From majordom Fri Dec 1 08:55:46 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02541; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:55:46 +0500 X-Sender: kmcgrew@mail.halcyon.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 05:52:09 -1200 To: fed@maties.sun.ac.za From: kmcgrew@halcyon.com (Kelly McGrew) Subject: RE: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...? Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Content-Length: 2130 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I would take issue with your statement that "First Testament" shows respect for the Jewish faith: it is merely another moniker for something superseded. And the last thing we need is a new perpetuation of the supersessionist theory under a different guise. How about taking a hint from the opening lines of the creation story? In the Rashi to the verse describing the creation fo the first day, Rashi writes: "va'yahi erev, va'yahi boker, yom echad" ("and there was evening, and there was morning, one day") Gen.1:5) "One day"-According to the order expressed in this portion it should ahve been written "the first day" ("yom rishon") as it is written of the other days...Why did he write "one?" Because the Holy One, Blessed Be He, was the only Being in the world [and the day was created for Him].." Call the "O.T." (in its many guises) "One Testament;" refer to the Christian Scriptures as just that. Then one can continue to use "Old" and "New" or substitute "First" and "Second" for the major portions of the Christian Scriptures. This creates another dilema, though, with the "Apocrypha" or "Dueterocanonicals;" what should they be called to be politically correct? Perhaps "Connecting Testament" to indicate how their existence connects the other two testaments (in the eyes of those who adhere to the belief that they do). For those who do not hold them inspired and a part of the canon or prefer to be insensitive to those who do, they can simply be referred to as the "Apocrypha." >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; > >Best wishes from the other side of the globe, >Ferdinand Deist >University of Stellenbosch Kelly McGrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- "The world is preserved for mercy's sake." Rashi, on Pirkei Avot 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------- kmcgrew@halcyon.com http://www.halcyon.com/kmcgrew/ Olympia, Washington, USA From majordom Fri Dec 1 10:14:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02729; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:14:12 +0500 From: Felix Sung Message-Id: <199512011511.KAA26278@blues.epas.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible, etc. To: Timster132@aol.com Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:11:50 -0500 (EST) Cc: PFlesher@uwyo.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <951130165244_39661262@mail02.mail.aol.com> from "Timster132@aol.com" at Nov 30, 95 04:52:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1179 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. On the other hand, there is (in North America at least) an inherent, connotative bias toward understanding "first" in terms of primacy of place or quality as opposed to "second," "e.g., "first class," "second-hand," "first things" - when was the last time you heard a second-place-finisher referred to as a "winner"? Think Buffalo Bills! :-) which may offset, at least in part, a supercessionist understanding of "First Testament." Felix Sung Wycliffe College fsung@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto School of Theology From majordom Fri Dec 1 10:33:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02832; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:33:12 +0500 Message-Id: <00000ED5.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Collation against MT vs. TR Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 09:19:13 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: 251 Content-Length: 686 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as the best collating base, I'm curious to know how many of you have switched to using the MT in this way, and how many of you have stuck to the TR. I'm more interested in knowing why you have stuck to the TR as a collating base, especially in the light of Wallace's comments on the advantages of using the "most inferior text" (as he terms it) as your collating base, especially for the purposes of quantitative analysis. Regards, Mark O'Brien Grad. student, NT Dallas Theological 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 Fri Dec 1 10:54:19 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02907; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:54:19 +0500 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:50:26 -0500 (EST) From: David Moore Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible, etc. To: Felix Sung Cc: Timster132@aol.com, PFlesher@uwyo.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199512011511.KAA26278@blues.epas.utoronto.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2197 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Felix Sung wrote: > > > > 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. > > On the other hand, there is (in North America at least) an inherent, > connotative bias toward understanding "first" in terms of primacy of > place or quality as opposed to "second," "e.g., "first class," > "second-hand," "first things" - when was the last time you heard a > second-place-finisher referred to as a "winner"? Think Buffalo Bills! > :-) which may offset, at least in part, a supercessionist > understanding of "First Testament." I hope no one minds if some of us continue to use the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament." It's good to do what one can so as not to offend those with whom one dialogues, but why should anyone be expected to express him- or herself in a way that amounts to a tacit denial of what he or she believes. I can write "G-d" with the best of them, but when it comes to eschewing terms like "Old Testament," "New Testament" or "BC" because someone might take offense.... Well, I'm not as concerned about offending anyone as I am about offending, in spirit, the one who redeemed me and whose claims on my life I accept. Please feel free to refer to the different parts of Scripture as you see fit. I'm sure I, and others, will understand. But also, I hope each one will extend that same understanding to me and to others who accept that Jesus is Messiah. David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education From majordom Fri Dec 1 11:02:13 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02965; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 11:02:13 +0500 From: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover) Message-Id: <199512011558.HAA29677@netcom18.netcom.com> Subject: Supercessionism] To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 07:58:13 -0800 (PST) Cc: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1241 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Re the term "First Testament", Felix Sung commented: > On the other hand, there is (in North America at least) an inherent, > connotative bias toward understanding "first" in terms of primacy of > place or quality as opposed to "second," "e.g., "first class," > "second-hand," "first things" - when was the last time you heard a > second-place-finisher referred to as a "winner"? Think Buffalo Bills! > :-) which may offset, at least in part, a supercessionist > understanding of "First Testament." I think this is quite correct, and exactly the point of the proposed change in terminology. However, I have a more basic question: I understand that "supercessionism" is today's anathema, and (in particular) that Jews may object to the supercessionist claims of Christianity - but supercessionism seems to be an inherent part of traditional Christianity. Would it not be more straightforward (and hence more intellectually productive) to openly condemn the claims of traditional Christianity, or to openly debate its differences from rabbinical or Zealot traditions? Robert Groover groover@netcom.com (PGP key on request) Member ECS, AVS, ACM, OSA, Sen.Mem.IEEE, Reg'd Patent Atty "All men by nature desire knowledge." From majordom Fri Dec 1 12:57:28 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03341; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 12:57:28 +0500 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 12:28:03 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: "Mark O'Brien" Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: <00000ED5.sm@dts.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1914 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In reply to Mark O'Brien's important question, I can say that I for one am convinced that Wallace is right (that there are real advantages to collating against the MT rather than the TR), BUT, that we should nonetheless not begin doing so. If we were to begin our discipline again, from scratch, this would clearly be the way to go. The difficulty is that we have *so many* collations already made and available against the TR, that if we were now to shift to the MT, these older collations would be of little use to us. We would have to look at *two* sets of data (the original collation and a collation of the TR against the MT) to make any use of them. As the pay-off is not all that significant in the long run anyway, I'm firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary delays in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual data at our disposal. (Once these materials are all entered on computer data bases, of course, the original collation base is completely immaterial). -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote: > > After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as > the best collating base, I'm curious to know how many of you have > switched to using the MT in this way, and how many of you have > stuck to the TR. I'm more interested in knowing why you have stuck to > the TR as a collating base, especially in the light of Wallace's comments > on the advantages of using the "most inferior text" (as he terms it) > as your collating base, especially for the purposes of quantitative > analysis. > > Regards, > > Mark O'Brien > Grad. student, NT > Dallas Theological 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 Fri Dec 1 19:16:53 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04308; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 19:16:53 +0500 X-Sender: j.mallon@mailbox40.utcc.utoronto.