Mon Feb 17 19:18:14 1997
From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 17 19:18:14 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA00803; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:18:13 -0500
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:17:17 -0600
X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon)
Subject: Re:TC Book Reviews--Progress (and lack of progress) report
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 857
Allow me to use this list once again to thank those individuals who have
reviewed books for the first, and now for the second issue of our JOURNAL.
There are still a few books in the hands of reviewers. Since a major
premise (and promise) of electronic publishing is that we can provide
substantive reviews very quickly, it is essential that we do just that. I
promise to continue to keep the editing process as brief as possible, so
that there is very little time between my receiving a review and its being
publishsed. Please take the time to complete your review or, if necessary,
to let me know that you won't be able to.
We no longer have (m)any books left to be assigned to reviewers. So, if
you hear of a suitable book, please let us know....All of you, I hope, feel
that you have a stake in our JOURNAL's success....thanks so much, leonard
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 08:44:12 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id IAA01844; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:44:11 -0500
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:44:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: TC List
Subject: test message
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: 359
Some members of the list are still having trouble receiving messages.
Please ignore this (and future) test messages. Thank you.
Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 10:56:10 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA02506; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:56:10 -0500
Message-Id: <199702181555.QAA23688@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 18:08:36 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
In-Reply-To:
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1616
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Hurtado wrote:
>N.B. Christians didn't "invent" the codex; it had been used
>for some time, but primarily for non-formal writing, such as
>notes, etc. Earliest was the bundle of wax tablets,
>thereafter parchment codices. Martial even refers to
>experiments with the codex for publication of literary works
>but suggests this didn't catch on. Christians appropriated
>the codex-format and seem to have *used* it programmatically
>far earlier than any other group. WhY?
>Various possibile scenarios have been suggested. They fall basically
>into 2 types: (1) The Christians may have intended some
>socially/religiously defining significance--Torah is to be written on
>scrolls, so the Christian writings were put in anothe format to
>distinguish them, either as Christian or as something other than
>"scripture"? (2) Christians appropriated the codex for practical
>reasons, such as the one Kilmon sketched. But remember that scrolls
>can be prepared with more than one book (e.g., the "book of the 12",
>the "minor Prophetes" are written on one scroll in ancient times).
>Codices did come to be made that could handle a larger amount of
>texts and more writings than is practical for scrolls, but the
>earliest Christian codices are quite a bit smaller and more modest
>than the grand 4th cent ones!
>THose interested really could start with the C.H. Roberts, T.C Skeat
>volume, _THe Birth of the Codex_.
I would like to add a relatively recent article by T.C. Skeat, _The Origin of
the Christian Codex_; in: ZPE 102 (1994) 263ff.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 11:17:23 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA02632; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:17:22 -0500
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:17:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: TC List
Subject: test
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: 551
This is another test message. If you've been receiving messages from the
list for the past few days, please ignore this. If you haven't been
receiving messages but you can see this one, please let me know offlist at
jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. This problem especially seems to
affect non-US addresses. Thanks.
Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 15:04:01 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA03126; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:04:00 -0500
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:03:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: TC List
Subject: missing messages
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: 731
Once again I hope to have fixed the problem that some people are having
with receiving e-mail from the list. If you did not receive any messages
from the list over the weekend and would like to catch up on the
discussion, send the following message to
majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu:
get tc-list-digest v02.n027
get tc-list-digest v02.n028
get tc-list-digest v02.n029
get tc-list-digest v02.n030
You may see a few messages that you already have, but you will also get
all those you've missed.
Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 23:51:37 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA03843; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:51:36 -0500
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:51:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts?
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: 642
I sent the below, but received no reply so I am re-sending it in part.
>>>>I recently received this communication:
"Given the recent (1990) discovery of 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts, all
dating earlier than Kittel's [Leningrad], one can easily assert that
Kittel's text is based on "less than 1% of the available data." The NKJV
was published before these manuscripts were discovered."
Is she speaking of the Biblical Archaeology Review article? Is there
anything to the 2,500 new mss.?
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 19 15:48:50 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA05587; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:48:50 -0500
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:48:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <970219154839_1281857584@emout11.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts?
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1560
Ron Minton wrote:
<< I recently received this communication:
"Given the recent (1990) discovery of 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts, all
dating earlier than Kittel's [Leningrad], one can easily assert that
Kittel's text is based on "less than 1% of the available data." The NKJV
was published before these manuscripts were discovered." >>
Riplinger continues to propagate false information, even though she has been
informed otherwise. Because the NKJV is a revision of the KJV, it was based
on exactly the same texts as the KJV 1611. It followed the Textus Receptus of
the NT and Bomberg's 2nd edition (1525/26) for the OT--the primary text [TR]
used by the KJV translators. The introduction to the NKJV mentions BHS [not
BHK!] as one of the textual sources, but also Bomberg. In every place where
BHS differed from Bomberg, the NKJV followed Bomberg, with a marginal note
indicating that fact. As executive editor of the NKJV OT, I made sure of
that. I personally told her that in a letter a couple of years age. Given the
fact that she believes that the KJV is far superior to any Hebrew MSS of any
number or date, that she knows nothing about Hebrew, and that she has no idea
what the texts of the alleged new MSS say, her attack on the textual base of
the NKJV is nothing but vicious propaganda.
<< Is she speaking of the Biblical Archaeology Review article? Is there
anything to the 2,500 new mss.? >>
I personally have not read anything about this, even though I read BAR from
cover to cover. What is the reference?
Sincerely,
James D. Price
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 20 19:41:27 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA07695; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:41:27 -0500
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:41:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: DrJDPrice@aol.com
cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts?
In-Reply-To: <970219154839_1281857584@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1599
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 DrJDPrice@aol.com wrote:
> Ron Minton wrote:
>
> << I recently received this communication:
>
> << "Given the recent (1990) discovery of 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts, all
> dating earlier than Kittel's [Leningrad], one can easily assert that
> Kittel's text is based on "less than 1% of the available data." The NKJV
> was published before these manuscripts were discovered." >>
>
> << Is she speaking of the Biblical Archaeology Review article? Is there
> anything to the 2,500 new mss.? >>
>
> I personally have not read anything about this, even though I read BAR from
> cover to cover. What is the reference?
>
> Sincerely,
> James D. Price
For clarification to all: Gail Riplinger claims that 2,500 Hebrew
manuscripts were discovered in 1990 ( all older than Codex Leningrad).
Since I had not heard of any such discovery, I thought she might have
been confused with some recent article about Hebrew manuscripts. Since
she is familiar with BAR, I thought she might have confused the Cairo Ginesah
collection of 140,000 mss that were reported in the Sept/Oct 96 issue. Even
though the article was written to celebrate the 100th year anniversary of
moving the collection to England, this is all I could think of that she
might be referring to. It reflects her level of research, and I assumed she
has some basis for her claim. All I want to know is: has anyone heard
of a 1990 discovery as noted above.
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 20 20:32:29 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA07795; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:32:29 -0500
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:32:15 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West
Subject: Re: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts?
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970220203041.26af7864@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 703
Ron,
At 06:41 PM 2/20/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Gail Riplinger claims that 2,500 Hebrew
>manuscripts were discovered in 1990 ( all older than Codex Leningrad).
> All I want to know is: has anyone heard
>of a 1990 discovery as noted above.
>
>--
>Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
>Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
>
>
Surely if a manuscript find of this magnitude had really been made we would
have all heard about it!
Its simply more hooey from the hooey master (of home economics).
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@sunbelt.net
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 12:22:10 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA08961; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:22:10 -0500
From: WFWarren@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:22:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <970221122202_-2076897291@emout12.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
cc: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
Subject: KRABBATGON vs. KRABBATON
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1216
Recently Carlton Winbery and I were discussing a reading in ms. 1346 (which
Carlton is collating) at John 5:7 in which KRABBATGON was read for
KRABBATON. Ms. 565 has the same variant reading (which I've collated), and a
couple of other mss. are listed in Swanson as having the same reading. In
discussing this, we postulated that perhaps the original was KRABBATION,
since LSL does not list KRABBATGON as a Greek word. (Also, knowing the Attic
tendency to discourage diminutives, the shift from the conjectured diminutive
to KRABBATON would be understandable, if KRABBATION was considered as a
possible reading.)
Could some of you help with the background on KRABBATGON and comment on the
possibility that this reading is the result of a scribal slip in which
someone confused an iota made with an overly long tail with a gamma. I have
not seen any evidence of the variant in the Uncials, only minuscules, where
the confusion would be feasible. At any rate, if KRABBATGON is not a Greek
word, an explanation for its presence in several mss. would be needed, thus
the conjecture of confusion with an original iota.
Bill Warren
Professor of New Testament and Greek
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 13:29:39 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA09149; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:29:39 -0500
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:31:54 +0400
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery)
Subject: Re: KRABBATGON vs. KRABBATON
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1490
>Recently Carlton Winbery and I were discussing a reading in ms. 1346 (which
>Carlton is collating) at John 5:7 in which KRABBATGON was read for
>KRABBATON. Ms. 565 has the same variant reading (which I've collated), and a
>couple of other mss. are listed in Swanson as having the same reading. In
>discussing this, we postulated that perhaps the original was KRABBATION,
>since LSL does not list KRABBATGON as a Greek word. (Also, knowing the Attic
>tendency to discourage diminutives, the shift from the conjectured diminutive
>to KRABBATON would be understandable, if KRABBATION was considered as a
>possible reading.)
>
By the word "original" we meant the precursor of one or more of these Mss
that have the non-sense reading. Often among these minuscules the scribe
will come off of a tau and make an iota by simply drawing a line straight
down from the right edge of the tau. If he drug his pen going back to the
omicron, he would make what looks in other places as a gamma
unintentionally. I am in the process of checking as many places where such
a mistake could have occurred. So far the use of KRABATON/TION in John 5
is the only one I can positively identify. Next I will check and see what
other phenomena tie these particular mss together in this part of John.
Carlton L. Winbery
114 Beall St.
Pineville, LA 71360
Fax (318) 442-4996
e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
winbrow@aol.com
Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 15:40:56 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA09389; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:40:55 -0500
Date: 21 Feb 1997 20:40:19 -0000
Message-ID: <19970221204019.2737.qmail@np.nosc.mil>
From: Vincent Broman
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: archimedes.nosc.mil archive
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 882
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
My archive of machine-readable texts of the Greek New Testament
with some related materials has been moved from archimedes.nosc.mil
to http://www.znet.com/~broman and has been slightly repackaged.
Please update bookmarks and the like.
Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = o
2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _
San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_)
___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMw4IKmCU4mTNq7IdAQHJIgP5AZ672C301RtxnzzTqqnYZmN4QVtxzXVj
1q5TiqvxgLnKWb1ODMkZS89YgVEB04UQfu08WIhbqVL+RVjOd7VseqnCmoWs7hhK
wzYxHuFm+y2U25PQuy5AfAfsqAW9s83NmYallt67wWnVP9DB8ZED5fy8hoIaAmw3
BZV+nwG4Qpc=
=etwr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 23:22:00 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA09938; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:22:00 -0500
From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us
Message-Id: <199702220424.VAA08617@wavecom.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:19:40 -7000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: archimedes.nosc.mil archive
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 575
I noticed the link to the LXX Unix line-per-verse file didn't work,
gave a "file not found" error. Did I catch it on a bad day?
>
> My archive of machine-readable texts of the Greek New Testament
> with some related materials has been moved from archimedes.nosc.mil
> to http://www.znet.com/~broman and has been slightly repackaged.
> Please update bookmarks and the like.
>
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"One of the things I've learned during my short
sojourn on this planet is that I am underqualified
to stay serious very long." -Phil Callaway
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 22 08:27:38 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id IAA10318; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:27:37 -0500
Message-ID: <330F896D.854@sn.no>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:03:57 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Byzantine Canon
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: 628
Can anybody out there give me some concise information concerning the Old
Testament and New Testament Canon in the Byzantine Empire during the
period of manuscript transmission (c.400-1453)??
To be exact, my questions are these:
1. Did the Greek Church during this period accept the LXX Canon
as Scripture (including the Apocrypha)? Or did they judge the Hebrew
Canon to be of greater authority?
2. Did they accept the additions to the N.T. books such as is found in
the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement,
Barnabas, etc.)?
I appreciate all responses!
Thanks ahead!
--
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 22 09:05:20 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA10382; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:05:19 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <330F896D.854@sn.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:09:50 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1440
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote:
>To be exact, my questions are these:
>
>1. Did the Greek Church during this period accept the LXX Canon
>as Scripture (including the Apocrypha)? Or did they judge the Hebrew
>Canon to be of greater authority?
As far as I know, the church never officially pronounced on this.
However, since most LXX copies include the relevant Apocryphal
books, they must have been regarded as scripture.
Of course, this does not include the Latin Apocrypha (i.e. the
Apocalypse known as 2 Esdras).
>2. Did they accept the additions to the N.T. books such as is found in
>the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement,
>Barnabas, etc.)?
We might note that Vaticanus does *not* include any NT apocrypha.
Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus do, but they don't contain the same
documents. Nor do later codices contain these apocryphal books.
Since most of the "canon" lists in Eusebius also omit Barnabas,
etc., it is clear that the church, from the fifth century on,
considered the NT canon to be the same 27 books we now use.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 22 22:46:48 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id WAA11148; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:46:48 -0500
Message-ID: <331052AE.69B@sn.no>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:22:38 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Mark 2:15
References: <3305C761.33CF@sn.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 7278
Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
>=20
> On Wed 12 Feb Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> > I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat."
> Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text=
?
> I have four editions of the TR and none read that way.
>=20
> Thanks ahead of time.
>=20
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
> Mr. Minton,
> > The problem in the KJV at Mark 2:15 does not seem to be a translati=
onal
> > problem at all, as it has been suggested. Sometimes the KJV =
translators used other sources than the available Greek=20
editions. For insta
> > times the they selected readings from the Latin Vulgate. Their main
> > source for the NT was Beza=B4s 1598 Greek edition. Since the transla=
tors
> > seem to have had Beza as the greatest authority for the text of the =
NT,
> > it will do good sometimes to check out his Latin translation.
> >
> > I have done so in a few occasions, and more than once I found that t=
he
> > KJV translators have followed a Latin translation of Beza. I have a
> > pocket edition of Beza=B4s Latin dated MCMXXV. It=B4s text is taken =
from a
> > reprint dated 1642.
> >
> > In Mark 2:15 this text reads as following: Et factum est, ut quum Je=
sus
> > accumberet in domo illius, .......
> >
> > The Latin Vulgate reads: Et factum est cum accumberet in domo
> > illius......
> >
> Mr. Minton answered on Fri 14 Feb:
>=20
> > I don't think it was the influence of Beza's Latin because all the ea=
rlier
> > English NTs based on Greek have "Jesus" twice like the KJV. It follo=
wed
> > them. Wycliffe and Rheims read more like the Greek, apparently follo=
wing
> > the Latin Vulgate.
> >
> > --
> I reply:
>=20
> First, let me establish Beza=B4s extraordinary influence on the KJV tra=
nslators:
> Scrivener wrote: "Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of=
Beza=B4s Greek
> Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed =
than his fifth
> (1598),....." and "On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yie=
lded too much to
> Beza=B4s somewhat arbitrary decicions; but they lived at a time when hi=
s name was the very
> highest among Reformed theologians,.....". (The Athorized Version, App.=
E, p.60).
>=20
> A good example of this yielding is their choice to follow Beza in Rom.7=
:6 (apothanontos)
> against all known MS evidence. Only Erasmus alleged that the reading wa=
s supported by
> Chrysostom.
>=20
> None of this does, of course, prove conclusively that the KJV translato=
rs included the
> first "Jesus" in Mark 2:15 only because Beza had it in his Latin. But I=
ask this question:
> Is it not a possibility though, since they relied so heavily on Beza el=
sewhere? If the KJV
> translators could follow the *Roman Catholic* Vulgate Latin in some pla=
ces, I believe it
> is only logical to conclude that they also could have followed Beza=B4s=
*Reformed* Latin in
> some places!
>=20
> The fact that the earlier translations had the rendering/reading in que=
stion, did, without
> question, influence their choice. But still I ask: Is it likely that th=
ey would have
> included this reading *without* the authority of Beza=B4s Latin? I sugg=
est that it is
> *unlikely* that they would! Why? Because normally they placed translati=
onal additions in
> italics! Also, in the Geneva Bible "Jesus" is added without italics, as=
in the KJV. Below
> I shall comment on the fact that the Geneva Bible too, which, by the wa=
y, was the first to
> use italics in the text, was influenced by Beza.
>=20
> No doubt, this reading *may* be a translational thing, and the English =
translators *and*
> Beza (in his Latin) may have added "Jesus" for the sake of clarificatio=
n. If this is so,
> the suggestion is that there never was any real MS evidence for the rea=
ding, not even
> among Latin MSS. But if this was *not* a translational thing with Beza,=
he must have had
> some authority for the reading.
>=20
> We know that Beza=B4s Latin translation first appeared in 1556. (This i=
s according to
> Scrivener!). Also, we know that the Geneva New Testament first appeared=
in 1557.
> Therefore, it is very likely that Beza=B4s Latin influenced the decicio=
ns made for the 1557
> and 1560 editions of the Geneva NT. It is, at least, very clear that Be=
za left his mark on
> both the Geneva NT and the AV 1611 NT. Also, the Reformed theology of B=
eza and Calvin is
> the very foundation for the famous marginal annotations in the Geneva B=
ible edition of
> 1602, two years before the KJV translators started their work. In fact,=
these annotations
> is based directly on Beza=B4s 1574 Latin translation with notes.
>=20
> The English versions prior to Beza may have used the same sources for t=
he NT (other than
> the Greek) that Beza used for his Latin (whatever that may have been) f=
or the establishing
> of the reading in Mark 2:15. The fact that the Geneva Bible, which was =
the first to
> include italics, did *not* place "Jesus" in italics, suggest an authori=
ty for the reading,
> other than just a translational solution. Translations prior to the Gen=
evan did not
> indicate words which were not in the Greek.
>=20
> In conclusion, let me point to one possible witness to the authority of=
the "Jesus"
> reading/rendering in Mark 2:15:
> In a 1825 printing of H. A. Schott=B4s edition of the Greek-Latin New T=
estament, which has a
> brief critical apparatus for both the Greek and the Latin, the Latin te=
xt reads as follows
> in Mark 2:15a: "In cuius domo quum Jesus postea accubuisset, .....".
> That this Latin translation reads "Jesus" here *without* placing it in =
a parantheses (or
> brackets) is remarkable, for it seems that it *usually* has parantheses=
around words
> supplied, especially names of Deity added for emphasis or clarity. Look=
, for instance, at
> the rendering at Colossians 1:21-22: "Vos quoque, olim alienos (a Deo),=
mente (Deo)
> inimicos, pravis quippe factis deditos, nunc omnino (Deo) reconciliavit=
(Christus) corpore
> suo,.....".
>=20
> >From the above example, it is to be expected that this Latin edition w=
ould have had
> "Jesus" within parantheses in Mark 2:15 if the editor had felt that the=
re was no Latin (or
> other) authority for the reading/rendering. However, I am not saying th=
at this *proves*
> anything. Besides, it=B4s still *possible* to imagine that the Latin re=
ading is a
> translational decision.
>=20
> I conclude that it is at least *likely* that the KJV translators (and t=
he Genevan
> translators) adopted the reading under the influence of Beza, knowing t=
hat Beza had a
> reason to include the reading. After all, the translators had the *oppo=
rtunity* to place
> supplied words in italics, but they didn=B4t do it! This indicate some =
*other* authority
> than just the rendering of Tyndale, et.al.
>=20
> I have only attempted to answer your question concerning the authority =
behind the KJV
> reading/rendering at Mark 2:15, well aware of the fact that I cannot pr=
ove anything
> concerning it. It is just suggestions, nothing more.
> --
>=20
> - Mr. Helge Evensen
This message is repeated because it was originally sent to the wrong=20
address.
--=20
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Feb 23 19:39:08 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA12058; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:39:07 -0500
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:52:52 +0000
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Steven Carr
Subject: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 443
I'm new to this list and hope this is on-topic.
I was very impressed indeed by this book. It seemed to me to be very
scholarly, while also very readable and using simple, clear and
convincing arguments that laymen such as me can understand.
While I believe I can recognize good work when I see it, I was wondering
if the book was very controversial in its field? Are there people who
disagree with it and do they have any good arguments?
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 11:11:35 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA13686; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:11:34 -0500
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:10:52 -0500
From: "Harold P. Scanlin"
Subject: Tyndale
To: TC-List
Message-ID: <199702241111_MC2-11A4-8233@compuserve.com>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 544
Some time ago a brief thread discussed the newly discovered copy of
Tyndale's first edition NT at the Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart. The
Stuttgart copy has now been included in the traveling Tyndale exhibit which
just opened at the New York Public Library. After May 17 the exhibit moves
to Washington DC (I think the Library of Congress). The Stuttgart copy is
in excellent condition and the entire exhibit is quite good, including
matters of textual relationships of Reformation era translations.
Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 11:54:06 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA13924; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:54:06 -0500
From: "Vinton A. Dearing"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:56:49 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: KJV
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing"
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31)
Message-ID: <143631057E2@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1043
See David Norton, "John Bois's Notes on the revision of the King
James Bible New Testament: A New Manuscript," The Library, 6th ser.,
XVIII:4, 328-346. "John Bois's notes taken during the final revision
of the epistles and Revelation for the King James Bible (KJB) are now
well known to scholars of English Bible translation. They give a
unique insight into the way the translators worked, and they show
above all the translators' sensitivity to the nuances of the Greek
and the level of scholarship they brought to their work." The
original notes have disappeared, but at least two copies of them have
survived. The article describes the second copy and lists its
differences from the first copy, together with photographs of some
parallel pages.
In connection with some recent answers to queries, would it not
be better to refer enquirers to Bible dictionaries where they may
find full explanations, the respondents only specifying any
objections they may have to details in the published sources?
Vinton A. Dearing
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 14:34:00 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA14630; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:34:00 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Gerard J. Norton"
Date: 24 Feb 1997 18:46:47
Subject: Confirmation of your message.
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Mac v2.02
Message-ID: <67B0EC3B8D@novell2.bham.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 285
Confirmation: message read at 18:46, 24 Feb 1997
Subject: KJV
********************************************
Gerard J. Norton
Dept of Theology,
University of Birmingham
England B15 2TT
email: G.J.Norton@bham.ac.uk
Tel (44-121) 4145663
**********************************************
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 18:56:54 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA15152; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:56:54 -0500
Message-ID: <3312BFD6.3A77@sn.no>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:32:54 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon
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: 2310
Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote:
>
> >To be exact, my questions are these:
> >
> >1. Did the Greek Church during this period accept the LXX Canon
> >as Scripture (including the Apocrypha)? Or did they judge the Hebrew
> >Canon to be of greater authority?
>
> As far as I know, the church never officially pronounced on this.
> However, since most LXX copies include the relevant Apocryphal
> books, they must have been regarded as scripture.
>
> Of course, this does not include the Latin Apocrypha (i.e. the
> Apocalypse known as 2 Esdras).
>
> >2. Did they accept the additions to the N.T. books such as is found in
> >the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement,
> >Barnabas, etc.)?
>
> We might note that Vaticanus does *not* include any NT apocrypha.
> Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus do, but they don't contain the same
> documents. Nor do later codices contain these apocryphal books.
> Since most of the "canon" lists in Eusebius also omit Barnabas,
> etc., it is clear that the church, from the fifth century on,
> considered the NT canon to be the same 27 books we now use.
>
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> Robert B. Waltz
Thanks for your answer, Dr. Waltz.
I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical
situation in the Byzantine Empire.
Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that
could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the
NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as
belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they
accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of
the later Eastern Fathers refer to this?
In other words, did the Greek Church in one way or the other make a
distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX??
I also would like to know in what degree the Greek Church
transmitted/copied the text of the LXX. How many of the surviving copies
of the LXX are from the Byzantine area?
All answers are appreciated.
Lastly: Can anyone refer me to articles or books that could contribute to
any clarity on this??
Thanks in advance!
--
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 19:58:40 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA15213; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:58:40 -0500
From: Anthony.York@UC.Edu
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:17:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RCPT: KJV
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <2F07C926930@UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.EDU>
Organization: University of Cincinnati-English
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Mac (v2.1.2)
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 172
Confirmation of reading: your message -
Date: 24 Feb 97 8:56
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.EDU
Subject: KJV
Was read at 21:17, 24 Feb 1997.
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 20:30:24 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA15263; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:30:23 -0500
Message-ID: <33124069.2FB5@3-cities.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:29:13 -0800
From: Raymond Williams
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-KIT (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission?
References: <2F07C926930@UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.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: 461
>
If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are
challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his
spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the
thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We
believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today
...".
Any one want to comment?
Ray
snickers@3-cities.com
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 20:30:39 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA15278; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:30:38 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <3312BFD6.3A77@sn.no>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:34:26 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2800
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote:
>Thanks for your answer, Dr. Waltz.
Once again I must remind people that I am not a doctor, not a professor,
not a seminarian -- just a mathematician who talks too much. :-)
>I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical
>situation in the Byzantine Empire.
I probably should point out that there was no "official" canon at this
time -- just as there was no official Catholic canon until the Council
of Trent. The Orthodox churches did eventually have a similar council
to settle such matters; I can't remember the name and date, but it
was relatively recent.
>Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that
>could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the
>NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as
>belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they
>accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of
>the later Eastern Fathers refer to this?
I can't cite passages. I seem to recall, however, that the Orthodox
church in general accepted the books. Remember, other than Origen,
none of the eastern fathers read Hebrew. Origen and Jerome were
almost the only ones to comment on the matter.
I believe that most of the versions translated from the LXX (e.g. the
Armenian) include the "apocryphal" books, but again, I can't give
exact data.
>In other words, did the Greek Church in one way or the other make a
>distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX??
In general, no. The LXX was *the* Greek canon, and the church relied
on it explicitly. Certainly all the major LXX codices (Aleph, A, B, C,
N+V, Q) includes the books.
Remember, too, that copies of the LXX tended to retain its distinctive
text (e.g. in Kings or the prophets) when even casual comparison with the
Hebrew would have produced a different text.
>I also would like to know in what degree the Greek Church
>transmitted/copied the text of the LXX. How many of the surviving copies
>of the LXX are from the Byzantine area?
This depends on the date, of course. The earliest copies of LXX are
from Egypt. Very many of the later copies are from Athos. Others are
in western libraries but may have originated in Byzantium. But for
exact figures you would have to consult the catalogs.
I wish I could offer more detail, but this is an area I am not
expert on.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 21:54:52 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id VAA15476; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:54:52 -0500
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:58:08 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon
Cc: helevens@sn.no
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1342
Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
>I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical
>situation in the Byzantine Empire. [...]
>Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that
>could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the
>NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as
>belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they
>accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of
>the later Eastern Fathers refer to this? [...]
>I also would like to know in what degree the Greek Church
>transmitted/copied the text of the LXX. How many of the surviving copies
>of the LXX are from the Byzantine area? [...]
>Lastly: Can anyone refer me to articles or books that could contribute to
>any clarity on this??
Two books, both by the same author, that cover in detail virtually all of
the questions that you ask (and are, moreover, true pleasures to read):
Bruce M. Metzger _The Text of the NT: Its Transmission, Corruption and
Restoration_ 3ed. (Oxford 1992)
Bruce M. Metzger _The Canon of the NT: Its Origin, Development and
Significance_ (Oxford 1987)
Nichael "Pull down...
nichael@sover.net ...tear up."
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ -D. Martin
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 21:55:19 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id VAA15491; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:55:19 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <33124069.2FB5@3-cities.com>
References: <2F07C926930@UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:31:57 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission?
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2205
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Raymond Williams wrote:
> If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are
>challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his
>spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the
>thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We
>believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today
>...".
> Any one want to comment?
One might note that this is a list devoted to textual criticism, so
there probably aren't many here who believe in the inerrancy of
scripture. Even so, I'm scientifically trained, so I probably
believe in it less than most. So I'm probably a good one to start....
I assume you're referring to the work of the Jesus Seminar.
I've never been very impressed with that group. For one thing,
I don't see it as overly relevant whether Jesus said exactly
this word or that. (For one thing, he spoke in Aramaic and the
New Testament is in Greek. :-)
What the New Testament represents is *the church's understanding*
of the teachings of Jesus. If they are not exactly accurate, it
is not relevant to the doctrine of the church, which flows from
the scriptures. So I think that the work of the Jesus Seminar
is largely irrelevant.
I also disagree with many of their particular conclusions. As
someone deeply interested in oral tradition, I don't think they
understand its role.
Still, I think there is truth in what they say. The words of
Jesus have *not* always been transmitted correctly, either by
the gospel writers or by the scribes who copied their works.
As for giving an exact figure for how much is and is not
accurate, you won't catch *me* offering such a figure. :-)
To sum up: I think the Jesus Seminar sees part of the truth,
but I don't think it should affect anyone's faith (or lack
thereof).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 00:15:09 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id AAA15722; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:15:08 -0500
From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us
Message-Id: <199702250518.WAA14349@wavecom.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:12:50 -7000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission?
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 759
> If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are
> challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his
> spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the
> thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We
> believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today
> ...".
> Any one want to comment?
As one who has followed such comments fairly consistently over the
years and always found the methodologies involved seriously wanting,
all I can say is: *yawn* SSDD.
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"One of the things I've learned during my short
sojourn on this planet is that I am underqualified
to stay serious very long." -Phil Callaway
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 01:09:35 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id BAA15774; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:09:35 -0500
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:09:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon
In-Reply-To: <3312BFD6.3A77@sn.no>
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: 2522
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
> Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that
> could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the
> NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as
> belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they
> accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of
> the later Eastern Fathers refer to this?
> In other words, did the Greek Church in one way or the other make a
> distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX??
According to the canon lists given in Swete, _Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek_, the Eastern fathers were not particularly consistent,
especially early in the period in question. Some seem to include at least
some "apocryphal" books alongside those found in the Jewish canon without
distinction (e.g., Pseudo-Chrysostom, canon list described by Lagarde,
Junilius, John of Damascus, Ebed-jesu, Apostolic Canons). Others make
some kind of distinction between the "main" canonical books and the
"peripheral" ones, if they mention the latter at all (Athanasius, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, Dialogue of
Timothy and Aquila, Pseudo-Athanasius, Leontius, Nicephorus, Laodicene
Canons, Canon list in Codd. Barocc. 206). The exception to this general
characterization is that even most of those who follow the Jewish canon
(or make a distinction between main & peripheral books) apparently
included the minor books associated with Jeremiah & Daniel with the larger
books, and they also probably accepted the Greek version of Esther and
perhaps also 1 Esdras.
>I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical
>situation in the Byzantine Empire.
Bob Waltz answered:
>I probably should point out that there was no "official" canon at this
>time -- just as there was no official Catholic canon until the Council
>of Trent. The Orthodox churches did eventually have a similar council
>to settle such matters; I can't remember the name and date, but it
>was relatively recent.
The Council of Jerusalem in 1672 settled the OT canon (more or less) for
the Eastern Orthodox Church, although some differences remain to this day
among the various communions of the EOC.
