From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 1 01:03:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA26279; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 01:03:43 -0400 From: "Errol Smith & Colleen Loo" To: Subject: tc-list George Howard's Shem Tob Matthew new article in J.St.N.T, Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:06:49 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <05011297379696@domain3.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1882 To all those who have read Petersen's recent article on T.C. responding to George Howard's proposal concerning Shem Tob's text of Matthew in Hebrew, Howard has recently published another journal article: "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and early Jewish Christianity", Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol.70, (1998), p.3-20. The abstract (p.20) reads : "The author attempts to pinpoint the date of the Shem -Tob type Matthean text by locating its theology within the history of Jewish Christianity. After delineating four theological motifs in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew: (1) Exaltation of John the Baptist, (2) Continued relevance of the baptism of John, (3) Delayed inclusion of the Gentiles, (4) Delayed recognition of Jesus as Messiah, a comparison is made with the theologies of several Jewish groups mentioned in the New Testament and later Christian literature. Although the distinctive motifs in the Hebrew Matthew are generally represented within Jewish Christianity, no single group is a good candidate for publishing this text. A general date within the first four centuries, is therefore, suggested for the Shem-Tob text." Howard does not interact directly with the more recent work of Petersen, doubteless becasue of the delay of internet vs traditional publishing. Also of interest to those working in this general field may be another fairly recent article by Simon C. Mimouni, "Les Nazoreens recherches etymologique et historique", Revue Biblique, Vol.105.2, (1998), p.208-262. Those who are very fluent in French may wish to do those of us who are not so proficient a service by translating it into English. I am sure such a substantial article would be publishable in many English speaking theological journals, or even on the "net" (with the Mimouni's and Revue Biblique's permission of course). Any takers? Yours sincerely, Errol Smith. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 3 18:33:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA06818; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:33:52 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:33:02 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 583 K. C. Hanson has set up a "Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices 2nd - 10th Centuries". It looks good and has links to other resources. It can be found at: http://www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson/papyri.html Mark Goodacre ------------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept. of Theology Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512 University of Birmingham Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 3 19:22:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06932; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:22:02 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:26:37 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1407 On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, "Mark Goodacre" wrote: >K. C. Hanson has set up a "Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices 2nd - >10th Centuries". It looks good and has links to other resources. It can be >found at: People should be warned, though, that it takes *forever* to load. You can tell the site owner is an academic with unlimited connect time. It really should have been broken up into smaller units. Also, the "Aleph" symbol is wrong (that one is an HTML glitch, and may not occur on your particular machine) -- if you see an "is not a subset" symbol, that's supposed to be an Aleph. The part that bugged me the most, though, was the way the papyri were classified. I would regard this as completely untrustworthy (P47 agrees with A and C more than Aleph?). This is not to say that it is not a nice site. It *is* a good catalog, and being on the web, it can be kept more current than the KListe or the NA editions. I also like the other ancient documents it provides access to. But take those textual classifications with a grain of salt. Or six.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 4 12:19:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10614; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:19:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:22:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria In-Reply-To: <199807311641_MC2-54C8-C22E@compuserve.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: 17893 On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE wrote: > As I recall, the statement that only Smith saw the letter is > incorrect: the librarian and the Abbot (or other appropriate > designation) also saw it. > > I will check further on this, and post any other details I come > across. But the oft-heard statement that "only Smith saw it" seems > wrong, even on the face of it. Yes, I agree with this. This subject was discussed in some detail not so long ago on Crosstalk-L. It is to be regretted that unfounded rumours have been circulating in the last few years that tended to question Smith's integrity. Some suggestions were even made that he may have had some role in forging SecMk. I would like to offer to esteemed scholars my take on why such rumours seem entirely groundless. This article was posted previously to Crosstalk-L. Apologies for the length. I would be grateful for any and all criticisms. Best wishes, Yuri. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 13:47:33 -0400 From: y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca To: crosstalk Subject: SecMk is authentic Why it is impossible that Morton Smith could have forged Clement's letter & the SecMk fragment. --- Now I have revisited this old controversy. In the course of my recent research re: the compositional history of the Gospel of Mark, I have reread Morton Smith's two books on the subject, after many years. I was interested primarily by what SecMk can tell us about the history of early Christianity. I certainly don't agree with Smith in everything he says. In fact, I see quite a few areas where Smith seems rather off base in his interpretations of early Christian history. In particular, I'm much more sceptical than he in attributing the events SecMk narrates directly to the events in life of the Historical Jesus. SecMk seems to me more like a later gnostic-oriented expansion, while still produced within the Markan community. Nevertheless, Smith had done a huge amount of background research in this area, and his book reveals many unexpected surprises on my later rereading. Speculation has been rife in recent years that Smith was the forger of this intriguing document, or else was in charge of a criminal conspiracy to produce this forgery. Such speculation has been broadcast of late especially by the famous scholar Prof. Jack Neusner, the former student of Smith turned his enemy (this happened for reasons entirely unconnected with the ms). Neusner is of course a very influential man in the biblical field, and his views cannot be disregarded. Some other scholars also tended to lend support to such accusations. It is my purpose to show in this article that these accusations are entirely without merit, and that, if anything, they may only raise doubts about the professional competence of those making them. It needs to be noted, of course, that there are many responsible scholars who are sceptical about this SecMk fragment, and who suspect it is a forgery. But generally these sceptics consider that this was an old forgery of some sort. Some maintain it is a forgery produced in the 18th century; others say it was produced any time in between the 2nd and the 18th centuries. Prima facie, that this is an old forgery is not impossible, of course. And academic discussions of such scenarios have been going on for great many years, ever since the discovery of the fragment was announced by Smith, first privately to some scholars in 1958, and then publicly in 1960. This is a very complex debate, and I will not be able to deal with it now. The purpose of this article is merely to defend Smith from what I see as entirely unjustified accusations of wrongdoing. He was an honest scholar who happened to come across a mysterious manuscript, and who devoted many years of his life to trying to understand its meaning. He did not deserve these sordid accusations. While, as I show further, it would have been impossible for Smith to have accomplished such a forgery, the same arguments should apply to a lesser extent to other theories of forgery not involving Smith. Myself, I have looked at length into these debates and into various versions offered by different scholars, and my view is that the balance of the evidence points to Clement's letter fragment as being genuine, i.e. authored by Clement himself. I think the whole ms is exactly what it claims to be, i.e it is a letter of Clement containing what Clement thinks is part of a secret version of Mk's gospel, as used in the Church of Alexandria. (By the way, it also seems likely to me that Clement's version of the textual development of Mk as given in the letter is not entirely accurate, for whatever reasons.) MANUSCRIPT ITSELF It seems like most serious opponents of SecMk in the last few years have been focusing their criticism on the fact that the manuscript has been seen by so few. There was some mystery about this manuscript. Where is it? How come basic tests on paper, ink, or other such tests have not been conducted? The piece of information Mahlon Smith have supplied recently on Crosstalk list about the manuscript having been seen recently after all by a credible witness is very important in this respect, to help put some of these doubts to rest. I've suggested before that perhaps the main reason the manuscript has been seen by so few was that so few were really so interested in seeing it. Certainly it is a lot easier to spread groundless rumours behind people's backs than to go out and actually do such field research, which, needless to say, may involve such complications as having to pack your suitcase and do a bit of travel for a change... It is to the credit of Charles Hedrick that he did go out and take his time to look up the ms, instead of just talking endlessly about how few have seen it, and what all this may signify... THREE FORGERIES IN ONE Now, to begin my case for authenticity, I would like to stress that we are actually talking about _three_ separate hypothetical forgeries here. Let's keep this in mind. In other words, in order for Smith to have accomplished such a highly complex forgery, he would have had to have done the following. He would have needed to forge not one but two documents: 1. The letter of Clement itself. 2. The two SecMk gospel fragments. And also, the third item that he would have needed to have pulled off. 3. To have found a scribe, really a genius of a scribe, who would have been able to forge some very unique and specialized 18th century Greek scribal handwriting, and to forge it flawlessly, with all its highly unique abbreviations and complexities. Nobody in their right mind would try to suggest that Smith was an expert scribe himself. Not quite. He would have certainly needed an accomplice for this. Since these two texts, the letter itself, and the gospel fragments as given by Clement, are composed in completely different styles, and using very different vocabularies, in order to forge them Smith would have had to be an expert on both Clement and Mk. He was neither, certainly not before 1958. So, now, let's consider these 3 items in order. 1. The excerpt from the letter of Clement, itself, is much longer than the gospel fragments, and it would have been a lot harder to forge credibly. As Thomas Talley, one serious investigator of this problem, indicated, at this time only a small handful of scholars still dispute that the letter represents an authentic tradition from Clement of Alexandria. Every word and sentence of the Clementine portion of this ms has been put under the microscope and compared in minutest detail to the extant undisputed Clementine texts, of which we have quite a lot. And every comparison has basically held up. These detailed studies are many and freely available for perusal by interested parties. Out of the fourteen leading Clementine scholars Smith consulted originally, only two had some reservations, and Smith had dealt with their quite minor technical objections in detail, and showed them insufficient to cause doubt as to authenticity. It is important for our case that the letter has been included in the standard edition of the Alexandrian father's writings since 1980. [Talley, Thomas. "Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church: The State of Research." Studia Liturgica 14 (1982), p. 45] And this should speak better than anything else about where the consensus of the Clementine scholars is now in regard to this matter. This first item alone should make it appear highly unlikely that Smith could have pulled it off, i.e. could have fooled the whole world of scholarship to such an extent. 2. Now, the SecMk fragment, in itself, presents us with a very special set of highly complicated problems of its own. On purely linguistic basis, scholars have been arguing whether or not the fragment could have been put together merely from scraps of the canonical material. (Since almost every serious opponent of SecMk thinks this would have been an ancient forgery, the debate has been conducted primarily in this context.) The balance of evidence seems to point to the fragment being based on an original tradition, separate from and prior to the canonical traditions. But a definitive judgement here on purely stylistic grounds is quite a tough call, since the fragment is rather short. In any case, Smith not being known as a Mk scholar prior to his discovery, very few indeed suggested that he, himself, could have created the fragment ex nihilo. Now, the next and a separate question about this SecMk fragment should be, Supposing it's genuine, how does it fit together with the canonical gospels? I.e. what about the contents of this fragment, rather than just the style of writing? Because, it is important to note, the parallels must be considered not only with the rest of Mk, but also with Jn, since the SecMk fragment narrates the raising of a young man that is very close to the raising of Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel. And not only that, there's yet another complicated matter to consider here. Smith has also suggested in his two books that there are also other and more significant structural parallels between Mk and Jn, the parallels going far beyond the fragment. According to Smith, his thinking in this area was stimulated by the research associated with the fragment. Once he saw the parallels between the SecMk fragment and Jn, he also began to see much greater parallels between large parts of Mk (beginning at 6:32; cf. p. 56 in SECRET GOSPEL) and large parts of Jn (beginning at 6:1). He bases his theories in this area in part on the work of some scholars who were working early in this century, and who suggested compatible theories re: the redactional history of Jn, and Jn's possible use of Mk -- among them Bultmann, N. Huffmann, and especially Charles Dodd. (CLEMENT, p. 146ff.) It is not possible to deal here now with all these complex relationships. Their full consideration should involve, - the proto Mk theories of Helmut Koester, and of Alfred Loisy, - other controversial wider theories about how Jn, Lk, and Mt relate to Mk (was Jn really influenced by Mk's structure?), - Smith's own