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover) From: j.mallon@utoronto.ca (James Mallon) Subject: Re: Supercessionism] Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <95Dec1.191409est.797495(3)@bureau-de-poste.utcc.utoronto.ca> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 19:14:04 -0500 Content-Length: 2518 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk The vary nature of inter-religious dialogue is the respect for the faith and beliefs of others. This involves a clear understanding of each group's beliefs. The very nature of political correct language appears to be abstraction--abstraction from the concrete. Pluralism is indeed a virtue in our contemporary society, but must we lock ourselves into a pluralism that seeks to blur distinctions. Healthy pluralism celebrates the unique nature of each group. Today many Christians decline from using the term "Old Testament." AS has been mentioned in this discussion, "Hebrew Scriptures" appears to exclude the Greek writings, "First Testament" appears to denote a second. Nevertheless, with all due respect, is it not Christian belief that Christ has ushered in the New Covenant which fulfills the first (or "Old" covenant)--he kaine diatheke? Is there not something so radically new in Christ? Do Christians not believe that there is (Heb 1:1-2)? Why be misleading about this belief? Robert Groover admitted as much, although I contest his conclusions: "supercessionism seems to be an inherent part of traditional Christianity. Would it not be more straightforward (and hence more intellectually productive) to openly condemn the claims of traditional Christianity, or to openly debate its differences from rabbinical or Zealot traditions?" Is there a healthy pluralism here, when the content of one's faith is to be condemned in the name of intellectual productivity? As a "traditional Christian," does my faith exclude my from this debate? Why be offended? Is the Jewish claim that there is nothing radically new in Christ offensive to me? No, I may disagree, but why should I be offended by Jewish belief? With regard to dialogue with Jewish scholars, why can't we just speak of the "Scriptures." Need there be farther qualification. This title for the "Old Testament" is rooted in the New Testament itself! I look forward to your comments If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. Rom. 11:16-18 James Mallon Toronto School of Theology From majordom Fri Dec 1 23:58:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04808; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 23:58:35 +0500 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 23:56:17 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3575 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Bart Ehrman wrote: > I for one > am convinced that Wallace is right (that there are real advantages to > collating against the MT rather than the TR), BUT, that we should > nonetheless not begin doing so. If we were to begin our discipline again, > from scratch, this would clearly be the way to go. The difficulty is that > we have *so many* collations already made and available against the TR, > that if we were now to shift to the MT, these older collations would be of > little use to us. > I'm firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply > for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary delays > in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual data at our > disposal. Even as a pro-Byzantine supporter, I also concur with Bart Ehrman on this. In an ideal world, in which the early TR editions had in fact been 100% identical with the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and all collations made since the earliest days had been against that base, there would be no problem in utilizing a Byzantine Text collation base. However, since the ideal was never realized, and the TR against which almost all collations have been made over the past two centuries differs from the Byzantine Textform approximately 1800 times, it is now far too late to attempt to move to a theoretically superior collation base. The other problem with Wallace's proposal is in the intention to utilize the Hodges/Farstad Majority text edition as that superior base. Although the H/F text is basically a reasonable "majority" edition from Matthew through Jude, the text of the Pericope Adultera and the entire book of Revelation in the H/F edition do NOT reflect a majority text. The Pericope Adultera in fact has NO "majority text" which could be used as the sole collation base, since the three main groups (Von Soden's m5, m6, and m7 each have between 29% and 31% numerical support). H/F simply chose to follow the m6 group there, based upon their own stemmatic assumptions (which are questionable), and there is no reason to suppose that minority group in any way significantly superior as a collation base for the Pericope Adultera than the minority TR text. In Revelation, the situation is even worse, since H/F utilized a stemmatic rather than a "majority" approach to construct their text of that book (using Hoskier's collation data), but their favored textual group (Ma) ends up being a group possessing only 19% support among the MSS of the Apocalypse, and this certainly would not aid matters if used as a collation base. My own edition of the hypothetical "Byzantine" text of Revelation (following Colwell's 70% texttype-specific cutoff limit) still does not resolve the problems where the Andreas and Q texts of Revelation (the two separate components of the Byzantine text of that book) are nearly equally divided. At that point my own decisions were made on the basis of internal evidence; but this then leaves a text which, though more "majority" throughout than H/F, nevertheless still is "minority" in possibly as many as 100-200 places within that book, and still unsuitable as a collation base. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sat Dec 2 02:07:09 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04943; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 02:07:09 +0500 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 02:04:51 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951202020451_41527220@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: j.mallon@utoronto.ca, groover@netcom.com Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Supercessionism] Content-Length: 2461 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-12-01 19:18:25 EST, j.mallon@utoronto.ca (James Mallon) writes: >Nevertheless, with all due respect, is it not Christian belief that Christ >has ushered in the New Covenant which fulfills the first (or "Old" >covenant)--he kaine diatheke? > Is there not something so radically new in Christ? Do Christians not >believe that there is (Heb 1:1-2)? Why be misleading about this belief? I for one would like to encourage Jewish/Tanakh scholars to use this list, since I really would like to learn more about TC of the Hebrew Scriptures. It seems to be radically different from NT text studies, and I feel I could learn a lot. In seminary, when I was exposed to Jewish-Christian relations, I discovered that using terms that are acceptable to both faiths helps to open the door to such an opportunity of learning. It's not such a matter of "giving up" our beliefs, but having a more common point of reference. Besides, we who are text critics know that there is some question as to if Jesus did say KAINHS when referring to the DIAQHKHS he was making (Mk14:24; Mt 26:28). the text of Paul clearly states KAINHS (1 Cor 11:25), and Luke probably did (if you accept 22:19b-20, which I do). The idea of a "new" convenant comes from Jeremiah, which is really a renewal of the Mosaic covenant. I think the early Jewish Christians who wrote the Scriptures could clearly have understood Jesus' covenant with them in this sense, and that this covenant was expanded "for the many" (ie, we Gentiles). Indeed, the ancient Abrahamic covenant (which the Mosaic covenant is based upon), intends the nations to be blessed. It's the same story of God's grace toward us. As Gentile Christians, we've seen it fully made known to us in the Jew called Jesus of Nazereth. There's no doubt there is anitsemitism and supercessionism in the NT. But the message of God's love for all is central. After the Holocaust, and after years of Christians using NT passages as a pretense for persecuting Jewish folk, meeting them half-way in using common terms can help some in easing the fear and tension between us. So on this TC-list, I would like to us to consider using inter-faith terminology, NOT to be more PC, but so we can make this list a friendly place for scholars of different faiths who have a lot to contribute to Biblical text criticism. Please consider this. Thanks. Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com From majordom Sat Dec 2 02:07:13 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04949; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 02:07:13 +0500 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 02:04:56 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951202020454_41527257@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu, TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Content-Length: 406 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-12-01 10:36:23 EST, Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien) writes: >After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as >the best collating base, At first I thought MT meant Masoretic Text, since we've been discussing various names for Scriptures. Boy was I confused! Evidently you were talking about the NT Majority Text (?) Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com From majordom Sat Dec 2 13:46:10 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05520; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 13:46:10 +0500 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 13:42:05 -0500 (EST) From: David Moore Subject: Subject: Re: Supercessionism To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2685 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Tim Staker (Timster132@aol.com) wrote: >I for one would like to encourage Jewish/Tanakh scholars to use this list, >since I really would like to learn more about TC of the Hebrew Scriptures. > It seems to be radically different from NT text studies, and I feel I could >learn a lot. > In seminary, when I was exposed to Jewish-Christian relations, I >discovered that using terms that are acceptable to both faiths helps to open >the door to such an opportunity of learning. > It's not such a matter of "giving up" our beliefs, but having a more common >point of reference. > Besides, we who are text critics know that there is some question as to if >Jesus did say KAINHS when referring to the DIAQHKHS he was making (Mk14:24; >Mt 26:28). the text of Paul clearly states KAINHS (1 Cor 11:25), and Luke >probably did (if you accept 22:19b-20, which I do). > The idea of a "new" convenant comes from Jeremiah, which is really a >renewal of the Mosaic covenant. I think the early Jewish Christians who >wrote the Scriptures could clearly have understood Jesus' covenant with them >in this sense, and that this covenant was expanded "for the many" (ie, we >Gentiles). > Indeed, the ancient Abrahamic covenant (which the Mosaic covenant is based >upon), intends the nations to be blessed. > It's the same story of God's grace toward us. As Gentile Christians, >we've seen it fully made known to us in the Jew called Jesus of Nazereth. > There's no doubt there is anitsemitism and supercessionism in the NT. But >the message of God's love for all is central. > After the Holocaust, and after years of Christians using NT passages as a >pretense for persecuting Jewish folk, meeting them half-way in using common >terms can help some in easing the fear and tension between us. > So on this TC-list, I would like to us to consider using inter-faith >terminology, NOT to be more PC, but so we can make this list a friendly place >for scholars of different faiths who have a lot to contribute to Biblical >text criticism. I think Tim underestimates most Jewish scholars in thinking that they might shrink at their Christian colleagues' use of terms like "Old Testament" and "New Testament." To pursue the myth that we can always use language that is acceptable to everyone cuts at the very heart of real dialogue. Isn't mutual respect a better basis than politically correct speech for achieving sincere, productive scholarly discussion? David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education From majordom Mon Dec 4 03:27:03 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08204; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 03:27:03 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 03:24:45 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951204032443_43593291@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Supercessionism Content-Length: 1031 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-12-02 13:46:36 EST, David Moore writes: > I think Tim underestimates most Jewish scholars in thinking that >they might shrink at their Christian colleagues' use of terms like "Old >Testament" and "New Testament." To pursue the myth that we can always use >language that is acceptable to everyone cuts at the very heart of real >dialogue. Isn't mutual respect a better basis than politically correct >speech for achieving sincere, productive scholarly discussion? David, That's kind of like the American traveler that goes abroad and expects everyone in the world to speak English and is put off because they do not. Actually, foreign folks usually feel very complimented when you use their language, even if you speak it badly. I am not advocating persuing the myth you are talking about. I am not talking about trying to please everyone and never offend anyone, which is pollyanna. I think what my suggestion is that we can do this to show *mutual repect". Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com From majordom Mon Dec 4 07:27:47 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08407; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 07:27:47 +0500 From: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover) Message-Id: <199512041223.EAA14327@netcom14.