From majordom Wed Nov 15 17:07:10 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22302; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:07:10 +0500 Message-Id: <00000E4C.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Itacisms Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 13:37:02 CST From: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien) To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-Hologate: 1.1.7b2 Lines: 2824 Content-Length: 1220 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I haven't seen any mail rolling off this list since I signed up, so I thought that I would throw a question out there for y'all. After doing a bunch of collation in Sinaiticus, and noticing the great multitude of itacisms, I was curious about the theories regarding these variants. What is the concensus out there about how a manuscript like Sinaiticus was copied? Was the scribe following an oral reading of an exemplar, or was he following a written copy in front of him? Most textbooks seem to indicate that itacism was the result of hearing errors (eg. Metzger), but there seem to be indications in Sinaiticus that it was not based on an oral reading of an exemplar (occurences of haplography and dittography). Hence my question: How do we explain these cases of itacism where there was no hearing involved? Was there in fact a stage in the development of the Greek language where some of these itacisms were in fact the correct spellings of words? I'm just trying to think through these issues and would appreciate any insights. Thanks. Mark O'Brien Grad. Student, Dallas Seminary ---- "We were put on earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I'm so far behind, I will never die!" From majordom Wed Nov 15 17:20:04 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22328; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:20:04 +0500 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:17:51 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Miller To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Baptism in Galilee In-Reply-To: <9511142259.AA17679@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1332 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I am doing research on baptism "movements" in Galilee during the 3rd cent. BCE to 1st cent. CE. I have collected various textual evidence for the existence of these movements. The texts include: Sybilline Oracles 3 & 4; Qumran texts; Josephus; the NT; and references to Ebionites and Elechasaites in Epiphanius. The question I have is: Joseph Thomas talks about movements; Robert Webb talks about movements; but what kind of evidence do we have of the actual practice of baptism in this time? Does the evidence point to Mesopotamian influences? or is the phenomenon indigenous? The big question is: what did baptism mean? the same thing for all of them? or different things? Compare, for example, what Robert Webb says about baptism and its significance in Qumran (basically as a means of maintaining cultic purity) and what r. Gray says (maintaining purity in order to be able to prophesy). And what does this have to do with Bannus or John the Baptist? Another question is: what relationship does baptism have to do with apocalyptic, in the sense of a religious world view? Charles David Miller | Reality is not limited to the familiar, University of New Mexico | the commonplace, for it consists in huge (505) 867-1892 | part of a latent, as yet unspoken future | Word. -- F. Dostoevskey, _Notebooks_ From majordom Thu Nov 16 05:01:22 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23676; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 05:01:22 +0500 Message-Id: To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:57:05 GMT Subject: Re: Itacisms X-Pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Content-Length: 1430 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Mark_O'Brien wrote > > After doing a bunch of collation in Sinaiticus, and noticing the great > multitude of itacisms, I was curious about the theories regarding > these variants. What is the concensus out there about how a > manuscript like Sinaiticus was copied? Was the scribe following an > oral reading of an exemplar, or was he following a written copy in > front of him? Most textbooks seem to indicate that itacism was the > result of hearing errors (eg. Metzger), but there seem to be > indications in Sinaiticus that it was not based on an oral reading of > an exemplar (occurences of haplography and dittography). Hence my question: How do we explain these cases of itacism where there was no hearing involved? Was there in fact a stage in the development of the Greek language where some of these itacisms were in fact the correct spellings of words? > > I'm just trying to think through these issues and would appreciate > any insights. Thanks. I would recommend reading Milne & Skeat, "Scribes & Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, esp. Ch. VII, 'Orthography & the Dictation Theory'. On Koine Greek, read first F.T. Gignac, "A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Rom. & Byz. Periods, Vol. 1 Phonology" (Testi e Documenti per lo Studio dell'Antichita 55), Milan, n.d. (but about 1975), and G. Mussies, "The Morphology of Koine Greek as used in the Apoc. of St. John", Leiden: Brill, 1971. From majordom Thu Nov 16 09:19:47 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24206; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:19:47 +0500 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 06:17:11 -0800 Message-Id: <199511161417.AA00812@lafn.org> From: an525@lafn.org (Ivan Ickovits) To: malik@unm.edu Subject: Re: Baptism in Galilee Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Reply-To: an525@lafn.org Content-Length: 1616 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Wan't this Baptisn just the extension of the jewish ritual of subnersion in a mikvah - i.e. ritual purification before the sabbath, or high holidays etc. or general rites of transition for