views on the matter that were clearly evolving and changing over time, as his published work indicates, - the question of how many other commentators, such as Crossan, evaluated this evidence, - possible Aramaic proto-sources (Smith favoured this idea, but received little support from other scholars on this), - and much more besides. All that needs to be said at this point is that for Smith to have managed to accomplish this second forgery, and to accomplish it in such a way that scholars are still debating the matter hotly after 40 years, would be nothing short of miraculous. And, generally, I don't believe in such unlikely miracles. EPIGRAPHY LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR DOUBT 3. And, finally, the handwriting. As Smith details in his book, the near consensus of all the top palaeographic experts he consulted both in Greece and the US was that the manuscript dates to the 18th century (on pp. 22-23 of his SECRET GOSPEL, Smith gives the long list of the names of these experts). Certainly the opinion of these competent scholars should not be taken lightly. We are talking here about some highly specialized criteria that they take into consideration, such as the use of special scribal ligatures, of subscripts, of very complex abbreviations, both medial and terminal, the use of the coronis, and other such matters comprehensible for the most part only to experts. And also Smith reports in his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA that a rare manuscript was found that is remarkably close in appearance to our ms. Smith writes that a Greek scholar, Professor Scouvaras, has discovered "...an eighteenth-century ecclesiastical document in a native Greek hand strikingly similar to that of our manuscript. [It is reproduced on Plate IV in Smith's book] ... [It is] an autograph codex of the Oecumenical Patriarch Callinicus III and was written about 1760 in the Phanariot hand which had been formed in Constantinople shortly before that time." (p. 2) So here we are, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Three forgeries in one, Smith's critics would like to charge him with. Two unique ancient texts, so different in style and content, _plus_ finding an epigraphic genius forger to put them down on paper. Does this stray far beyond the realm of reality? I sure think so. AN IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO And now let's look at what Smith would have had to do to put it all together. To remind, his discovery was made when he was doing the job of cataloguing odd mss in the rather neglected library of the great Greek Orthodox desert monastery of Mar Saba, near Jerusalem. Presumably, the critics charge, Smith would have planted the book with the text already written into it while he was doing that job. This means that he would have had to have spent years of his life previously to that getting himself totally immersed into Clement and Mk, becoming a "secret world-class expert" in these two highly complex areas. And when he finally accomplished that task, and composed the two texts, next he would have had to find the "Genius Scribe", his presumed accomplice. (Or did he find this accomplice even before he embarked on his nefarious course?) So they pulled it off, and produced the flawless forgery. Then he goes to Mar Saba and plants the mss. From then on, the story unfolds as previously known. An obvious question needs to be asked here. Is there any evidence that Smith knew far in advance that he would be doing this two-week job at Mar Saba in 1958? Actually, according to his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, p. ix, Smith was given permission by Benedict, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to catalogue the library when he was already in Jerusalem in 1958. In my opinion, it is this premeditation part of this supposed plot to forge these documents that makes it really quite fantastic. He had this idea, "I will produce this forgery and will plant this book in this library." And then he devotes years of his life to this, working in the highest secrecy... Does this sound like a light-hearted prank that some suggested as his motivation? And it also needs to be noted here that if Smith managed to "plant" this particular manuscript in any other library other than Mar Saba, the case for authenticiy would have been rather weaker. This is because there's a recorded tradition that a collection of Clement's letters _has been attested_ in Mar Saba during the Middle Ages. So such a discovery in Mar Saba was not totally unpredictable, after all... Smith devoted many well-documented years of his life on an academic study of the ms he discovered. Some commentators have actually suggested half-jokingly that the amount of effort he put into all this was almost inexplicable. After reading his two books, it indeed seems like Smith was genuinely obsessed with his discovery. So Neusner and Co. would presumably claim that Smith did all this background research _before_ he "discovered" the ms? And then he "pretended" to do all this work later? But he repeatedly consulted dozens of noted scholars later and not before! Many of these scholars are still around to tell their side of the story... To summarize. To accomplish _the three_ such highly complex forgeries, and not to have been caught, would have been beyond the power of one man. To have even _attempted_ such a hopeless task, a task both so hopeless and so time-consuming, would have been quite silly, and Smith was generally not thought of as silly. And finally, when Smith's discovery is looked at dispassionately, there's really not much there on the surface. What kind of an earth-shaking reaction did he accomplish? Not much really beyond some obscure disputes among professional text crunchers. It's not like the ms just comes out and says, "Jesus was a homosexual, and the whole of Christian religion is a hoax"... Not at all. All it really says is that the Carpocratian heretics were perverts and twisted the Scriptures. But this was already well known before. So, in other words, the pay-off from such a monumental forgery would have been not all that much in any case. To conclude, the mss is genuine. And for any who still have doubts, by all means, lobby for the tests on the ink of the mss. Such tests should surely remove all doubt as to the authenticity of this, on the whole, certainly very intriguing, and probably highly revealing document. 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 Wed Aug 5 06:32:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA14608; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 06:32:42 -0400 Message-ID: <002301bdc05c$59bc9fa0$b6107ec1@ju.local.lusodoc.pt> From: "Julio Anjos" To: Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:32:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3057 -----Original Message----- From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: 04 August 1998 16:29 Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria <...> >AN IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO > >And now let's look at what Smith would have had to do to put it all >together. To remind, his discovery was made when he was doing the job of >cataloguing odd mss in the rather neglected library of the great Greek >Orthodox desert monastery of Mar Saba, near Jerusalem. Presumably, the >critics charge, Smith would have planted the book with the text already >written into it while he was doing that job. This means that he would have >had to have spent years of his life previously to that getting himself >totally immersed into Clement and Mk, becoming a "secret world-class >expert" in these two highly complex areas. > More than that, where would he have found the previouslly unknown Sofocle works in whose back the Clementine was copied? Wouldn't that have to be forged as well? <...> >And it also needs to be noted here that if Smith managed to "plant" this >particular manuscript in any other library other than Mar Saba, the case >for authenticiy would have been rather weaker. This is because there's a >recorded tradition that a collection of Clement's letters _has been >attested_ in Mar Saba during the Middle Ages. So such a discovery in Mar >Saba was not totally unpredictable, after all... > I did not know that! But it seems to me that some thing need to be analysed about this: a) The letters were beeing copied on the XVIII th century, so it seems very likelly they are still around ( the full Mar Saba Collection of Clementines that is). b) Morton Smith did not find such a collection! c) Were they in purpose not presented to Dr. Smith? Does Mar Saba Monastery still have them? d) Wouldn't it be interesting if a similar hand to the Clementine Letter was to be found in other manuscripts on the Monastery ( private letters, etc) Do not forget that the existence of what became to be known as Codex Sinaiticus was denied for years by the monks! that we had to wait for this century for findidng many missing fragments of that codex on the same monastery it was originally discovered in! >Smith devoted many well-documented years of his life on an academic study >of the ms he discovered. Some commentators have actually suggested >half-jokingly that the amount of effort he put into all this was almost >inexplicable. After reading his two books, it indeed seems like Smith was >genuinely obsessed with his discovery. > <...> I think you do not call an important point to the discussion table here. That point is : the level of akademia and Mr. Smith's own age at the time of discovery, seem incompatible with him beeing the forgerer if anyone really forged the Letter! If he was the forgerer he could have made a full Secret Mark with all bells and whistles, not just an handfull of verses! Julio Anjos From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 5 10:29:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15269; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:29:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199808051429.HAA14229@smtp.northlink.com> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 07:22:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Priority: normal In-reply-to: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 869 > K. C. Hanson has set up a "Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices 2nd - > 10th Centuries". It looks good and has links to other resources. It can be > found at: > > http://www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson/papyri.html I have to agree with Bob Waltz: this page is much too large. I contacted Prof. Hanson about it, telling him that I took the liberty of dividing it up and offering to send the results to him. Here is his response: -- Thanks for your note. I am leaving on a business trip, but I will try to attend to it late next week. Thanks for the offer to send it to me, but I can break it up without much hassle. -- So hopefully, it will soon be in a form that is more manageable for those of us who pay by the hour for our Net connections. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur When in doubt, go for chocolate. Life is too short not to. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 5 16:36:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17182; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:36:44 -0400 From: PMoore4733@aol.com Message-ID: <781ffe29.35c8c259@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:36:40 EDT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 247 I am running windows 98 with a 486 board upgraded to a 586 (at 133 MH). I have the pages loaded in a matter of seconds! I have only about 20 meg. on board memory. America Online is my provider..... I think the site is great...... Paul Moore From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 5 17:36:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17528; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:36:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:31:35 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980805213135.006605b8@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: 635 At 04:36 PM 8/5/98 -0400, you wrote: >I am running windows 98 with a 486 board upgraded to a 586 (at 133 MH). I >have the pages loaded in a matter of seconds! I have only about 20 meg. on >board memory. America Online is my provider..... > >I think the site is great...... > > >Paul Moore I'm with Paul. I use a 266 mhz processor with a 586 chip; and a 56K modem- and have no trouble whatever with K.C.'s page. It loads quick- and the whole thing is one of the better, and more useful, web pages. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 5 18:27:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17690; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:27:14 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <781ffe29.35c8c259@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:23:23 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1896 On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, PMoore4733@aol.com wrote: >I am running windows 98 with a 486 board upgraded to a 586 (at 133 MH). I >have the pages loaded in a matter of seconds! I have only about 20 meg. on >board memory. America Online is my provider..... What are you looking for, praise or sympathy? If the site loads speedily, it's because you have it cached. Purge your browser cache, *then* see how fast it loads. Your computer has very little to do with the loading speed. The controlling factor, in all but the most unusual cases (e.g. java), is how fast you can receive the data. If you have a fast modem and a good connection, it will load quickly. But the whole problem of the Internet is that people frequently can't get good connections. I can't, and I'm actually in the same state as the site. If it works for you, that's fine. The point is, its design philosophy *will* make it difficult for some people to use. Especially those whose internet connections take a long path to it (typical examples are those who are overseas, or those whose suppliers don't have enough bandwidth because their local phone company insists on using its cables for its own use. I fall into the latter category, I believe.) >I think the site is great...... For the most part, so do I; the fact that it takes forever is not relevant to that. I merely pointed it out for those who do have slow connections. But my basic problem lies with the textual classification of the papyri. I don't expect the catalogue compilers to read what I've done :-), but they could at least read Zuntz.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 5 22:16:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18090; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:16:12 -0400 From: PMoore4733@aol.com Message-ID: <6a10f60a.35c9119f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:14:53 EDT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 354 In a message dated 8/5/98 5:33:20 PM Central Daylight Time, waltzmn@skypoint.com writes: << f the site loads speedily, it's because you have it cached. Purge your browser cache, >> Actually, it loaded fast the first time I used it! ????? Paul James Moore ______________ ThD New Testament Greek Midwestern State University (CE) Wichita Falls, Texas From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 5 22:45:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18141; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:45:12 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <6a10f60a.35c9119f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 21:49:51 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1111 On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, PMoore4733@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 8/5/98 5:33:20 PM Central Daylight Time, >waltzmn@skypoint.com writes: > ><< f the site loads speedily, it's because you have it cached. Purge your > browser cache, >> > >Actually, it loaded fast the first time I used it! ????? Well, maybe your standard of "fast" differs from mine. To me, a page is fast if it loads in ten seconds or less. (Yes, that means that the majority of pages out there are slow. :-) Given that the page as I loaded it included a 137K graphic, it *cannot* load in ten seconds, unless you have a T1 line or the like. Still, if you're satisfied, that's fine. You must have a better local phone network than we do here in Minnesota. It took me about five minutes to load the page. But, again and again, I urge my main point: Don't trust the classification of the papyri. As an online catalog, it's wonderful; Munster should have done this years ago. But the textual determinations are unreliable. 