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Supercessionism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 04:23:44 -0800 (PST) Cc: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover), timster132@aol.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2186 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk > In seminary, when I was exposed to Jewish-Christian relations, I > discovered that using terms that are acceptable to both faiths helps to open > the door to such an opportunity of learning. If that's your objective, then you can use "Pentateuch", "Prophets," "Tanakh," or such terms (or, when appropriate, "LXX"). > It's not such a matter of "giving up" our beliefs, but having a more common > point of reference. No, repudiating "supercessionism" is precisely a matter of giving up the traditional Christian claims. The whole topic seems to me to be a matter of apologetics rather than scholarship (and hence not necessarily one for this list), but I object to the implicit assumption that we all share your view of traditional Christian claims. Advantages of the conventional terminology are that everyone understands it clearly, and that theological implications may be assumed to be historical baggage rather than active assertions; the same cannot be said of the neologisms you propose. > Besides, we who are text critics know that there is some question as to if > Jesus did say KAINHS when referring to the DIAQHKHS he was making (Mk14:24; > Mt 26:28). Sorry to be so slow replying, but I still haven't looked into the apparatus here - which witnesses attest the omission of KAINH? And do any omit it in both these passages? > There's no doubt there is anitsemitism and supercessionism in the NT. But > the message of God's love for all is central. Of course, the decision as to what is "central" implies doctrinal choices - and a focus on any one "central" aspect risks oversimplification of a fairly complex body of teachings. > So on this TC-list, I would like to us to consider using inter-faith > terminology, NOT to be more PC, but so we can make this list a friendly place > for scholars of different faiths who have a lot to contribute to Biblical > text criticism. Great - but I would say that introducing new theologically loaded terminology is not conducive to that end. Robert Groover groover@netcom.com (PGP key on request) Member ECS, AVS, ACM, OSA, Sen.Mem.IEEE, Reg'd Patent Atty "All men by nature desire knowledge." From majordom Mon Dec 4 09:26:58 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08628; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 09:26:58 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 09:26:52 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible, OT, or ...? In-Reply-To: <199512041223.EAA14327@netcom14.netcom.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 969 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I think the discussion that has ensued as a result of my original post has demonstrated that there is not any single term to describe the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament/First Testament/Tanakh that is one hundred percent satisfactory. My question was directed solely at the use of these terms in the field of textual criticism, not religious studies as a whole. Though there is obviously some overlap, I think the fact that the discipline deals explicitly with language, and implicitly with canon, contributes to the difficulty. Textual critics of all backgrounds should continue to use the terms that seem to them, for whatever reasons, to be the most satisfactory, remembering the imperfections of whatever term they choose. 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 Mon Dec 4 11:39:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09080; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 11:39:07 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 11:35:09 -0500 (EST) From: David Moore Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Supercessionism To: Timster132@aol.com Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <951204032443_43593291@mail02.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1539 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote: > > That's kind of like the American traveler that goes abroad and expects > everyone in the world to speak English and is put off because they do not. > Actually, foreign folks usually feel very complimented when you use their > language, even if you speak it badly. > > I am not advocating persuing the myth you are talking about. I am not > talking about trying to please everyone and never offend anyone, which is > pollyanna. > > I think what my suggestion is that we can do this to show *mutual repect". Mutual respect is fine; I'm all for it. But may I suggest that mutual respect is more readily recognizable when it is expressed freely than when it is adhered to because it is prescribed. We're not talking about speaking languages not understood by one another. Take for example a couple of titles that have to do with the list topic: Wu:rthwein calls his book _The Text of the Old Testament_ whereas P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. has written _Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible_. Either of these titles is equally understandable; so why the fuss? I think it is probable that the majority of those on the list would like, as I would, to save the bandwidth we're using on this debate for matters that are more on topic. David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education From majordom Mon Dec 4 11:44:49 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09114; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 11:44:49 +0500 Message-Id: <00000EE2.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 10:35:55 CST From: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien) To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu, Timster132@aol.com Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-Hologate: 1.1.7b2 Lines: 354 Content-Length: 717 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Original message sent on Sat, Dec 2 1:04 AM by Timster132@aol.com : >In a message dated 95-12-01 10:36:23 EST, Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu >(Mark O'Brien) writes: >>After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as >>the best collating base, > At first I thought MT meant Masoretic Text, since we've been discussing >various names for Scriptures. Boy was I confused! Evidently you were >talking about the NT Majority Text (?) Errr... sorry about that, Tim! You are absolutely correct, of course. One does tend to get a little buried in some of these acronyms after a while, but I'll be a little more careful in future. Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Mark O'Brien Dallas Seminary From majordom Mon Dec 4 14:51:53 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09658; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:51:53 +0500 Message-Id: <00000EEF.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 13:30:10 CST From: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien) To: mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com (Maurice Robinson), TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-Hologate: 1.1.7b2 Lines: 662 Content-Length: 2240 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Original message sent on Fri, Dec 1 5:56 PM by mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com (Maurice Robinson) : > Even as a pro-Byzantine supporter, I also concur with Bart Ehrman > on this. In an ideal world, in which the early TR editions had in fact > been 100% identical with the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and all > collations made since the earliest days had been against that base, > there would be no problem in utilizing a Byzantine Text collation > base. However, since the ideal was never realized, and the TR > against which almost all collations have been made over the past > two centuries differs from the Byzantine Textform approximately > 1800 times, it is now far too late to attempt to move to a > theoretically superior collation base. Although I understand the amount of work required to make this switch (which may not be quite so horrific if a computerized method of transforming the collation data were developed), this argument seems problematic. It seems almost akin to saying that it's not worth buying a much newer, faster computer because of the pain involved in transferring all the data, even though the benefits to such a move are obvious. I know we need to be somewhat pragmatic, but can we afford to ignore such theoretical refinements in the discipline? > The other problem with Wallace's proposal is in the intention to utilize > the Hodges/Farstad Majority text edition as that superior base. > Although the H/F text is basically a reasonable "majority" edition > from Matthew through Jude, the text of the Pericope Adultera and > the entire book of Revelation in the H/F edition do NOT reflect a > majority text. I agree wholeheartedly with you here. When H/F move away from just presenting the majority evidence (or when they have no choice because of the "split" nature of the data), they not only undermine, at points, their Majority Text theory, but they make the MT possibly difficult to use for collation purposes. I guess that one advantage is that there is now a "generally" majority text edition we can work against, but I appreciate your concerns here about it perhaps not being "genuinely" majority text. Thanks for the input, Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary From majordom Mon Dec 4 16:36:38 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09995; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:36:38 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:34:12 -0800 Message-Id: <199512042134.NAA17107@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Content-Length: 3384 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Mark O'Brien wrote: >I agree wholeheartedly with you here. When H/F move away from >just presenting the majority evidence (or when they have no choice >because of the "split" nature of the data), they not only undermine, at >points, their Majority Text theory, but they make the MT possibly >difficult to use for collation purposes. I guess that one advantage is >that there is now a "generally" majority text edition we can work >against, but I appreciate your concerns here about it perhaps not being >"genuinely" majority text. > This is a general misconception of what Hodges and Farstad were trying to accomplish with their text. The point was not to produce a Majority text for its own sake, rather it was to show the nature of rigorous stemmatics applied to the history of the transmission of the mss. It is their contention that if stemmatics were applied to the entirety of the NT mss, the Majority type of text would in fact be shown to be the progenitor of all the various "text-types," and thus represent the original. Thus, since they themselves had only preformed a stemmatic reconstruction on a small (and accessible) portion of the text, they were forced by necessity to present what they believed would be the resultant text of such a rigorous stemmatic reconstruction applied to the rest of the NT; namely the Majority. It probably is unfortunate that the only book for which sufficient textual information existed was Revelation, since its textual history is so iconoclastic. I don't think one should understand Hodges' conclusion that the statistical majority does not represent the original to be an indication of his forsaking the majority opinion, but rather as a clear indicator of the fact that he believes that rigorous stemmatics is the only way to "find" the original (it also shows that his approach was NEVER counting manuscripts; his "Majority" text was based on the above-mentioned working theory that the Byz/Maj would stand at the top of a rigorous NT stemma). Maurice is certainly correct that his text represents the "majority" at each point, as far as that is able to be discerned (and that Hodges had a preference for certain Byz sub-families when the numbers seemed to be split). I hasten to add that Maurice's view of the history of the manuscripts is also not as simple-minded as simply counting mss (ie., he has a reason for choosing it, whether one agrees with his working theory or not). Indeed, Maurice's text would probably be preferable for a collating base..which is what we were talking about in the first place. The above in no way should be seen as an endorsement for any view (I'm not telling my view...I don't have the time to answer all the mail :-) ). I'm simply trying to explain Hodges' view; Wallace's articles have gone a long way in helping people understand the stemmatic and Majority views, but in my opinion, have not gone far enough or been clear enough on certain points (not to say that that was his purpose anyway). *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Mon Dec 4 17:53:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10205; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 17:53:24 +0500 Message-Id: <00000EED.