becoming a bar mitzvah or marriage, etc.? > >I am doing research on baptism "movements" in Galilee during the 3rd >cent. BCE to 1st cent. CE. I have collected various textual evidence for >the existence of these movements. > >The texts include: Sybilline Oracles 3 & 4; Qumran texts; Josephus; the >NT; and references to Ebionites and Elechasaites in Epiphanius. The >question I have is: Joseph Thomas talks about movements; Robert Webb >talks about movements; but what kind of evidence do we have of the actual >practice of baptism in this time? Does the evidence point to Mesopotamian >influences? or is the phenomenon indigenous? > >The big question is: what did baptism mean? the same thing for all of >them? or different things? Compare, for example, what Robert Webb says >about baptism and its significance in Qumran (basically as a means of >maintaining cultic purity) and what r. Gray says (maintaining purity in >order to be able to prophesy). And what does this have to do with Bannus >or John the Baptist? > >Another question is: what relationship does baptism have to do with >apocalyptic, in the sense of a religious world view? > > > >Charles David Miller | Reality is not limited to the familiar, >University of New Mexico | the commonplace, for it consists in huge >(505) 867-1892 | part of a latent, as yet unspoken future > | Word. -- F. Dostoevskey, _Notebooks_ > > > > -- q k From majordom Thu Nov 16 10:51:30 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24816; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 10:51:30 +0500 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 08:49:10 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Miller To: Ivan Ickovits Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Baptism in Galilee In-Reply-To: <199511161417.AA00812@lafn.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1137 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk yOn Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Ivan Ickovits wrote: > > > Wan't this Baptisn just the extension of the jewish ritual of subnersion > in a mikvah - i.e. ritual purification before the sabbath, or high > holidays etc. or general rites of transition for becoming a bar mitzvah > or marriage, etc.? I have not heard this theory before. Webb associates the Qumran purifications with those that occurred in the Temple. Rebecca Gray talks about their relationship to a hypothetical technique for teaching how to prophesy. I have not heard of an origin for the purifications performed by Bannus and John the Baptist. Some authors do note how *different* John's baptism seems to be from Qumran, i.e., a single baptism for the forgiveness of sins. According to Mani's autobiography, the Elchasaites practised daily purification--bodily and of their food. Do you have some sources for this thesis? > Charles David Miller | Reality is not limited to the familiar, University of New Mexico | the commonplace, for it consists in huge (505) 867-1892 | part of a latent, as yet unspoken future | Word. -- F. Dostoevskey, _Notebooks_ From majordom Thu Nov 16 14:16:32 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25859; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:16:32 +0500 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:14:14 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Gospel priorities & theological commitment Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 6319 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk My present interest in this topic is in reviewing the switch-over in thought from belief in the Augustinian order (Matthew-Mark-Luke), which transpired over the extended period from about 1840-1924, and seeing if it doesn't in fact trace to the theological commitment of the scholars who dominated the scene then. This ties in with textual criticism through the question of whether or not the arguments used to support Mark-Q priority in the past half century aren't entirely of the "reversible" type, as opposed to the oral tradition known to Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine (and I think implied by Papias also) that attested to the Matthew-Mark-Luke priority. It appears to me that the studies of 19th-century scholars like Eduard Reuss, Heinrich Ewald, Herman Weisse and Heinrich Holtzmann, culminating with Burnette Hillman Streeter in 1924, had reached the point where it became disturbing to their own belief systems, and/or to the church, to think of the Augustinian order being correct. Unless the shortest Gospel came first, it seemed that the writer of Mark had omitted far too much precious material and Judaisms (Sermon on the Mount, most of the parables....) to be theologically acceptable. And if Luke came third, the editorial behavior of its writer became seen as inexplicable and theologically unacceptable. Even worse, with Matthew first, one sees, upon comparing parallel passages concerning the disciples, that the writer of Mark while utilizing Matthew added denigrating touches to the Jewish disciples' characters (as if to imply that gentiles would make better disciples). This was unacceptable to these 19th-century scholars, since the evangelists were supposed to be of the highest character, if not pipelines from God, and back in the 19th century the evangelists were still considered to have been the men whose names are attached to the Gospels. This was so embarrassing a topic that one can scarcely find any reference to it in the literature (though Pierson Parker clearly sets forth these denigrating touches in his article in William Farmer's "New Synoptic Studies" (1983)). The topic is perhaps even more embarassing today, as nowadays the writer of Mark would be accused of anti-Semitism for such behavior. This problem was conveniently disposed of by switching to Mark-Q priority. Then the writer of Matthew could be assumed to have added reverential touches to Mark as well as all is other added material. The invention of Q also permitted the assumption of minimal "copying" of Gospel text by one evangelist