From majordom Thu Feb 1 01:12:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27780; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:12:19 +0500 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:12:11 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Future subjunctive In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5536 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > KAUXHSWMAI may have been the more difficult reading when Paul wrote, but > > I would not think a more "normal" Pauline word would have been "more > difficult" in Paul's own day. True, it's a Pauline word, but it is used in an unusual manner (a hapax in conjunction with PARADW and SWMA! :-) ), so I can imagine a scribe might have wondered what exactly Paul was trying to say. If this reading is original, however, I would guess that the transition to KAUQH- was primarily unintentional, spurred by the similarity of sound more than any supposed difficulty with the text. > > True, it's not > > "good" Greek, but so many mss, particularly later ones, exhibit similar > > shifts in spelling, that the fact that it appears in the majority of mss > > does not seem very remarkable. > > The bigger problem is that it not only is "not good Greek" but it blatantly > appears erroneous by suggesting a non-existent future subjunctive! I fail > to see how scribes in the main would simply allow such an anomalous > reading to stand, and why the vast majority -- even if they did create the > reading "burnt" -- would not have at least followed suit with C D F G L et > al. and at least read something which was eminently grammatical. This is > a far greater matter than the mere issue of martyrdom. I'm obviously missing something here. My contention is that many scribes would have taken KAUQHSWMAI as equivalent to KAUQHSOMAI, just a phonetic variant (obviously some didn't, hence the -OMAI readings). What are you saying about KAUQHSWMAI, that it is really a future subjunctive, that it is blatantly erroneous, of something else? By the way, I think you, I, and Carlton Winbery all agree that KAUQHSWMAI is the middle term in this equation. The question is whether there is a lineal descent from KAUXHSWMAI to KAUQHSWMAI to KAUQHSOMAI or whether both of the other terms derived independently from an original KAUQHSWMAI. In either case, the certainly grammatical KAUQHSOMAI is not original, ne c'est pas? > The question of the frequency of copying MSS is moot. Some MSS might > never be copied, others extremely frequently. In the absence of proof > regarding which MSS were or were not copied at frequent rates, > statistically the evidence points to the fact that the Byzantine MSS and > they alone were those most frequently copied outside of local text > situations. WHY they were frequently copied is another matter altogether, > but I would venture that they were most frequently copied because they > reflected the text in general (not localized) use. Why conclude this and not rather that the Byzantine text was a local text tradition that happened to have been the one that was accepted, for whatever historical or theological reasons, by the majority of the church? I would venture to suggest that the text-type current in Constantinople would carry more sway than others, much as the bishops of Rome and later Constantinople carried more sway than their "equals" elsewhere. And if the Byzantine text was based on a local text, it was one that was younger by a century or two than the Alexandrian, Western, and probably other no-longer-extant text-traditions. A parallel from the text of the OT might be in order here. The present-day Masoretic Text (also an MT!) seems to be a collection of different types of text, some fuller (Jeremiah, Samuel) and others less full (Kings, Esther) than other mss of their day. Whether this situation reflects different local texts (Cross) or texts from different strata of society (Talmon) is immaterial for the present discussion. The point is that the text-types preserved in the MT were originally local (geographically or sociologically) texts, not official. > Unfortunately, what W-H advocated in such situations was basically > conjectural emendation, which their own principles would not permit. > Modern eclecticism, whether reasoned or rigorous, similarly eschews > conjecture (save for Aland's notorious Acts 16:12 case in the GNT3, now -- > at long last! -- finally "proven" by a few unnamed mss of the Vulgate). > Appeal to "primitive error" -- so far as I know -- has not been in vogue > since W-H; and such appeal establishes nothing in regard to the present case. > > I would be desirous in learning of the "numerous other instances" in > which a patently "more difficult" reading which is NOT considered to be > the original autograph text has been perpetuated in the mass of the MS > and versional traditions. The examples should be instructive. Conjectural emendation is certainly not in vogue in NT textual criticism. However, I believe that NT text criticism should take a cue from their OT counterparts on this issue and at least consider emendation for difficult passages such as the ones W-H mention. Those were the "numerous other instances" I was referring to (not to say that I would accept all of their proposals by any means, but there are a large number of them). Of course, it is more frequently the case that easier, secondary readings proliferate, readings that seem to characterize (in general) the Byzantine text-type more than the earlier ones, particularly the Alexandrian. But that opens up a whole new set of questions! 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 Feb 1 01:28:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27832; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:28:29 +0500 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:28:16 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Synoptic Harmonization In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2666 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > There is no conscious effort to harmonize; rather, it seems that > > isolated words (AGAQH in Mt 19:16, SOU in Lk 18:20, MOU in Lk 18:21) are > > supplied from one or another gospel (cf. also the addition of ARAS TON > > STAURON from another context in Mk 10:21 Byz; also TI ME LEGEIS AGAQON; > > OUDEIS AGAQOS EI MH O QEOS from Mk and Lk in Mt 19:17 Byz). > > I would agree with the primary claim that there is no conscious effort to > harmonize, either among the Byzantine MSS or the Alexandrian MSS as a whole. > I would not accept the texttype-specific examples given above, however, > since I also fully agree that it is only "isolated words" which tend to > become harmonized, and that basically occurring in "isolated MSS" and not > texttypes as a whole. I see a key methodological error (which began with > Westcott and Hort) in attributing to entire texttypes elements which > properly concern only individual elements of that texttype, and then only > in "isolated case" examples. Certainly attributing elements to an entire text-type that are characteristic of only a minority of its members is unjustified. However, all of the examples I listed above from the pericope of the Rich Young Ruler occur in the majority of the mss, not isolated Byzantine witnesses. > > Without any indicator of parablepsis, > > accidental omission of 16 letters seems unlikely. > > But which MSS are we talking about? Not a large number, but also not all > genetically (texttype) connected; this is of some significance. > > Aleph*, however, is corrected by a near-contemporary scribe in this place, > which could maximize the possibility of accidental line-omission in the > case of that MS (line-omission is known frequently to occur in Aleph). How many letters per line are there in a typical line-omission in Aleph. I don't count more than 14 letters in any line of Aleph itself, and many have fewer letters. Of course, I realize that the exemplar might have had 16 characters per line. Line omission was a central theme in A. C. Clark's (not the sci-fi writer!) _The Descent of Manuscripts_, in which he argued that the longer (Western) recension of Acts was closer to the original, since the shorter version was characterized by omissions whose lengths corresponded to a line or multiple lines (I can't recall the line length he used--was it perhaps 17 or 18 characters?). 