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 Thu Aug 6 01:07:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA18531; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 01:07:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199808060507.WAA23356@smtp.northlink.com> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:00:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Hanson's Catalogue of NT Papyri & Codices Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19980805213135.006605b8@highland.net> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 875 > At 04:36 PM 8/5/98 -0400, you wrote: > >I am running windows 98 with a 486 board upgraded to a 586 (at 133 MH). I > >have the pages loaded in a matter of seconds! I have only about 20 meg. on > >board memory. America Online is my provider..... > > > >I think the site is great...... > > > > > >Paul Moore > > I'm with Paul. I use a 266 mhz processor with a 586 chip; and a 56K modem- > and have no trouble whatever with K.C.'s page. It loads quick- and the > whole thing is one of the better, and more useful, web pages. > > > Jim You fellows must have caught it on a good day. I run a 233 mHz with 64 meg of RAM and a 56K modem, and it has taken a good two minutes every time I've gone to it. I agree, though, that the end result is a very useful page. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur When in doubt, go for chocolate. Life is too short not to. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 6 15:10:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21796; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:10:55 -0400 From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: tc-list 1 Cor 14.34-35 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:17:26 -0400 Message-ID: <000001bdc166$779dd7e0$e7d2c2d0@plstepp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6490C9C9F7B6D11195E50000F803CA9F061B77@esusa.esusa.org> 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: 1391 Curt-- I hate to presume on you, but I am (at the moment) far from any library that could help me. I'm preparing for prelims, specifically a critical intro question on any of the Pauline epistles. While looking over the interpolation theories germane to 1 Cor, I remembered your article in NTS (regarding the interpolation theory at 14.34-35). I remember being impressed with your argument. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what it was. Can you briefly (one paragraph, I don't want to presume on your time any more than that) sketch it for me? Hope all is well for you. I'm taking preliminary exams in a month. I've been working on dissertation with Charles Talbert since early 1997. I will likely be writing on the Pastorals (as a letter collection) functioning as a succession document--see the material Talbert and I published (are publishing?) in the 1998 SBL Seminar Papers to get an idea of the kind of work I've been doing. Perry L. Stepp ***************************************************************** Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University #1 Cowboy Fan Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman It is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positions of trust and conspicuousness. --George Will, 6 August 1998 ***************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 6 16:01:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA22093; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:01:44 -0400 Message-ID: <6490C9C9F7B6D11195E50000F803CA9F061B98@ESUSA> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list 1 Cor 14.34-35 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:02:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3802 Perry, Good to hear from you. I wish you all the best on your prelims. My argument concerning 1 Cor 14:34-35 addresses only the issue of external evidence. In previous work (most notably by Fee) it has been argued that: 1) the verses in question are found after v. 33 or after v. 40 in the ms tradition, 2) the ms tradition is split between "Western" and "Eastern" witnesses (sometimes with the corollary that this division is of equal antiquity and/or text critical weight), and 3) the most likely explanation of this split is an original, now no longer extant ms lacking vv. 34-35 (although Payne keeps finding clues to this text in very strange places). In my article I accept that 1) is correct. There is absolutely no ms, versional, or patristic evidence that 14:34-35 was ever lacking in any copy of 1 Corinthians. I further argue with respect to 2) that the "Western"/"Eastern" split is too simplistic and that the corollary is absolutely false. The vast majority of witnesses, mostly "Eastern" but some "Western," have vv. 34-35 in their traditional order. Only a few witnesses, mostly "Western" but a few "Eastern," have them after v. 40. When one actually examines these later witnesses, however, one finds that they all have some direct or indirect connection to Northern Italy and all postdate A.D. 350. This suggests, then, that the split is not even, is not of equal antiquity, and is certainly not of equal weight. In effect what we have is a "local text" preserved among some of the "Western" witnesses. The most likely explanation then can not be an original lacking those verses. Since the transposition can not be accidental either, the verses must have been moved for other reasons. It is my guess that the purpose was theological and my tentative conjecture that it is related to the blossoming monastic movement among Western women in the 4th century. I hope this helps. I type it quickly in between typing on my dissertation. Your work with Talbert sounds very interesting. I look forward to learning more about it. Sometime you can fill me in with happened to your original plans. If I remember correctly, it was going to be Johannine studies with Culpepper. Curt -----Original Message----- From: Perry L. Stepp [SMTP:plstepp@flash.net] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 1:17 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list 1 Cor 14.34-35 Curt-- I hate to presume on you, but I am (at the moment) far from any library that could help me. I'm preparing for prelims, specifically a critical intro question on any of the Pauline epistles. While looking over the interpolation theories germane to 1 Cor, I remembered your article in NTS (regarding the interpolation theory at 14.34-35). I remember being impressed with your argument. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what it was. Can you briefly (one paragraph, I don't want to presume on your time any more than that) sketch it for me? Hope all is well for you. I'm taking preliminary exams in a month. I've been working on dissertation with Charles Talbert since early 1997. I will likely be writing on the Pastorals (as a letter collection) functioning as a succession document--see the material Talbert and I published (are publishing?) in the 1998 SBL Seminar Papers to get an idea of the kind of work I've been doing. Perry L. Stepp ***************************************************************** Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University #1 Cowboy Fan Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman It is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positions of trust and conspicuousness. --George Will, 6 August 1998 ***************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 6 16:03:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA22126; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:03:13 -0400 Message-ID: <6490C9C9F7B6D11195E50000F803CA9F061B99@ESUSA> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: tc-list RE: Sorry Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:03:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 149 Tcers, I apologize for that last post. I hit send before I noticed that Perry had accidentally sent me a note addressed to the entire list. Curt From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 6 20:15:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA22684; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:15:04 -0400 From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: RE: tc-list RE: Sorry Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:21:36 -0400 Message-ID: <000101bdc190$f4c451c0$17891ed1@plstepp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <6490C9C9F7B6D11195E50000F803CA9F061B99@ESUSA> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 202 (gasp!) (blush!) > I apologize for that last post. I hit send before I noticed that Perry > had accidentally sent me a note addressed to the entire list. My apologies as well--brain lock, sorry. PLS From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 6 21:22:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA22834; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:22:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 21:21:16 -0400 From: "Dr. Michael Patrick O'Connor" Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Cor 14.34-35 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <006301bdc1a1$acd9eb20$f0b4f288@sem10.sem.cua.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 500 Dear Perry L. Stepp Here is a totally unsolicited comment. I am in OT and Hebrew and therefore should not be commenting on matters relating to the NT, but I would like to say that it seems to that the work of my friend, the late Jerome Quinn, on the pastorals has been mightily neglected. Michael Patrick O'Connor Department of Semitics Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064 202 319 5083 home: 8357 Colesville Road Silver Spring, MD 20910 301 585 6908 email: oconnorm@cua.edu - From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 7 05:07:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA24308; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:07:07 -0400 Date: 7 Aug 1998 09:07:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19980807090728.28746.qmail@findmail.com> From: "Wieland Willker" Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria In-Reply-To: <199807310208.WAA08900@server1.netpath.net> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 800 Hello, if you would like to read the letter itself: You can find the original letter scanned from M. Smith books on my page at: http://alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/secmark.html On top is the first page of the letter with the last page of the printed book: "Epistulae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris", 1646 On bottom are all three pages of the letter for your reading pleasure. The text inbetween is the German translation. My personal view is that our canonical Mark is an edited, shortened version. One of M. Smith speculations was that sections mentioning Salome had been removed, because Salome played an important role in some sects. Best wishes Wieland ----- Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/tc-list/?start=4285 Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 7 06:23:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA24419; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 06:23:49 -0400 Message-ID: <000601bdc1ed$84734a40$b6107ec1@ju.local.lusodoc.pt> From: "Julio Anjos" To: Cc: Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:24:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 984 -----Original Message----- From: Wieland Willker To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de Date: 07 August 1998 09:16 Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria > >My personal view is that our canonical Mark is an edited, shortened version. >One of M. Smith speculations was that sections mentioning Salome had been removed, because Salome played an important role in some sects. > >Best wishes > Wieland Funny you mentioned that. I have not read M. Smiths book but it seems then that " "Salomae interroganti, quousque vigebit mors," non quasi vita esset mala, et mala creatura, "Dominus, Quoadusque, inquit, vos mulieres paritis," " (Salome asked "until when will death have power over us?" and the reply was "While youi women have children!" ) As cited by clement on Chapter VI of Book III of the THE STROMATA might also be a part of Secret Mark? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 7 11:35:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25169; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:35:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:38:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria In-Reply-To: <002301bdc05c$59bc9fa0$b6107ec1@ju.local.lusodoc.pt> 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: 2646 On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Julio Anjos replied to Yuri: > More than that, where would he have found the previouslly unknown > Sofocle works in whose back the Clementine was copied? Wouldn't that > have to be forged as well? Not quite, Julio. As Wieland Willker already noted, the letter was inscribed into the copy of "Epistulae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris", 1646. http://alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/secmark.html [Yuri:] > >And it also needs to be noted here that if Smith managed to "plant" this > >particular manuscript in any other library other than Mar Saba, the case > >for authenticiy would have been rather weaker. This is because there's a > >recorded tradition that a collection of Clement's letters _has been > >attested_ in Mar Saba during the Middle Ages. So such a discovery in Mar > >Saba was not totally unpredictable, after all... > I did not know that! Smith provides the particulars in his books. > But it seems to me that some thing need to be analysed > about this: > > a) The letters were beeing copied on the XVIII th century, We don't know this. We only know that one letter may have been copied. > so it seems very likelly they are still around ( the full Mar Saba > Collection of Clementines that is). I doubt it. > b) Morton Smith did not find such a collection! No. > c) Were they in purpose not presented to Dr. Smith? Does Mar Saba > Monastery still have them? > > d) Wouldn't it be interesting if a similar hand to the Clementine Letter > was to be found in other manuscripts on the Monastery ( private letters, > etc) We can only wish... > Do not forget that the existence of what became to be known as Codex > Sinaiticus was denied for years by the monks! that we had to wait for > this century for findidng many missing fragments of that codex on the > same monastery it was originally discovered in! ... > That point is : the level of akademia and Mr. Smith's own age at the > time of discovery, seem incompatible with him beeing the forgerer I agree with you. > if anyone really forged the Letter! If he was the forgerer he could > have made a full Secret Mark with all bells and whistles, not just an > handfull of verses! 