of another, since Luke could then be assumed independent of Matthew. This also supported a theological commitment. What I see as having happened is that the writer of Matthew, a converted Jew (once a Pharisee and a scribe), happened to be strongly anti-gentile, which shows up in numerous spots in his gospel, with the opposite stance of Mt 28:19 and its Trinitarian-like formula being a much later add-on. It is then only natural that when a head scribe in the church in Rome read Matthew and its strong anti-gentile thrust, he felt motivated to write his own gospel directed towards gentiles. In likely retaliation to Matthew's anti-gentile slant, he added small slurs directed against the Jewish disciples, and omitted many Judaisms and whatever other text and parables he did not understand or agree with. Shortly after, the writer of Luke (perhaps located in Antioch) appraised the situation; he apparently agreed with the sentiments of the writer of Mark, though he felt the need for a more universal gospel. So he reinstated into his own gospel much of what the writer of Mark had omitted from Matthew. (Thus Q was born.) However, to show his favoritism for Mark and distaste for Matthew, he closely followed Mark's order of pericopes and text *wherever it deviated from Matthew*. (Thus, it is where the order between Matthew and Mark agree that he introduced his own material.) And in so doing, he frequently utilized Matthean text in whatever order he wished (causing the two different orders of "Q" material), sometimes utilized it in a different context of his own choosing, and frequently contradicted Matthew. All this seems like rational (though distasteful) behavior on the part of the evangelists, and nothing that should be covered up in researching Gospel priorities. Yet, Streeter accused the writer of Luke of having been a "crank" if he had behaved in any such way and the writer of Mark of having been a "lunatic" if he had abbreviated Matthew. I see this as being Streeter's way of expressing his theological commitment and supporting the like commitment of the 19th-century scholars. Because of Streeter's great influence among scholars, I believe such statements caused later scholars to buy into the Mark-Q priority hypothesis partly in order to avoid being called "cranks" or "lunatics" if they didn't. The desire to avoid these considerations as applied to Luke appear to me to be the basis behind the Griesbachian school of thought (Matthew-Luke-Mark) to avoid placing Luke third. And so it may enter in also to arguments that would support Luke coming first. As to the TC involved, the Augustinian scheme outlined above does well explain the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, and of course supports the large number of studies that have found a dependence of Luke upon Matthew and the irreality of Q as a document or collection of sayings. I find that it also supports a comparison of order between Matthew against Mark versus Mark against Matthew (there are important differences between the two). Concerning the numerous and relatively gross redactions evident within Matthew itself, I find this to be due to the compiler of Matthew, when preparing his gospel, having before him an extensive text that required much editing before it would be acceptable to him. The terse statement from Papias that survives on this is the chief classical clue supporting this contention. While this group will concentrate on textual criticism, I felt that this background was necessary to bring out the many other ties of this topic to NT scholasticism. I welcome discussion on any aspects of this hypothesis. Jim Deardorff Oregon State University deardorj@ucs.orst.edu From majordom Tue Nov 21 20:47:06 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07478; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 20:47:06 +0500 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 21:27:57 EST From: kloha@sauron.multiverse.com (Jeff Kloha) Reply-To: kloha@sauron.multiverse.com (Jeff Kloha) To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: Jeffrey Kloha's PMMail v1.1 Subject: Text und Textwert series Content-Length: 1200 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Members of the tc-list: I am beginning work on a STM thesis on the text of James. Fresh collations are being made of the papyri and available uncials. However, I need a selection of representative minuscules to consult. The first volumes of the _Text und Textwert_ series analyze the Catholic Epistles. My question is: While the volumes present exhaustive studies of relationships among manuscripts in the "test passages", has any work been published using this data to determine exactly which manuscripts fall into special groupings? Have the Alands or their Institut produced any classifications of manuscripts, or have they simply supplied the data and left individuals to use their own theories to group manuscripts (e.g., Colwell's multiple readings or the Profile Method)? The paper on "Categories and Text Types" by B. Aland published in the second ed. of _Text of the New Testament_ simply explains their classification of mss. into "categories" I, II, III, IV, and V. Is that as precise as one can get using the "test passages", or can actual "families" be determined using the _Text und Textwert_ data? Thank you for your assistance. Jeff Kloha Lakewood, OH kloha@po.multiverse.com From majordom Wed Nov 22 15:36:45 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09621; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:36:45 +0500 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 12:34:20 PST From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9511222034.AA00464@Np.nosc.mil> To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: (kloha@sauron.multiverse.com) Subject: Re: Text und Textwert series Reply-To: broman@nosc.mil Content-Length: 2163 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- kloha@sauron.multiverse.com asked about: > _Text und Textwert_...: While the volumes present > exhaustive