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 04:01:24 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id EAA15881; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:01:24 -0500
Message-ID:
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "David G.K. Taylor"
Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:57:55 GMT
Subject: RCPT: KJV
Priority: normal
X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 498
Confirmation of reading: your message -
Date: 24 Feb 97 8:56
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: KJV
Was read at 8:57, 25 Feb 97.
*********************************************************************
Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk
Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666
University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT,
U.K.
*********************************************************************
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 09:01:04 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA16132; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:01:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:00:33 -0500
From: "Harold P. Scanlin"
Subject: Byzantine canon
To: TC-LIST
Message-ID: <199702250900_MC2-11AD-CDBF@compuserve.com>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1244
In addition to the helpful bibliographic references mentioned by Adair and
others, the three volume set edited and translated by William A. Jurgens,
-_The Faith of the Early Fathers_ (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970
- 1979), is very helpful. You may also be interested in my article in the
Meyendorff memorial volume, "The Old Testament Canon in the Orthodox
Churches," in _New perspectives on historical theology_ (Eerdmans, 1996),
pp. 300 - 312. It is important to keep in mind that the Orthodox Churches
are autocephalous, that is, each "national" Orthodox church decides for
itself its own canon, not only in the number of books but in the definition
of "canon." There is, on the other hand, an Orthodox approach to the
entire topic, even though specifics may vary.
I think the willingness to include the works associated with Jeremiah and
Daniel, even in earlier canon lists which are quite close to the Hebrew
canon, reflects an attitude towards "canon" that focuses on inspired
writers rather than on inspired books/editions of books. In a way, it's
"the exception that proves the rule" that in the earlier period there was a
decided preference for the Hebrew canon in the East.
Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 09:53:04 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA16291; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:53:04 -0500
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:52:36 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West
Subject: Hebrew Text
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified)
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970225095128.248f372a@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 221
Is there a Hebrew text available without the pointing of the Masoretes?
If so, where.
Thanks.
Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@sunbelt.net
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 11:38:26 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA16545; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:38:26 -0500
Message-ID:
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "David G.K. Taylor"
Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:32:56 GMT
Subject: Unpointed Hebrew Text
Priority: normal
X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 753
The British and Foreign Bible Society, London, published an edition
of the Hebrew Bible without points and accents in four volumes
(Torah, Former and Latter Prophets, Writings). My copies of the last
three volumes are dated 1920 and the copy of the Torah is dated
1961 so I presume, without looking up Darlow and Moule, that the
complete set was republished in 1961 (and on other occasions?).
Yrs, David Taylor
*********************************************************************
Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk
Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666
University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT,
U.K.
*********************************************************************
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 11:54:33 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA16583; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:54:32 -0500
Message-ID: <3313AE61.5398@sn.no>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:30:41 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Byzantine Canon
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: 65
Many thanks for your comments, Mr. Waltz
--
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 12:05:31 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA16620; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:05:31 -0500
Message-ID: <3313B0F0.9EB@sn.no>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:41:36 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Byzantine Canon
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: 69
Many thanks for your good comments Mr. Adair
--
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 12:41:16 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA16716; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:41:16 -0500
Message-ID: <3313B956.73DC@sn.no>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:17:26 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Unpointed Hebrew Text
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: 382
Mr. West,
I would highly recommend that you contacted a "Used Books" Store or an
Antiquarian Books dealer to buy a copy of an unpointed Hebrew Text
Edition. I suggest that you just ask the book-dealer to look at the text
before sending it.
It probably would not cost you much more than $10.00
Many times I have obtained out-of-print books in this way!
--
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 14:56:16 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA17067; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:56:15 -0500
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:56:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: TC List
Subject: mystery e-mail address
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: 480
If anyone on the list recognizes the address jllaroc@magi.com, please
contact me off-list. I'm getting error messages concerning this address,
but it is not subscribed to the list. Apparently there's some sort of
mail forwarding going on. Thanks.
Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 16:27:07 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id QAA17300; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:27:07 -0500
From: "Vinton A. Dearing"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:29:55 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Christ's words
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing"
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31)
Message-ID: <15FF0B63CC7@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 4417
The Christian Science point of view is set forth in Science and
Health, by Mary Baker Eddy (final edition 1910):
"The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and
should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the
ancient versions; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old
Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New, -- these facts
show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record,
with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages. But
mistakes could neither wholly obscure the divine Science of the
Scriptures seen from Genesis to Revelation, mar the demonstration of
Jesus, nor annul the healing by the prophets, who foresaw that `the
stone which the builders rejected' would become `the head of the
corner.'" (p. 139)
"We must have faith in all the sayings of our Master, though
they are not included in the teachings of the schools, and are not
understood generally by our ethical instructors. Jesus said (John
viii. 51), `If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.' That
statement is not confined to spiritual life, but includes all the
phenomena of existence. Jesus demonstrated this, healing the dying
and raising the dead." (pp. 429-430)
"The progress of truth confirms its claims, and our Master
confirmed his words by his works." (p. 94)
"It is possible, -- yea, it is the duty and privilege of every
child, man, and woman, -- to follow in some degree the example of the
Master by the demonstration of Truth and Life, of health and
holiness." (p. 37)
In short, while the Gospels may not transmit all Jesus' words
verbatim, their essential accuracy and consistency can be
demonstrated by anyone who turns to spiritual healing for evidence.
Speaking for myself, the evidence that Jesus could speak Greek
is now sufficient for me to believe that in his conversations with
Pilate we may well have his very words (presumably recounted by him
to his followers at a later time). I particularly like to believe
that he did say exactly this: EGW EIS TOUTO GEGENNHMAI KAI EIS TOUTO
ELHLUQA EIS TON KOSMON INA MARTURHSW TH ALHQEIA PAS O WN EK THS
ALHQEIAS AKOUEI MOU THS FWNHS.
Pilate's reply is famous. Mrs. Eddy writes, "The women at the
cross could have answered Pilate's question. They knew what had
inspired their devotion, winged their faith, opened the eyes of their
understanding, healed the sick, cast out evil, and caused the
disciples to say to their Master: `Even the devils are subject unto
us through thy name.'" (Science and Health, p. 49).
I hope someday to write an essay for this forum on the
importance of spiritual healing in textual criticism of the New
Testament. For example, UBS4 omits KAI DIELQWN DIA MESOU AUTWN
EPOREUETO KAI PARHGEN OUTWS from John 8:59, and Metzger, Texual
Commentary, p. 227, explains that the fuller text was the work of
copyists who wished to give the impression that Jesus had escaped by
miraculous power. Why conclude that Jesus' escape was not empowered by
the same understanding of God's love as the escape recorded in Luke
4:30? Why not conclude instead that the omission came about through an
eyeskip from KAI before DIELQWN to KAI before PARAGWN (9:1)?
I recognize that among the manuscripts having DIELQWN there is a
preceding KAI only in 01c, 04, 019, 044, 0211, 33, and 892, but
I suppose that in an ancestor of the others it was at the margin and
got lost among the marginal markings; I am encouraged in the idea of
eyeskip by the fact that 02 skips from the KAI before DIELQWN to KAI
before PARHGEN.
If we accept the TR then the narrative takes on a wonderful
glow of inspiration. Jesus was completely untouched by the hatred
he had aroused -- no "not again!" not even "whew!" -- and was at once
ready to heal the man born blind. The time has not passed when some
Bible scholars reject the biblical record of spiritual healing, but the
time has already come when those engaged in healing, physicians,
psychologists, nurses, have begun to welcome the power of prayer and
to declare that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated.
If any member of our colloquium does not have a copy of Science
and Health, I'll be glad to send him/her one. It has been my guide to
life and health and a treasured key to the Scriptures for more than
75 years.
Vinton A. Dearing
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 00:07:41 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id AAA17900; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:07:40 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:07:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: TC List
Subject: RCPT
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: 259
test message - please ignore
Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 17:40:48 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA19180; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:40:47 -0500
Message-ID: <33155127.5D4@sn.no>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:17:27 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: (no subject)
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: 96
I have not seen any messages lately.
Maybe nothing have been posted!?
--
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 19:07:16 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA19267; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:07:16 -0500
From: REElliott@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:07:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <970226190635_1880109136@emout15.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission?
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 750
In a message dated 97-02-24 20:31:49 EST, you write:
<< If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are
challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his
spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the
thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We
believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today
...". >>
If this has anything to do with the "Jesus Seminar", I will give them the
benefit of the doubt and read their findings (I suppose, of their second
book).
If, however, it is as their first book (that I subsequently did a review of)
I'll venture to say that much less than 5% of their presuppositional findings
are accurate!
R.E. Elliott
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 19:47:48 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA19312; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:47:47 -0500
Message-ID: <3314D96C.362A@3-cities.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:46:36 -0800
From: Raymond Williams
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-KIT (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission?
References: <970226190635_1880109136@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1063
REElliott@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-02-24 20:31:49 EST, you write:
>
> << If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are
> challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his
> spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the
> thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We
> believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today
> ...". >>
>
> If this has anything to do with the "Jesus Seminar", I will give them the
> benefit of the doubt and read their findings (I suppose, of their second
> book).
> If, however, it is as their first book (that I subsequently did a review of)
> I'll venture to say that much less than 5% of their presuppositional findings
> are accurate!
> R.E. Elliott
Hello,
Thanks for you comments .. could you "briefly" summarize your
thoughts on this???? Thanks .. I would be interested in what you have to
say!
Ray Williams
snickers@3-cities.com
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 27 00:57:37 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id AAA19666; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:57:36 -0500
From: "Dr Johann Cook"
Organization: University of Stellenbosch
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:55:50 GMT+0200
Subject: Re:
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook"
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40)
Message-ID:
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 885
> ST)
> Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
> id RAA19180; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:40:47 -0500
> Message-ID: <33155127.5D4@sn.no>
> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:17:27 -0800
> From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
> Organization: SN Internett
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za
> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
> Subject: (no subject)
> 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
>
> I have not seen any messages lately.
>
> Maybe nothing have been posted!?
> --
> - Mr. Helge Evensen
>
>
Prof. Johann Cook
Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
University of Stellenbosch
7600 Stellenbosch
SOUTH AFRICA
tel 22-21-8083207
fax: 22-21-8083480
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 28 01:31:15 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id BAA21624; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:31:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:31:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: TC List
Subject: tc-list archives on Web
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: 1514
TC-list archives are now available on the Web! The tc-list is being
archived on Reference.COM (http://www.reference.com) , a site that
archives many mailing lists and Usenet groups. You can search the tc-list
archives (or the entire Reference.COM site) by keywords, authors of
comments, date, and more. Currently, only messages since Feb. 28, 1997
(this is probably the first one) are archived there, although we hope that
our entire archives will be there in the future. In the meantime,
however, the tc-list archives are available on TELA at
http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html. The
messages in this archive are in chronological order, grouped by month.