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 Feb 2 19:20:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05215; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:20:40 +0500 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:18:03 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Future subjunctive In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 13775 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > True, it's a Pauline word, but it is used in an unusual manner (a hapax > in conjunction with PARADW and SWMA! :-) ) This is certain, but in that case almost any Pauline verse will have three words in close conjunction which ends up hapax. (The more words multiplied in a search request, obviously the fewer "hits" there will be). > so I can imagine a scribe > might have wondered what exactly Paul was trying to say. As Metzger noted in his commentary, even the reading KAUXHSWMAI would be problematic. Fact is, neither reading is hermeneutically simple; only that "boast" is a far more "normal" Pauline word in any context than is "burn" (which elsewhere occurs in Paul only in "it is better to marry than to burn", if I recall correctly). > I'm obviously missing something here. My contention is that many scribes > would have taken KAUQHSWMAI as equivalent to KAUQHSOMAI, just a phonetic > variant (obviously some didn't, hence the -OMAI readings). Even though there are numerous cases of individual MSS showing itacistic confusion of all types, in general such confusion (producing an "ungrammatical" form) does not occur in the primary MSS of a single texttype consistently, let alone in a single peculiar reading. Especially in the age of the minuscules, scribes might be more expected to correct grammatical anomalies, presuming an error in their exemplars, but in this case they made no correction, but allowed the anomaly to stand without alteration. This type of situation speaks rather strongly toward the originality of the anomalous form, even if we (and the vast majority of scribes) did not know how to regard the word. Since the scribes did not correct an apparent anomaly (which admitted of easy correction by changing the -W- to -O-), and since virtually everywhere else in the NT texttypes as a whole are generally precise on grammatical form and orthography, I cannot believe that the Byzantine reading reflects mere itacistic confusion. Something more is involved. > What are you > saying about KAUQHSWMAI, that it is really a future subjunctive, that it > is blatantly erroneous, of something else? With no other examples of Future Subjunctives in all of Greek literature, I would find it difficult to argue that Paul deliberately created a future subjunctive here in a context difficult enough of interpretation even with "correct" grammatical forms. I have no grammatical "solution" to this anomalous form, but I do believe the data fully supports that -SWMAI would be the original form. Look at the evidence: both the Alexandrian and the Byzantine reading end in -SWMAI; some which have the basic Byzantine reading "correctly" read -SOMAI; and why would more than a few dozen scribes at most deliberately or even accidentally change -SOMAI into -SWMAI, and then have such change not only remain uncorrected by subsequent scribes (especially in the more "grammatical" age of the minuscules), but also for such a peculiar reading to utterly dominate the manuscript tradition. I might be well prepared to defend what is the Byzantine reading on transcriptional grounds, but from an exegetical standpoint, I have no definite conclusion. > By the way, I think you, I, and Carlton Winbery all agree that KAUQHSWMAI > is the middle term in this equation. The question is whether there is a > lineal descent from KAUXHSWMAI to KAUQHSWMAI to KAUQHSOMAI or whether > both of the other terms derived independently from an original > KAUQHSWMAI. In either case, the certainly grammatical KAUQHSOMAI is not > original, ne c'est pas? That correctly reflects my opinion. Metzger in his Textual Commentary, however, seems to suggest that KAUQHSOMAI is the "true" Byzantine reading, which most Byzantine MSS have corrupted into KAUQHSWMAI. If Metzger were correct here, I would then conclude that the Alexandrian KAUXHSWMAI would be even a later development from the "corrupted" form. In either case, I still would not consider the Alexandrian reading to be original. > Why conclude this and not rather that the Byzantine text was a local text > tradition that happened to have been the one that was accepted, for > whatever historical or theological reasons, by the majority of the > church? Following the Streeter model of local text theory (which I believe is in the main correct), the local texts would originate from a basic text which was permeating the entire geographical spectrum. What would distinguish the local text from the base text would be the creation of purely localized variations, which variations would not spread by an normal transmissional means far beyond their original localities. Even were such local text MSS to arrive at different localities, those copying them would immediately or within one or two copying generations end up comparing and cross-correcting the "foreign" exemplar with one from their own locale, which for the most part would eliminate the "outside" local nature of subsequent copies. Over a lengthy period of time (speaking in terms of centuries), and especially with the freer communication and exchange of MSS following the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine, the same tendency would become more universalized. Rather than ONE local text growing and growing to dominate the field (which is transmissionally implausible in the extreme, given the situation of monks and copyists during most centuries), it is far more likely that the ongoing process of cross-comparison and correction would inexorably tend to bring all MSS slowly back to the original "universal" base text which existed before the localized variants were created, which "universal" base text could only be the autograph. It is far easier to view transmissional history from this type of a perspective than to create more and more implausible historical scenarios which would attempt to turn a "local text" into a dominant text -- something Streeter never suggested nor envisioned. > I would venture to suggest that the text-type current in > Constantinople would carry more sway than others, much as the bishops of > Rome and later Constantinople carried more sway than their "equals" > elsewhere. By this analogy, there should never have been the problems in the Old Latin text, with all its multifarious versions and alterations. Rome's use of the Latin should have been so influential that Jerome would never have needed to be commissioned to produce order (the Vulgate) out of chaos (the Old Latin texts). The history of the Greek MSS reflects clearly an era of uncontrolled popular transmission, up to around AD 200; however, there was no Greek Jerome commissioned or needed to restore textual uniformity and/or order out of the Greek MSS (claims regarding Lucian for the NT text lack all historical verifiability as well as plausibility). The Greek MSS, without official "control" or "sponsorship" of a single unified text, somehow by the normal processes of copying and correcting MSS, ended up with a basically unitary Textform in the Byzantine text. Yet there clearly are sufficient sub-groups within the Byzantine Textform and variations within individual Byzantine MSS to demonstrate that NO controls were ever sought or imposed in regard to that text. As I state in the introduction to my Greek NT edition, the reason for this is simple: barring a formally-commissioned revision in the manner or Jerome, the results of which are then dogmatically imposed by formal decree, "only a common pre-existing archetype will permit order ever to come out of chaos." > And if the Byzantine text was based on a local text, it was > one that was younger by a century or two than the Alexandrian, Western, > and probably other no-longer-extant text-traditions. On what basis can the Byzantine Textform be argued to be "younger" than the other texttype traditions? Certainly not from the arguments essayed by Westcott and Hort (conflation, harmonization, smoother readings, etc.), since each and every one of these allegations can be shown not to characterize the Byzantine text any more than in the leading witnesses of the other texttypes. Assuming that the Byzantine Text can be defended in any given portion of text on internal grounds (much as I have done for the 1Cor13:3 reading as well as the alleged harmonization reading earlier discussed), if such defense were to be extended sequentially from variant to variant within a pericope, a chapter, or an entire book, the cumulative result of continued defense of individual Byzantine readings would point directly to the originality of the Byzantine Textform as an entity. I maintain that such a variant-by-variant defense CAN be performed successfully, in which case internal evidence alone argues for Byzantine-priority as well as the the subsequent and secondary nature of the Alexandrian, Western, and other texttypes. As Colwell did say from within an eclectic perspective, "Hort has put genealogical blinders on our eyes." > A parallel from the text of the OT might be in order here. The > present-day Masoretic Text (also an MT!) seems to be a collection of > different types of text, some fuller (Jeremiah, Samuel) and others less > full (Kings, Esther) than other mss of their day. Whether this situation > reflects different local texts (Cross) or texts from different strata of > society (Talmon) is immaterial for the present discussion. The point is > that the text-types preserved in the MT were originally local > (geographically or sociologically) texts, not official. Without getting far into the nature of OT text criticism (since this is not germane to my discussion and also reflects a VERY different historical and transmissional situation), I would note that, insofar as the transmission of the purely Massoretic pointed text goes (being within the same centuries as the main manuscript transmission of the Greek NT text), the critical Leningrad B19a text -- even though Ben Asher -- basically reflects the Hebrew equivalent of the "Byzantine" text, since the Ben Asher and Ben Chayyim traditions vary little more than do the Kx and Kr traditions. In this case, the pertinent OT transmissional example supports the parallel Byzantine-priority model for the Greek NT. > Conjectural emendation is certainly not in vogue in NT textual > criticism. However, I believe that NT text criticism should take a cue > from