studies of relationships among manuscripts in the "test > passages", has any work been published using this data to determine > exactly which manuscripts fall into special groupings? I have only studied the Acts volumes of TuT, nothing on the epistles yet. But, as far as I can see, Aland et al have not produced any MS grouping results from their data beyond the categories I-V seen in TotNT, and even that categorization is underwhelming. In Acts, effort was expended to show that Bezae was not closely related to any miniscule, but results beyond that were not really attempted. I seem to remember there was a reference in the Acts volume to someone else's MS classification work in the Catholic Epistles, based on the TuT data, but I didn't save the reference before returning the book. > Is > that as precise as one can get using the "test passages", or can > actual "families" be determined using the _Text und Textwert_ data? The way that MS differences were counted in TuT discarded a large portion of the significant information that could be extracted from the collations. The massive printed tables of MS comparisons ought to be redone (but not reprinted!) with attention to weighing differences, instead of just counting them. My own slogging attempts to better the situation, re Acts, are slowed by the task of getting data into machine-readable form. Vincent Broman, code 786 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div. San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641 === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMLOIiGCU4mTNq7IdAQGUpQP/ZIi4TQ+yYIkj0YTQ+o16oP49/yKH0h4c b2cM1vFAchRaiXpE/F1ydulyyU25OuSqEP5PGD5fV/iCxZnSNKr9nyL74hXfHMxK u+9/bvrHNI1iRKtC5/jliKozj57ii5v7xramwO35hhKJdLSoJhBkn9m0IbmcZAHN NzPNBriZONY= =rrF5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From majordom Fri Nov 24 20:16:20 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13750; Fri, 24 Nov 1995 20:16:20 +0500 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 20:11:54 -0500 From: WesBurt@aol.com Message-Id: <951124201153_33029572@mail06.mail.aol.com> Cc: WesBurt@aol.com Subject: #180-7d, Epilog to #180-6 Content-Length: 6074 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk .**************** On 9 Nov. 1995 the chief programmer for lists BRIDGE-L and WISDOM-L replied to #180-6, "The No-Fault Solution," as follows: "Wesley, Would it be possible to post some excerpts of previous posts on other lists to BRIDGE-L? If not, could you briefly summarize your position to allow for greater participation. I suspect that the lack of response has less to do with "faint-hearted" subscribers than it is due to the possibility that you may have launched a salvo right over everyone's head." ****************** What "C" grade mechanical engineer could refuse to comply with such a complimentary request? Bill, the "Laws of nature, and of Nature's God" were old and unchanging long before Ezra compiled and edited the Pentateuch in 457 B.C., after the remnant returned from exile in Babylon. By complying with these laws, the American work force from the1620's through the 1890's, except during war time, delivered to American consumers a "baker's dozen" for each dozen input of labor and materials. When those same Divine Laws were not observed during industrialization, the performance of the U. S. workforce changed in the 1890's to delivering only 98% of a dozen for each dozen input of labor and materials. By 1976, 13th tribe members, Harold Van B. Cleveland and W. H. Bruce Brittain, knew enough about inflation and unemployment to write THE GREAT INFLATION (National Planning Association Report No. 148) and show the American public that their economy was the only one powerful enough to cause the worldwide inflation that was finally returned to 3%/year in the1990's. Since the output lags behind the input, in point of time, in every human activity from the family farm to the national economy, neither the "Gates of Hell" nor the American establishment can eliminate the very human tendency toward public deficits and private business failures, without first correcting the systemic mechanical defect of omission in America's domestic policy. The following 1993 snail-mail letter to the late Rabbi Eugene J Lipman briefly summarizes the scope of all previous snail-mail letters and posts since 1969: ********************** October 27, 1993 To: Eugene J. Lipman, Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Sinai, and list L Subject: #137, The Zero-Sum Society---34 centuries of priestly self-delusion. Dear Rabbi Lipman: I only recently had the good fortune to read your YAMIN NORA'IM Sinai Sermons, 1987. We seem to share the conviction that members of the American establishment, like the Children of Israel, were chosen to teach the Mosaic Law to all nations and both refuse to do it. They say, one to another: "Moses commanded us a Law for our inheritance, it is our inheritance, not theirs." From the death of Moses, B.C. 1451, to this morning's issue of THE WASHINGTON POST, the priestly establishments have regaled the public with tales of Mighty Men and the exhortations of Patriarchs, Prophets, Priests, and Protestants that the public's whole duty is to obey the Ten Commandments, obey the Golden Rule, pay the three tithes enumerated by TOBIT and the late Rabbi J. H. Hertz, and keep its collective nose out of the priestly establishment's business. If Madison, Hamilton, and Jay had explained the attached Figure 4 in the Federalist Papers and included the Three Tithes of Moses in the Bill Of Rights, as Thomas Paine later suggested in AGRARIAN JUSTICE, 1797, the world today would be calling the U.S.A. "The Promised Land," instead of "The Great Satan." I hope you will forgive this uncultured mechanical engineer for basing such a critical presentation on the graphical model in Figure 4. I have neither the wit nor the time remaining to surpass the many eloquent authors who, over the past 34 centuries, have failed to focus public attention on this priestly delusion. Today, the whole