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 13:18:15 CST From: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien) To: behrman@email.unc.edu (Bart Ehrman), TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-Hologate: 1.1.7b2 Lines: 605 Content-Length: 823 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Original message sent on Fri, Dec 1 6:28 AM by behrman@email.unc.edu (Bart Ehrman) : > As the pay-off is not all that significant in the long run anyway, I'm > firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply > for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary > delays in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual > data at our disposal. Dr. Ehrman, I appreciated your comments. However, I still have some questions about doing quantitative analysis against the TR. Dan Wallace argues (and to some extent has shown in the classroom) that comparing MSS against the TR can be misleading when classifying them. I believe that Tim Ralston also demonstrated this to be true in his work. I'd be interested in your opinion here. Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary From majordom Mon Dec 4 18:50:15 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10331; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:50:15 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 17:48:01 -0600 (CST) From: SEM_MED@centum.utulsa.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <951204174801.2502faf6@centum.utulsa.edu> Subject: Paragraph marks in Codex Vaticanus Content-Length: 1121 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I am a newcomer to textual criticism, having been led here by my research on the sound of Greek in the Hellenistic period. My dissertation analyzes the aural features of a text, the sounds an audience would have heard in a public recitation, to determine a text's organizational structure and clues to its meaning. My work on the Sermon on the Mount observes that it is aurally organized into eight sections of varying lengths, each of which contains repeated aural patterns and syntactic structures. I was surprised to find that the paragraph marks in Vaticanus divide the text into units that cohere with the text's aural organization. Further, I noticed that aural data can often adjudicate among the various textual witnesses and shed light on otherwise intractable text critical problems. I am wondering whether any subscribers to tc-list might have thoughts or resources to suggest concerning the Vaticanus paragraph marks so I might pursue the possibility of their consistency with the text's aural organization. Thank you for your attention. Margaret E. Dean Graduate Student Melbourne College of Divinity From majordom Mon Dec 4 19:22:20 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10414; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:22:20 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:19:42 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: "Mark O'Brien" Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: <00000EED.sm@dts.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2011 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Mark, Certainly if one compares MSS *only* in places of variation from the TR, the quantitative analysis will be skewed. This was clearly shown by Colwell and repeatedly by Fee and others. THe problem with this approach (typical of dissertations done in the 50s, e.g.) is that it fails to assess the quantifiable agreements of MSS in places where they do *not* differ from TR. I hope, though, that Dan Wallace wasn't suggesting (in fact, I'm sure he wasn't, since he knows all the literature on this) that merely choosing the TR as the collation base could effect the quantitative analysis. In fact, the collation base is completely immaterial, so long as one considers both agreements and disagreements of all mss with it in readings that are judged to be genetically significant. I have a reasonably full history of research on this question that I spun off my dissertation in the mid 80's, "Methodological Developments in the Analysis and Classificatin of NT Documentary Evidence," _Novum Testamentum_ 29 (1987) 22-45. Hope this is what you wanted to know. -- Bart D. Ehrman On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote: > > Original message sent on Fri, Dec 1 6:28 AM by behrman@email.unc.edu (Bart > Ehrman) : > > > As the pay-off is not all that significant in the long run anyway, I'm > > firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply > > for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary > > delays in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual > > data at our disposal. > > Dr. Ehrman, > > I appreciated your comments. However, I still have some questions > about doing quantitative analysis against the TR. Dan Wallace argues > (and to some extent has shown in the classroom) that comparing MSS > against the TR can be misleading when classifying them. I believe that > Tim Ralston also demonstrated this to be true in his work. I'd be > interested in your opinion here. > > Mark O'Brien > Dallas Theological Seminary > From majordom Mon Dec 4 23:55:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10980; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:55:24 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: "Dale M. Wheeler" Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: <199512042134.NAA17107@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3983 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > This is a general misconception of what Hodges and Farstad were trying to > accomplish with their text. The point was not to produce a Majority text > for its own sake, rather it was to show the nature of rigorous stemmatics > applied to the history of the transmission of the mss. I would differ somewhat with that assessment, since they admittedly only applied this principle to the Pericope Adultera and the book of Revelation, due to the amount of data they had at hand. Admittedly, they would have liked to apply their stemmatic conceptions to the remainder of the Greek NT, but were unable to do so, due to limitations of available data. > It is their > contention that if stemmatics were applied to the entirety of the NT mss, > the Majority type of text would in fact be shown to be the progenitor of all > the various "text-types," and thus represent the original. This in fact is NOT what their own stemmatic explorations led to. The Ma group in Revelation with only 19% support was declared by them (on what in my opinion were wholly inadequate grounds) to be the progenitor of all other groups, including the circa 40% Andreas group and the 40% Q group. They simply did NOT declare a single "majority" group to be the origin of all the others, but a minority sub-group -- and this alone totally nullifies their basic theory, since they declare they would follow a similar methodology throughout the NT were sufficient data available. Wallace correctly labeled it something like the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic (Minority) Text" position, which it truly is, rather than a real "pro-Byzantine" or "majority text" position. > I don't think one should understand Hodges' conclusion that > the statistical majority does not represent the original to be an indication > of his forsaking the majority opinion, but rather as a clear indicator of > the fact that he believes that rigorous stemmatics is the only way to "find" > the original (it also shows that his approach was NEVER counting > manuscripts; his "Majority" text was based on the above-mentioned working > theory that the Byz/Maj would stand at the top of a rigorous NT stemma). When an approach claiming to be "majority" becomes subsumed under minority stemmatics, something in the terminology needs to change. If you want a text of Revelation which is far more "majority" in nature, my own reconstruction will give a clear example of such, based not at all on stemmatics, but upon Colwell's 70% threshold plus internal evidence analysis in places where support is more evenly divided. As Wallace has noted, I am far more of a "true Burgonite" than either Hodges and Farstad on this point. > I hasten to add that Maurice's view of the history of the > manuscripts is also not as simple-minded as simply counting mss (ie., he has > a reason for choosing it, whether one agrees with his working theory or > not). And I thank you for making this clear to all and sundry, so I won't have to explain why "counting noses" is NOT the procedure followed in a pro-Byzantine theory. *8-) > Indeed, Maurice's text would probably be preferable for a collating > base..which is what we were talking about in the first place. And again, I really prefer that everyone continue using the TR (Oxford 1873 edition, standard for the IGNTP). The issue of a collating base is not all that important. The primary issue is utilizing a standard base which all can readily consult and which all collations can readily be compared with. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Dec 5 00:02:50 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11009; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 00:02:50 +0500 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 00:00:29 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: "Mark O'Brien" Cc: Bart Ehrman , TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: <00000EED.sm@dts.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2008 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote: > Dr. Ehrman, > > I appreciated your comments. However, I still have some questions > about doing quantitative analysis against the TR. Dan Wallace argues > (and to some extent has shown in the classroom) that comparing MSS > against the TR can be misleading when classifying them. I believe that > Tim Ralston also demonstrated this to be true in his work. I'd be > interested in your opinion here. Although addressed to Bart (who can well speak for himself on this matter), I would fully concur that, for quantitative analysis, data based solely on a collation against the TR would be misleading. But so too would collation data against the N27 or any other text, if taken alone. Wallace himself knows or should know that the only way in which data concerning the interrelationship of MSS to each other can be assessed is to pair every individual MS against every other MS surveyed and then to calculate a percentage agreement. This however, does NOT reflect a mere following of a collation, regardless of textbase, but the utilization of common collation data to facilitate the comparison of MS-to-MS. Only the percentage-pairs of agreement can help in classifying MS relationships -- not the collation base itself; but the raw data for pair-agreements can readily be extracted from any collations, so long as the MSS were collated against the same base text. (I should also stress the need for analyzing MSS not only book by book, but even chapter by chapter, since MSS often change textual character within a single book). ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Dec 5 01:47:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11127; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:47:24 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:45:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199512050645.WAA04469@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Content-Length: 1444 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk You're welcome... I actually think that we are in agreement about the nature and purpose of what Hodges & Farstad were trying to do. As I said, it was an "unfortunate" accident of history that precisely the book which has the most distinctively different textual history was also the book which Hodges chose to show the application of stemmatics to...because it had the most complete analysis (Hoskier, Schmidt)...because it had the most distinctively different textual history...Whew......... Such a situation left them in, to say the least, an awkward position. I think its fair to say that they both believe that if such a stemmatic reconstruction were to be applied to the rest of the NT, the Byz text would stand at the top of the stemma (whether that would truly be the case is another issue altogether), thus the title--for better or worse-- "Majority Text." Besides, who'd want to buy the "Stemmatically-reconstructed Text" or the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic(Minority) Text"...somehow they just don't quite have the right ring to them.... :-) *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Tue Dec 5 17:25:40 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13218; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:25:40 +0500 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:23:17 -0500 (EST) From: Elston Gunn To: "Dale M. Wheeler" Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: <199512050645.WAA04469@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2057 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > I think its fair to say that they both believe that if > such a stemmatic reconstruction were to be applied to the rest of the NT, > the Byz text would stand at the top of the stemma (whether that would truly > be the case is another issue altogether), thus the title--for better or > worse-- "Majority Text." I still retain some doubts on this score, particularly in light of a (currently) privately-circulated paper by Wilbur Pickering in which he devastates what remains valid in any sort of "majority text" theory by advocating a particular variant reading in Ac.12:25 supported by a mere 5% of the MS base -- even though the Byzantine reading is secure (though slightly less than the optimal 70%) with 60% support. Pickering's rationale for this strange situation is not stemmatics like H/F, but merely his conclusion that the Byzantine reading as it stands does not square with his concepts of biblical inerrancy, and thus "must" be wrong, even though most scribes went for it.....If "majority text" theory keeps heading for minority text readings, whether stemmatically-based or on the basis of the theological whims of the critic, I fail to see how any meaningful "majority text theory" can remain. > Besides, who'd want to buy the "Stemmatically-reconstructed Text" or the > "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic(Minority) Text"...somehow they just don't quite > have the right ring to them.... :-) Neither (in my opinion) does the term "majority text" have the right ring. One reason I consider my position one of "Byzantine-priority," which begs no questions regarding number. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Wed Dec 6 12:47:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15443; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:47:24 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:45:03 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951206124502_46364305@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: SEM_MED@centum.utulsa.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Paragraph marks in Codex Vaticanus Content-Length: 2859 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-12-04 18:53:10 EST, SEM_MED@centum.utulsa.edu writes: >I am wondering whether any subscribers to tc-list might have thoughts >or resources to suggest concerning the Vaticanus paragraph marks so I >might pursue the possibility of their consistency with the text's >aural organization. > >Thank you for your attention. > >Margaret E. Dean >Graduate Student >Melbourne College of Divinity Margaret, I don't have a copy of Vaticanus here, but I did get to look at photocopies of a couple leaves of that manuscript I had handy. Looking at the leaf of Luke 7:14-38, the kephala (paragraph markings) are the letters with a line drawn over them to indicate that they are numbers. They look like a simple number system of the chapters: NA, NB, NG (=51, 52, 53). They are probably later additions to the mss by another hand other than the copiest. (Aren't they in a different color ink? I can't remember and my copy is only B&W :( In other words, these divisions aren't necessarily the ones the author of the text was thinking of. Based upon the biblical writers use of chaistic structure, alliterations, etc, its pretty clear as they were writing, they were thinking of their aural audience listening to a reader of their writing, as was the common practice (Rev. 1:3) (as you well know). The early papyri do not have paragraph markings or divisions. The editor who put them in Vaticanus may have had aural divisions in mind, or not. I have no trouble believing that the editor was astute enough to be aware of this. By the time they were added to the mss, there were surely other reasons for marking paragraphs, such as for lectionary reading. You may also want to take a look at another method for chapter division common in the NT manuscripts (eg, Sinaiticus), called the Eusebian Canon. Eusebius divided the gospel texts into "kephalalia" (chapters). And it is also an *indexing* system for the gospels and was intended to be used as a method for providing a synopsis of the Gospels. The bottom number is the canon (or index) number. Each canon represents a relationship of passages in the 4 gospels. Canon I references material common to all four. Canons II - IV indexes materials common to 3 gospels. Canons V - IX indexes passages common to 2 gospels. Canon X indexes (in four lists) unique passages in each of the gospels. You can find Eusebius' letter to Carpian explaining this in the intro material in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, 26th ed. on pages [73*]-[74*]. The Eusebian indexes follow. I noticed that the kephala markings in the Vaticanus leaf I examined matched that of the Eusebian kephala, except that Eusebius had a few more divisions. I hope this wasn't too basic for your needs, and was maybe along the lines of what you were looking for. Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com From majordom Wed Dec 6 12:47:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15442; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:47:24 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:45:00 -0500 From: Timster132@aol.com Message-Id: <951206124459_46364269@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com, dalemw@teleport.com Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Content-Length: 1277 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-12-05 mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com (Elston Gunn) writes: > Pickering's >rationale for this strange situation is not stemmatics like H/F, but >merely his conclusion that the Byzantine reading as it stands does not >square with his concepts of biblical inerrancy, and thus "must" be wrong, >even though most scribes went for it.....If "majority text" theory keeps >heading for minority text readings, whether stemmatically-based or on the >basis of the theological whims of the critic, I fail to see how any >meaningful "majority text theory" can remain. Isn't that the point? H&F believe in an omnipotent God who has providentially preserved the text and that conviction has led them to try proving the "Majority text" position with their stemma, etc. Likewise, Pickering's belief of inerrancy leads him to pick and chose a text that supports his beliefs. Maurice Robinson stands out from the crowd, in that his devotion to the Byzantine text family is based squarely on his interpretation of textual transmission. He and I don't see eye to eye on textual transmission, but I appreciate his approach much more than that of H/F. BTW, is anyone on the list proficient at reading Greek miniscule cursive? Tim Staker Timster132@aol.com From majordom Wed Dec 6 14:22:08 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15767; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:22:08 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:19:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199512061919.LAA13164@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR Content-Length: 2481 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk > Isn't that the point? H&F believe in an omnipotent God who has providentially >preserved the text and that conviction has led them to try proving the "Majority >text" position with their stemma, etc. I'm not trying to defend H&F or their theory here, but this again is another misconception about their view. There are those who start from providential preservation of the text, but H&F do not. The real issue in interacting with their work is whether they are correctly using stemmatics and whether their stemmatic reconstructions are valid, nothing more and nothing less. At the heart of Hodges' criticism of the way "stemmatics" is done nowadays in NT TC is that the maxim used is "community of agreement implies community of origin." But normally the maxim is "community of error implies community of origin." The latter is more difficult for most of us to track since the "blemishes" of the papyrii and uncials are not readily visible in the NA footnotes (even less so in UBS). I note as an aside that this is a standard argument presented by Eclectics, Equal Prioritists (Sturz), and Byz prioritists against current textual theory and practice, based on the observations of Zuntz, Colwell, etc. Whether it is a valid concern is again difficult to tell since (electronic ??) copies of the earliest texts are still not easily available for side by side comparisons at each point of the text to see the nature of their errors. >Likewise, Pickering's belief of >inerrancy leads him to pick and chose a text that supports his beliefs. I'm not sure that Pickering should be lumped in with H&F anymore either. He has, as far as I can tell, rejected the stemmatic argument. I was under the impression that he had moved closer to Maurice's position...but maybe not. At any rate, while I think that he would still agree (??) with H&F on much philosophically, I don't think his conclusions can be used to define or understand their position. I must admit that I'm not totally current on all the moving around, but I think this is fairly accurate. Maurice, I'm sure, would know. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Wed Dec 6 21:02:55 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16767; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:02:55 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:00:36 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: <951206124459_46364269@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1268 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Dec 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 95-12-05 mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com > Maurice Robinson writes: > > >heading for minority text readings, whether stemmatically-based or on the > >basis of the theological whims of the critic, I fail to see how any > >meaningful "majority text theory" can remain. > > Isn't that the point? H&F believe in an omnipotent God who has > providentially preserved the text and that conviction has led them to > try proving the "Majority text" position with their stemma, etc. > Likewise, Pickering's belief of inerrancy leads him to pick and chose a > text that supports his beliefs. But if the result does not reflect the "majority", H/F or Pickering are being quite hypocritical. Why not call their text the "theologically-correct" text instead of the "majority text"? > Maurice Robinson stands out from the crowd, in that his devotion to the > Byzantine text family is based squarely on his interpretation of textual > transmission. He and I don't see eye to eye on textual transmission, but I > appreciate his approach much more than that of H/F. I appreciate that comment.... > BTW, is anyone on the list proficient at reading Greek miniscule cursive? I am, for one.... From majordom Wed Dec 6 21:06:25 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16782; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:06:25 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:04:07 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Paragraph marks in Codex Vaticanus In-Reply-To: <951206124502_46364305@emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 823 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Dec 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote: > The early papyri do not have paragraph markings or divisions. > The editor who put them in Vaticanus may have had aural divisions in mind, > or not. I have no trouble believing that the editor was astute enough to be > aware of this. By the time they were added to the mss, there were surely > other reasons for marking paragraphs, such as for lectionary reading. > I am not certain whether the original reference was to the sectional markings (which were added later) or to certain lines in which the initial letter is set off to the left to indicate a paragraph or sorts (which is due to the original scribe). That there was some sort of early paragraphing utilized in Vaticanus is certain; whether it agrees with later divisions would have to be verified. From majordom Wed Dec 6 21:47:30 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16859; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:47:30 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:45:10 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson Cc: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR In-Reply-To: <199512061919.LAA13164@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 7270 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > > Isn't that the point? H&F believe in an omnipotent God who has > > providentially preserved the text and that conviction has led them to > > try proving the "Majority text" position with their stemma, etc. > > I'm not trying to defend H&F or their theory here, but this again is another > misconception about their view. There are those who start from providential > preservation of the text, but H&F do not. I again would differ slightly. Hodges is the stemmatician. Farstad basis his position squarely on providential preservation as a primary criterion. Even with his stemmatic approach, I think Hodges still makes far too much of the "theological argument" regarding providential preservation than should be the case. It is far easier to simply acknowledge that, IF providential preservation has occurred, it is reflected in the sheer quantity of data preserved in MSS, Versions and Patristic writings. No questions should be begged as to "which texttype" or "which MS" reflects the one and only "providentially preserved" autograph. Pickering, however, especially takes pains to declare that ONLY the "majority text" is the true text, and that precisely because it is the majority -- that is why I object to his hypocrisy in arguing for a 5% minority reading in Acts 12.25, merely because the majority in that case "cannot be correct" since it violates his theological views regarding inerrancy. He can't have it both ways. Further objection can be made to even Hodges' approach when he declares openly that readings with 80% or more support MUST be original on the basis of statistics, and then turns around and defends at least 30 readings in Revelation which possess only 19% support versus the remainder. Neither statistics nor theological presuppositions can absolve them from gutting their own theoretical position by their methodological practice. > The real issue in interacting > with their work is whether they are correctly using stemmatics and whether > their stemmatic reconstructions are valid, nothing more and nothing less. I would suggest their own internal methodological contradictions as the place to begin, not with their stemmatics. I do object to the stemmatic approach as they implement it, because (as I have interacted with them in private correspondence) they automatically accept both Von Soden's stemmatic data in the Pericope Adultera and Hoskier's stemmatic groupings in the Apocalypse, both of which are questionable (Hoskier deliberately arranged his groupings to help "prove" that the autograph of Revelation was trilingual -- Greek, Latin, and Syriac! Von Soden left no real data to prove the validity of his m-groups in the Pericope Adultera). Also, they misuse stemmatics in that they consider agreement in reading to be evidence of relationship whereas a proper stemmatic approach (cf. Dom Henri Quentin, for example), would establish stemmatic interrelationships on the basis of shared agreement in plain and clear error. If the classical approach is rejected, I have little doubt that any stemmatic relationships claimed based upon mere agreement of reading will be invalid. You have the point correctly stated below, but the fact is that H/F DO base their stemmatic conclusions precisely on the "community of agreement" principle and make NO attempt to seek out "community of error" (which would require detailed study of Hoskier's collation data beyond what H/F chose to do): > At the heart of Hodges' criticism of the way "stemmatics" is done nowadays > in NT TC is that the maxim used is "community of agreement implies community > of origin." But normally the maxim is "community of error implies community > of origin." The latter is more difficult for most of us to track since the > "blemishes" of the papyrii and uncials are not readily visible in the NA > footnotes (even less so in UBS). Again, the hard data is there in Hoskier. The problem is that no one wants to dig it out and seriously deal with it. I hope eventually to have a student do a thesis or dissertation utilizing Hoskier to attempt a new stemmatic grouping based solely upon the agreement in error principle. > I'm not sure that Pickering should be lumped in with H&F anymore either. He > has, as far as I can tell, rejected the stemmatic argument. Although he should not be lumped in with H/F, Pickering has not actually rejected the stemmatic approach, but has chosen to follow other subgroups. E.g., in the Pericope Adultera, he favors Von Soden's m7 group, where H/F favor the m6 group; in Revelation, he favors the Mc group rather than H/F's Ma group. He supplements the stemmatic approach with his theological interpretative criteria and also lays great stress on the "reading which best explains all of the other readings" approach. He thus ends up a blend of electicism, stemmatics, and theological bias -- which in my opinion is no way to do textual criticism. > I was under the > impression that he had moved closer to Maurice's position...but maybe not. As described above -- not. *8-) As last related to me during a visit this Fall, he basically has decided for the remainder of the NT (outside of the Revelation and Pericope Adultera) to favor the Kr subgroup, which is a very small group of about 200 later Byzantine MSS from about the 12th-14th centuries. His rationale for favoring such is based upon a "continual purification" model of MS transmission, in which he assumes (wrongly) that "the later the MSS, the closer they will return to the autograph." My own position would be closer to that of Scrivener in that I could personally dispense with all MSS after the 10th century, with my basic theory remaining unaffected. I do argue that the Byzantine text in the later MSS does reflect a "restoration" of the autograph by natural processes of cross-comparison and correction, but the result of this process (which began shortly after the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine) was already mostly complete by the end of the 5th century. > At any rate, while I think that he would still agree (??) with H&F on much > philosophically, I don't think his conclusions can be used to define or > understand their position. I must admit that I'm not totally current on all > the moving around, but I think this is fairly accurate. Maurice, I'm sure, > would know. I definitely do not think H/F and Pickering see eye to eye on much anymore, just as I do not see eye to eye with either party (for the record, I have never in any way been dependent upon them in the development of my own views, nor have I ever been a member of their "Majority Text Society"; my own text-critical training came from Kenneth W. Clark in the period 1972-1977, and I progressed from there). ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Thu Dec 7 05:24:25 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA17405; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 05:24:25 +0500 Message-Id: To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:54:20 GMT Subject: Collation against MT vs. TR X-Pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Content-Length: 460 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk The original query from Mark O'Brien (1 Dec.) concerned why one should stick to using the TR. For a justification of the IGNTP approach, see my 'The IGNTP: the Gospel of John', NTS 36 (1990), 157-160, p. 159. I would also like to emphasize that collation is a convenient means of recording data, but NOT a tool for analysing it. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From majordom Thu Dec 7 06:31:27 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA17497; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 06:31:27 +0500 Message-Id: To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:36:21 GMT Subject: Paragraph marks in Vaticanus X-Pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Content-Length: 1732 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I refer to Margaret Dean's query of 4 December. You need to distinguish between different systems. By paragraph marks, do you mean the chapter divisions? For the Gospels, the system in B is shared only with 040, Codex Zacynthius. There are two separate systems in Acts and the Paulines. See the material on the Euthalian apparatus, including J.A. Robinson, Euthaliana (TS 3.3), Cambridge, 1895. Generally, see C.M. Martini, Il Problema della recensionalita del codice B alla luce del papiro Bodmer XIV (AnBib 26), Rome, 1966, p.4f. There are no Eusebian Canons in B (the system is quite different from that in B). For chapter marks and other aids generally, see Metzger's MSS of the Greek Bible, esp. pp.40ff and 74. The chapters in the Gospels divide the text into units of sense. Whether that is due to aural or literary organization is not something that one could conclude from this evidence, so far as I can see. The use of paragraphs is a fairly obvious way of making life easier, especially in texts written in scriptio continua (no space between words). Tim Staker is not correct in saying that there are no divisions in early papyri. For example, the now well-publicised P64 +P67 +P4 has divisions. So does P75 (& see Martini, op. cit, p. 45, which is certainly relevant for you). P66 makes some attempt by the use of points to divide up the text. In fact I can't think of any papyrus I've seen that is long enough to be expected to show them, that doesn't. There may be some helpful material in R. Devreesse, Introduction a l'etude des MSS grecs, Paris, 1954. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From majordom Fri Dec 8 00:51:28 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20993; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 00:51:28 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 00:51:23 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: test - please ignore Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 246 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Test from listowner. Please ignore. 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 Fri Dec 8 01:22:06 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21088; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 01:22:06 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:19:20 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: Maurice Robinson Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Paragraph marks in Codex Vaticanus In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 775 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk I've just had a look at my transcription of Vaticanus. Unlike other uncials, Vaticanus does not use the left indent to mark paragraphs (in Hebrews, at least). The only indication of paragraphing is occasional spacing following stops. Tim Finney Baptist Theological College 20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102 Australia On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Maurice Robinson wrote: > I am not certain whether the original reference was to the sectional > markings (which were added later) or to certain lines in which the > initial letter is set off to the left to indicate a paragraph or sorts > (which is due to the original scribe). That there was some sort of early > paragraphing utilized in Vaticanus is certain; whether it agrees with > later divisions would have to be verified. > From majordom Fri Dec 8 08:11:17 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21598; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:11:17 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 7:09:07 -0600 (CST) From: SEM_MED@centum.utulsa.