their OT counterparts on this issue and at least consider emendation > for difficult passages such as the ones W-H mention. This goes beyond even the rigorous eclectics such as Kilpatrick and Elliott, and seems like a moving back in time to the era of W-H. I am perfectly willing to allow the labels "difficult" and "peculiar" to stand with regard to certain readings (and this even in the Alexandrian or Western texts), even if I cannot resolve them with certainty. In light of the wealth of MS, Versional, and Patristic date which we have, personally do not see any need for conjecture or suspecting "primitive error" as did W-H. > Of course, it is more frequently the case that easier, secondary > readings proliferate, I agree with this, and the evidence of individual MSS of all texttypes supports such an assumption. However, the "easy" readings never appear to dominate any single texttype, let alone the entire transmissional tradition. Yet if they were so much "easier" to the scribes, why then did they not act en masse in accordance with the "general tendency" which has been alleged to them? Only in the case of specific readings within the Byzantine Textform where that Textform happens to disagree with the currently-favored eclectic text are allegations as to the "general tendency of scribes" made to explain away the Byzantine reading as a thing inconvenient. Scholars should carefully study ALL the variant readings found among all MSS and notice how very many are "easier" or "harmonizing" or "fuller" or "expansions," etc., and then compare the total result with the amount alleged against the Byzantine Text. Had the scribes in any way acted consistently with their alleged expectations, the Byzantine text as an entity would be the smoothest, most harmonious, and easiest text known to man -- but it would also be significantly different from that which now exists under the Byzantine rubric, since the Byzantine scribes left far too many "difficult" places utterly untouched. > readings that seem to characterize (in general) the > Byzantine text-type more than the earlier ones, particularly the Alexandrian. > But that opens up a whole new set of questions! Again, I would suggest that any Byzantine readings which are supposedly "characteristic" abound in almost equal number with the Alexandrian or Western MSS. I would further suggest (quite seriously) that, with profit, W-H's description of the supposed characteristics of the Byzantine Text could be simply applied to the MSS of the Alexandrian texttype and vice versa with no significant changes. I yet have to see a clear demonstration of an Alexandrian reading which "must" be correct, for which the Byzantine text would have no defense on internal, transmissional, or transcriptional grounds. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Fri Feb 2 19:56:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05252; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:56:14 +0500 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:53:37 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Synoptic Harmonization In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5758 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > Certainly attributing elements to an entire text-type that are > characteristic of only a minority of its members is unjustified. > However, all of the examples I listed above from the pericope of the Rich > Young Ruler occur in the majority of the mss, not isolated Byzantine > witnesses. And this is where I believe a key methodological error occurs. Merely because a texttype-as-a-whole has a reading which also occurs in a synoptic or other parallel should not automatically be inferred as the result of direct harmonization and not merely that in such a case parallel passages happen once more to agree (just as they do frequently). A back-door example of this situation is the phrase "dia tou aimatos autou" which appears in the TR in both Eph. 1:7 and Col.1:14. The Ephesians passage is textually certain. In the Colossians passage however, the Byzantine MSS are divided, with the slight majority of them choosing NOT to include the harmonizing passage. Were the Byzantine scribes so strongly influenced by this tendency to harmonize, as alleged, we would not find a mere 40% of them harmonizing Colossians to Ephesians, but the "normal" 99+%. The very fact that the vast majority of Byzantine MSS did NOT harmonize in such a doctrinally-significant phrase eloquently demonstrates that they did NOT have this overarching tendency. Further illustrations in precisely the same vein can be given throughout the synoptic gospels as well. The point should be well observed: merely because two readings in parallel places agree, it does not follow that harmonization occurred. The _possibility_ for harmonization exists in any such case, but by careful examination of the tendencies of individual scribes in their own separate MSS, one will clearly find that harmonization did occur on a sporadic basis, but not on the large scale so as to dominate the prevalent Textform as a whole. Even harmonizations alleged for the minority texttypes must be carefully examined to determine whether they are really such, or perhaps the result of scribal error by omission or other causes. From my own examination of the readings of the Alexandrian texttype, I find most differences from the Byzantine to be explainable by the suggestion of error in a common archetype rather than any deliberate attempt at harmonization. The same courtesy should be afforded the Byzantine texttype, mutatis mutandis, with the understanding from a Byzantine-priority perspective that the common archetype is considered to be the autograph, in which case any agreement among parallel passages merely reflects the autograph, and nothing more. > How many letters per line are there in a typical line-omission in Aleph. > I don't count more than 14 letters in any line of Aleph itself, and many > have fewer letters. Line omission can encompass more than the actual number of letters in a line. It depends upon where the scribe's eye leaves the exemplar and where he returns to. Homoioteleuton is one type of parablepsis; line omission is another. Each of these can encompass a short passage or a quite lengthy passage. But there are numerous instances which can be documented in Aleph of unique omission (singular readings) which are more than a single line, but less than two lines. One example would be the singular omission of the entire verse Mt.24:35 in Aleph, where 52 or 53 letters are omitted (certainly not a multiple of 14), and where homoioteleuton would not play a part. > Of course, I realize that the exemplar might have had > 16 characters per line. And that could be the case (but it would not help in the Mt.24:35 case above). We probably should speak of a basic line omission PLUS several additional characters, until the scribe's eye finally found a resting place which was convenient. *:-) > Line omission was a central theme in A. C. > Clark's (not the sci-fi writer!) _The Descent of Manuscripts_, in which he > argued that the longer (Western) recension of Acts was closer to the > original, since the shorter version was characterized by omissions whose > lengths corresponded to a line or multiple lines (I can't recall the line > length he used--was it perhaps 17 or 18 characters?). Although some people seem to think A.C.Clark was writing text-critical fiction *:-). On the whole, Clark does make some very good points, and ones which I believe do help explain the situation of the Alexandrian text as contrasted with the Byzantine. Clark's error was in going back to far to establish the source. With due consideration he should have been able to see what Colwell saw many years later regarding the Western text, viz., that it represented the uncontrolled popular text of the second century, and was thus an _expansion_ of whatever the original text may have been rather than itself being that original text. Even though Colwell would not agree (though Kenneth W. Clark would have), a cursory examination should demonstrate that the textual source of the Western MSS must have been a Byzantine original. Had Clark considered these points more carefully, I think he might have reconsidered where his textual train (which kept losing baggage at each stop along the way before it ended up at Alexandria) had its station of origin. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sat Feb 3 17:17:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07250; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:17:11 +0500 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:17:02 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Future subjunctive In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5347 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I'm going to respond to a couple of points, then I plan to let the topic rest for now. I think perhaps we've ridden this particular horse far enough! On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > Over a lengthy period of time (speaking in terms of centuries), and > especially with the freer communication and exchange of MSS following the > legitimization of Christianity under Constantine, the same tendency would > become more universalized. Rather than ONE local text growing and growing > to dominate the field (which is transmissionally implausible in the > extreme, given the situation of monks and copyists during most centuries), > it is far more likely that the ongoing process of cross-comparison and > correction would inexorably tend to bring all MSS slowly back to the > original "universal" base text which existed before the localized variants > were created, which "universal" base text could only be the autograph. > > [snip] > > By this analogy, there should never have been the problems in the Old > Latin text, with all its multifarious versions and alterations. Rome's > use of the Latin should have been so influential that Jerome would never > have needed to be commissioned to produce order (the Vulgate) out of chaos > (the Old Latin texts). > > The history of the Greek MSS reflects clearly an era of uncontrolled > popular transmission, up to around AD 200; however, there was no Greek > Jerome commissioned or needed to restore textual uniformity and/or order > out of the Greek MSS (claims regarding Lucian for the NT text lack all > historical verifiability as well as plausibility). > > The Greek MSS, without official "control" or "sponsorship" of a single > unified text, somehow by the normal processes of copying and correcting > MSS, ended up with a basically unitary Textform in the Byzantine text. > Yet there clearly are sufficient sub-groups within the Byzantine Textform > and variations within individual Byzantine MSS to demonstrate that NO > controls were ever sought or imposed in regard to that text. As I state > in the introduction to my Greek NT edition, the reason for this is simple: > barring a formally-commissioned revision in the manner or Jerome, the > results of which are then dogmatically imposed by formal decree, "only a > common pre-existing archetype will permit order ever to come out of > chaos." I have a problem with your historical conclusion here. Why should we believe that continuous copying and correcting of mss from different locales would restore the text to a state approximating its original form? By the same rationale, one could argue that as a result of the theological disputes from Nicea to Chalcedon, Constantinople, and beyond the church was able to reconstruct and restore the doctrinal system of the early church. I for one don't believe that is what happened. Your reference to Jerome seems to favor my position as well. It's true that the state of OL mss cried out for control, but just because Jerome was able to produce a single, consistent text, does that mean that it reflected the original readings, either Latin or Greek? I don't think so. I think understanding the history of the church and its relationship with the state illuminates the history of the text of the NT, but I don't think the evidence is sufficient to be anything more than suggestive about what might plausibly have transpired in the transmission of the text. Thus, I don't think any text-type, Byzantine or Alexandrian, can be established as preferable on a historical basis. I realize that this position calls into question to some extent the value of external evidence in evaluating textual variants. > Assuming that the Byzantine Text can be defended in any given portion of > text on internal grounds (much as I have done for the 1Cor13:3 reading as > well as the alleged harmonization reading earlier discussed), if such > defense were to be extended sequentially from variant to variant within a > pericope, a chapter, or an entire book, the cumulative result of continued > defense of individual Byzantine readings would point directly to the > originality of the Byzantine Textform as an entity. I maintain that such > a variant-by-variant defense CAN be performed successfully, in which case > internal evidence alone argues for Byzantine-priority as well as the the > subsequent and secondary nature of the Alexandrian, Western, and other > texttypes. As Colwell did say from within an eclectic perspective, "Hort > has put genealogical blinders on our eyes." In light of my earlier comments, I believe that what you suggest is exactly what must be done: each reading must be evaluated one by one, with more emphasis placed on internal than on external evidence. Individual readings in one witness or tradition will need to be compared to other readings in that witness/tradition to see if any patterns emerge that would indicate a theological or transcriptional Tendenz. However, no appeal should be made to the "superiority" of one family of mss over another, since this appeal just begs the text-critical question. 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 Feb 3 18:40:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07476; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 18:40:48 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:42:03 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Future subjunctive Content-Length: 1919 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu James R. Adair responded to Maurice Robinson; >> I maintain that such >> a variant-by-variant defense CAN be performed successfully, in which case >> internal evidence alone argues for Byzantine-priority as well as the the >> subsequent and secondary nature of the Alexandrian, Western, and other >> texttypes. As Colwell did say from within an eclectic perspective, "Hort >> has put genealogical blinders on our eyes." > >In light of my earlier comments, I believe that what you suggest is exactly >what must be done: each reading must be evaluated one by one, with more >emphasis placed on internal than on external evidence. Individual >readings in one witness or tradition will need to be compared to other >readings in that witness/tradition to see if any patterns emerge that >would indicate a theological or transcriptional Tendenz. However, no >appeal should be made to the "superiority" of one family of mss over >another, since this appeal just begs the text-critical question. > I would agree with this statement. I would add that on internal grounds the explanation of the readings at I Cor. 13:3 is KAUXHSWMAI then KAUQHSWMAI then KAUQHSOMAI. When you consider intrinsic evidence this is most likely. When you consider transcriptional probilities this is more logical. The argument that the Byzantine scribes would not have allowed the future subjunctive to stand had they known other mss that had either of the other readings begs the question. What scribes did was copy mss. To assume that they would not have let stand this reading for so long (if a reasonable argument) speaks also against such a reading being original. I think the effort to argue for the originality of the future subjunctive is made primarily on the assumption that the Byzantine text more closely represents the original text. Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net From majordom Sat Feb 3 23:54:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08132; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 23:54:21 +0500 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 23:51:44 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Future subjunctive In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 9097 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 3 Feb 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > I'm going to respond to a couple of points, then I plan to let the topic > rest for now. I think perhaps we've ridden this particular horse far enough! If the horse isn't already dead *:-) I of course would be pleased to move on to other topics as well. > I have a problem with your historical conclusion here. Why should we > believe that continuous copying and correcting of mss from different > locales would restore the text to a state approximating its original form? So long as the copying and cross-correction were being performed in relatively distinct areas and situations without an imposed control, one would expect nothing more to arise than the various "local texts". Transmissionally, the situation would continue to devolve more and more away from the autograph in such a process, and this fits in quite well with the "uncontrolled popular text of the second century" concept of Colwell, as well as with the "local text" theory of Streeter. The Old Latin MSS would provide the best analogy, since they tended more and more toward chaos as their transmissional history progressed. Once either controls were imposed (for which I see no historical evidence) or when increased communication became possible in a church-state relationship after Constantine, it would be natural that MSS which differed from one another would be compared with one another during the copying process and cross-correction would occur. By no "normal" means of transmission in such a model would any of the local texts be able to gain the ascendancy, but rather all competing local texts would slowly "mellow out" to a common pre-existing text which permeated the bulk of the tradition. Thus, without formal controls, a process would occur which would inevitably result in the elimination of local text differences and which would tend back to the common text which originally had existed. > By the same rationale, one could argue that as a result of the theological > disputes from Nicea to Chalcedon, Constantinople, and beyond the church > was able to reconstruct and restore the doctrinal system of the early > church. This analogy breaks down since there was definite forward progress in doctrinal theology which occurred at each of these historical points, and one cannot go backward from a known historical innovation to thereby reconstruct previous theology. On the other hand, when scholars wanted to restore Jerome's original Vulgate text, they did go