Mosaic Law is applied to Pope John Paul II's "society of capital goods" at 90 degrees in the model, while Congress applies Tobit's Law to the "society of persons" at 270 degrees. Help me to focus public attention on the ZERO-SUM mentality that makes Congress: (1) withhold public revenue from First Tithe investments in the development of human assets and the satisfaction of Say's Law, (2) carefully protect the Second Tithe for executive compensation of the establishment, while (3) busting the budget with futile Third Tithe remedial programs for society's underclass. Sincerely, Wesley S. Burt ****************** To my great regret, I learned later that Rabbi Lipman was terminally ill at the time I found his book of sermons and wrote the letter. Only God knows how he would have replied to my letter, if I had found his book of sermons a few years earlier. But, I know from recent experience with my e-mail posts that this subject evokes the fear, loathing, and hatred of discussion list hierarchies who have established their lists to promote other objectives than the general welfare of the United States. In a serious way, and very contrary to my own interests, I have abused the hospitality of those hierarchies that kept their lists open, while at the same time, I have felt abused, and my purpose insulted, by those hierarchies which closely moderated their lists, and rejected my posts as inappropriate to their objectives. After posting this note, I will follow the good advice of several founders and list owners and un-subscribe from all lists, with sincere apologies to all those who have been offended by the subject. The burden of making "The No-Fault Solution" politically correct is mine, but I need all the help I can get. The acceptance or rejection of the only technically valid cure for the social pathologies caused by a century of 5-10% unemployment is the public's responsibility, and they will need all the help they can get. But the benefits of restoring the American Will to produce a "bakers dozen" would be shared by the whole world. Happy holidays Bill, Wesley S. Burt Connoisseur of Fine Cosmographies From majordom Sun Nov 26 22:39:08 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA17229; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 22:39:08 +0500 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:36:21 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: Jeff Kloha Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Text und Textwert series In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2790 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Jeff Kloha wrote: > I am beginning work on a STM thesis on the text of James. Fresh > collations are being made of the papyri and available uncials. > However, I need a selection of representative minuscules to consult. > The first volumes of the _Text und Textwert_ series analyze the > Catholic Epistles. My question is: While the volumes present > exhaustive studies of relationships among manuscripts in the "test > passages", has any work been published using this data to determine > exactly which manuscripts fall into special groupings? Have the Alands > or their Institut produced any classifications of manuscripts, or have > they simply supplied the data and left individuals to use their own > theories to group manuscripts (e.g., Colwell's multiple readings or > the Profile Method)? James happens to be the book which the Muenster Institut is using as a test case for its proposed Major Critical Edition. Herr Minke has done a lot of computer based work to isolate important MSS, such as those you wish to see. He had a paper (written in German) published in New Testament Studies in 1993 or 1994 which sets out the basics of his approach. Perhaps a letter to the Institut Director, Professorin Barbara Aland, asking precisely these questions would be in order. > > The paper on "Categories and Text Types" by B. Aland published in the > second ed. of _Text of the New Testament_ simply explains their > classification of mss. into "categories" I, II, III, IV, and V. Is > that as precise as one can get using the "test passages", or can > actual "families" be determined using the _Text und Textwert_ data? No doubt the Texte und Textwort (did I spell that right?) data is the best we have so far to work out family relationships. It has been said that there is a risk of circular reasoning in the current I, II, III, ... classification system. All that can really be said from the data is that one MS is like another one. That is, high percentage agreement indicates relatedness of MSS. Whether one family is more significant than another is a question which must be answered by looking at archtypes of the various families once the family boundaries have been delineated. There is a new technique for reconstructing MS relationships called cladistic analysis. The new version of Peter Robinson's Collate program is promised to incorporate a facility to carry out this analysis. Whether cladistic analysis of NT MS relationships is meaningful remains to be seen. The problem is that we have only a small sample of the original population in the extant MSS. Also, all of the MSS to be analysed must be transcribed to use the Collate program (a most worthwhile exercise, in my opinion). Tim Finney Murdoch University Western Australia From majordom Mon Nov 27 11:51:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA18459; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:51:52 +0500 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:47:10 +0100 (MEZ) From: Klaus Wachtel To: Jeff Kloha Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Text und Textwert series In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1986 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Jeff Kloha wrote: > > I am beginning work on a STM thesis on the text of James. Fresh > collations are being made of the papyri and available uncials. > However, I need a selection of representative minuscules to consult. > The first volumes