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 Fri Aug 7 23:25:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA26996; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:25:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:28:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199808080328.XAA27297@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: tc-list patristic critical editions Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 266 Query for the group. Does anone know who ae the U.S. distributors for the series "Sources Chretiennes" (published by Editions du Cerf) and/or "Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller" (published by Berlin - Brandenburg Akademie or some such)? Thanks, Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 10 02:51:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA02717; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 02:51:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 02:51:41 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: tc-list Distributors for Cerf and GCS To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199808100251_MC2-559C-55AA@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: 460 Re distributors for editions Cerf and GCS: I don't know if they have actual US distributors, but their volumes can be ordered from any serious= academic bookstore. Two I often use for such orders are the Seminary Co-= op Bookstore, in Chicago (near the Div School), and Blackwells, in Oxford (UK). The more recent GCS volumes have been published by the Akademie Verlag; = what has happened since reunification, I'm not sure. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 10 07:10:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03726; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:10:07 -0400 Message-Id: <35CEC9B2.5CA697FC@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:21:39 +0200 From: Wieland Willker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list C. Hedrick and the Clement letter 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: 302 C. Hedrick told me: > huh? Someone is very confused. > ... > I have read the book "The Secret Gospel", but haven't seen the > document (except as it is quoted in the book). So, the rumour, that he saw the ms in Jerusalem seems to be not true. :-( Next year in Jerusalem? Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 11 09:18:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA08150; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:18:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:21:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list C. Hedrick and the Clement letter In-Reply-To: <35CEC9B2.5CA697FC@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 930 Dear Wieland, Thank you very much for this correction. So it seems like Prof. Hedrick did not see the ms after all. I will try to find more information about this rumour (yes, it was only an unverified rumour, I suppose) that I've reported here. Perhaps it was someone else who saw this ms recently, and not Prof. Hedrick? I will report any new information I come across. Best wishes, Yuri. p.s. To the best of my knowledge, this ms is not currently in Jerusalem, but in Istambul, where the headquarters of this religious order is located. On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Wieland Willker wrote: > C. Hedrick told me: > > > huh? Someone is very confused. > > ... > > I have read the book "The Secret Gospel", but haven't seen the > > document (except as it is quoted in the book). > > So, the rumour, that he saw the ms in Jerusalem seems to be not true. > :-( > > Next year in Jerusalem? > > Best wishes > Wieland > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 11 11:06:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA08519; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:06:18 -0400 Message-ID: <35D05FB3.5F2E3C72@volstate.net> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:13:55 -0400 From: "Nelson D. Roth" Organization: Compu-Sistance X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b1 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types 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: 630 Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high. Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure. Blessings, Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 11 11:50:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA08836; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:50:12 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35D05FB3.5F2E3C72@volstate.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:55:00 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3308 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, "Nelson D. Roth" wrote: >Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, >the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. >One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. >Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the >Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. >I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that >exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high. >Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure. Oh, joy. I get to play the mathematical curmudgeon again. :-( The problem here is almost certainly with definitions. What is "textual harmony"? I can see several ways of defining this term. One is to start with texts of the three types, determined by some method, and compare them word by word. I'll give an example. Take Galatians 1:1-3. Let us arbitrarily define "The Byzantine Text" as the reading of K, "The Western Text" as the reading of D, "The Alexandrian Text" as the reading of Aleph, and "The Proto-Alexandrian (P46/B) Text" as the reading of B. I'll use the Munster NT auf Papyrus volume for my evidence, since I understand this to include all non-orthographic variants. Galatians 1 contains 20 words. There are no variations. Galatians 2 contains 10 words. There are no variations. Galatians 3 contains 12 words. There is one variation: Aleph has HMWN KAI KURIOU; B, D, and K have KAI KURIOI HMWN. Thus we have 42 words. The proto-Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western texts agree on all of these, or 100% of the time. The Alexandrian text agrees on 41 of 42 words, so it agrees with the others 98% of the time (97.6%, to be exact). Using this method, if one speaks only of text-TYPES, a 98% agreement rate seems possible. Note that text-types, which are composite, will present many fewer variants than the manuscripts which compose those types. (BTW -- no, I did *not* cook this example. It's just that I happened to have the data from that particular page of the NT auf Papyrus before me, so I used it - and lo and behold the numbers worked out.) Note that this is not to defend this method. But it is a method. :-) Scholars who offer a lower figure for the agreement rate are probably basing their results on *places at which variation actually occurs,* or, better yet, on places where variations occur which are supported by at least two significant manuscripts. This sort of calculation can lead to much lower rates of agreement -- perhaps as low as 20-30% agreement between the Alexandrian and "Western" texts. To speak of "the degree of textual harmony" without defining the term is meaningless. The number requires a context. (And, frankly, this is an area where textual critics have been incredibly lax.) Curmudgeon mode off. At least till the next time someone uses an undefined term. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 11 14:16:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09351; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:16:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:19:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199808111819.OAA00533@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 Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 990 What is meant by "textual harmony"? Is it the same as "percentage of agreement at points of variation"? It would be hard to imagine a 98% level of agreement between the text types you mention. Perhaps the 98% figure refers to the level of agreement WITHIN families such as Fam.1 and Fam.13? --Rod Mullen At 11:13 AM 8/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, >the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. >One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. >Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the >Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. >I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that >exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high. >Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure. > >Blessings, > >Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 11 15:37:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09653; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:37:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:36:58 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Ronald Minton To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types In-Reply-To: <35D05FB3.5F2E3C72@volstate.net> 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: 873 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Nelson D. Roth wrote: > Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, > the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. > One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. > Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the > Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. To me, 98% agreement among text-types is reasonable for the entire NT text, but I would guess 90% at most among places where there are actual variants. I have found such percentages hard to nail down since text-types are difficult to identify in many passages because leading manuscripts which we identify the family with are not in agreement. Prof. Ron Minton rminton@mail.orion.org (417)833-9581 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 12 08:36:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12593; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:36:58 -0400 Message-Id: <35D180C4.5BAE99F9@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:47:16 +0200 From: Wieland Willker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Quality of fragment photos 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: 698 Hello, today I looked through one of C.P. Thiede's books about the dating of the Magdalen Mt papyrus. One can have different opinions about his dating, but he has the best photos I have ever seen of a papyrus fragment. I think, with these new(?) photographic tools he used one can make a lot more out of some fragments. For example the Egerton gospel, if I remember correctly it was published in 1935. I would love to see a "Thiede" photo of fragment 2 verso. This otherwise unknown parable/miracle is my personal obsession. :-) The photos of the recently published new Egerton fragment (Papyrus Koeln 255) are also not very thrilling. Will there ever be any new photos? Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 12 08:38:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12613; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:38:10 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: dutchboy.awd.cdc.com: troyd owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:38:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Troy DeJongh X-Sender: troyd@dutchboy.awd.cdc.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types 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: 1165 Nelson D. Roth writes: > > Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, > the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. > One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. > Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the > Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. > I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that > exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high. > Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure. > > Blessings, > > Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA > At the risk of telling the members of this list something they probably already know, the paper where Wallace makes this statement is located at: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm (Search for the word "percent"). Additionally, a list of 13 of Wallace's papers on NT TC is at: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm -- Troy DeJongh troyd@euler.com http://www1.euler.com/~troyd From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 12 19:47:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA16176; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:47:23 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:51:50 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2537 On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Troy DeJongh wrote: >Nelson D. Roth writes: >> >> Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, >> the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. >> One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. >> Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the >> Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. >> I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that >> exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high. >> Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure. [ ... ] >At the risk of telling the members of this list something they probably >already know, the paper where Wallace makes this statement is located at: > > http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm > > (Search for the word "percent"). Well, *I* didn't know it. Thanks for the link. This allows us to quote the actual context: >There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament >manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in >almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But >the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about >6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of >the time. The problem here is in Wallace's definition of a variant. He includes *everything*. Scribal errors. Singular readings. Apparently even orthographic variants. It would even appear that different readings at the same point of variation might count. But as far as divergences go, he is counting only two: The UBS text and the Hodges & Farstad text. So this leads to two observations: First, Wallace is comparing apples and oranges. Second, Wallace is using an absurd definition of a variant. Conclusion: This number is meaningless. If the original poster wishes to offer his definition of harmony, no doubt we can offer some sort of answer as to what degree of harmony occurs. But this demonstrates, once again, the danger of inadequately defined terms. Mumble, mutter, mumble.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 13 09:34:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18573; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:34:17 -0400 From: "D.R. Edwards" To: Subject: tc-list Codex B Photocopies? Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:43:34 -0400 Message-Id: <000101bdc6c0$5d8bb7a0$2ec5a380@guido2.bae.uky.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 369 My apologies in advance is this turns out to be a case of a lurker asking a laughably simple question. In any event, would anyone know how (assuming it's possible) one would get photocopies of any portions of B (G of Mark, in particular)? I've seen the occasional image posted on a web site or two, but I've been unable to find anything further. Thanks in advance. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 13 13:29:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20470; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:29:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980813172219.00c4b9e8@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, 13 Aug 1998 13:22:19 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Codex B Photocopies? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 931 We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you need and please supply a fax number Kevin At 09:43 AM 8/13/98 -0400, you wrote: >My apologies in advance is this turns out to be a case of a lurker asking a >laughably simple question. In any event, would anyone know how (assuming >it's possible) one would get photocopies of any portions of B (G of Mark, in >particular)? I've seen the occasional image posted on a web site or two, >but I've been unable to find anything further. > >Thanks in advance. > > 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://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 13 14:09:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20726; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:09:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199808131809.LAA02425@smtp.northlink.com> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:02:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Codex B Photocopies? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19980813172219.00c4b9e8@utc.campus.mci.net> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 310 > We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you > need and please supply a fax number What would you charge to make a copy of the entire thing? Please contact me off-list... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur When in doubt, go for chocolate. Life is too short not to. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 13 14:40:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20894; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:40:02 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980813172219.00c4b9e8@utc.campus.mci.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:50:02 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list Codex B Photocopies? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 505 >We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you >need and please supply a fax number Keven, could you send me the bibliographic info from the title page of Vaticanus. I have some money and am thinking of purchasing a published facsimile if possible. We have the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and the Sinaiticus in published form. We also have a number of minuscules on microfilm. They are good for introducing majors to simple paliographical features of TC. Thanks, Carlton From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 13 14:46:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20978; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:46:51 -0400 Message-ID: <35D33236.EA37FF0A@cadets.com> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:36:38 -0500 From: Maurice Taraschi X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Codex B Photocopies? References: <000101bdc6c0$5d8bb7a0$2ec5a380@guido2.bae.uky.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: 519 D.R. Edwards wrote: > My apologies in advance is this turns out to be a case of a lurker asking a > laughably simple question. In any event, would anyone know how (assuming > it's possible) one would get photocopies of any portions of B (G of Mark, in > particular)? I've seen the occasional image posted on a web site or two, > but I've been unable to find anything further. > > Thanks in advance. you might also want to check with Hill Monastic Manuscript Library on the web at: http://www.csbsju.edu/hmml/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 13 15:25:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21643; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:25:33 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980813191824.00d29b28@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, 13 Aug 1998 15:18:24 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Codex B Photocopies? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1251 Dr. Winbery: The info we have says: Bibliorum Sacrum Graecus Codex Vaticanus auspice Pio IX. Pontifice Maximo collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabitae et Ioseph Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus. Originally Published in 1868. Reproduced by Brown and Thomas, Detroit Michigan, 1982. At 01:50 PM 8/13/98 +0400, you wrote: >>We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you >>need and please supply a fax number > >Keven, could you send me the bibliographic info from the title page of >Vaticanus. I have some money and am thinking of purchasing a published >facsimile if possible. We have the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and the >Sinaiticus in published form. We also have a number of minuscules on >microfilm. They are good for introducing majors to simple paliographical >features of TC. > >Thanks, > >Carlton > > > 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://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 14 04:21:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23685; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:21:36 -0400 Message-Id: <35D3E7E9.9F94C9F2@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:31:53 +0200 From: Wieland Willker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list C. Hedrick and the Clement letter 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: 836 Oops, I am very sorry, this is what I got today: -------------------------- From: Charles HEDRICK I think this is referring to a different Charles Hedrick. While Hedrick isn't a common name, there are others. E.g. the chair of the history dept at UCSC is Charles Hedrick, and I believe I've heard of a religion scholar by that name. I don't go by "Charlie". -------------------------- I just searched the email with some search-engine and I was pretty sure after getting his first reply that there couldn't be two people with the name Charles Hedrick having read the book "The Secret Gospel...". I now know better! Maybe some other listmember has a luckier hand in getting in contact with THE Charles Hedrick? Please accept my sincere apologies for raising this confusion. Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 14 11:56:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25458; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:56:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:56:28 -0500 (CDT) 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 reviews Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 41 please disregard this message, leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 14 12:04:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25567; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:04:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:04:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: tc-list Re: CD for review Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 835 Gavid, I am wondering when I can expect your review of the English Bible CD sent to you in March. As you will recall, one of the chief advantages of electronic pubication is that can get our reviews out far more quickly than print journals. It is therefore especially important that I know where things stand with you in connection with this review. I anticipate hearing from you very soon; I hope all is well 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 Sat Aug 15 14:10:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA29313; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:10:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:13:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: Wieland Willker cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list C. Hedrick and the Clement letter In-Reply-To: <35D3E7E9.9F94C9F2@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1835 Dear Wieland, Thanks for this further note. Yes, we can all get confused by these strange coincidences. Seems like all this is in line with the rest of the strange and tangled story of SecMk. Some weird coincidences there as well. Mahlon Smith further clarified that _his_ Charles Hedric is Professor of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State. His basic credentials can be found on the Fellows page of the new Westar website: http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Hedrick/hedrick.html And he is active in Jesus Seminar. Best wishes, Yuri. On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Wieland Willker wrote: > Oops, I am very sorry, > > this is what I got today: > -------------------------- > From: Charles HEDRICK > I think this is referring to a different Charles Hedrick. While Hedrick > > isn't a common name, there are others. E.g. the chair of the history > dept at UCSC is Charles Hedrick, and I believe I've heard of a > religion scholar by that name. I don't go by "Charlie". > -------------------------- > > I just searched the email with some search-engine and I was pretty > sure after getting his first reply that there couldn't be two people > with the name Charles Hedrick having read the book "The Secret > Gospel...". I now know better! Maybe some other listmember has a > luckier hand in getting in contact with THE Charles Hedrick? > > > Please accept my sincere apologies for raising this confusion. > > Best wishes > Wieland > > 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 Aug 17 06:31:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA03539; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:31:50 -0400 Message-ID: <001201bdc9ca$6bb5df60$b6107ec1@ju.local.lusodoc.pt> From: "Julio Anjos" To: Subject: Re: tc-list C. Hedrick and the Clement letter Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:33:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2236 But is it confirmed that this one saw the Secret Gospel Letter? -----Original Message----- From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: Wieland Willker Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: 15 August 1998 18:21 Subject: Re: tc-list C. Hedrick and the Clement letter > >Dear Wieland, > >Thanks for this further note. Yes, we can all get confused by these >strange coincidences. Seems like all this is in line with the rest of the >strange and tangled story of SecMk. Some weird coincidences there as well. > >Mahlon Smith further clarified that _his_ Charles Hedric is Professor of >Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State. His basic credentials can >be found on the Fellows page of the new Westar website: > >http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Hedrick/hedrick.html > >And he is active in Jesus Seminar. > >Best wishes, > >Yuri. > > >On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Wieland Willker wrote: > >> Oops, I am very sorry, >> >> this is what I got today: >> -------------------------- >> From: Charles HEDRICK >> I think this is referring to a different Charles Hedrick. While Hedrick >> >> isn't a common name, there are others. E.g. the chair of the history >> dept at UCSC is Charles Hedrick, and I believe I've heard of a >> religion scholar by that name. I don't go by "Charlie". >> -------------------------- >> >> I just searched the email with some search-engine and I was pretty >> sure after getting his first reply that there couldn't be two people >> with the name Charles Hedrick having read the book "The Secret >> Gospel...". I now know better! Maybe some other listmember has a >> luckier hand in getting in contact with THE Charles Hedrick? >> >> >> Please accept my sincere apologies for raising this confusion. >> >> Best wishes >> Wieland >> >> > >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 Aug 17 23:16:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA07545; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:16:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:19:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list C. Hedrick and the Clement letter In-Reply-To: <001201bdc9ca$6bb5df60$b6107ec1@ju.local.lusodoc.pt> 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: 794 On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Julio Anjos wrote: > But is it confirmed that this one saw the Secret Gospel Letter? As far as I know, Julio. As I said originally, this came to me in a word of mouth sort of way. I don't know more about it than I've reported here. But this information was too relevant to disregard, so I've mentioned it in the context of discussing the current status of SecMk. Please take this with a caveat. 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 Tue Aug 18 10:30:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09572; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:30:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:30:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199808181430.KAA09567@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:25:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Troy DeJongh To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1125 Nelson D. Roth writes: > > Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, > the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. > One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. > Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the > Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. > I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that > exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high. > Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure. > > Blessings, > > Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA > For the benefit of the other members of this list, the paper where Wallace makes this statement is located at: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm (Search for the word "percent"). Additionally, a list of 13 of his papers on NT TC is at: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm -- Troy DeJongh troyd@euler.com http://www1.euler.com/~troyd From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 18 11:10:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09754; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:09:59 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: dutchboy.awd.cdc.com: troyd owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:10:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Troy DeJongh X-Sender: troyd@dutchboy.awd.cdc.