There is no separate search engine yet, but you can use the general TELA
search engine, accessible from the home page: http://scholar.cc.emory.edu.
Enter "tc list*" (without the quotes, but include the asterisk) and
whatever term or terms you want to search for.
Don't forget that the archives are also available by e-mail. Send the
message "get tc-list tc-list.yymm" to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu,
where yymm is the year and month. For example, to retrieve all the
messages from February 1997, send the message "get tc-list tc-list.9702."
Do not include the quotation marks.
Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 3 10:03:35 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA26622; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 10:03:34 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:07:39 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: New ENTTC articles
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1915
What follows is blatant slef-promotion. If this list weren't so quiet,
I wouldn't do it, but we're hardly overburdening your mailboxes. :-)
I doubt the experienced textual critics on this list will care, but
I've updated my articles at the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism
site. Specifically, I have now included detailed descriptions of all
the minuscules "cited constantly" in NA26 and NA27 for the Pauline
and Catholic Epistles. In the case of many of these manuscripts
(630, 1505, 1506, 1881, 2464, 2495, etc.), this is the only
serious assessment of these available other than the Alands' very
basic "Category" ratings.
The articles aren't all that I had hoped; I often was not able to
compile a decent bibliography, and in many cases I had only the
information provided in the Nestle citations to work with. But
I have spent years working over those collations; I thought less
experienced people might like the benefit of that experience.
I also tried to make the results reasonably unbiased -- e.g. I
would describe a manuscript as "more Alexandrian" or "more
Byzantine" rather than "better" or "worse."
Also, I included some additional links which I hope will make
things easier to use.
I remind people that Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com) is the
editor of the ENTTC, and that questions should be addressed to
him. (I should also note that he has *not* vetted these articles. :-)
But if anyone wants to post an article to the online site, feel
free to contact me. Maybe it will force me to change my sarcastic
signature. :-)
The URL is given below.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 3 12:59:20 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA27290; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:59:20 -0500
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:59:20 -0500
From: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-Id: <199703031759.MAA27290@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing
content-length: 393
Something has occured at the server and I can now receive mail only at
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
jwest@highland.net
Please change your address book accordingly.
Thanks,
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@sunbelt.net
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 3 17:58:55 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA28255; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:58:54 -0500
From: REElliott@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:58:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <970303175818_-1272568414@emout05.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: New ENTTC articles
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 508
To all TCer's (and Bob W too)
I do appreciate the work that Bob (and others) has (have) done in conjunction
with the ENTTC. I take this opportunity to remind everyone that while the
project is moving quite slowly now, (better than not at all) I am continuing
to "keep the dream alive", thanks in part to the continued support that I
receive from this list. Please continue to pray for the progress of this
work.
Again, thanks to all for your support and comments. I will keep you posted!
Rich Elliott
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 3 20:04:14 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA28462; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:04:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:04:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: LXX
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 594
I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some
of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely
helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the
OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis).
However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
Thanks in advance.
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 00:02:59 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id AAA28809; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 00:02:59 -0500
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 21:03:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Johnson
Subject: Re: LXX
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1339
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
[snip]
> However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
> or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
> Thanks in advance.
>
To which I reply:
Ron-
Very good question. However, this is a little harder to answer than one
might hope, because over the centuries copyists have tended to harmonize
the OT citations to the LXX. So to answer it properly, one would have to
resort to a procedure something like the following:
1) Look up all NT citations of OT in Nestle-Alans's 26th edition
2) Look at all the variants listed in the critical apparatus for
these citations.
3) Try to guess from the style of the rest of the book in which
the citation occurs, which, if any, of the variants is likely
to be the NT author's own translation from the Hebrew.
4) Submit your gesses to this newsgroup and see which ones still
stand after we have all had a chance to throw rocks at it.
Good luck finding an snswer.
Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).
>
> --
> Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
> Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
>
>
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 09:43:11 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA29432; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:43:10 -0500
Message-Id: <199703041440.IAA15625@endeavor>
From: "Perry L. Stepp"
To:
Subject: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many?
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:11:28 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1523
Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> > However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT
quotes
> > or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither.
Matthew Johnson replied:
> Very good question. However, this is a little harder to answer than one
> might hope, because over the centuries copyists have tended to harmonize
> the OT citations to the LXX.
An added problem is that the LXX doesn't seem to have been a single text,
but rather a group of divergent texts (if I read the tea leaves properly).
In other words, there may have been no single ascendant Greek OT text, but
rather a group of them, and no single text could claim to be *the* standard
LXX.
Perhaps a Septuagint scholar can fill in the lacunae in my knowledge of
this particular point and its corrolaries. Which LXX texts were most
widely used? How widely do the extant texts diverge? Is Rahlfs a
satisfactory critical text? How large a base is its text built on? How do
NT quotes relate to the schizophrenic state of the LXX in late antiquity
(if the situation is as I've described it)?
Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp
************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University
"A system of morality which is based on relative
emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar
conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing
true."
Phaedo 69b
************************************************************
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 10:28:17 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA29768; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:28:17 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:28:34 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: LXX
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1653
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote:
>I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some
>of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely
>helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the
>OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis).
>However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
>or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
>Thanks in advance.
Personally I found A&C rather irritating. They tried to make everything
match the MT, and paid no attention to the variants in LXX.
I would also observe that the Nestle apparatus isn't much help. It
will sometimes label a citation as being from LXX -- but only where
the LXX is distinctly different from MT. It would be helpful if it
noted where the citation matches LXX, not where it differs from MT.
In my ignorance, I don't know of any particular studies on this
subject. In my own work, I find that Paul tends to follow LXX.
I believe this is true with most NT authors (Luke in particular).
The one major exception is Matthew, who will usually translate
the OT himself unless the LXX has some particular reading he
liked (e.g. the citation about the "virgin" bearing a son).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 10:38:30 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA29830; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:38:29 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <199703041440.IAA15625@endeavor>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:42:47 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many?
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2113
On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, "Perry L. Stepp" wrote:
[ ... ]
>
>An added problem is that the LXX doesn't seem to have been a single text,
>but rather a group of divergent texts (if I read the tea leaves properly).
>In other words, there may have been no single ascendant Greek OT text, but
>rather a group of them, and no single text could claim to be *the* standard
>LXX.
>
>Perhaps a Septuagint scholar can fill in the lacunae in my knowledge of
>this particular point and its corrolaries. Which LXX texts were most
>widely used? How widely do the extant texts diverge? Is Rahlfs a
>satisfactory critical text? How large a base is its text built on? How do
>NT quotes relate to the schizophrenic state of the LXX in late antiquity
>(if the situation is as I've described it)?
Actually, a dominant text did eventually develop (though it was never
as dominant as the Byzantine text). This seems to have been the "Old
Greek" form of the LXX as revised (probably in several stages) toward
the MT. In general, as I understand it, this text resembles that of
A more than B.
It does not seem likely that this text was completely dominant in
NT times, however. Based, again, on my experience in Paul, the
NT citations don't match any particular text. I once did a check
on Psalms citations in some list of books or other (I can't remember
which). Out of about twelve citations, I believe seven agreed with
Aleph, six with B, and seven with A. I believe three did not match
any of those texts. (Please note that this was a *very* informal
survey; don't quote me, OK?)
My conclusion was that Rahlfs is *not* an adequate authority for
the LXX text. Even if its apparatus includes all the variants in
the tradition, it doesn't tell you their support. And this is
important. Where B, Aleph, and A divide, one needs to know the
evidence of supporting witnesses (C, G, M, N+V, Q, probably some
minuscules) to know how to assess the variant.
Robert Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Inside Bluegrass
2095 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4801
612-454-8994
World Wide Web: http://www.mtn.org/~mbotma/
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 11:52:47 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA29977; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:52:46 -0500
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 11:53:00 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West
Subject: OT in NT
X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970304115038.26cfca42@mail.highland.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 500
I am sorry if I repeat something already said on this topic; I was gone and
unsubscribed.
There are far more than 19 OT quotations in the NT. There are literally
hundreds of quotations, allusions, and verbal parallels.
A good place to start is E. Earle Ellis' "The Old Testament in Early
christianity.
He has loads of info and excellent bibliography.
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@highland.net
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 13:14:31 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA00227; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:14:30 -0500
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:16:07 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer
Subject: Re: LXX
Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1216
At 7:04 PM -0600 3/3/97, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
>I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some
>of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely
>helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the
>OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis).
>However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
>or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
>Thanks in advance.
Although no doubt dated in some of the details, surely a good place to
start exploring this question is Swete's _Intro to the OT in Greek_; in
particular, Chap II of Part 3 titled "Quotations from the LXX in the NT".
One should turn to Swete for the details but, in short, he argues that
"...the LXX is the principal source from which the writers of the N.T.
derive their O.T. quotations." [p392], ranging from Acts where O.T.
quotations "are taken from the LXX exclusively" [p398] to the Pauline
corpus in which "more than half" [p400] come from the LXX.
Nichael
nichael@sover.net "Did I forget, forget to mention Memphis,
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks..."
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 15:22:14 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA00488; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:22:14 -0500
Message-ID: <331D19CE.3B9B@sn.no>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 22:59:26 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Heb 10:23 & ASV97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1086
Since my "inbox" has not been directly invaded by messages from the=20
tc-list lately, I decided to post two questions, which I hope will cause=20
some response:
1) In Heb.10:23 the KJV has "faith" where the Greek has "hope" (elpis).=20
Some have asserted that the King=B4s translators simply produced this=20
rendering due to their failure to distinguish between pistis and elpis in=
=20
this instance. In other words, the translators just missed it here. But=20
this seems very unlikely, in the face of the learning and skills of the=20
many translators involved. Can anybody give a report on this??
2) Lately I read about a new translation project (which is appearing on=20
the Net) called the "American Standard Version 1997" (ASV 97). I checked=20
Matthew 10:8 and found it to omit the phrase "raise the dead" (found in=20
the old uncials and the TR) which means the "ASV 97" follows a majority=20
text reading here. Is there anybody out there who knows about the project=
=20
and its textbase??
