fact that two different subgroups (630 and 2138*) support SUNERGEI implies that this is the original family reading. Family 1739 unequivocally supports SUNHRGEI. And the Alexandrian text is split squarely down the middle. In my book, this is a two-star decision -- i.e. one that simply cannot be made with certainty (the equivalent of a UBS {D} decision). The evidence of text-types is precisely split. If I were editing the text, I would place SUNHRGEI in the text and SUNERGEI in the margin, on the principle that B is slightly better than Aleph and Family 1739 slightly better than Family 2138. But it's so close a call that I think people can follow their personal preferences -- which probably *won't* mean following the evidence of text-types. :-) completely in -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sat May 23 16:34:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA20594; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:34:54 -0400 Message-ID: <001201bc67b7$88f0f4a0$9f589fc1@cherokee> From: "Dierk Vandenberg" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22 Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 22:25:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 974 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jim West An: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Datum: Samstag, 23. Mai 1998 20:55 Betreff: tc-list Ja 2:22 >Talk about external evidence that is nearly perfectly divided- here is a >prime example. In Ja 2:22 do you think we have "sunhrgei" or "sunergei"? >It seems to me more likely that the present would be changed to the >imperfect rather than that the imperfect would be changed to the present. >Nevertheless, NA 27 prints "sunhrgei" as the most likely reading. Metzger's >Textual commentary does not discuss this- nor is it listed in Aland's TC manual. > >Any help would be appreciated- though I myself think the present is the more >likely reading. > I don't subscribe to this point of view, for "sunhrgei" indicates the relation of the past active faith and works of Abraham and the attainable perfection of faith by works (passive Aorist). Regards, Dierk Dierk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 24 09:42:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22139; Sun, 24 May 1998 09:42:24 -0400 From: PMoore4733 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 09:40:53 EDT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 644 In a message dated 98-05-23 14:55:52 EDT, you write: << In Ja 2:22 do you think we have "sunhrgei" or "sunergei"? It seems to me more likely that the present would be changed to the imperfect rather than that the imperfect would be changed to the present. >> Certainly, the writer looking back at Abraham, in the past called for imperfect tense--easy correction, you raised a good point. Supporting idea: as Burton noted in the Historical Present: " The Present Indicative is used to describe vividly a past event in the presence of which the speaker conceives himself to be." i.e. "do you not see that faith is working...." Paul From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 24 14:54:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA22418; Sun, 24 May 1998 14:54:34 -0400 From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:52:26 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19980522.091415.10278.1.johnrrus@juno.com> Message-ID: <2924FD7759F@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 390 There are various helpful studies of this verse. E.g. C.D. Osburn, 'The Text of Jude 5', Biblica 62 (1981), 107-115, and most recently Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude (JSNTSS 135), Sheffield, 1996; for this variant see pp. 70-77. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 26 08:21:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26694; Tue, 26 May 1998 08:21:20 -0400 Message-ID: <356ACF87.3D2F@airmail.net> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:19:51 -0700 From: Harry Staiti Organization: Ebernorby Resources X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list "This Generation" 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: 345 The author's of Mk 13.28-30, Mt 24.32-34 and Lk 21.29-32 all predict that "The Son of Man" would return in a unspecified time and that time, the unspecified time was nonetheless in ~their~ generation. This did not occur. Any ideas? -- Harry (hstaiti@airmail.net) Postliberal Theology on the Web http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3013 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 26 09:13:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26841; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:13:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 09:01:31 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list "This Generation" X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980526130131.00663bc4@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: 539 At 07:19 AM 5/26/98 -0700, you wrote: >The author's of Mk 13.28-30, Mt 24.32-34 and Lk 21.29-32 all predict >that "The Son of Man" would return in a unspecified time and that time, >the unspecified time was nonetheless in ~their~ generation. > >This