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <951208070907.2504e4e2@centum.utulsa.edu> Subject: Vaticanus units-clarification Content-Length: 540 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk To clarify my earlier question concerning paragraph marks in Codex Vaticanus, I am concerned with the divisions that are printed in the center margin in Nestle 25; not the kephalaia from Alexandrinus but the (usually smaller) unit divisions that come from Vaticanus, at least according to Aland's Introduction. I do not have access to a copy of the manuscript and am looking for information about those marks on the manuscript and others's work on their use and meaning. Thank you. Margaret E. Dean Melbourne College of Divinity From majordom Fri Dec 8 13:46:40 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23195; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:46:40 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:46:35 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: test - ignore Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 267 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk This is another test of tc-list-digest. Please ignore it. 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 Fri Dec 8 13:52:50 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23258; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:52:50 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:52:46 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: another test - ignore Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 264 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Yet another test of tc-list-digest. Please ignore it. 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 Fri Dec 8 14:24:29 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23462; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:24:29 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:24:24 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: test - once again Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 257 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Another test of tc-list-digest. Please ignore. 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 Fri Dec 8 14:51:29 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23706; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:51:29 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:51:23 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: test of tc-list-digest Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 261 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Another test of the tc-list-digest. Please ignore. 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 Fri Dec 8 16:37:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00443; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 16:37:35 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 16:37:29 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: test - delete Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 249 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Test of tc-list-digest. Please ignore. 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 Fri Dec 8 21:22:00 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01007; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:22:00 +0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:19:41 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Paragraph marks in Codex Vaticanus In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 908 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Timothy John Finney wrote: > I've just had a look at my transcription of Vaticanus. Unlike other > uncials, Vaticanus does not use the left indent to mark paragraphs (in > Hebrews, at least). The only indication of paragraphing is occasional > spacing following stops. I will have to look at my microfilm copy once more. I was under the impression that certain lines were left-indented in Vaticanus as well as in Sinaiticus (where I know for certain they exist). ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sat Dec 9 01:17:43 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01314; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 01:17:43 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 01:15:24 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Identification of a BHS siglum In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 755 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Hello, BHS uses a siglum to refer to a particular manuscript of the LXX. However, I cannot seem to figure out which manuscript that is, and the Prolegomena does not seem to have this siglum in its list. The siglum is a Gothic G with a rather sickly-looking theta to its right in superscript (as well as a ' marker next to this letter). An example of it may be seen in notes d and e to Daniel 7:1. My first guess was that this refers to a recension of LXX by Theodotion. However, I have no idea if Theodotion ever did a recension of the LXX. Also, I have not read much Greek outside of very modern, standardized tyepfaces. Am I correct to assume that this is an alternate form of a theta? thank you all very much, cheers, andrew gross From majordom Sat Dec 9 14:40:55 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02257; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:40:55 +0500 Message-Id: <199512091938.TAA21424@GPO.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 19:38:54 +0000 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: Identification of a BHS siglum Content-Length: 1659 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk At 01:15 09/12/95 -0500, Andrew Gross wrote:> >Hello, > >BHS uses a siglum to refer to a particular manuscript of the LXX. >However, I cannot seem to figure out which manuscript that is, and the >Prolegomena does not seem to have this siglum in its list. The siglum is >a Gothic G with a rather sickly-looking theta to its right in superscript >(as well as a ' marker next to this letter). > >An example of it may be seen in notes d and e to Daniel 7:1. My first >guess was that this refers to a recension of LXX by Theodotion. However, >I have no idea if Theodotion ever did a recension of the LXX. Also, I >have not read much Greek outside of very modern, standardized tyepfaces. >Am I correct to assume that this is an alternate form of a theta? > > Andrew: There is a small booklet with a thumb-nail index called " An English Key to the Latin words and Abbreviations and the Symbols of B.H.S " which is _supposed_ to be given free with copies of B.H.S sold in English-speaking countries . This has a one-page " Signs and Versions " listing which actually gives information which is clearer than that in 'Siglia et Compendia Apparatum' on LXIV ff. of the B.H.S You are quite right, the siglum to which your refer is indeed listed as: " Theodotion's Greek Translation of the OT" For information on this edition, you might like to consult: Swete, Henry B. " An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek " [originally published Cambridge 1914 but reprinted in a nicely bound -- and very reasonably priced -- edition by Hendrickson 1989] Regards, Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ] mauros@iol.ie [using Eudora Pro v 2.1.2 ] From majordom Sat Dec 9 15:04:59 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02373; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 15:04:59 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 15:02:39 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Identification of a BHS siglum In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 889 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Andrew Gross wrote: > BHS uses a siglum to refer to a particular manuscript of the LXX. > However, I cannot seem to figure out which manuscript that is, and the > Prolegomena does not seem to have this siglum in its list. The siglum is > a Gothic G with a rather sickly-looking theta to its right in superscript > (as well as a ' marker next to this letter). > > An example of it may be seen in notes d and e to Daniel 7:1. My first > guess was that this refers to a recension of LXX by Theodotion. However, > I have no idea if Theodotion ever did a recension of the LXX. Also, I > have not read much Greek outside of very modern, standardized tyepfaces. > Am I correct to assume that this is an alternate form of a theta? Quite definitely this is to the Theodotian recension of Daniel, which can be seen more clearly in Rahlfs' edition of the LXX. From majordom Sat Dec 9 17:00:40 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02653; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 17:00:40 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 17:05:33 -0400 To: Andrew Gross , tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Identification of a BHS siglum Content-Length: 551 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk If I may be forgiven another (slightly) related question: In the BHS (and most other sources) what is the character that is used as the standard siglum for the Samaritan Pentateuch? (I know what the character looks like --sort of like a loopy, upside-down "M". What I'm trying to determine is what the symbol is. A variant/script Shin?) Thanks Nichael "... and they opened their thesaurus nichael@sover.net and brought forth gold, http://www.sover.net/~nichael and frankincense and myrrh." From majordom Sat Dec 9 23:29:25 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03396; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 23:29:25 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 23:29:19 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: test of tc-list-digest Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 248 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk test of tc-list-digest - please ignore 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 Sat Dec 9 23:43:08 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03469; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 23:43:08 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 23:43:03 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: digest - looks like it's working! Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 272 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk One more (hopefully the last) test of digest. Please ignore. 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 Sun Dec 10 01:46:54 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03890; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 01:46:54 +0500 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 01:46:49 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: digest test - final??? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 240 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk test of digest - please ignore 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 Sun Dec 10 02:27:49 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04011; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 02:27:49 +0500 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 02:27:43 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: Andrew Gross Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Identification of a BHS siglum In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1334 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Andrew Gross wrote: > BHS uses a siglum to refer to a particular manuscript of the LXX. > However, I cannot seem to figure out which manuscript that is, and the > Prolegomena does not seem to have this siglum in its list. The siglum is > a Gothic G with a rather sickly-looking theta to its right in superscript > (as well as a ' marker next to this letter). Andrew, As noted already by Maurice A. O'Sullivan, the theta does refer to the Theodotionic version of Daniel. You can find this fact documented in BHS itself at the beginning of the critical apparatus of Daniel 1:1. Though identified with Theodotion, the translation actually predates the fourth century (and the first, since it is quoted in the NT), as so is more properly called Ur-Theodotion (apparently distinct from the 2nd century proto-Theodotion--some would deny any connection with the Theodotionic tradition). Only one complete ms of LXX-Daniel exists, ms 88. It is joined by the Syro-Hexapla and another incomplete Greek ms (967) as the primary witnesses to LXX-Daniel. Almost all other witnesses are Th-Daniel. 