backward, systematically eliminating all the known alterations and corruptions which occurred during the various revision periods (these of course were historically known revisions), and I think that would reflect a closer analogy to the situation, except that there was no systematic project to reconstruct the autograph text during the era of Byzantine MS transmission. > I for one don't believe that is what happened. Nor does anyone from the eclectic school *:-) Obviously, presuppositions rather than history or methodology causes the dichotomy between the differing approaches and their conclusions. Were I to grant the eclectic presuppositions, I would hold precisely the view you do (which in fact is what I once held before I began detailed study into the situation). > just because Jerome was able to produce a > single, consistent text, does that mean that it reflected the original > readings, either Latin or Greek? I don't think so. Nor do I. A revision of the text during the transmissional period by a single person or even by a committee would at best produce only a useful and adequate version of the text. Even though most of that text would reflect the autograph, the chances of it fully equaling the autograph are slim. On the other hand, the "process" view of text-restoration done apart from formal control and formal revision would stand a far better likelihood of reverting back to the autograph, and this is what I have been maintaining in the discussion. There is nothing implausible about such a scenario. > have transpired in the transmission of the text. Thus, I don't think any > text-type, Byzantine or Alexandrian, can be established as preferable on a > historical basis. I realize that this position calls into question to > some extent the value of external evidence in evaluating textual variants. One of the strongest assertions Kenneth Clark made to me was that the original text HAD to be located in one specific texttype. He did not know which one, of course, but he was dead certain that this had to be the case. Otherwise (as he noted), we would have to believe that the transmission of the text was like the Isis-Osiris legend, in which the original text was chopped into numerous pieces and scattered to the winds, and we -- like lamenting Isis -- must attempt to pick the pieces out one by one from the various MS repositories they now inhabit. His further complaint was that, given any critical edition of the text, when compared with any select group of known MSS, one will soon discover that what the critical editors are attempting to pass off as the autograph is in fact a text which is not found in any single MS or texttype (even as a reconstructed entity). Indeed, one cannot often find even ten verses in a row in the current critical editions which read that way in any known MS. (of course, an edition of the Byzantine text can easily demonstrate numerous sequential verses without variation in almost all MSS comprising that texttype). Clark admitted that he and Colwell had considered the Alexandrian text to be the texttype closest to the autograph; however, Clark changed his opinion on that score after he and Colwell abandoned as hopeless their project to reconstruct the Alexandrian texttype in a planned edition. Clark still maintained that the original text must be localized in a single texttype, and admitted that the Byzantine was the only real remaining candidate (draw your own conclusions from that). One of the last things Clark told me before his death was that he would like to have another lifetime to reconstruct his entire textual theory, and that his inclinations toward the authenticity of the text which in fact was that traditionally perpetuated would be able to be well supported. Basically he told me he was far too old for that (he died shortly thereafter), but encouraged me to pursue that goal (which I mention merely so you can see some of where I am coming from text-critically). > In light of my earlier comments, I believe that what you suggest is exactly > what must be done: each reading must be evaluated one by one, with more > emphasis placed on internal than on external evidence. I will concur with this, but with the reminder that eclectic methodology which proceeds without a well-defined history of transmission of the text will prove ultimately unfruitful and unsupported. If apart from such a transmissional history I could argue favorably for every single Byzantine reading (as mentioned previously), this would not be anywhere near as convincing as having first a solid transmissional history as the working hypothesis on which to base conclusions. > readings in one witness or tradition will need to be compared to other > readings in that witness/tradition to see if any patterns emerge that > would indicate a theological or transcriptional Tendenz. Yoder's work on Codex Bezae in Acts is a good model of that approach. I think it valid when dealing with single MSS or with families and minor textual grouping, but I have serious doubts as to whether it can be applied on the texttype level, even to the Alexandrian text. As for the autograph text (whatever it might be), it obviously from the point of composition had its own "tendency" as well -- one which cannot be blamed on copyists or revisers. > However, no > appeal should be made to the "superiority" of one family of mss over > another, since this appeal just begs the text-critical question. No a priori assumption of superiority should be made; only a conclusion of such after a careful study of all the data. Modern eclecticism still errs greatly in their presupposition of what comprises the "best" MSS, and from there the "best text" etc. What is dearly needed for almost all textual scholars is to divest themselves of all such presuppositions which they adopted axiomatically, and begin to evaluate the evidence wholly afresh, and thereby to construct a new and different methodology which will do more than simply repeat the same slogans and canons of criticism. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sun Feb 4 00:24:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08249; Sun, 4 Feb 1996 00:24:41 +0500 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 00:21:57 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Future subjunctive In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5347 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 3 Feb 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote: > I would add that on internal grounds > the explanation of the readings at I Cor. 13:3 is KAUXHSWMAI then > KAUQHSWMAI then KAUQHSOMAI. When you consider intrinsic evidence this is > most likely. When you consider transcriptional probilities this is more > logical. I continue to differ, as previously, but have no need to rehash my reasons further on those points. > The argument that the Byzantine scribes would not have allowed > the future subjunctive to stand had they known other mss that had either of > the other readings begs the question. Again, I think not. The issue is what scribes did. You are correct in that "What scribes did was copy mss." Most of them could care less about what the rest of the MSS in the world read; they were interested only in their own copy, and in making it conform as closely as possible to their exemplars. That is why the copies scribes made were regularly read by an outside proofreader (diorthwths), as well as by the scribe himself/herself. The matter comes to this: if scribe A made an error and changed -X- to -Q-, producing a questionable reading of "burnt", as well as a grammatically questionable "future subjunctive" (or whatever you wish to call it), this is something that a corrector would spot, even without comparing it with an exemplar. The appearance of the "future subjunctive" alone would cause the corrector to instantly reach for the exemplar to see if it stood so there. And if it did, there likely would be a check against another exemplar. Had the reading been perfectly sensible, like KAUXHSWMAI, not an eyebrow would have been raised. But look at it from the wider perspective. This was but one scribe in one situation, supposedly creating the erroneous reading. Now this event has to be repeated identically in numerous scattered monasteries and churches, with little or no correction ever being made back to the easier and more sensible original KAUXHSWMAI (contrary to the supposed tendency of most scribes), and as a final result this erroneous reading ends up permeating the entire Byzantine tradition, comprising 95%+ of all the MSS! This whole scenario boggles the imagination and probably would be dismissed by most historians as pure fiction. Add to this the very early dissemination of the "erroneous" Byzantine reading in the entire Old Latin tradition, as well as in Latin fathers, and the fiction becomes almost a fable (the Greek Ante-Nicene fathers are basically silent on this passage; Chrysostom of course quotes the Byzantine reading). > To assume that they would not have let stand this reading for so long (if a > reasonable argument) speaks also against such a reading being original. I > think the effort to argue for the originality of the future subjunctive is > made primarily on the assumption that the Byzantine text more closely > represents the original text. The appeal is made from the basis of a transmissional history, with analysis of alternative historical scenarios, such as examined above with regard to the hypothesis that KAUXHSWMAI might be original. My own decision to advocate