did not occur. > >Any ideas? > > Sure- their expectations were wrong. >-- >Harry (hstaiti@airmail.net) >Postliberal Theology on the Web >http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3013 > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 26 10:00:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27058; Tue, 26 May 1998 10:00:19 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980526130131.00663bc4@highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 09:02:02 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list "This Generation" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 906 On Tue, 26 May 1998, Jim West wrote: >At 07:19 AM 5/26/98 -0700, you wrote: >>The author's of Mk 13.28-30, Mt 24.32-34 and Lk 21.29-32 all predict >>that "The Son of Man" would return in a unspecified time and that time, >>the unspecified time was nonetheless in ~their~ generation. >> >>This did not occur. >> >>Any ideas? >> >> > >Sure- their expectations were wrong. :-) It is worth noting that such questions aren't the concern of this list. There is no question of the original wording here. It's a matter for exegetes to explain away, not textual critics. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 26 15:33:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28583; Tue, 26 May 1998 15:33:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:33:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Comments on Concordances In-Reply-To: <35659f9e0229102@mhub1.tc.umn.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: 784 On Fri, 22 May 1998, Peter R. Burton wrote: > 3. Concordance Desiderata > perhaps the most helpful of these three. > > A helpful report for the electronic journal associated with this list could be > built from members' comments. The flexibility of electronic publishing could be > used to link the report to sites demonstrating the use, or indicating the > features, of various concordances. What do you think, Jimmy? If someone wants to put together a Web page that demonstrates the pros and cons of various concordances, I'll be glad to put a link to it from the TC Links page (or even host the page, if that's a better solution). Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 26 16:40:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28830; Tue, 26 May 1998 16:40:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:40:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199805262040.QAA28825@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:26:18 -0700 From: "Bernard A. Taylor" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 330 Dierk Vandenberg wrote: > I don't subscribe to this point of view, for "sunhrgei" indicates the > relation of the past active faith and works of Abraham and the attainable > perfection of faith by works (passive Aorist). That being the case, what is your best guess as to why the change took place? Regards, Bernard Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 27 17:36:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02187; Wed, 27 May 1998 17:36:58 -0400 Message-ID: <000a01bd89b7$701b4de0$84589fc1@cherokee> From: "Dierk Vandenberg" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22 Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:35:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1401 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Bernard A. Taylor An: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Datum: Dienstag, 26. Mai 1998 22:40 Betreff: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22 >Dierk Vandenberg wrote: > >> I don't subscribe to this point of view, for "sunhrgei" indicates the >> relation of the past active faith and works of Abraham and the attainable >> perfection of faith by works (passive Aorist). > >That being the case, what is your best guess as to why the change took place? > >Regards, > >Bernard Taylor > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Covenant of Abraham is in the Christian point of view not an intermediate but an ultimate (present) stage, therefore - since the days of the canonization of Paul's letters and the Hellenistic Q-sayings 'til today - the "true sons of Abraham" are obliged to prefer the present instead of the original imperfect in their "works"-exegesis of the above mentioned passage of Jak, for in the son the father is still present and retrospectively seen likewise unique, even if it's only spiritual son- or adopted fathership within a philosophical (or political) system of "good works" instead of "Torah-works". Today its to late to grumble about facts like Rumpelstiltskin, but finally we should realize Einstein's axiom of relativity: system-immanent truth always depends on the viewer's point of view. Regards, Dierk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 27 18:10:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02294; Wed, 27 May 1998 18:10:28 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000a01bd89b7$701b4de0$84589fc1@cherokee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:11:41 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1665 On Wed, 27 May 1998, "Dierk Vandenberg" wrote: >Today its to late to grumble about facts like Rumpelstiltskin, but finally >we should realize Einstein's axiom of relativity: system-immanent truth >always depends on the viewer's point of view. Wait a minute! Hold on! Yes, Isaac,* they're at it again. This is *not* what Einstein said, and (grumble, mutter, gnash) those who do not understand relativity should not be quoting it! Einstein did not say that observations (observations, be it noted, not "truth" -- whatever that is) depends on the "viewer's point of view." The results of the measurements depend on the viewer's *Frame of Reference.