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 Sun Dec 10 02:34:51 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04036; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 02:34:51 +0500 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 02:31:36 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@larry To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: test message Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 248 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk this is a test message - please ignore 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 Sun Dec 10 23:04:23 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05975; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 23:04:23 +0500 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 23:04:18 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Re: Identification of a BHS siglum In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 588 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > If I may be forgiven another (slightly) related question: In the BHS (and > most other sources) what is the character that is used as the standard > siglum for the Samaritan Pentateuch? Nichael, The siglum used for the Samaritan Pentateuch is a 'shin' (abbreviation for 'Samaritan' in Hebrew) written in the Samaritan script. 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 Dec 13 15:21:37 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16733; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:21:37 +0500 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 12:17:39 PST From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9512132017.AA00553@Np.nosc.mil> To: b-greek@virginia.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, nt-mss@entmp.org Subject: Book review of RJ Swanson: NT Greek Manuscripts Reply-To: broman@nosc.mil Content-Length: 6595 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [I'm posting this to three email lists; pardon if you see duplicates.] A couple of years ago, Santa brought me a copy of the IGNTP Luke. This year I couldn't wait for Santa, I ordered one of the first copies to come off the press of Swanson's mammoth new textual apparatus of the Gospels, which seems to be both innovative and exhaustive within its compass. _ _ ed. Swanson, Reuben J., _ "New Testament Greek Manuscripts: variant readings arranged _ in horizontal lines against Codex Vaticanus", _ Sheffield Acad. Press, Sheffield, Eng. and WCIU Press, Pasadena, CA 1995. Four soft-bound volumes covering the four gospels in Greek amount to xxi+304 pp., xix+271 pp., xx+420 pp., and xix+302 pp. The Foreword by Bruce Metzger and the Introduction by the editor are duplicated in each volume. The 71 witnesses collated for this new textual apparatus include the following: P1 P2 P5 P6 P19 P22 P25 P35 P36 P37 P39 P45(not the P46 named in the intro) P52 P53 P59 P60 P62 P63 P66 P75 P76 P82 01 A B C D E F G H K L M N P Q S T U W Y Gamma Delta Theta Lambda Pi Psi Omega 0171 1 2 13 28 33 69 118 124 157 565 579 700 788 1071 1346 1424 1582 Clement of Alexandria, TR Oxford 1873, Westcott-Hort, and UBS4. No versions, lectionaries, or Patres other than Clement appear in this work. Observing that most of these papyri are small fragments, and several other MSS are incomplete, I estimate the total number of collated witnesses attesting to any single verse would average about 45 or 46, a hefty trove of material, especially for the work of one man! Swanson collated all these himself, and did his own typing and typesetting. The main body of this work is organized on each page into two sections and four apparatuses. The first and main section presents the readings found in all the textual witnesses, vertically aligned to match up corresponding words in each reading, something like this.... EN OLH TH YUXH SOU KAI EN OLH TH ISXUI SOU KAI EN OLH TH DIANOIA EN OLH YUXH SOU KAI EN OLH ISXUI SOU KAI EN OLH TH DIANOIA EN OLH TH YUXH SOU KAI EC OLHS THS ISXUOS SOU KAI EN OLH TH DIANOIA EN OLH TH YUXH SOU KAI EC OLHS THS ISXUI SOU KAI EN OLH THS DIANOIAS EC OLHS THS YUXHS SOU KAI EC OLHS THS ISXUOS SOU KAI EC OLHS THS DIANOIAS Each text is quoted in full, but identical readings are collected on one line. In the right margin of each line of text are the sigla of the witnesses supporting that text. The reading of Vaticanus is always the first line, and the Majority reading generally appears last, if different. Three group sigla are used to save space and mental energy: Gothic M = E F G H S Y Omega f1 = 1 118 1582 f13 = 13 69 124 788 1346 and "rell" = all MSS not otherwise cited. Grouped MSS _are_ cited individually when they defect from their group. Swanson's finding that 1346 belongs to family 13 contradicts the opinions of von Soden, Geerlings, and Wisse, who classify it in family Pi. Readings of the first hand and the corrector are both cited, and brackets found in UBS4, WH, or TR editions are reflected in their citations. Accents, breathings, and punctuation appear on all texts, but these details seem not to be derived from the MSS but uniformly from the editor. The second section on each page lists MSS with lacunae (lacunibus?) on that page. Unfortunately, the papyri other than p45 are not listed here, and the only way to find where they are extant is to check elsewhere, e.g. the NA27 appendix. The extent of the text collated in each fragmentary MS can often differ from what is described by Aland, perhaps because the NA27 list of MSS combines fragments preserved at different sites under one siglum, if it seems that the fragments were originally part of one MS. Lacunae are indicated precisely in the main text by ellipses(...), nicely distinguishing the lacuna from the blank space needed to align shorter texts. The first apparatus lists spelling problems in the MSS. The spelling of names is fully documented in the main text section, but otherwise minor itacisms and transparent blunders are regularized in the main text and the original spelling noted here. This helps a lot in uncluttering the presentation of the evidence, and it also helps the reader identify individual scribal weaknesses and habits. The second apparatus documents the nomina sacra originally found in the MSS, before these abbreviations were expanded in the main text. The third apparatus documents the KEFALAIA, TITLOI, lection ARXH and TELOS marks, and incipit texts found in the MSS. The fourth apparatus lists the chapter and section numbers found in the margins and the Eusebian canon tables. Pericopes are labeled with English section headings derived from those in UBS4, with some Greek TITLOI, and with synoptic cross references. OT quotations are printed in bold, poetry is indented, and textual variations are highlighted by underlining. The Clement quotations are given with some context and the portion matching the scripture is underlined. A preliminary printing of the Matthew volume appeared in 1994 (which I won't discard because it contains an extra appendix of textual commentary for Matt ch. 1-19, not found in the final printing), and I did substantial work with this volume, transcribing the Freer Gospels text, and looking for singular readings in several uncials. I found the format clear and easy to work with. I did encounter some minor typographical glitches involving duplicate entries in the first apparatus, and I found three or four significant textual errors in 13:15, 13:42(W), 15:30, 19:30(W). I did not find any material differences at all between the two printings. Only time will make an assessment of overall accuracy possible, but Swanson appears to be a careful worker. This major publication is valuable both for its approachable format and its no-sparrow-may-fall full coverage of the material. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = 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 iQCVAwUBMM80YmCU4mTNq7IdAQGJUQP+M4zCK2fxP0s3JTFwH4qHRJ26e8gP1RI7 Jz+ycVny8T2qhFH9+upLDy7nM8K25JEvdcnvcHI+K89wSa3oA+GgMFlXh/o+6j8q hWQtA6fHJFqg59gnZhlpNJizAvDMZP7ogdMT9JFphYfs2gIVLdaMJfRa2dcxf66S 0QIq0o0Su3I= =IeE5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From majordom Thu Dec 21 09:05:05 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11682; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 09:05:05 +0500 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:02:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Dr DR de Lacey To: h-judaic@msu.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, msorion@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il Subject: New WWW site: The Genizah Research Unit Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 805 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk The Genizah Research Unit in the Cambridge University Library announces the opening of its new Web site. This will be dedicated to the publication of catalogues of the Genizah materials; bibliographies; and detailed studies of specific manuscripts. As a pilot study we shall first concentrate on a dozen MSS chosen to illustrate the range of the Genizah materials. The first of these is now available; together with general information and a basic bibliography.. We invite responses to this pilot to help guide us in this new venture. (And we apologise in advance if you receive multiple copies of this posting, or if you feel that our archives are not directly relevant to this particular group.) The URL is http://www.cam.ac.uk/Libraries/Taylor-Schechter Sincerely, Douglas de Lacey, Cambridge. From majordom Wed Dec 27 14:22:43 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02955; Wed, 27 Dec 1995 14:22:43 +0500 Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 14:22:38 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: parthenos in Isa 7:14 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 744 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Those of you on the Ioudaios list have already seen some discussion on this subject, but I think more could be said from a text-critical perspective. Does the fact that the LXX was transmitted exclusively by Christians (after a certain point) imply that parthenos was substituted in all available LXX mss in Isa 7:14 on the basis of Mt 1:23, replacing the earlier neanis? I doubt it myself. If not, then can we say with certainty that parthenos means "virgin" in Isa 7:14 rather than "young woman"? Again, I have my doubts. 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 Dec 28 14:59:42 1995 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04639; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:59:42 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:00:22 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: parthenos in Isa 7:14 Content-Length: 1345 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk >Mime-Version: 1.0 Jimmy Adair wrote; >Those of you on the Ioudaios list have already seen some discussion on >this subject, but I think more could be said from a text-critical >perspective. Does the fact that the LXX was transmitted exclusively by >Christians (after a certain point) imply that parthenos was substituted >in all available LXX mss in Isa 7:14 on the basis of Mt 1:23, replacing >the earlier neanis? I doubt it myself. If not, then can we say with >certainty that parthenos means "virgin" in Isa 7:14 rather than "young >woman"? Again, I have my doubts. I do not have a critical text of the LXX at home, but I am unaware of any mss of the LXX that read NEANIS instead of PARQENOS. That does not absolutely rule out the possibility but makes it unlikely. I would say that the Hebrew ALMAH means young woman and the Greek word PARQENOS normally means virgin. The evidence that ALMAH does not refer to a virgin in Is. 7 is the context in which that birth (or the child that was born) was a "sign" to Ahaz. It is possible that the translator of the LXX did not know the appropriate word for young woman in Greek. Later Greek translators avoid the word PARQENOS at this point. I posted this to the b-greek list by mistake. Sorry, Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net