Sun Jan 5 10:37:46 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sun Jan  5 10:37:46 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA17170; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:36:25 -0500
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:30:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Julian Goldberg 
Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James)
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1376

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> 
> > Just for clarification, I thought Berry only did the dictionary in the 
> > back, and that Samuel Bagster did the actual interlinear.  If this is 
> > true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear.  Can someone verify this?
> 
> This is correct. The 1897 publication contained Berry's Lexicon and
> Synonym studies, but the base text and apparatus of editor's preferences
> was produced by Bagster publishers (which, as was their practice in the
> 19th century sweatshops, did _not_ give credit to the particular editor or
> compiler of those data, so Bagster is certainly _not_ the "author", but
> he or she is totally unknown; for all we know Berry might actually have
> been the author).  In any case, all reprints currently made have the Berry
> material, and for convenience' sake I and others tend to refer to it as
> the Berry Interlinear, without implying authorship of that portion.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
> Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 

It says that it was based on the earlier work of Newberry.

Back