* It's not the same thing. The frame of reference is the environment in which the viewer stands. It has certain characteristics measured against the rest of the universe. None of these are under the control of the observer. Still, any data taken from that frame of reference will be repeatable (except as affected by the uncertainty principle, etc.). So, please, folks, don't say "everything is relative," or "everything depends on the viewer's point of view," or any such nonsense. Because that's what it is. Nonsense. Back to your regularly scheduled lives. * That's Isaac Newton, for those not in the know. A physicist who -- unlike Einstein -- actually believed in his data. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 27 22:26:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA02958; Wed, 27 May 1998 22:26:13 -0400 X-Sender: nielsen@pop.uidaho.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <35659f9e0229102@mhub1.tc.umn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 19:20:48 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ralph Nielsen Subject: Re: tc-list Comments on Concordances Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 367 I just received a Closeout Sale list from Christian Book Distributors. They still have copies of the out-of-print NRSV Concordance, Unabridged, by John R. Kohlenberger III. The price for this $39.99 book is only $7.95. It has 1650 pages. but does not contain Hebrew and Greek indexes; it indexes only the English words of the NRSV. To order, phone 1-978-977-5000. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 28 02:46:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA03510; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:46:42 -0400 Message-ID: <000c01bd8a04$40140cc0$98589fc1@cherokee> From: "Dierk Vandenberg" To: Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:45:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2091 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Robert B. Waltz An: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Datum: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 1998 00:11 Betreff: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) >those who do not understand relativity should not be quoting it! > >Einstein did not say that observations (observations, be it noted, >not "truth" -- whatever that is) depends on the "viewer's point of view." >The results of the measurements depend on the viewer's *Frame of >Reference.* It's not the same thing. The frame of reference is >the environment in which the viewer stands. It has certain >characteristics measured against the rest of the universe. None >of these are under the control of the observer. > >Still, any data taken from that frame of reference will be repeatable >(except as affected by the uncertainty principle, etc.). > >So, please, folks, don't say "everything is relative," or "everything >depends on the viewer's point of view," or any such nonsense. Because >that's what it is. Nonsense. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry, but it seem to me as if you were afraid to leave a closed (Christian) system - and "system" exactly was the term I used to define truth as a viewers point of view. What he realizes is an observation, Sir. And he measures with the techniques founded axiomately in his system. That's why e.g., Bultmann realized that the largest circle to be drawn in a 2-dimensional system is equal to the beginning point: "We do not really know who the HJ was!" I won't comment on your knowledge of Einstein, but doubtlessly you haven't yet read his book "Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie", Akademy Press, Berlin 1956. Enough about Albert and his axiom of impossibility to explain 3-dimensionality onto a 2-dimensional audience. What about the use of the present instead of the imperfect in Ja 2:22? Still I've heared no good news from you aside a classic refusing position which blames Jesus' double Love-Commandment. Regards from Goethe's Germany, Dr. rer. nat. Dierk Vandenberg From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 28 08:59:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04452; Thu, 28 May 1998 08:59:27 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000c01bd8a04$40140cc0$98589fc1@cherokee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:00:54 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3109 On Thu, 28 May 1998, "Dierk Vandenberg" wrote: >Sorry, but it seem to me as if you were afraid to leave a closed (Christian= ) >system - and "system" exactly was the term I used to define truth as a >viewers point of view. I haven't a clue what this means. Doesn't sound like