All responses will be appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
--=20
- Mr. Helge Evensen
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 18:05:35 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA01233; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:05:34 -0500
From: "Vinton A. Dearing"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:07:56 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Heb 10:23 in KJV
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing"
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31)
Message-ID: <209986277A7@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 955
In 1611, hope and faith were synonyms; see Oxford English Dictionary,
hope, first noun, sense 2, "feeling of trust or confidence." See also
the OT in KJV, where the normal word for hope is rendered "trust" in
Job 13:15 and Isa. 51:5, and the normal words for trust or confidence
are rendered "hope" in Ps. 16:9 and 22:9. I think the KJ men chose
"faith" in Heb. 10:23 for its sound, that is, to make a more sonorous
sentence: "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without
wavering; for he is faithful that promised" -- pr, faith, w, w,
faith, pr -- a perfect balance in the bass while h, f, th, h, f, th enliven
the treble. The English Hexapla indicates that "hope," the
translation in earlier versions, had assonated with "hold" in
Wycliffe and Rheims, but not in Tyndale, Cranmer, or Geneva, which
have "keep" and "hope." But the sound of KJV, "the noblest monument
of English prose," has always been recognized as its great glory.
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 20:31:28 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA01427; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:31:28 -0500
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:31:09 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: Jim West
cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: OT in NT
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970304115038.26cfca42@mail.highland.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 470
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote:
>
> There are far more than 19 OT quotations in the NT. There are literally
> hundreds of quotations, allusions, and verbal parallels.
But there are only 19 quotations that also have a textual variant in the
NT at that place, which is the criterion I noted when I mentioned the 19.
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 5 08:29:07 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id IAA01958; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:29:06 -0500
From: John Wevers
Message-Id: <199703051329.IAA21044@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many?
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:29:14 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca (John Wevers)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Mar 4, 97 09:42:47 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2253
The query raised by Robert Waltz raises so many questions that it is
difficult to know where to begin. Permit me to address one of the
questions raised. What about the text of Rahlfs, and on what evidence
is it based? First of all, I am not sure what the questioner means by
Rahlfs. There is the large and complete text of the entire Greek
O.T. Bible. This is usually appreviated Ra. But there are other Rahlfs
texts as well. His Psalmi cum Odi is a semi critical text on the {salter,
but its collations of most materials cited in it are based on the old
Holmes-Parsons voluminous work, which is not at all trustworthy. Then
he did an earlier text of Genesis, based on the Cambridge Septuagint. Since
this rests on a much more secure basis that the large Ra, its text is
markedly superior.
As to Ra, which is presumably what you wish assessed, it is
based on a recollation of very few uncial texts. Thus for the
Pentateuch it cites only B and A and the few fragments of S. For the
rest an occasional hexaplaric gloss is cited, and that is about it.
Since for the Pentateuch, there are over 100 preGutenberg mss
extant, this is obviously not a critical text. In Ralhfs' defence it
should be stated that he never intended Ra to be more that a Nothilfe,
a text which was rapidly prepared to serve as an interim text, which
had at least rid the text of many glaring errors which a text which
presented a single ms text, such as Swete's O.T. in Greek, which is
based, as is the Cambridge LXX, on the text of cod B, and where that
is not extant on cod A. Fortunately, Rahlfs was enamored of cod B
which for many parts of the Greek text is an excellent witness to the
oldest recoverable text of the Septuagint. Far superior to the text
of Ra, and this I am sure is what Rahlfs would have wanted to be
publicized as widely as possible, is the text of the Goettingen LXX,
which is a truly critical text. Unfortunately, these volumes are
very expensive.
I realize that this is only small reply to the many and varied
queries raised by R. Waltz, but it would take a great deal of time
to cover the ground adequately. It would take a book! JWW
--
John Wm Wevers
Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
INTERNET: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 5 08:48:01 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id IAA02005; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:48:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199703051348.NAA92320@out2.ibm.net>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer (Green Edition Rel 2.0)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:53:08 EST
From: Kent Smith
Subject: Re: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many?
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1488
** Reply to note from "Robert B. Waltz" Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:42:47 -0700
re: OT quotes in NT. The question raised as to text used in quotes is very complicated.
A few of the factors:
As mentioned by others, there Greek text in NT times was quite diverse and we probably
do not any "pure" examples of any of the versions or recensions that were in use. The best
we can say is that a quote approaches Aquilla, etc.
Although the Hebrew was settling into what we recognize as the MT, there were other
alternatives available, to say nothing of the Targums.
We need to distinquish between actual quotes, introduced by a one of a number of
standard words and phrases and allusions. Allusions are often reworded or only approximated
to suit the argument at hand. True quotations appear to have been directly copied from some
source and usually are very close to some version we recognize.
We may not always have the original text being quoted -- possible examples: I Cor 15:45
is not really quoting Gen 2:7, I Cor 3:19 |= Job 5:13. These, and others are possibly quoting
texts other than our known versions of "Biblical" books.
Although I've been working on this issue, I'm not anywhere close to saying a Percentage.
I tend to follow the common wisdom that most of the quotes are from a greek text of one sort
or another, although I have a few examples where the MT is the closest.
Kent Smith. West Side Presbyterian Church. Ridgewood, NJ
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 5 10:10:13 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA02196; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:10:13 -0500
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:10:04 -0500
From: "Harold P. Scanlin"
Subject: ASV 97
To: TC-LIST
Message-ID: <199703051010_MC2-1223-F14F@compuserve.com>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 163
Helge Evensen inquired about the ASV 97.
I was not able to find this translation on the Net. Does anyone know the
URL?
Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 5 14:11:32 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA02768; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:11:31 -0500
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 13:10:56 -0600
X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon)
Subject: Re:nets-oup
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 161
Harold, have you decided to (or not to) talk to Don Kraus about royalties?
I don't mind doing it, but I think you'd be far more professional,
thanks--leonard
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 11:42:39 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA07085; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:42:39 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:42:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: TC List
Subject: tc-list archive update
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: 1562
I sent a message a few days ago to the list announcing that the messages
on the list are now being archived by Reference.COM, and I gave the
general URL as http://www.reference.com. This URL will allow to search
the tc-list archives as well as the archives of many other lists. If you
just want to search the archives of this list, you can use the URL
http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?
list=tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
This should all be on one line--don't hit return or put a space after the
question mark. Remember that the archives at Reference.COM only go back
to Feb 27, 1997. For earlier archives, see
http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html
where the messages are divided into files that each contain a month's
worth of data (dating back to November 1995).
In case anyone has been confused by the fact that some addresses have
scholar.cc.emory.edu and others have shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, our recent
move to a bigger computer necessitated a change in our URL to
shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. However, the old address scholar.cc.emory.edu
should continue to work as an alias for the foreseeable future. As a
riddle for Hebrew scholars on the list, and since we've had very little
traffic the past few days, can you guess from our new name what kind of
computer we have?
Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 13:02:14 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA07285; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:02:14 -0500
Message-Id: <199703071802.KAA04904@m8.sprynet.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Lewis Reich"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:01:59 -500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: tc-list archive update
Priority: normal
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 280
On 7 Mar 97 at 11:42, James R. Adair wrote:
> As a riddle for Hebrew scholars on the list, and since we've had
> very little traffic the past few days, can you guess from our new
> name what kind of computer we have?
Clearly, Sun Microsystems.
Lewis Reich
lbr@sprynet.com
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 15:27:14 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA07667; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:27:13 -0500
Message-ID: <332079CA.220D9EA2@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 12:25:46 -0800
From: Alan Repurk
Organization: I do not speak for my organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
CC: lars@repurk.mw.com
Subject: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew
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: 556
There is an interesting article in "New Testament Studies", vol. 43,
1997, pp58-71 entitled "The textual relationship between P45 and
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" by Robert F. Shedinger.
He makes a comparison which lends support to the conclusions of
George Howard that Shem-Tob's Matthew represents an original
composition of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew.
Is this the concensus among all experts in this field, and if
so, will this lead to the addition of this resource as a tool
for translation of the Greek version of Matthew's gospel ?
Sincerely,
-lars
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 16:21:58 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id QAA07824; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:21:58 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:21:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: KJV MSS
In-Reply-To: <199703071802.KAA04904@m8.sprynet.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: 308
I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
word on this?
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 16:23:37 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id QAA07844; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:23:37 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:23:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: W-H draft
In-Reply-To: <199703071802.KAA04904@m8.sprynet.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: 240
When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could
share it with others?
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 17:18:44 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA08078; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:18:43 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:18:56 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970307171855.41a73cc4@email.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "William L. Petersen"
Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 5367
The article mentioned is by R.F. Shedinger; it has some errors in fact as
well as in its presuppositions. Additionally, it (inexplicably?) fails to
address points I raised in my review (in JBL 108 [1989], pp. 722-726) of the
first edition of Howard's book (which was titled *The Gospel of Matthew
according to a Primitive Hebrew Text* [1988]; the second, revised edition
is more modestly titled, *Hebrew Gospel of Matthew* [1995]). The remarks in
my review are self-explanatory, and supported by textual evidence; I am
preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication.
While Howard's revised edition has more substantive evidence, both his study
and Shedinger are defecting for failing to examine links between Shem-Tob
(who dates c. 1400) and the medieval Matthew traditions; rather, they jump
from S-T back to the first five Xtian centuries--which is an error of
method, especially when there are distinctive, unique textual links between
S-T and MSS copied about 1300 (in Latin, Middle Dutch, etc.). Shedinger's
assertion (p. 58) that "the only Greek manuscripts available to him [S-T]
would have likely contianed a Byzantine Imperial type of text, also known as
Nestle-Aland's Majority Text" is empirically wrong. The medieval world was
full of "wild" texts (Codex Bezae itself is often presumed to have been
taken to the Council of Trent [1546], and in the 9th cent. Ado, writing
in/near Lyons, used a similar text for his quotations from Acts [see A
Souter, *The Text and Canon of the NT* (1913), pp. 25-26]). Need one say
it? The text of Codex Bezae is hardly that of "the Byzantine Imperial
type." In the same period, Vetus Latina MSS were also being copied: c
(12/13th cent.) g1 (8/9th), etc. Additionally, the tradition which has
(apparently) the closest links with S-T, namely, the Diatessaron, has Latin
copies being made throughout the medieval period, as well as vernacular
copies in Old and Middle High German, Middle Dutch, Middle Italian, etc.