Byzantine-priority follows a proper methodology, and certainly is not based upon mere a priori assumption that the Byzantine Textform is more likely original. That might be a conclusion drawn from the bulk of the evidence, coupled with a historical reconstruction of transmission, but it is not by any means axiomatic. Would modern eclectics (such as yourself) argue so vociferously for what plainly seems to be an "easier" reading here had KAUXHSWMAI in fact been the Byzantine and KAUQHSWMAI the Alexandrian readings? I think not, since Metzger flip-flops continuously on this score in his Textual Commentary. There is just as much "primary assumption" made by the eclectics in favor of Alexandrian witness (Aleph/B) and early papyri (when convenient) as you allege toward the Byzantine-priority position. If the modern eclectics would at least prepare a reasonable model for historical transmission which would explain the rise of all the texttypes from the original text they hypothesize in their critical editions, and also explain the rise and utter dominance of the traditional Byzantine Textform within a solid historical framework, a great deal of good would be accomplished. The problem is that they cannot so do, given the basic presuppositions of eclectic methodology. So they remain in a text-critical quagmire, uncertain of what the original text was and unable to explain how it developed during transmissional history into all the other forms now known to exist (in this paragraph I am merely paraphrasing Epp from his "Requiem for a Discipline" and "Twentieth-Century Interlude" articles in JBL, so please do not think this is merely a prejudiced Byzantine opinion -- I would like to make Eldon J. Epp happy *:-). ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Feb 6 09:16:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14551; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 09:16:51 +0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 09:16:44 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: The Bible as Electronic Text (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2270 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I am forwarding this call for papers to the tc-list. Perhaps someone on the list will be interested in participating in this SBL session. 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 <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 11:22:58 EDT From: Gregory Bloomquist To: Multiple recipients of list AIBI-L Subject: The Bible as Electronic Text Friends, fyi Greg Bloomquist ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The 1996 annual meeting of the Society of Biblcal Literature will be in New Orleans, November 23-26, 1996. The Bible in Ancient and Modern Media Group of SBL invites proposals for papers to be presented in a session on "The Bible as Electronic Text." The topics of concern are the nature of the Bible as electronic text, translating across media, the problematics of authors and readers of electronic text, and epistemological, ethical and ideological implications for reading and theorizing the Bible in the Electronic Age. Papers presented in this session will be considered for a proposed volume of the journal Semeia. The session is co-sponsored by the Semiotics and Exegesis Section and the Computer Assisted Research Group. Robert Fowler, Department of Religion, Baldwin-Wallace College, Berea, OH, 44017, (O) 216/826-2173, (H) 216/826-1162, (F) 216/826-3264, (E) rfowler@baldwinw.edu The due date for paper proposals is March 1. To consult the Call for Papers for other SBL sessions, see http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/SBL/AM96/Call4Papers.html#C ontents. ******************************************************** * Robert M. Fowler * * Department of Religion * * Baldwin-Wallace College * * 275 Eastland Road, Berea, OH 44017 // USA * * rfowler@baldwinw.edu * * http://www2.baldwinw.edu/rel/fowler/FowlerHome.html * * 216-826-2173 (office) 216-826-3264 (fax) * ******************************************************** From majordom Tue Feb 6 15:29:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16254; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:29:55 +0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:56:59 -0500 (EST) From: SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <960206155659.11669@JOE.ALB.EDU> Subject: SBL Textual Criticism Content-Length: 404 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Dear Colleagues, The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible section of the Society of Biblical Literature would like to invite any paper proposals on the subject. We do not have a panel or special topic this year, so any submissions will be considered. Please send an abstract and participation form to: Sidnie White Crawford Dept. of Religious Studies Box 15234 Reading, PA 19612 Best wishes, Sidnie From majordom Tue Feb 6 18:17:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16814; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:17:18 +0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:14:37 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman To: textual criticism list Subject: NT Textual Criticism, SBL Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 650 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu The steering committee of the NT textual criticism of the SBL is inviting paper proposals on any topic related to the field for the November meetings. Deadline: March 1. Those who have not previously read in our section are asked to submit the entire text of the paper; those who *have* previously read need submit only a title and abstract. One of our two sessions is already scheduled, the other will be open papers. Please submit proposals (including SBL Meeting Participant Form, found in the Call for Papers) to Bart D. Ehrman, Dept. of Religion, CB #3225, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. -- Bart D. Ehrman From majordom Thu Feb 8 00:03:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21838; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:03:56 +0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:03:48 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: TC Call for articles Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1401 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu The two textual criticism sections of the SBL have recently put out a call for papers for the annual SBL convention in New Orleans in November. In the same vein, I would like to remind everyone on the list that the new electronic journal TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism is also extending a call for articles relating to textual criticism. We are interested in full-length articles, shorter notes (perhaps analyses of a specific passage), and reports of ongoing projects related to textual criticism of the biblical texts. Articles dealing with either the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or New Testament are welcome, and articles that relate textual criticism to other disciplines or that cross the canonical boundary are especially encouraged. We hope to have our first articles published by the end of February. Unlike a print journal, the time between submission of an article and its publication may be measured in weeks rather than months or years. Like the best print journals, TC is peer-reviewed (editors are listed on the TC home page). All interested contributors should look at the TC home page (see below) for more information and for instructions for contributors. Any questions or submissions may be made directly to me. Thank you. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From majordom Thu Feb 8 18:54:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24932; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 18:54:24 +0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 18:51:06 -0500 (EST) From: NEUWIRTH@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU To: TC-LIST@SCHOLAR.cc.emory.edu Cc: NEUWIRTH@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU Message-Id: <960208185106.202514fd@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU> Content-Length: 16 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu SIGNOFF TC-LIST From majordom Thu Feb 8 22:14:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25348; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 22:14:21 +0500 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:15:56 -0800 From: lowell@sunphil.mozcom.com (Lowell K. Liwat) Message-Id: <199602091915.LAA14981@sunphil.sunphil.mozcom.com> To: tc-list@SCHOLAR.cc.emory.edu X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Content-Length: 19 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu SIGNOFF TC-LIST From majordom Fri Feb 9 14:17:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA28050; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:17:12 +0500 X-Sender: winbery@andria.lacollege.