science to me, though -= - which is what *I'm* talking about. >What he realizes is an observation, Sir. And he >measures with the techniques founded axiomately in his system. That's why >e.g., Bultmann realized that the largest circle to be drawn in a >2-dimensional system is equal to the beginning point: "We do not really kno= w >who the HJ was!" Pardon me, but can you tell me what the "axioms" of relativity theory are (apart from some of the assumptions of mathematics)? >I won't comment on your knowledge of Einstein, but doubtlessly you haven't >yet read his book "=DCber die spezielle und allgemeine Relativit=E4tstheori= e", >Akademy Press, Berlin 1956. You're right. I haven't read it. It's hardly likely that I would read anything Einstein wrote after 1927 -- which is when Einstein ceased to be a scientist and became a mystic. (Yes, a mystic. Because, by refusing to accept the Uncertainty Principle, Einstein put his beliefs ahead of the truth.) On the other hand, I *have* studied EInstein's real work. Not in depth -- I only have a bachelor's in physics. But I can define Brownian Motion, and the Photoelectric Effect, and the Fitzgerald Contraction. Can you? If not, then you don't understand Einstein. >Enough about Albert and his axiom of impossibility to explain >3-dimensionality onto a 2-dimensional audience. What? A scientific axiom cannot contain the word "explain." I must say again, if you do not understand science, don't quote it. I'm not objecting to your philosophy. That's your concern. But, Sir, you are misquoting and misusing science. Don't expect me to approve. If I stop arguing, it's because I've given up. >What about the use of the present instead of the imperfect in Ja 2:22? >Still I've heared no good news from you aside a classic refusing position >which blames Jesus' double Love-Commandment. I'm not making any statement about the reading of this passage. I made an early comment about how I would select a variant, based solely on external evidence. I don't do internal evidence. (A slightly exaggerated statement, but in general I leave internal evidence to others.) You may choose whichever variant you want in this verse. I won't even argue, since I consider either almost equally possible. I am simply objecting to the fact that you claim to be following Einstein, and are in fact spouting philosophy, not science. Quote Einstein's philosophy if you wish -- but don't call it science, and don't ring relativity theory into philosophy. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 28 09:26:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04544; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:26:23 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: granite.sover.net: nichael owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:25:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1271 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >"Dierk Vandenberg" wrote: > >I won't comment on your knowledge of Einstein, but doubtlessly you haven= 't > >yet read his book "=DCber die spezielle und allgemeine Relativit=E4tsthe= orie", > >Akademy Press, Berlin 1956. > You're right. I haven't read it.=20 This is getting prepostersously far afield of the topic of this list, but just to make the point that, yes, I have read the above book (at least in it English translation, as part of my graduate courses in relativity) and I have to say that I fail to understand in what way it supports the claims in whose support it is being cited.=20 But the relevant point here is that Robert is right; there is a lamentable tendency on these lists to play fast and loose with certain highfalutin --an utterly irrelevant-- concepts from the hard sciences (most commonly from physics) to support an otherwise flimsy position (typically of the "quantum-mechanics-proves-that-the-Q-hypothesis/darwinism/whatever-can't- be-correct" school of argument). This tendency should be resisted. And with that, in turn, I strongly suggest that this thread be allowed to die the death that it deserves. Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 28 10:11:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04689; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:11:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:09:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" X-Sender: gjw@shell3.ba.best.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1823 I normally lurk on this list because I am only an amateur in the field of textual criticism and generally do not consider myself qualified to join the discussion. However, by education I am a mathematician, and professionally I am a software analyst (in medical informatics, though my area of specialization is networking and distributed systems). Having said that, I am of two minds about they types of misuse of science I often see in philosophical discussions. In Einstein's theory, relativity means something very specific. I won't go into the details right now, but it is NOT a philosophical principle. GR is a very precise mathematical model which encompasses mechanics and gravitation (which were separate in classical Newtonian physics.) The term "relativity" is really a description of how Einsteinian