Howard's text is very interesting, and here and there may have very ancient
features, but these can only be verified by finding other ancient documents
(as he does in some places in his new, revised edition) with the identical
reading--*and no other documents between the time of that ancient document
and S-T with the same reading.* That Howard and Schedinger (usually) do not
do. Furthermore, they ignore utterly the sources which are both
*geographically* and *chronologically* closest to Shem-Tob, namely copies of
Matthew/Matthew quotations/gospel harmonies executed between, say, 1000 and
1400 C.E.
As a methodological point, note that *if* you limit your sights to S-T and,
say, P45, it appears there is dependence; but if you are familiar with more
sources, the links become very dubious. Two examples: Shedinger's first
example, Matt 7.11, read "good spirit" (S-T & P45) for "good things" (Mt) or
"Holy Spirit" (Lk. 11.13). Shedinger observes in note 13 (p. 60) that
"spiritum bonum" is found in the Vulgate and some Vetus Latina MSS. Well,
why argue that the reading comes from P45??? The Vulgate and the Vetus
Latina were certainly in circulation in medieval Spain! A final example:
Shedinger's agreement between Matt 17.1 (pp. 64-66 in his article), in which
Shem-Tob harmonizes Matt with Luke and then Mark, is paralleled in the
Middle Dutch Liege Harmony (ed. C.C. de Bruin, p. 125), copied about 1280
C.E., roughly a century before Shem-Tob. Which is more likely: That S-T is
preserving a tradition from P45, or that S-T is privy to the same (Latin)
medieval tradition from which the Middle Dutch harmony was copied? (And
that medieval Latin tradition demonstrably goes back to a Syriac tradition,
even in the West [the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony has "Semitisms" and unique
textual agreements with the Vetus Syra], etc....) It is not surprising that
there are links between S-T and the Liege Harmony in the readings Shedinger
adduces: nearly a decade ago in my JBL review, I pointed out and gave
numerous examples of these links...now we find another one...
In short, the better acquainted you are with the textual environment (e.g.,
the medieval world) in which Shem-Tob worked, the less likely a direct link
with antiquity (e.g., P45) becomes. That there is a link is not in dispute,
just as "Good News for Modern Man" has links with P45. But the "link" is
*not* *directly* between P45 and GNfMM: it is between GNfMM and the RSV,
KJV, etc., which go back to the Vulgate, which goes back to, etc., etc. And
in the case of S-T, the intermediary is clear: medieval textual traditions,
including gospel harmonies, which circulated in Latin, and which rest upon a
Syriac archetype (even in the West).
--Petersen, Penn State Univ.
At 12:25 PM 3/7/97 -0800, you wrote:
>There is an interesting article in "New Testament Studies", vol. 43,
>1997, pp58-71 entitled "The textual relationship between P45 and
>Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" by Robert F. Shedinger.
>
>He makes a comparison which lends support to the conclusions of
>George Howard that Shem-Tob's Matthew represents an original
>composition of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew.
>
>Is this the concensus among all experts in this field, and if
>so, will this lead to the addition of this resource as a tool
>for translation of the Greek version of Matthew's gospel ?
>
>Sincerely,
>-lars
>
>
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 18:47:52 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA08219; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 18:47:51 -0500
Message-ID: <3320A8D4.1464DA55@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 15:46:28 -0800
From: Alan Repurk
Organization: I do not speak for my organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
CC: lars@repurk.mw.com
Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew
References: <2.2.16.19970307171855.41a73cc4@email.psu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 972
William L. Petersen wrote:
> I am preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication.
I look forward to reading it.
> While Howard's revised edition has more substantive evidence, both his study
> and Shedinger are defecting for failing to examine links between Shem-Tob
> (who dates c. 1400) and the medieval Matthew traditions; rather, they jump
> from S-T back to the first five Xtian centuries--which is an error of
> method
I would suppose that all of those sources will eventually be compared.
> The Vulgate and the Vetus Latina were certainly in circulation in medieval Spain!
A footnote in the article apparently addresses that Howard has evidence that
the S-T is not from the Vg, apparently published in JBL.
I do have one question. Considering the purpose of the S-T, as a polemic, would
we guess that great effort would have been made to translate a text from
numerous sources or would it all have been derived from one source ?
-lars
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 23:50:55 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA08540; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 23:50:54 -0500
Message-Id: <199703080451.XAA44218@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 23:50:19 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1850
In response to Alan Repurk's questions/points:
>I would suppose that all of those sources will eventually be compared.
(Repurk's "those sources" are the medieval Matt traditions surround [both
chronologically and geographically] Shem-Tob.) Before one claims
"primitive" status for a text, or *begins* by comparing it with ancient
sources such as P45, it might be wise to check what was circulating in your
vacinity (viz., Europe, circa 1400....).
>A footnote in the article apparently addresses that Howard has evidence that
>the S-T is not from the Vg, apparently published in JBL.
Check Howard's evidence, and then start looking for agreements with the
Vetus Latina and Vulgate, and see what you decide... Remember, a text need
not be directly "translated" from a version to be influenced by it (there
are indirect influences).
>I do have one question. Considering the purpose of the S-T, as a polemic, would
>we guess that great effort would have been made to translate a text from
>numerous sources or would it all have been derived from one source ?
I haven't a clue. Most works from this period (c. 1400) are mish-mashes of
stuff from here and there: bits of Bede's commentary, bits of Vetus Latina,
bits of Bezaean readings, bits of the Vulgate, etc., etc. All we can do,
without a clear archetype, is to note the agreements--and, at last count (to
my knowledge), Shem-Tob has, numerically, more agreements with the Liege
Harmony than with any other single source yet adduced (see the examples in
my review). Therefore, before looking to the third or fourth centuries for
its "source," I would look at the Liege Harmony (1280 C.E.) and its
antecedents (the "Old Latin" Diatessaron, hypothesized by Th. Zahn over a
century ago, whose existence was demonstrated textually by D. Plooij and
others).
--Petersen, Penn State Univ.
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 8 23:12:57 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA09424; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:12:57 -0500
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 20:13:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Johnson
Subject: Re: KJV MSS
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1614
On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
> they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
> word on this?
>
> --
Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT
rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16),
whereas the KJV team followed the "majority text". This "majority text" is
basically the same as the "textus receptus", which, however, was not
published by de Beze until 1624, after the Authorized Version of 1611.
In fact, what little Amphoux has to say about the text used by the KJV
team and Beza's influence is not complimentary:
His text was essntially the same as the 4th edition of
R. Estienne, with some occasional elements borrowed from
Erasmus or the Complutensian Polyglot, and very few
contributions of his own.
...
He appears, in fact, to have understood very little about
the importance of a correct text. And yet, despite these
shortcomings, he exerted a great deal of influence, and the
closeness of several of the later editions to the text of Estienne
is due to their use of that of Beza. Such was the case with
those responsible for the Authorized Version of 1611, which
has been held in honour for so long by the Church of England.
(Amphoux, p 134)
See "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism" by
Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux.
Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 9 00:04:40 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id AAA09526; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:04:40 -0500
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:04:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: W-H draft
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 784
On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could
> share it with others?
During the period from 1870-1881 a prepublication draft of the WH text was
definitely in the hands of the ERV committee for their consultation. I
have never seen a copy of the draft text, and wonder whether all copies
might have been destroyed after the committee had finished its work. Does
anyone have any enlightenment on that point?
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 9 00:23:57 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id AAA09548; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:23:56 -0500
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:24:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: KJV MSS
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1570
On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
>
> > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
> > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
> > word on this?
> >
> Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT
> rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16),
> whereas the KJV team followed the "majority text". This "majority text" is
> basically the same as the "textus receptus", which, however, was not
> published by de Beze until 1624, after the Authorized Version of 1611.
May we please keep the facts straight? Minton's reference is not to Codex
Bezae, but to the Beza 1598 edition of the Greek NT, and yes, the KJV
translators probably used that edition more than any other in print before
the period 1604-1611 (this _teste_ Scrivener).
Secondly, the Byzantine or "majority text" differs from any early printed
TR edition in over 1800 places and is not "basically the same" as any of
those early printed TR editions which basically do agree with each other
to a much higher degree than they do with the "majority text".
Finally, the TR 1624 was published by the Elzevirs, not by Theodore Beza.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 09:04:43 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA10830; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:04:42 -0500
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 08:38:04 EST
From: george howard
Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970307171855.41a73cc4@email.psu.edu>
X-Mailer: MailBook 96.01.000
Message-Id: <970310.090346.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1490
Re William Petersen's comment on Shedinger and me. It is true that
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of medieval
readings. It is also true that he has unique parallels with such out of
the way documents as Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac (SyS and SyC).
He perhaps has more parallels with the Old Syriac than any other textual
tradition (though I have not counted them). I suppose we can go two ways
(maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an eclectic scholar who
prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against the church,
choosing readings from a great many sources. 2. He preserves an ancient
text whose readings crop up in a multiplicity of ancient and medieval
documents. Given the fact that Shem-Tob believed the Gospel of Matthew
was a damnable document, I find it hard to believe that he prepared a
new text of the gospel in which he selected readings from a great many
sources, some coming from great antiquity and apparently not available
to anyone else in the world but him, enhanced the text with puns, word
connections, and alliteration, added a symbol for the Divine Name 19
times, inserted a number of subtle theological motifs that go back to
early Jewish Christianity, and then told his readers that the only
reason he was inserting the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even
Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians.
Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more
reasonable.
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 11:36:18 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA11138; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:36:17 -0500
Message-Id: <199703101636.RAA73410@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 18:49:55 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: <970310.090346.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2884
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, George Howard wrote:
>It is true that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of
>medieval
>readings. It is also true that he has unique parallels with such out of
>the way documents as Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac (SyS and SyC).
>He perhaps has more parallels with the Old Syriac than any other textual
>tradition (though I have not counted them).
Maybe counting agreements can not solve all of the problems, but it surely is a
strong indicator when it comes to questions of textual relationships. So, why
not counting them? Maybe, because counting agreements also involves counting
_disagreements_?
I am somehow puzzled by the fact that the Latin traditions (Old Latin and
Vulgate MSS, Harmonies) are not mentioned as possible candidates for testing
agreements/disagreements in relation to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (as Bill
Petersen already pointed out).
>I suppose we can go two ways (maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an
>eclectic scholar who prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against
>the church, choosing readings from a great many sources.
Again, a closer look at the Latin tradition presumably would have prevented this
type of carricature. Virtually every single Vulgate MS displays at least some
Old Latin readings. When dealing only with the Latin harmony tradition(s) - not
to mention the other vernacular harmonies - we find therein a considerable
degree of "mixed" textual situation, i.e. generally "vulgatized" harmonies
nevertheless display sometimes unique agreements with various parts of textual
transmission. It would simply be hazardous to label each and every
scribe/producer of textually "mixed" MSS an "eclectic scholar..., choosing
readings from a great many sources".
>2. He preserves an ancient
>text whose readings crop up in a multiplicity of ancient and medieval
>documents.