of the _Text und Textwert_ series analyze the > Catholic Epistles. My question is: While the volumes present > exhaustive studies of relationships among manuscripts in the "test > passages", has any work been published using this data to determine > exactly which manuscripts fall into special groupings? Have the Alands > or their Institut produced any classifications of manuscripts, or have > they simply supplied the data and left individuals to use their own > theories to group manuscripts (e.g., Colwell's multiple readings or > the Profile Method)? Barbara Aland showed how to use TuT for identifying a group of mss., which carry the text of the Greek exemplar of the Syra Harclensis of the Catholic Epistles in B. Aland: Das Neue Testament in syrischer Ueberlieferung, I. Die grossen Katholischen Briefe. (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 7) Berlin/NY 1986, p. 41-90. On the basis of B. Aland's work I developped a method to find groups of mss. at least as coherent as her group Hk utilizing TuT I: Klaus Wachtel: Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments. (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 24) Berlin/NY: de Gruyter 1995, p. 56-72. For a general comparison of the possibilities offered by the TuT volumes compared to the Claremont profile method see B. Aland/K. Wachtel: The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament, in: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (Festschrift Metzger), ed. by B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes. (SD 46) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995. For any questions concerning TuT or the text of James in general feel free to contact me off list. Klaus Wachtel, Muenster From majordom Tue Nov 28 02:31:18 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21318; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 02:31:18 +0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 02:28:52 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951128022849_36369433@mail06.mail.aol.com> To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: kloha@sauron.multiverse.com Subject: James/Text und Textwert Content-Length: 1636 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Jeff Kloha wrote: > > I am beginning work on a STM thesis on the text of James. Fresh > collations are being made of the papyri and available uncials. > However, I need a selection of representative minuscules to consult. > The first volumes of the _Text und Textwert_ series analyze the > Catholic Epistles. My question is: While the volumes present > exhaustive studies of relationships among manuscripts in the "test > passages", has any work been published using this data to determine > exactly which manuscripts fall into special groupings? For a small book such as James, I can understand your reticence on relying on profile methods to determine text type. I'd suggest examining a textual apparatus or two of James and make a note of how the miniscule mss fall in line. I am sure you will want to consider 33 and 81. >Have the Alands or their Institut produced any classifications of manuscripts, >or have they simply supplied the data and left individuals to use their own > theories to group manuscripts (e.g., Colwell's multiple readings or > the Profile Method)? There is a list of catagories in the Alands' _The Text of the New Testament_, pp 156-159, 1987 ed. I picked out *some* in the Alands list that I noticed are textual witnesses in James. (Look at their book for more info): Catagory I (Alex): 33, 1241, 1739 Catagory II/mixed: 81, 323 Catagory III/independent: 88, 398 (cath), 623, 2495 Catagory IV/Beza: none Catagory V: 'M' in text apparatus I hope this gets you started or is what you were looking for. Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com From majordom Tue Nov 28 09:07:14 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21774; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 09:07:14 +0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 09:07:00 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Re: James/Text und Textwert In-Reply-To: <951128022849_36369433@mail06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1228 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Nov 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote: > There is a list of catagories in the Alands' _The Text of the New > Testament_, pp 156-159, 1987 ed. > I picked out *some* in the Alands list that I noticed are textual > witnesses in James. (Look at their book for more info): > > Catagory I (Alex): 33, 1241, 1739 > Catagory II/mixed: 81, 323 > Catagory III/independent: 88, 398 (cath), 623, 2495 > Catagory IV/Beza: none > Catagory V: 'M' in text apparatus The Alands' categorization of witnesses is certainly a good starting point, but as Larry Richards pointed out in paper presented at the SBL annual meeting, one cannot assume that every book in a manuscript is of the same text-type. The Alands classify witnesses by group of books (e.g., Acts + catholic epistles), but variation of text-type within a group of books does occur. I would think that the categorization of the minuscules chosen for this study of James should be investigated on a manuscript by manuscript basis. 