and Newtonian physics differ and nothing more If GR had no historical context it would probably have been called something like the Einstein gravitational field equations -- much less inspiring from a philosophical point of view. That being said, I realize that metaphor exercises a very powerful influence on our way of thinking, and even though mathematicians and physicists find it rather grating at times to hear relativity described as an an abstract philosophical idea, it is true that the natural world is a rich source of metaphors, and so I don't want to be too negative about the use of relativity as a metaphor. But don't forget that in relativity the universe is only "one way", so to speak, it's just that observers in different reference frames will come up with different values. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discipline. --- Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html The only way to build a building is to start at the ground and work upwards. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 28 10:48:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04847; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:48:20 -0400 Date: 28 May 1998 14:47:04 -0000 Message-ID: <19980528144704.27517.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Ralph Nielsen on Wed, 27 May 1998 19:20:48 -0700) Subject: Re: tc-list Comments on Concordances From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 586 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > the out-of-print NRSV Concordance, Unabridged, by John > R. Kohlenberger III. The price for this $39.99 book is only $7.95. The price listed in their WWW page was US$6.95 plus shipping, which is the price they allowed me over the telephone. Vincent Broman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNW14oGCU4mTNq7IdAQH7/gP/Vl+Leoj8EWPKewfB1u75FguqowDEXg7i B6bQPHV+sR5UW9JFtf5Ug1kQWDp4jH88J/SgZyVdngptd+X/YoCTXWkBw4pL4eL1 EDkwyu1wDQczSLzzZl7+mQkkb0NFNjpQ/j5IKrc3wLqnp6H7XxxooKlyIFgaxhzD dURWEZj1T0I= =4Hwg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 28 10:48:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04846; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:48:19 -0400 Date: 28 May 1998 14:47:04 -0000 Message-ID: <19980528144704.27517.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Ralph Nielsen on Wed, 27 May 1998 19:20:48 -0700) Subject: Re: tc-list Comments on Concordances From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 586 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > the out-of-print NRSV Concordance, Unabridged, by John > R. Kohlenberger III. The price for this $39.99 book is only $7.95. The price listed in their WWW page was US$6.95 plus shipping, which is the price they allowed me over the telephone. Vincent Broman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNW14oGCU4mTNq7IdAQH7/gP/Vl+Leoj8EWPKewfB1u75FguqowDEXg7i B6bQPHV+sR5UW9JFtf5Ug1kQWDp4jH88J/SgZyVdngptd+X/YoCTXWkBw4pL4eL1 EDkwyu1wDQczSLzzZl7+mQkkb0NFNjpQ/j5IKrc3wLqnp6H7XxxooKlyIFgaxhzD dURWEZj1T0I= =4Hwg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 28 21:20:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06815; Thu, 28 May 1998 21:20:16 -0400 Message-ID: <002201bd8a9f$d5d54940$82589fc1@cherokee> From: "Dierk Vandenberg" To: Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 03:18:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD8AB0.8564E0E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2799 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD8AB0.8564E0E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Bob et par, as far as I remember me, it was you who introduced an = 'Altzheimer-dispute' about a common known phrase at the trivial = periphery of my first posting.=20 And that I know nothing about my own profession which intentionally is = hidden in the signature of the 2nd posting (to test your comprehension = of TC!) is a gift you better should offer yourself, for it refers to a = style aside the known tracks of scholarly discourse, here known as = Neanderthal-shuffle. Unfortunately I received no critics on the requested best guess why the = imperfect of Ja 2:22 was changed during the canonization. But seeing = your bombastic reaction on Ja 2:22, I'd surely come in contact with = Oppenheimer's toy if we'd discuss the Hebrew original of Mt 9-10 et = par.[AV-NKJV]: "Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the = Lord ....... Hosanna in the highest." Time to stop hovering in a B 52, isn't it, Bob?=20 There was and still is no reason for a nervous and overhasty preventive = stroke.=20 Regards, Dierk ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD8AB0.8564E0E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Bob et par,

as far as I remember me, it was you who introduced an = 'Altzheimer-dispute'=20 about a common known phrase at the trivial periphery of my first = posting.=20
And that I know nothing about my own profession which intentionally = is=20 hidden in the signature of the 2nd posting (to test your=20 comprehension of TC!) is a gift you better should offer yourself, for it = refers=20 to a style aside the known tracks of scholarly discourse, here known as=20 Neanderthal-shuffle.