As Bill Petersen already pointed out: Each and every copy of the Gospel of
Matthew in each and every language preserves a lot of ancient readings, and,
therefore, a somehow ancient text. In the case of Shem Tob or any other medieval
source it is essential to establish a reasonably _distinct_ text which may or
may not be "ancient", depending on the level of agreement (and disagreement) of
this distinct text with other witnesses. As long as only parts of the textual
tradition (predominantly old ones as, e.g., the Old Syriac or P 45) are sought
through, and as long as agreements and disagreements are not counted, I simply
remain unconviced of the distinct "ancient text" preseved in Shem-Tob's Hebrew
Matthew. It may well be another amalgam of medieval (Latin or vernacular) Gospel
traditions.
snip
>Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more
>reasonable.
In my own judgment the alternative is simply mistaken.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 12:45:05 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA11296; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:45:04 -0500
Message-ID: <33244835.1C69099@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:43:17 -0800
From: Alan Repurk
Organization: I do not speak for my organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
CC: lars@repurk.mw.com
Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew
References: <970310.090346.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.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: 3229
george howard wrote:
> connections, and alliteration, added a symbol for the Divine Name 19
> times, inserted a number of subtle theological motifs that go back to
> early Jewish Christianity, and then told his readers that the only
> reason he was inserting the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even
> Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians.
Does anyone have a satisfactory explanation for the inclusion of the
tetragrammaton in the S-T, besides the obvious conclusion that he
copied it from a Hebrew original ? It would seem to defeat the purpose
of the S-T as a document which was intended to represent the Christian
tradition for polemic reasons to add the Divine Name. Would not the
superstition of this devout Jewish translator impose certain restrictions
on him with regard to this name ?
In looking at some of the old posts I happened to file away I found
some quotations from a book by James Scott Trimm entitled
"The Good News According to Matthew from an old Hebrew Manuscript",
a translation and analysis of the 15th Century DuTillet manuscript.
I have not checked these for accuracy and have not read the book, so
I hope the original poster did his homework .....
Sincerely,
-lars
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus (150-170 CE)"Matthew issued a written gospel among the Hebrews
in their own dialect..." (Against Heresies 3:1)
Origen (210 CE) "The first is written according to Matthew, the same that
was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the
Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in
the Hebrew." (Eusebius E.H. 4:25)
Pantaenus... penetrated as ar as India, where it is reported that he
found the gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before
his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom
Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had preached, and left
them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters." (Euseb. E. H. 5:10)
Epiphanius (370 CE) "They (the Nazarenes) have the gospel according to
Matthew quite complete, in Hebrew, for this gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hegrew letters."
(Panarion 29:9:4)
Jerome (382 CE) "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came
to be an emissary, first of all the evangelists composed a gospel of
Messiah in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit
of those of the circumcision who had believed; who translated it into
Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is
preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr
Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes
who use this volume in the Syrian city of Boroea to copy it. In which is
to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist...makes use of the
testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the
seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew."
(Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3)
End note to a 5th century Aramaic Matthew (the Peshitta): "Completion of
the Holy Gospel as published by Matthew; and which he published in
Hebrew, in the land of the Palestinians."
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 20:07:13 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA11995; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 20:07:13 -0500
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:07:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: Maurice Robinson
cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: KJV MSS
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 598
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> >
> > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
> > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
> > > word on this?
> > >
> > Yes, there is definitive word on this.
Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used?
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 23:04:02 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA12293; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:04:02 -0500
Date: 10 Mar 97 23:02:53 EST
From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM>
To: TC-LIST
Subject: Re: KJV MSS
Message-ID: <970311040253_102147.2045_EHT62-1@CompuServe.COM>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1249
> > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> >
> > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
> > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
> > > word on this?
> > >
> > Yes, there is definitive word on this.
Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used?
Dr. Minton,
I don't think they used _any_ Greek MSS whatsoever. They did use Beza's GNT as
the primary basis (as Robinson correctly pointed out) and they did occasionally
use Stephanus, the Complutensian and, very rarely, Erasmus. The occasional
textual ref in the margin obviously came from one of the printed editions. The
only person I know of who claims the KJV translators used Greek and/or Latin MSS
(Old Latin at that) is Peter Ruckman - and the evidence he presents for this is
his own opinion. :-)
Had the KJV translators used MSS, I suspect they would have made mention of this
in their "Translators to the Reader" but they only speak about Hebrew and Greek
texts: the title page does say "Original tongues: & with the former
Translations diligently compared" (an obvious ref. to the Heb/Greek texts and
various translations available to them).
Hope this helps.
Mike A.
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 11 11:20:13 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA13488; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:20:12 -0500
From: "Michael Fox"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:18:00 -0600
Subject: transposition in Ben Sira -Forwarded
X-Gateway: iGate, (GroupWise) vers 4.05g - 1032
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <33258627.6047.0062.000@lss.wisc.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; Charset=US-ASCII; name="ENCLOSURE"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ENCLOSURE"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 871
Date: 03/11/1997 08:34 am (Tuesday)
Subject: transposition in Ben Sira
Can someone explain the mechanics of the major mess-up in Sira? (No,
Ben Wright doesn't deal with this issue.)
Two major chunks of material were displaced in all Greek versions of
Sira, while the orig order is maintained in the OL (which nevertheless
has some GII materials, another puzzle):
30:25-33:13a and 33:13b-36:16a were transposed, certainly
unintentionally. Are we to imagine a sheet (quire ?) falling out of a codex
(prior to and ancestral to all the uncials!) and being replaced wrongly? Or
did an early copyist skip from
30:24 to 33:13b, then suddenly realize the error and without missing a
beat return to copy the missing material?
Michael
Michael V. Fox
Professor
Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Studies
University of Wisconsin
1220 Linden Drive, rm. 1346
Madison, WI 53706
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 11 14:15:32 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA14080; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:15:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:15:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton"
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: TC-LIST
Subject: Old Latin
In-Reply-To: <970311040253_102147.2045_EHT62-1@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: 608
aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation.
I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not
seen the 157. What is the source of the 157, and is it accurate? My
initial reaction is that it is not accurate, but there may be some
evidence I do not know of. I have always taught approximately 180 or 190
as the date. Also, do we have evidence that anyone before Cyprian used
it? How about Irenaeus?
--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 11 15:47:48 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA14854; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:47:47 -0500
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:48:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <970311154759_-1472806076@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: JWest@highland.net
cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: von Soden
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 796
Hi Jim West:
It was good to meet you at the ETS meeting. You asked where I got my copy of
H. F. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (1911).
A reprint of that text is available from:
Good Books
2456 Devonshire Road
Springfield, IL 62703
They publish a catalog in which are listed such names as:
John W. Burgon
H. C. Hoskier
F. G. Kenyon
F. H. A. Scrivener
C. Tischendorf
S. Tregelles
and many others.
The reprint books I received from there were reproduced by a Xerox like
copier and
bound in library quality bindings.
Sincerely,
James D. Price
====================================================
James D. Price, Ph.D.
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament
Temple Baptist Seminary
Chattanooga, TN 37404
e-mail drjdprice@aol.com
====================================================
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 16:38:27 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id QAA18093; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:27 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:25 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West
X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified)
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 310
I would appreciate it if someone could recommend a good coptic grammar on
the introductory level (for a course I must teach next fall).
Thanks,
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@highland.net
or
jwest@theology.edu
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 17:08:22 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA18162; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:08:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:08:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Coptic Grammar
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 377
Jim,
The one I used is Thomas O. Lambdin, _Introduction to Sahidic Coptic_
(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983). It begins with the basics and
is
easy to use.
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 17:09:31 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA18179; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:09:31 -0500
From: "Dr Johann Cook"
Organization: University of Stellenbosch
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:10:46 GMT+0200
Subject: Re: COPTIC GRAMMAR
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook"
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40)
Message-ID:
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1442
> ST)
> Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
> id QAA18093; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:27 -0500
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:25 -0500 (EST)
> Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
> From: Jim West
> X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified)
> Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za
> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
> Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.net>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
> Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
>
> I would appreciate it if someone could recommend a good coptic grammar on
> the introductory level (for a course I must teach next fall).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West
> Adjunct Professor of Bible
> Quartz Hill School of Theology
>
> jwest@highland.net
> or
> jwest@theology.edu
>
Dear Jim
The best available intoductory Coptic grammar is the one by TO Lambdin,
Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, Mercer University Press: Macon, Ga,
1983. I find it educationally helpful. It also has usefull excersises.
Greetings
Johann Cook
>
>
Prof. Johann Cook
Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
University of Stellenbosch
7600 Stellenbosch
SOUTH AFRICA
tel 22-21-8083207
fax: 22-21-8083480
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 18:36:09 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA18273; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:36:09 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:36:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Melvin K.H. Peters"
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: your mail
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 785
Jim,
The following might not be suitable for student use by virtue of its
price and its rather sophisticated terminology in places, but it is more
recent than Lambdin, and was prepared by one of the most distinguished
grammarians of Coptic. It should provide a valuable point of reference.
A. Shisha-Halevy, Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy, A Course for Academic
and Private Study. OLA 30.Leuven, Peeters, 1988.
Its glossary will prove quite useful and its bibliography includes most of
the important older grammars including those dealing with dialects
other than Sahidic. Hope this helps.
Melvin K. H. Peters Phone:(919) 660-3508
Department of Religion Fax: (919) 660-3530
Duke University Box 90964 E-mail:melopete@acpub.duke.edu
Durham, NC 27708-0964 U.S.A.
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 22:47:47 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id WAA18610; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 22:47:47 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 22:47:34 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West
Subject: Rev 9:16
X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 310
NA 27 lists several variants of dismuriades muriadwn. The question I have
is quite simple (!). Which reading gave rise to the others?
Thanks,
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@highland.net
or
jwest@theology.edu
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 13 10:18:04 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA19288; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:18:04 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:20:19 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: Rev 9:16
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 953
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote:
>NA 27 lists several variants of dismuriades muriadwn. The question I have
>is quite simple (!). Which reading gave rise to the others?
I would say "dismuriades muriadwn." In a triple reading, prefer the
middle reading. Neither "muriades muriadwn" is not likely to have
given rise to "duo muriades muriadwn"; the reverse could have
happened, but there's no particular reason. Whereas "dismuriades
muriadwn" could have given rise to either.
"Dismuriades muriadwn" also appears to have the best external attestation.
At a casual glance, anyway.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 13 18:53:49 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA20210; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:53:49 -0500
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
References: Conversation <1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.net> with last message
Priority: Normal
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Huey Bahr"
Subject: Re: Rev 9:16
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 97 17:48:07 PST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 210
Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> In a triple reading, prefer the middle reading.
Is this all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or just when we
can't find another reason
for perferring one of the readings.
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 13 19:58:33 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id TAA20288; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 19:58:33 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References: Conversation
<1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.net> with last message