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 majordom Wed Nov 29 23:54:08 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA28599; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 23:54:08 +0500 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 23:53:53 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1925 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk The SBL has a section called the "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" section. Emanuel Tov's book has a similar title. On the other hand, Wuerthwein's book is _The Text of the Old Testament_, and many seminaries offer a course called Old Testament Textual Criticism. What are the pros and cons of these terms, and are there better alternatives? First, though Old Testament is obviously a term derived from the Christian canon, even many Christian scholars favor the term "Hebrew Bible," in part because it is less sectarian. However, when referring to textual criticism, does this phrase not prejudice the discussion in favor of the Hebrew _language_ witnesses, especially the MT? Especially when dealing with books that apparently existed in different literary forms (e.g., Jeremiah, Samuel, Ezekiel, Job), doesn't "textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible" suggest that the form found in the MT be accorded some sort of preference (cf. Tov, p. 317)? And what would textual criticism of the book of Tobit be called? What are the alternatives? "Textual criticism of the Tanakh" avoids the term "Hebrew," and so could presumably refer indifferently to MT or LXX, for example, but it stumbles over the differences between the Jewish/Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox canons in regard to these books. James Sanders and others use the term "First Testament," and "First Testament textual criticism" does seem to avoid the problems of Old Testament on the one hand and Hebrew Bible or Tanakh on the other. But then aren't we forced to speak of "textual criticism of the Second Testament" as well? I would be interested to see what thoughts others might have on these matters of terminology. 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 majordom Thu Nov 30 10:33:19 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29407; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:33:19 +0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 07:53 +0200 From: fed@maties.sun.ac.za To: "James R. Adair" Message-Id: <8890161820570931@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: RE: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...? X-Mailer: Netmail V3.17 Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1238 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: "James R. Adair" Resent-To: TC List Resent-Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Dear James, Even though my primer in textual criticism is called WITNESSES TO THE OLD TESTAMENT I have come to use the term "First Testament" throughout nowadays: 1. It shows respect for the Jewish faith; 2. It is historically correct: what we find in these books is what came first; 3. For Christian theology it is a reminder that these texts form PART of the Christian BIBLE, and are not te be discarded or underevaluated as "old", which suggests pass‚. 4. It avoids the problem of "Hebrew Bible", which is, as you have pointed out, too narrow. The First Testament may not or may contain many more books than the Hebrew Bible and may refer to the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Targum, etc. 5. I have no problem with the term Second Testament, even though I know that New Testament scholars do not really use the term - although the "New Testament" may also be too narrow a term to include Apocrypha. But even so, should this bother people working with the texts of the First Testament? WE have the problem of terminology and solve it the best we can. Is it really unacceptable to use First Testament AND speak of the New Testament? Best wishes from the other side of the globe, Ferdinand Deist University of Stellenbosch From majordom Thu Nov 30 10:35:09 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29418; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:35:09 +0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 01:06:08 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: fed@maties.sun.ac.za Subject: RE: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...? In-Reply-To: <8890161820570931@maties.sun.ac.za> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:34:49 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: "James R. Adair" Resent-To: TC List Resent-Message-Id: Content-Length: 488 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Prof. Deist, You're up early reading your e-mail! I appreciate your comments, and I would like to post them to the tc-list as a whole, if you will allow me to, along with this post. I, too, have been leaning more toward the term First Testament, but this is certainly still a minority position. I personally don't have a problem with the connotations associated with the word "Old," since, after all, I have a degree in Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Ou Nabye Oosterse Studie)! From majordom Thu Nov 30 12:20:33 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29781; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 12:20:33 +0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:00:36 -0600 From: PFlesher@UWYO.EDU (Paul V. M. Flesher) Subject: Hebrew Bible, etc. To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 847 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I disagree with Prof. Deist that the term "First Testament" shows respect for the Jewish character of the Hebrew Bible. To say "First" is to imply that there is a "second," which those who use the term (primarily Christians) obviously think is the New Testament. So the term "First Testament" is simply another Christian term that ends being parochial with regard to Judaism. Personally, I think that there is no good single term. Instead, "When in Rome one should do as the Romans do." That is, if Hebrew Bible is the subject and will be understood by the audience (Students), use that term. If not, use Old Testament. Of course Old Testament is not a clear term either. Does it refer to the Protestant OT, the Catholic OT, or some other version? Paul Paul V. M. Flesher Religious Studies University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 82071-3353 From majordom Thu Nov 30 13:25:46 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00047; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:25:46 +0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:25:32 +0500 Message-Id: <9511301825.AA00039@scholar.cc.emory.edu> X-Sender: rcorliss@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: rcorliss@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Richard Corliss) Subject: Re: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...? Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Content-Length: 691 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk James Adair: >The SBL has a section called the "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" >section. Emanuel Tov's book has a similar title. On the other hand, >Wuerthwein's book is _The Text of the Old Testament_, and many seminaries >offer a course called Old Testament Textual Criticism. What are the >pros and cons of these terms, and are there better alternatives? > In my class on world religions I use the phrase `Jewish Bible'. Is this not appropriate? Does it not avoid the introduction of new language that needs to be explained, as in First Testament and Second Testament. Richard Corliss Department of Philosophy St. Cloud State University RCorliss@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu From majordom Thu Nov 30 13:49:28 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00192; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:49:28 +0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:49:07 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: Richard Corliss Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...? In-Reply-To: <9511301825.AA00039@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1010 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Richard Corliss wrote: > In my class on world religions I use the phrase `Jewish Bible'. Is this not > appropriate? Does it not avoid the introduction of new language that needs > to be explained, as in First Testament and Second Testament. But the OT/Hebrew Bible is also part of the "Christian Bible," so I'm not sure this solves the problem. A term like "biblical textual criticism" seems to be good as an umbrella term for both disciplines, since "biblical" is sufficiently multivalent (I think) to encompass a variety of views of canon. The problem remains with describing the enterprise of examining one of the textual traditions. Does anyone really want to say "textual criticism of the Judeo-Christian scriptures that originated in the pre-Christian era"??? 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 majordom Thu Nov 30 14:46:05 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00446; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:46:05 +0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:43:45 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951130144343_39536090@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James/Text und Textwert Content-Length: 832 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-11-28 09:06:30 EST, jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu (James R. Adair) writes: >The Alands' categorization of witnesses is certainly a good starting >point, but as Larry Richards pointed out in paper presented at the SBL >annual meeting, one cannot assume that every book in a manuscript is of >the same text-type. The Alands classify witnesses by group of books >(e.g., Acts + catholic epistles), but variation of text-type within a >group of books does occur. I would think that the categorization of the >minuscules chosen for this study of James should be investigated on a >manuscript by manuscript basis. That would be my advice as well. The Alands' classification should only be a starting point to investigating the relationships of the mss witnesses of James. Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com From majordom Thu Nov 30 16:55:03 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01012; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 16:55:03 +0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 16:52:46 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951130165244_39661262@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: PFlesher@uwyo.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible, etc. Content-Length: 1999 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-11-30 12:20:55 EST, PFlesher@UWYO.EDU (Paul V. M. Flesher) writes: >I disagree with Prof. Deist that the term "First Testament" shows respect >for the Jewish character of the Hebrew Bible. To say "First" is to imply >that there is a "second," which those who use the term (primarily >Christians) obviously think is the New Testament. So the term "First >Testament" is simply another Christian term that ends being parochial with >regard to Judaism. I agree. It can be understood as supercessionist, the second being an improvement on the first. >Personally, I think that there is no good single term. Instead, "When in >Rome one should do as the Romans do." That's why I prefer the term Tanakh. The term is of Jewish origin, and as an acronym it embraces the literature we're talking about: the torah, the prophets and the writings. As for Tobit, Wisdom, etc., caling this group the Apocrypha doesn't bother me. The Duetero-canonical and Intertestamental have particular positions in mind, I think. And when it comes to the NT, I think New Testament should be ok. Jewish scholars understand that we Christians have a New Testament. I think it may be acting *hypersensitively* to change it. ( I may be wrong). I've had a tough time coming up with good working alternatives to NT, too. To call it the Greek Scriptures (as opposed to calling the OT 'the Hebrew Scriptures') really confuses me, because when I think Greek Scriptures, I think of the LXX as well. I've heard 'Christian writings' for the NT, but then again, the Tanakh is our Scripture too. Then there's the 'apostolic writings', and that's not bad, but when I hear it, I think of the apostolic fathers. And not all the writers were apostles. So, when in inter-faith settings, (such as TC-list) I'd recommend Tanakh for the OT and New Testament for the NT. And I wouldn't make it a law, just a matter of voluntary ettiquette. My 2 denarii, Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com