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Textual Harmonies between Text Types In-Reply-To: <199808181430.KAA09567@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1530 Please disregard the message below. I was assuming it was in the bit bucket when I resent a modified version of the message below several days ago. I don't know why "the lost version" just showed up now... -- Troy DeJongh troyd@euler.com http://www1.euler.com/~troyd On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Troy DeJongh wrote: > Nelson D. Roth writes: > > > > Recently I viewed a series of debates which dealt with, among other issues, > > the degree of textual harmony that exists between the recognized text types. > > One participant mentioned that it had been documented, by Dr. Daniel B. > > Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, that the textual harmony between the > > Western, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc. types was as high as 98%. > > I've read various attempts to provide reasonable estimates of the harmony that > > exists. This is my first exposure to a reference of textual harmony so high. > > Can anyone provide additonal information regarding this figure. > > > > Blessings, > > > > Nelson Roth, Dayton, TN, USA > > > > For the benefit of the other members of this list, the paper where > Wallace makes this statement is located at: > > http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm > > (Search for the word "percent"). > > > Additionally, a list of 13 of his papers on NT TC is at: > > http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm > > > -- > Troy DeJongh troyd@euler.com http://www1.euler.com/~troyd > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 22 09:51:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27918; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 09:51:36 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 08:49:39 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list Vaticanus Divisions in Paul Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1435 TCers -- I was just idly considering the chapter divisions in Paul -- or rather, the divisions in Vaticanus -- when something occurred to me. As most of you probably know, there is a numbering scheme in Vaticanus which is continuous, running through Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews (yes, after Galatians), and on through to 2 Thessalonians. Presumably it continued through the Pastorals and Philemon, but of course these books are lost. Now here is the thought: There are 93 sections in the surviving sections of Vaticanus. The surviving portions (if, for these purposes, we count all of Hebrews as surviving) constitute just about 90% of the length of Paul (based on number of verses, anyway). So: Is it possible that the divisions in Vaticanus were designed to segment Paul into 100 sections? This seems like the sort of thing a non-mathematician would do (a mathematician, of course, would never use such a difficult number as 100; it's not divisible by 3 or 6 or 8 or 12 or 16 or.... :-) Thoughts? Also, has anyone ever suggested this before? Or have I finally managed to have an original idea? :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 24 12:16:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05261; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:16:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199808241616.SAA29738@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list just a test - please ignore Date: Lun, 24 Ao 98 18:21:17 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5 test From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 24 14:08:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06036; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 14:08:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:49:47 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Jer 43:12 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980824134947.0066d2d4@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: 256 The commentaries I have checked seem evenly divided on the variant found here (please see BHS ad loc- note b-c). I tend to favor the LXX here, but may be missing something. Any opinions by list members are appreciated. Best, Jim jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 24 15:54:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06786; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:54:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 21:55:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199808241955.VAA23931@ammi.mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it 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: Ian Hutchesson Subject: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1329 Hello. I recently checked out the LXX on Dan11:30 to find that it does not mention the "ships of the Kittim" at all: it simply has "Romans", though the Theodotion version simply has "Kittim". I have long puzzled over the use of Kittim to refer to the Romans in a work written around 165 BCE. It seems far too early when one considers what seems to be a reasonably consistent use of the term in the OT/HB to refer to Cyprus (hopefully, this point doesn't really need arguing -- though I will if necessary). The Hebrews had no direct experience with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim. I would think that "Romans", as seen in the LXX is the earliest version. One would expect that there would be more of an original line if someone merely changed Kittim to Romans, but this is not the case: the LXX doesn't mention any ships. Yet ships are integral to the Hebrew text as it refers back to a Balaam prophecy. >From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would seem that the "romans" was the original text and later Daniel has been reworked to attach the prophecy of Balaam at a stage where Kittim could refer to Romans, then the version of Theodotion has attempted to bring the LXX version into line with the Hebrew. I would be interested in any comments on this line of thought. Ian Hutchesson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 24 18:01:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07714; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:01:20 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199808241955.VAA23931@ammi.mclink.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:54:18 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2873 On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Ian Hutchesson wrote: >Hello. > >I recently checked out the LXX on Dan11:30 to find that it does not mention >the "ships of the Kittim" at all: it simply has "Romans", though the >Theodotion version simply has "Kittim". I have long puzzled over the use of >Kittim to refer to the Romans in a work written around 165 BCE. It seems far >too early when one considers what seems to be a reasonably consistent use of >the term in the OT/HB to refer to Cyprus (hopefully, this point doesn't >really need arguing -- though I will if necessary). The Hebrews had no >direct experience with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim. > >I would think that "Romans", as seen in the LXX is the earliest version. One >would expect that there would be more of an original line if someone merely >changed Kittim to Romans, but this is not the case: the LXX doesn't mention >any ships. Yet ships are integral to the Hebrew text as it refers back to a >Balaam prophecy. > >>From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would >seem that the "romans" was the original text and later Daniel has been >reworked to attach the prophecy of Balaam at a stage where Kittim could >refer to Romans, then the version of Theodotion has attempted to bring the >LXX version into line with the Hebrew. > >I would be interested in any comments on this line of thought. I have to disagree. While I am open to LXX readings, I think the internal evidence clearly favours a reading with "Kittim" over one with "Romans." You point out that the Hebrews would have no experience with the Romans. They wouldn't distinguish peoples sailing from the west. All people coming from over the sea would be Kittim -- just as, in the First World War, all the people of the Central Powers were Huns to the Western Allies, even though the people they were fighting (the Germans) had no Magyar blood at all. I'm sure you can think of other examples of peoples being called by generic names when their actual nationality is not well known. The LXX edition of Daniel, as I understand, is given to paraphrase. Now we know, and the translator probably knew, that these people were Romans. But the author of Daniel might not know that, or if he did know might be trying to conceal that fact. (Remember, he was pretending to write from the perspective of 520 or so B.C.E., when Rome was still just a collection of semi-independent hills in Italy.) It seems much more logical to assume that the translator paraphrase the Hebrew reading "Kittim." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 24 22:44:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA08382; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 22:44:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 22:50:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199808250250.WAA16598@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 Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1543 Apparently the Judeans did have some early experience with the Romans in connection with the Maccabean revolt. See I Maccabees 15:15-16. --RLM At 09:55 PM 8/24/98 +0200, you wrote: >Hello. > >I recently checked out the LXX on Dan11:30 to find that it does not mention >the "ships of the Kittim" at all: it simply has "Romans", though the >Theodotion version simply has "Kittim". I have long puzzled over the use of >Kittim to refer to the Romans in a work written around 165 BCE. It seems far >too early when one considers what seems to be a reasonably consistent use of >the term in the OT/HB to refer to Cyprus (hopefully, this point doesn't >really need arguing -- though I will if necessary). The Hebrews had no >direct experience with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim. > >I would think that "Romans", as seen in the LXX is the earliest version. One >would expect that there would be more of an original line if someone merely >changed Kittim to Romans, but this is not the case: the LXX doesn't mention >any ships. Yet ships are integral to the Hebrew text as it refers back to a >Balaam prophecy. > >>From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would >seem that the "romans" was the original text and later Daniel has been >reworked to attach the prophecy of Balaam at a stage where Kittim could >refer to Romans, then the version of Theodotion has attempted to bring the >LXX version into line with the Hebrew. > >I would be interested in any comments on this line of thought. > > >Ian Hutchesson > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 25 02:20:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA08715; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 02:20:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:20:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199808250620.IAA27882@ammi.mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it 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: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1690 >>From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would >>seem that the "romans" was the original text > >I have to disagree. While I am open to LXX readings, I think the >internal evidence clearly favours a reading with "Kittim" over >one with "Romans." Sorry, but what is this internal evidence that clearly favours the "Kittim" reading over "Romans"? >You point out that the Hebrews would have no experience with the >Romans. I did not say this. (My words were "The Hebrews had no direct experience with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim".) The Kittim is geographically placed in Gen 10 between Tarsus and Rhodes, ie the writers knew exactly who the Kittim were and where they were located. If you look at the other Kittim references in the OT/HB you will see that the term is not generic in any sense. It specified the Cypriots. It would seem strange to use a clearly defined term refering to one group of people to refer to another group. One would need a period in which the term's usage widened as I think happened during the second century BCE, such that when the semi-"official" book of Hasmonean history, 1 Maccabees, was written it could use "Kittim" to refer to the homeland of Alexander. It seems to me that the most likely period for the application of "Kittim" to the Romans would have been after the Pompey contact. ------------- >Apparently the Judeans did have some early experience with the Romans in >connection with the Maccabean revolt. See I Maccabees 15:15-16. --RLM Yes, this however was quite some time after the writing of Daniel. One could of course mention 2 Macc 11:34ff. Ian Hutchesson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 25 09:23:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10334; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:23:43 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199808250620.IAA27882@ammi.mclink.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:21:21 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1596 On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Ian Hutchesson wrote, in part: >>>From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would >>>seem that the "romans" was the original text >> >>I have to disagree. While I am open to LXX readings, I think the >>internal evidence clearly favours a reading with "Kittim" over >>one with "Romans." > >Sorry, but what is this internal evidence that clearly favours the "Kittim" >reading over "Romans"? It's the evidence that I gave: That "Kittim" would be the reading we would expect to see. (It may not follow any particular canon of internal evidence, but it is not based on the manuscripts, so it is internal evidence.) >>You point out that the Hebrews would have no experience with the >>Romans. > >I did not say this. (My words were "The Hebrews had no direct experience >with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim".) Frankly, I don't see that this is a particularly strong distinction -- especially as I did not put the words in quotation marks. :-) This does demonstrate, BTW, why I dislike internal evidence so much. To me, the internal evidence here is quite clear. Obviously, the author of the original post does not think so. No such problem, usually, in determining the readings of the manuscripts. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 25 11:12:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA11069; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:12:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:13:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199808251513.RAA12621@ammi.mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it 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: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1631 >>>>From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would >>>>seem that the "romans" was the original text >>> >>>I have to disagree. While I am open to LXX readings, I think the >>>internal evidence clearly favours a reading with "Kittim" over >>>one with "Romans." >> >>Sorry, but what is this internal evidence that clearly favours the "Kittim" >>reading over "Romans"? > >It's the evidence that I gave: That "Kittim" would be the reading we >would expect to see. Robert, this is not evidence: this is merely stating your opinion. If you had been brought up on LXX you'd argue the same way in favour of "Romans". The LXX had the Balaam passage referred to in the MT Dan11:30. There is no necessary reason for Dan11:31 being changed in the Greek, especially if it referred to a prophetic passage, as is the case here. >(It may not follow any particular canon of internal evidence, but it is not >based on the manuscripts, so it is internal evidence.) The LXX is not internal evidence. You will find that the DSS do favour LXX readings at times over the MT. I can see no reason why you would favour the MT reading here over the LXX, given the evidence we have. I wonder if anyone else has thoughts regarding the original state of Dan11:30, given the fact that the MT mentions the "ships of the Kittim" (based on the Balaam oracle in Num24:24), while the LXX has "Romans" and the Theodotion version has "Kittim". Neither Greek version is aware of the underlying Balaam prophecy and one can see Theodotion changing "Romans" of the LXX to "Kittim" to bring it into line with the MT. Ian Hutchesson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 25 12:17:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA11642; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:17:50 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199808251513.RAA12621@ammi.mclink.