Unfortunately I received no critics on the requested best guess why = the=20 imperfect of Ja 2:22 was changed during the canonization. But seeing = your=20 bombastic reaction on Ja 2:22, I'd surely come in contact with = Oppenheimer's toy=20 if we'd discuss the Hebrew original of Mt 9-10 et par.[AV-NKJV]: = "Hosanna;=20 Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord ....... Hosanna in = the=20 highest."

Time to stop hovering in a B 52, isn't it, Bob?
There was and = still is no=20 reason for a nervous and overhasty preventive stroke.

Regards,
Dierk

 
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD8AB0.8564E0E0-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 29 09:29:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA08515; Fri, 29 May 1998 09:29:14 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002201bd8a9f$d5d54940$82589fc1@cherokee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 08:21:14 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1381 On Fri, 29 May 1998, "Dierk Vandenberg" wrote: > =20 >Dear Bob et par, >=20 >as far as I remember me, it was you who introduced an 'Altzheimer-dispute' = about a common known phrase at the trivial periphery of my first posting. = And that I know nothing about my own profession which intentionally is = hidden in the signature of the 2nd posting (to test your comprehension of= TC!) is a gift you better should offer yourself, for it refers to a style= aside the known tracks of scholarly discourse, here known as Neanderthal-s= huffle. >=20 >Unfortunately I received no critics on the requested best guess why the = imperfect of Ja 2:22 was changed during the canonization. But seeing your = bombastic reaction on Ja 2:22, I'd surely come in contact with= Oppenheimer's toy if we'd discuss the Hebrew original of Mt 9-10 et= par.[AV-NKJV]: "Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the= Lord ....... Hosanna in the highest." >=20 >Time to stop hovering in a B 52, isn't it, Bob? There was and still is no = reason for a nervous and overhasty preventive stroke.=20 I'm not going to respond further to this. My only request to the list is, read what *I* say, not what the poster says I said. They aren't the same. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 30 19:49:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12394; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:16 -0400 Message-ID: <35709AF2.F2C9EAA4@concentric.net> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 16:49:06 -0700 From: Kenneth Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Misuse of science (Was: Re: tc-list Ja 2:22) 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: 2193 While this may be off-topic, I have a simple query. I grant that the humanities, like textual criticism, are not like the hard sciences in that data cannot be generated again. That is, you can't do an experiment to verify whether the Alexandrian text-type is really the closest to the original, since we don't have the original. There's also no way to "verify" the interpretation of a given biblical text, and interpretation of texts does, after all, have some bearing on textual decisions, though it should be a lower priority criterion than external evidence. At the same time, I have to ask why it should be the case that fields that do have "testable" conditions, like the hard sciences, when "epistemological" principles are derived, those principles are ot seen as relevant to other areas. I've never read Einstein in German or English. What I have read, relating to the hard sciences, suggests to me that at least some representatives of those disciplines and I have two degrees in computer systems, if that counts at all) can suggest that one's point of view affects ow one interprets data, and that we can never know anything as it is but only s we perceive it through a particular interpretive grid, which is affected by our world view (I think that's from Polanyi but my memory may not be perfect on this), why doesn't that pertain by extension to the humanities? If you believe that the Byzantine text type is the most original (and I don't but some do), that belief affects how you read MS evidence. The meaning of the evidence is affected by your point of view, or frame of reference. Just because this principles of observation are made in physics, I see no logical reason that the same epistemological principles don't pertain to other disciplines, whether in "science" or the "humanities". Why isn't what the philosophers of science say relevant to research in all the sciences and in the humanities as well? Why isn't Polanyi relevant to the humanities? I realize this is way off-topic, so feel free to reply to me privately but I think this is a real issue. Ken Litwak University of Bristol Bristol, England (and Java instructor in California)