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:17:49 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3236 On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Ian Hutchesson wrote: >>>Sorry, but what is this internal evidence that clearly favours the "Kittim" >>>reading over "Romans"? >> >>It's the evidence that I gave: That "Kittim" would be the reading we >>would expect to see. > >Robert, this is not evidence: this is merely stating your opinion. If you >had been brought up on LXX you'd argue the same way in favour of "Romans". I'll make you a deal. You call your opinions "opinions," and I will allow you to call mine "opinions" as well. Evidence comes in two forms: That which occurs on the parchment (external evidence) and that which occurs in the critic's head (internal evidence). You may call it transcriptional probabilities or whatever you want, but it still takes place *in your head* (or in mine, or in the readers'). That is internal evidence. That doesn't make it wrong. But it is, always, a matter of opinion. And debate. I find my evidence overwhelming. Take a look at Liddell & Scott. Try to find Kittim. In any form (KITAIOI, KITTAIOI, etc.) I couldn't find it in any form I could think of. Whereas "Rome" occurs in all sorts of variants. A Greek reader not familiar with other LXX passages -- and surely there were such -- would have no idea what KITTIM means. So the LXX translator -- responsibly, I would say, given our modern notions of translation -- appears to have glossed it as "Romans." >The LXX had the Balaam passage referred to in the MT Dan11:30. There is no >necessary reason for Dan11:31 being changed in the Greek, especially if it >referred to a prophetic passage, as is the case here. I can't see that a reference to an obscure prophetic passage is a better explanation for change than making an obscure passage clear. >>(It may not follow any particular canon of internal evidence, but it is not >>based on the manuscripts, so it is internal evidence.) > >The LXX is not internal evidence. No, but you are preferring the LXX reading based on internal evidence. That is the point I am trying to make. External evidence, insofar as there is any (and I concede it's not much) favours MT, since (as best I can tell from your post) all other versions agree with MT. >You will find that the DSS do favour LXX >readings at times over the MT. I can see no reason why you would favour the >MT reading here over the LXX, given the evidence we have. Read above. You may not agree. But to me this is overwhelming internal evidence. And I repeat, I am not biased against LXX. I believe that the LXX must *always* be consulted, not merely turned to when the MT is corrupt. But, to me, the LXX reading has "gloss" written all over it. Which, again, is why I don't like deciding readings on internal grounds. Of course, in the case of the OT, we usually don't have much choice, since it's usually a matter of deciding between MT and LXX. External evidence cannot decide such a question. :-( -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 25 14:02:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12294; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:02:08 -0400 Message-ID: <35E31838.9E1367BA@historian.net> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:02:00 -0700 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 References: <199808241955.VAA23931@ammi.mclink.it> 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: 850 Ian Hutchesson wrote: > Hello. > > I recently checked out the LXX on Dan11:30 to find that it does not mention > the "ships of the Kittim" at all: it simply has "Romans", though the > Theodotion version simply has "Kittim". I have long puzzled over the use of > Kittim to refer to the Romans in a work written around 165 BCE. It seems far > too early when one considers what seems to be a reasonably consistent use of > the term in the OT/HB to refer to Cyprus (hopefully, this point doesn't > really need arguing -- though I will if necessary). The Hebrews had no > direct experience with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim. > I think that the Aramaic Daniel of 165 BCE used "Kittim" to refer to anynon-Jews that came from the West (direction of Cyprus) but when Daniel was translated to Greek, the Romans were a clear presence. Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 25 14:48:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12734; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:48:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:49:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199808251849.UAA17314@ammi.mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it 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: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4132 This is the information one gets from comparing the LXX with the MT regarding Kittim: LXX Massoretic --------------------------------------- Gen 10:4 KITIOI KITTIM Num 24:24 KITIAIWN CHITTIM 1Ch 1:7 KITIOI KITTIM Isa 23:1 KITIAIWN CHITTIM Isa 32:12 KITIEIJ CHITTIM Jer 2:10 XETTIIM CHITTIM Eze 27:6 XETTIIN CHITTIM Dan 11:30 RWMAIOI CHITTIM One definitely cannot claim that "Kittim" was an obscure term, so one cannot argue that Rwmaioi was substituted for reasons of obscurity. >Take a look at Liddell & Scott. Try to find Kittim. In any >form (KITAIOI, KITTAIOI, etc.) I couldn't find it in any >form I could think of. Whereas "Rome" occurs in all sorts >of variants. >>The LXX had the Balaam passage referred to in the MT Dan11:30. There is no >>necessary reason for Dan11:31 being changed in the Greek, especially if it >>referred to a prophetic passage, as is the case here. > >I can't see that a reference to an obscure prophetic passage is >a better explanation for change than making an obscure passage >clear. What makes you think that to the people translating the LXX the Balaam prophecies were obscure passages? One would think these oracles were somewhat popular. >>The LXX is not internal evidence. > >No, but you are preferring the LXX reading based on internal evidence. >That is the point I am trying to make. External evidence, insofar >as there is any (and I concede it's not much) favours MT, since (as >best I can tell from your post) all other versions agree with MT. We simply have a division between MT and LXX, so which is superior? >>You will find that the DSS do favour LXX >>readings at times over the MT. I can see no reason why you would favour the >>MT reading here over the LXX, given the evidence we have. > >Read above. You may not agree. But to me this is overwhelming internal >evidence. You keep saying this, but it always ends up with either the LXX reading or the MT and for some unstated reason you prefer the latter. >And I repeat, I am not biased against LXX. I believe that the LXX >must *always* be consulted, not merely turned to when the MT is >corrupt. But, to me, the LXX reading has "gloss" written all over it. Strange, the MT reading has gloss written all over it: there is nothing at all to suggest a use of Kittim that would mean "Romans" in the OT/HB. (Please prove this wrong if you can.) So your acceptance of the MT Dan11:30 reading as correct flies in the face of the general usage of the term. >Which, again, is why I don't like deciding readings on internal >grounds. Of course, in the case of the OT, we usually don't >have much choice, since it's usually a matter of deciding between >MT and LXX. External evidence cannot decide such a question. :-( A restatement: 1) Kittim = Romans does not represent the common OT/HB use of the term, which appears to be Cyprus/Cypriots. 2) One would expect the "ships" to remain if it were in the original Hebrew, but the LXX doesn't know the about the "ships" 3) Theodotion has merely changed the Romans to the Kittim to be in line with the MT, but does not insert "ships..." -- a minimal modification 4) The MT version is based on Num24:24, which if present at the time of translation should have bound the Greek to the original if there was a citation, but it didn't, so there wasn't! And an additional point: 5) None of the Dead Sea Scrolls use Kittim to mean Romans! pHab for example cannot be about Romans because the Romans never used beasts in combat, though it can be about Cypriot mercenaries fighting for the Seleucids (and then any Seleucid soldiers). Remember that Nicanor is called the Cypriarch (leader of the Kittim). The Kittim are allied to, or are Assyria (Seleucids). The Kittim of Assyria enter Egypt (1QM1:3 Wise/Abegg/Cook, just as Antiochus IV did). By extension Kittim came to mean any Greek (hence 1Macc1:1, circa 110 BCE). When was the term available to be used regarding Romans? When did the Romans become enemy material? Ian Hutchesson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 25 15:35:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13097; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 15:35:14 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199808251849.UAA17314@ammi.mclink.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:35:31 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2480 I'll make this my last post on this subject. Since I obviously am not getting anywhere. :-) On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Ian Hutchesson wrote: >This is the information one gets from comparing the LXX with the MT >regarding Kittim: > > LXX Massoretic >--------------------------------------- >Gen 10:4 KITIOI KITTIM >Num 24:24 KITIAIWN CHITTIM >1Ch 1:7 KITIOI KITTIM >Isa 23:1 KITIAIWN CHITTIM >Isa 32:12 KITIEIJ CHITTIM >Jer 2:10 XETTIIM CHITTIM >Eze 27:6 XETTIIN CHITTIM >Dan 11:30 RWMAIOI CHITTIM > >One definitely cannot claim that "Kittim" was an obscure term, so one cannot >argue that Rwmaioi was substituted for reasons of obscurity. Not obscure to a person who knew the Old Testament in Hebrew. So what? If the LXX readers knew the Old Testament in Hebrew, why did they need the LXX? The point of looking to Liddell & Scott is to examine what people *not from the Jewish background* would make of "Kittim." The answer is, they would make nothing of it. It's just the same as if you spoke to the average American about an "indeclinable noun," or a non-mathematician about a "geometric mean," or a non-traditionalist about "incremental repetition." They have no context -- no way to interpret this passage (which we all know does in fact refer to the Romans) to mean the Romans. [ ... ] >>I can't see that a reference to an obscure prophetic passage is >>a better explanation for change than making an obscure passage >>clear. > >What makes you think that to the people translating the LXX the Balaam >prophecies were obscure passages? One would think these oracles were >somewhat popular. Why? >You keep saying this, but it always ends up with either the LXX reading or >the MT and for some unstated reason you prefer the latter. Let's see. This is my fourth post. Every time I have explained why I think the LXX reading is a gloss. The fact that I think the LXX reading is a gloss is not a reason to prefer the MT reading? See why I say I can't get through? :-) Enough. The last word is yours (or at least not mine).... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 25 19:12:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA13782; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:12:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:12:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199808252312.BAA26951@ammi.mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it 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: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1331 > I think that the Aramaic Daniel Dan11:30 was not in Aramaic and there is doubt that any of Daniel was originally in Aramaic. If you read Giovanni Garbini's article on "Biblical Hebrew", you'd know that the Aramaic of Daniel is not reflective of any Aramaic on historic record, ie it's fake. Garbini notes that it's the sort of language one would find when someone tries to pretend to use an antique version of a language without knowing that antique version, which would be consistent with an attempt to place Daniel in the sixth century BCE. (In the same article he deals with Ezra's unreal Aramaic as well.) But then the oddity of Daniel's Aramaic seems to be well-known in scholarly circles. Garbini gives a list of articles from S.R.Driver, G.R.Driver, W.Baumgartner and H.H.Rowley all arguing against the quality of "Biblical Aramaic". He also quotes from Bauer and Leander's "Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaeischen": "the stories of the book of Daniel are the work of an author clearly not well versed in the language". >of 165 BCE used "Kittim" to refer to >any non-Jews that came from the West (direction of Cyprus) Have you got even one contemporary example to justify this? You should note that without Dan11:30 this sort of analysis has no basis whatsoever. That's the problem that interests me. Ian Hutchesson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 25 19:32:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA13846; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:32:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:33:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199808252333.BAA03392@ammi.mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it 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: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2386 >>One definitely cannot claim that "Kittim" was an obscure term, so one cannot >>argue that Rwmaioi was substituted for reasons of obscurity. > >Not obscure to a person who knew the Old Testament in Hebrew. So >what? These are the people who translated the book. >The point of looking to Liddell & Scott is to examine what people >*not from the Jewish background* would make of "Kittim." The answer >is, they would make nothing of it. The translators didn't have Liddell & Scott, ie you can't make much about what people knew or didn't know from citations of works that have survived from antiquity when you know that those works are not a big percentage. >It's just the same as if you spoke to the average American about an >"indeclinable noun," or a non-mathematician about a "geometric >mean," or a non-traditionalist about "incremental repetition." This now is merely guessing. "It may be that Kittim had become an obscure term that was transported into Greek in seven out of eight cases, but glossed in the eighth case we are examining." >>>I can't see that a reference to an obscure prophetic passage is >>>a better explanation for change than making an obscure passage >>>clear. >> >>What makes you think that to the people translating the LXX the Balaam >>prophecies were obscure passages? One would think these oracles were >>somewhat popular. > >Why? The Balaam stuff was relatively popular amongst the DSS from the number of citations from Numbers. You are the one who claimed for some reason that Num24:24 was an obscure prophecy. Perhaps you could justify that. >From what I understand about paraphrasing in the LXX, it is usually things that don't translate that need paraphrasing and the "ships of the Kittim" can be translated without problem. >Every time I have explained why I think the LXX reading is a gloss. It seems that every time, you have said that it is a gloss along the line that it looks like a gloss in your opinion without supplying anything more than it looks like a gloss. >The fact that I think the LXX reading is a gloss is not a reason to prefer the >MT reading? Thinking doesn't seem to be an adequate criterion when it equates to "believing" as it does in the above statement. And I guess you're right about the thread: as not many have taken it up, perhaps it should be dropped. Thanks for your thoughts, Robert. Ian Hutchesson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 25 20:25:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13971; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:25:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199808260025.RAA16379@smtp.northlink.com> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:17:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199808251513.RAA12621@ammi.mclink.it> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 824 Ian wrote: > The LXX is not internal evidence. You will find that the DSS do favour LXX > readings at times over the MT. I can see no reason why you would favour the > MT reading here over the LXX, given the evidence we have. I have to cry "foul" on this one, Ian. Simply saying that the DSS "do favour LXX readings at times" says nothing about what they are likely to preserve in Daniel 11:30. Fact is, as far as I can find this verse isn't preserved in the published DSS. However, 4QDan(c) preserves the four verses before it and follows MT readings. I haven't seen a single reading among the DSS of Daniel that supports an LXX reading, so invoking the DSS at this point seems a little, um, inappropriate? Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur When in doubt, go for chocolate. Life is too short not to. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 26 06:24:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA15620; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 06:24:45 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980826070403.007a8420@mail.geocities.com> X-Sender: dylan-j@mail.geocities.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:04:03 -0300 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Jonathan Dixon Subject: tc-list Disconnect? In-Reply-To: <199808260025.RAA16379@smtp.northlink.com> References: <199808251513.RAA12621@ammi.mclink.it> 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: 749 How do I disconnect from this list? Jon ============================================================================ "Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like." (James 1:23-24, NIV) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: dylan-j@geocities.com ICQ: 7216071 My Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/ My Online Bible Site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/ The ABU Summer News Site: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Lab/7788 ============================================================================ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 26 09:17:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16290; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:17:18 -0400 Message-ID: <35E40AB6.FBBAFF2D@research.bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:16:38 -0400 From: George Kiraz Organization: Bell Labs - Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.3 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC Subject: tc-list Assistant Technical Editor Position 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: 3565 ************************************************* * Please reply to gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com * * Apologies for multiple postings! * ************************************************* ============================================== Assistant Technical Editor Position (Voluntary) Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies =============================================== The Syriac Computing Institute, a non-profit institution, is seeking a motivated person to fill the position of Assistant Technical Editor for its journal "Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies". This academic periodical is peer-reviewed and is published semiannually (in January and July). It is free and can be accessed at: Home Page: http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye/ (Catholic University of America) Mirror Page: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/gk105/syrcom/Hugoye/ (University of Cambridge, U.K.) The editorial board members of Hugoye (as well as the staff of the Syriac Computing Institute) operate on voluntary basis. The candidate will be acknowledged in all electronic and printed versions of the journal. Tasks: ------ The Assistant Technical Editor will work closely with the Technical Editor, Dr. Thomas Joseph. Tasks include preparing web pages (in HTML) from electronic submissions, as well as preparing camera-ready copy for hard copy publications, proof-reading articles, checking bibliography entries and reference, and ensuring that the documents are well presented and conform to the standards of the journal. The work load is approximatly 50 hours per issue (two issues per year). Requirements: ------------- Knowledge of word processing is required. Candidates who have no prior knowledge of HTML (the language used to format Web pages) must be willing to learn (it is not difficult -- see below). Candidates must have access to email and the Internet. Knowledge of Syriac is a plus, but is not required. I would like to help, but... ---------------------------- *** I would like to help, but I don't know HTML! The language is not hard. For example, to write the word "book" in italic, your write "book" The first "" is the italic command; its counterpart command "" ends the italic. In a similar fashion, the following word appears in bold: "book" where "" is the bold command. The Technical Editor will work with your on this. *** I would like to help, but I have limited time! This position requires dedicated work, especially towards deadlines (January and July of each year). If you don't have the time, this position is not for you. Each issue requires a rough estimate of 50 hours from the Assistiant Technical Editor. Applications: ------------- Please write to George Kiraz (gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com). Include a short CV (resume) and a list of previous editorial work. -- \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Language Modeling Research \_ \_ \_ \_ Bell Laboratories \_ \_ \_ \_ Lucent Technologies \_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Room 2D-446 \_ \_ 700 Mountain Ave. \_ \_ Murray Hill, NJ 07974 \_ \_ Tel. +1 908 582 4074 \_ \_ Fax. +1 908 582 3306 \_\_\_ email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 26 10:04:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16616; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:04:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199808261405.QAA08704@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list Big omission in Jn 12.34 Date: Mer, 26 Ao 98 16:10:13 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1416 NA 27 mentions the omission of "tis estin outos o uios tou anqrwpou" at the end of the verse. Of course, such an omission can be due to an homeoteleuton and is likely to occur independently in several mss. Looking at the apparatus, I found that this omission seemed quite rare (P75, l2211 al. sa(ms) ac2). In fact, I noticed that omission because I found it too in the Arabic version on which I'm working. Searching for more evidence, I found that: - Three manuscripts of the second Georgian version (A, D and E) have the same omission. - The Synopsis of Nestle-Aland gives several Byzantine uncials that have the omission too. Now this last point: the Synopsis gives a very different perspective than NA. If you look only at NA, you get the impression that this is a rare, probably Alexandrine, variant (a lectio brevior). When you look at the Synopsis (and at the versions) the variant seems much more widespread, and perhaps less significative. Comments? Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 26 10:33:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16820; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:33:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:31:11 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Big omission in Jn 12.34 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980826103111.006655f0@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: 1274 At , you wrote: >NA 27 mentions the omission of "tis estin outos o uios tou anqrwpou" at >the end of the verse. Of course, such an omission can be due to an >homeoteleuton and is likely to occur independently in several mss. > >Looking at the apparatus, I found that this omission seemed quite rare >(P75, l2211 al. sa(ms) ac2). >In fact, I noticed that omission because I found it too in the Arabic >version on which I'm working. >Searching for more evidence, I found that: >- Three manuscripts of the second Georgian version (A, D and E) have the >same omission. >- The Synopsis of Nestle-Aland gives several Byzantine uncials that have >the omission too. > >Now this last point: the Synopsis gives a very different perspective than >NA. If you look only at NA, you get the impression that this is a rare, >probably Alexandrine, variant (a lectio brevior). When you look at the >Synopsis (and at the versions) the variant seems much more widespread, >and perhaps less significative. > >Comments? > >Jean V. > Could it simply be that the editors of NA27 (with their limited space) merely gave the more significant witnessess whereas the Synopsis (with considerably more available space) was able to include more information? Best, Jim jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 26 11:10:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17006; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:10:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:11:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199808261511.RAA28287@ammi.mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it 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: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Disconnect? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 310 At 07.04 26/08/98 -0300, you wrote: >How do I disconnect from this list? > >Jon If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe tc-list dylan-j@geocities.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 26 11:53:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17216; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:53:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199808261554.RAA18789@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list Jn 13.19 Date: Mer, 26 Ao 98 17:58:56 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 664 Dear TC'ers A little variant in an Arabic ms: "oti egw eimi" at the end of the verse is omitted. I haven't been able to find this omission in other greek or versional witnesses. Has any of you met it before? Thanks, Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 26 12:16:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17409; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:16:10 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199808261405.QAA08704@carno.brus.online.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:14:53 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Big omission in Jn 12.34 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2772 On Mer, 26 Ao 98, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >NA 27 mentions the omission of "tis estin outos o uios tou anqrwpou" at >the end of the verse. Of course, such an omission can be due to an >homeoteleuton and is likely to occur independently in several mss. > >Looking at the apparatus, I found that this omission seemed quite rare >(P75, l2211 al. sa(ms) ac2). >In fact, I noticed that omission because I found it too in the Arabic >version on which I'm working. >Searching for more evidence, I found that: >- Three manuscripts of the second Georgian version (A, D and E) have the >same omission. >- The Synopsis of Nestle-Aland gives several Byzantine uncials that have >the omission too. > >Now this last point: the Synopsis gives a very different perspective than >NA. If you look only at NA, you get the impression that this is a rare, >probably Alexandrine, variant (a lectio brevior). When you look at the >Synopsis (and at the versions) the variant seems much more widespread, >and perhaps less significative. > >Comments? Using every resource at my disposal, I find that the evidence for this omission consists of: P75 E F G f13-part(=69 788 828*) 28* 71 1279 l2211 sa-ms ac2 geo-mss Now one thing that strikes me about these witnesses is that most of them fall into several tight groups: Primitive Alexandrian (P75, sa, ac2), Kx Cluster E (E F G), Family 13 (69 788 828*). One suspects that these are simply scribal errors in the immediate ancestors of these witnesses which were repaired in other close relatives (B sa in the first case, etc.). It does show a bit of a defect in the way the Alands selected manuscripts: They listened to themselves too much. :-) They declared that 28 is Byzantine, so they omitted it from NA27 (the omission by 28* is cited in NA26). They rarely cite more than two Byzantine witnesses (K Gamma in the Gospels, K L in Paul, etc.) They ignore the versions, and some very interesting types (they *really* should have cited 451 in Paul). Etc. And yet, as Jim West pointed out, NA27 is a pocket edition. We would all wish it were fuller. I'd like to see half again as many witnesses, and twice as many variants. But hey, NA27 is a lot better than nothing. At least it's fairly reliable -- unlike, say, Merk, which meets the other conditions (and has a Latin apparatus, too!) but has errors on almost every page. I do think the reading is an h.t. error. While we find it occurring in several different types of witnesses (Alexandrian: P75 sa-ms ac2; "Caesarean": f13-part 28* geo-mss; Byzantine: E F G), in no case is it the reading of the majority of the members of the text-type. 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 Wed Aug 26 12:20:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17450; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:20:26 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199808261554.RAA18789@carno.brus.online.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:20:52 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Jn 13.19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 813 On Mer, 26 Ao 98, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >Dear TC'ers > >A little variant in an Arabic ms: "oti egw eimi" at the end of the verse >is omitted. I haven't been able to find this omission in other greek or >versional witnesses. Has any of you met it before? It doesn't show up in any of my books (though I don't have access to anything particularly unusual). On the other hand, Merk cites 13 712 983 1689 2193 as reading EIPON UMIN for EIMI. For whatever that's worth. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 26 12:30:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17543; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:30:41 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:32:09 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Big omission in Jn 12.34 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Glen Thompson" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199808261405.QAA08704@carno.brus.online.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19980826113332.2bc061fe.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: 221 I taught a collation course this summer and 2 of the 4 minuscules that we collated are missing these words G-A 828 (original hand, it was added by a second hand), and G-A 1073. Glen L. Thompson thompsgl@mlc-wels.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 31 03:00:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA09943; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 03:00:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 03:00:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199808310700.DAA09927@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 Mon Aug 31 15:03:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13656; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:03:07 -0400 Message-Id: <199808311903.VAA27591@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list New software: Bible Reader Date: Lun, 31 Ao 98 21:08:45 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 933 To all those interested: There's a new shareware that allows to read and search the text of the Bible. Several Greek, Hebrew and Latin modules are available. The program's name is Bible Reader. It exists in French but an English version is in development. There are versions of the software for Macintosh and Windows. I participated to the development as a beta-tester and find it really user-friendly. If you want to know more, look at: http://member.aol.com/lsoufflet Greetings, Jean V _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 31 17:28:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14528; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:28:03 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 22:26:50 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: tc-list Article in Nature In-Reply-To: <199808311903.VAA27591@carno.brus.online.be> 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: 237 Apparently there is an article in Nature (vol 394, p 839) giving details of a new text critical program which was applied to Canterbury Tales. It seems this new program is based on methods used to find common ancestors of DNA strings.