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 13:18:27 +0400 To: rachel@hntp2.hinet.net From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Textual Criticism Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, b-greek@virginia.edu Content-Length: 1422 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >>From: >>Date: Fri, 09 Feb 96 22:35:33 >>>rachel@hntp2.hinet.net wrote; >> >>>I would like to ask another thing or two..... >>Do you or Conrad or anybody have some on-line material >>that I can read about Textual Criticism.... >>Since I have been noticing more and more stuff about the Majority >>Text /KJV/Hodge/Pickering whoever.... >>What is the curent status regarding this issue??? >>I have read some but not so much between Fee and Hodges.... The >>reason I am interested because of my current >>study and posts over in Theology..... >>This is why I do not want to bring those issues over here.... ;) Any >>help or material will be greatly appreciated >>since I am waaaaaaay over here...... In my opinion, the majority (no pun intended) of Textual Critics (teachers and researchers) still practice TC in a more or less eklectic method. There are a few majority text people about, but so far they have not been very convincing. There are several things on TC at Brown. A good bibliography. http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/text_crit.html Facsimilie pages of some MSS. http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/ An overview of a course on NT TC. http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html There are also some helpful items at Vanderbilt. http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/divinity/bibs/nt1.html#textcrit Grace, Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net From majordom Sat Feb 10 15:41:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00536; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:41:24 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:39:20 -0600 Content-Length: 4548 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu This is in answer to a post from Rachel off list. I hope its ok if I put it on-line. >But I wonder why is there is so much hull-a-ba-loo >over the Maj T. It seems like the conservative spectrum is really >getting excited over it. I like and read Gordon Fee's articles and >books (have not finished some yet..... ) >But some even feel that anyone who goes along with the TC tradition >is suspect (of liberalism... humanistic feminism.... and any other >bogeyman...) >Why is the Byzantine text type hyped so much? My first response to your question is that there are several reasons. One is that some have sold the Majority Text (MT) as the equivalent of the text behind the King James Version. In fact the dust cover of The Greek NT according to the Majority Text has a statement to that effect. "The Majority Text, similar to the kind of text found in the King James Version, has never before been printed." After that statement few people among the right wing of Evangelicalism ever noticed other disclaimers in the introduction to the text. In fact I've had several people call me and ask if I used the Greek text behind the KJV. When I replied that I did not have a copy of the Beza text, they asked, "who was Beza?" >Do you agree that the Alexandrian text type was >influenced by the theological debates at that time? I can only reply that all mss are corrupt. The Alexandrian scribes tended to make grammatical corrections (not updating the language like the Byzantines) and in some places show a tendency to clarify statements that are used in theology. There are Byzantine readings that seem to do more in that direction. >Lastly if the Maj Text and the Nestle-Aland (or >the Alexandrian text type) are nearly identical >what are the reasons for the small difference? All texts have about 90% agreement, but the vast majority of NT mss are Byzantine and these are further from the early papyrii and uncials than from other texts or mss that cannot be text-typed. The refinements of Aland in typing mss as level 1, level 2, etc. is long needed. There are major differences, as mss go, between the MT as edited by Hodges and the UBS or Nestle-Aland. I did a review of the MT of Hodges when it first came out and one of the things I did was show that it was not the Textus Receptus on which the KJV was based. >Of course I know that I should read the articles >below before asking these questions (which I will >start looking at tonight....;) >but I just need a brief comment from you or another. >My way of studying the biblical text is too go at it >myself first, doing inductive study, create my hypothesis about what >the text means, how to apply it, and then >I start reading lots and lots of other stuff to see where my >"intuition" leads me. Actually intuition may not capture what I mean >but there is a distinct impression that when I read something or >start building something that it "jells together"? Things seem to >fall into place and I am able to build a conviction (flexible to be >changed if necessary later on....) My word of caution is "Check it out." Don't accept any conclusion without checking not only the egs. cited but contra egs. that you can find in other sources. There is no substitute for reading mss in the process of learning to apply the canons of TC. When you have mastered the subject of reading mss, what scribes did and the mass of info about types of mss, you are only just beginning. You still have to study Pauline style, etc., current Greek style, history and social environment, ecclestical demands, local means of controling mss production, theological and canonical developments, and several other disciplines. Hence, most of us are not bold enough to call ourselves NT Textual Critics, but prefer to say we hope to be someday. >Thus this is why I am asking you or Conrad or another >that I consider to be a reliable source. (Of course I do not really >know you very well but I sure like your attitude...... :) And I >appreciate your responses..... >BTW if you are ever in Asian drop by over here and Me and my family >will show you around..... >You can even try out Hakkanese food..... ;) > >Of course I hope you get here before Beijing does....... > Thanks, you never know. I have an adopted son whose relatives live in Taiwan. He was born in Viet Nam and got out with the boat people. Grace, Carlton Winbery Chair Religion/Philosophy LA College, Pineville,La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425 From majordom Sat Feb 10 20:26:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00940; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:26:14 +0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:23:33 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts Cc: ANE@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Isa 13:16 in IQisa In-Reply-To: <960208.154831.EST.LAROCCAP@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2224 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts wrote: > I am doing a text-critical reading of Isa 13-14 and ran across a couple > of interesting problems with the IQisa rendering of Isa 13:16. One > problem is grammatical and the second is cultural(?). The gram. problem > is as follows: in IQisa 13:16 there are two different third plural masc. > pronominal suffixs. There is the expected -hm on 'ynyhm ("their eyes") > and on btyhm ("their houses"). However, on two other words is an > unexpected -hmh, where orthographically the mem is not final. This -hmh > ending is seen on 'wlylyhmh ("their children") and on n$yhmh ("their > wives"). How can this be explained? Have I missed something in my > training, or more likely forgotten something? Your best bet for getting a good answer to this question is to see what E. Y. Kutscher has to say in his volume _The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll_ (Brill, 1974). See especially pp.449f. In evaluating Qumran variants from a text critical point of view, you should also see what Emanuel Tov has to say, _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ (Fortress, 1993). > The second problem is more cultural--I assume. In the MT of Isa 13:16 is > the rather rare root $gl meaning "to violate, ravish" (BDB 993b); that > is, "to rape." Because of its supposedly obscene meaning, the word is > glossed with the Qr $kb, "to lie with" (and as found in Targum > Jonathan). In IQisa, however, the word is smudged (?) out leaving only > t---nh (cf. Scrolls from Qumran Cave I, J.C. Trever, plate XI). Is there > evidence of a seemingly prudish tradition at Qumran? Or, am I reading > too much into a "coincidental" smudge? Kutscher does not mention this one in his list of erasures (p531f.). This tradition of glossing $gl with $kb occurs in other places (e.g. Ruth 3:4, Jeremiah 3:2, Zechariah 14:2). Have you checked to see if any of these passages were found among the Qumran scrolls? > Thanks for the forum in which I can ask these questions. Actually, the "hardcore" text critics are over on the Textual Criticism list, and so I have cross-posted my response there. ;-) > Mark A. LaRocca-Pitts > laroccap@uga.cc.uga.edu andrew gross From majordom Sun Feb 11 09:24:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01974; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 09:24:49 +0500 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 14:44:41 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz To: Andrew Gross Cc: Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts , ANE@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Isa 13:16 in IQisa In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1568 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Andrew Gross wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, MBark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts wrote:> > > > > > > > The second problem is more cultural--I assume. In the MT of Isa 13:16 is > > the rather rare root $gl meaning "to violate, ravish" (BDB 993b); that > > is, "to rape." Because of its supposedly obscene meaning, the word is > > glossed with the Qr $kb, "to lie with" (and as found in Targum > > Jonathan). In IQisa, however, the word is smudged (?) out leaving only > > t---nh (cf. Scrolls from Qumran Cave I, J.C. Trever, plate XI). Is there > > evidence of a seemingly prudish tradition at Qumran? Or, am I reading > > too much into a "coincidental" smudge? > > Kutscher does not mention this one in his list of erasures (p531f.). > This tradition of glossing $gl with $kb occurs in other places (e.g. Ruth > 3:4, Jeremiah 3:2, Zechariah 14:2). Have you checked to see if any of > these passages were found among the Qumran scrolls? > Forget Ruth 3:4 but add Deuteronomy 28:30 for replacement of $kb by $gl. Also, if you are interested in the phenomenon of Bowlderizing Qere and Ketiv check words such as 'plym> thrym (Dt. 28:27) mhr't>mwsa'ot (II KI 10:27). I don't know if any of these passages is attested in Qumran. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz > > Thanks for the forum in which I can ask these questions. > > Actually, the "hardcore" text critics are over on the Textual Criticism > list, and so I have cross-posted my response there. ;-) > > > Mark A. LaRocca-Pitts > > laroccap@uga.cc.uga.edu > > > > andrew gross > From majordom Sun Feb 11 11:35:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02174; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:35:08 +0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 20:47:54 EST From: Richard Weis To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Suffixes at Qumran Message-Id: Content-Length: 492 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 10 February, 1996, In addition to Andrew Gross's comments in reply to Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts, one might add two things. 1. -hmh is a very common Qumran substitute for the suffix -hm. Likewise -hnh for -hn, -kmh for -km, etc.. 2. In general, a more up-to-date reference for the grammar of Qumran Hebrew than Kutscher is Elisha Qimron's _The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (HSS, 29; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986). Richard Weis New Brunswick Theological Seminary rweis@rci.rutgers.edu From majordom Sun Feb 11 14:56:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02405; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 14:56:54 +0500 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 14:54:13 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Suffixes at Qumran In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1377 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Richard Weis wrote: > 10 February, 1996, > > In addition to Andrew Gross's comments in reply to Mark and Beth > LaRocca-Pitts, one might add two things. > > 1. -hmh is a very common Qumran substitute for the suffix -hm. Likewise > -hnh for -hn, -kmh for -km, etc.. > > 2. In general, a more up-to-date reference for the grammar of Qumran Hebrew > than Kutscher is Elisha Qimron's _The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (HSS, > 29; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986). > > Richard Weis One thing to keep in mind when using Qimron's grammar is that he only covers the non-Biblical Hebrew texts from Qumran. I believe the idea was to isolate features of "Qumran" Hebrew as distinct from Classical Hebrew. I'm not knowledgable enough to say whether or not the tradents (or is it "tradants"?) at Qumran used a more "conservative" (keeping in mind the potential anachronisms of using such a word in this context) orthography for the Biblical texts than for the other Hebrew texts found at Qumran. For what it's worth, Emanuel Tov does says this, "Although there is no characteristic representative of this group, 1QIsa(a), which contains the longest Qumran text of a Biblical book and whose practice is described thoroughly by Kutscher, is often referred to (incorrectly) as if it were the main text written in the Qumran practice." cheers, andrew gross From majordom Sun Feb 11 15:23:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02468; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 15:23:19 +0500 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 15:20:33 EST From: Richard Weis To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Suffixes at Qumran In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 11 Feb 1996 14:54:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: Content-Length: 312 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 11 February, 1996, Andrew Gross's observation that Qimron's monograph focuses on non-Biblical texts at Qumran is exactly why the work is valuable for text criticism. It describes the Hebrew of the Qumran scribes, the Hebrew according to which they might "modernize" BH forms as they copied them. Richard Weis From majordom Sun Feb 11 23:49:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03502; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 23:49:46 +0500 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 23:49:38 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Suffixes at Qumran In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1095 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, Andrew Gross wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Richard Weis wrote: > > > 10 February, 1996, > > > > In addition to Andrew Gross's comments in reply to Mark and Beth > > LaRocca-Pitts, one might add two things. > > > > 1. -hmh is a very common Qumran substitute for the suffix -hm. Likewise > > -hnh for -hn, -kmh for -km, etc.. > > > > 2. In general, a more up-to-date reference for the grammar of Qumran Hebrew > > than Kutscher is Elisha Qimron's _The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (HSS, > > 29; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986). > > > > Richard Weis > > > One thing to keep in mind when using Qimron's grammar is that he only > covers the non-Biblical Hebrew texts from Qumran. Just to clarify, for those who may not be familiar with these texts, the long endings -hmh, -hnh, etc. _are_ found in some of the biblical texts from Qumran, including 1QIsa-a. 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 Feb 11 23:50:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03516; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 23:50:39 +0500 From: dwashbur@nyx.net (David Washburn) Message-Id: <9602120447.AA25624@nyx.net> Subject: Re: Isa 13:16 in IQisa To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 21:47:52 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: from "Andrew Gross" at Feb 10, 96 08:23:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1719 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > > > The second problem is more cultural--I assume. In the MT of Isa 13:16 is > > the rather rare root $gl meaning "to violate, ravish" (BDB 993b); that > > is, "to rape." Because of its supposedly obscene meaning, the word is > > glossed with the Qr $kb, "to lie with" (and as found in Targum > > Jonathan). In IQisa, however, the word is smudged (?) out leaving only > > t---nh (cf. Scrolls from Qumran Cave I, J.C. Trever, plate XI). Is there > > evidence of a seemingly prudish tradition at Qumran? Or, am I reading > > too much into a "coincidental" smudge? Several words above and below this word seem to be smudged, as well. I'm looking at the same plate you referenced, and there is what appears to be a water stain or some sort of spill in that general area, beginning 3 or 4 lines above the word in question and fanning out down to the bottom of the page. It looks accidental to me. > Kutscher does not mention this one in his list of erasures (p531f.). > This tradition of glossing $gl with $kb occurs in other places (e.g. Ruth > 3:4, Jeremiah 3:2, Zechariah 14:2). Have you checked to see if any of > these passages were found among the Qumran scrolls? Isa 13:16 is preserved also in 1QIsa(b), but I don't have the photo available. It appears in E. L. Sukenik, "Dead Sea Scrolls of theHebrew University." I have not found Ruth 3:4 among the DSS; likewise for Jeremiah 3:2 and Zech 14:2. But my listing is only current through DJD 9. I'm working on getting the newest volumes (not easy in rural Wyoming) and getting this book published one of these days... -- Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html Seen in a classified ad: "Parachute for sale. Used once. Never opened." From majordom Mon Feb 12 10:28:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05079; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:28:23 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:25:26 -0500 (EST) From: Patrick Durusau X-Sender: pdurusau@larry.cc.emory.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Proposed Greek Entities Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 6205 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Hello, James Adair and I have been composing a set of Greek entities for use in encoding Greek characters used in printed journals such as Semeia and the Journal of Biblical Literature. This set is limited to those characters which would appear in such materials and is NOT meant for use in the encoding of Greek manuscript witnesses. Entities are used in SGML/TEI documents to stand for a character not found in the ASCII character set. (A more fornal definition of these entities in the context of a Writing System Declaration will follow after evaluating all comments and remarks on the proposed entities. I am forwarding to the list the set of Greek entities which we have developed for your review and comments. At the same time, I would appreciate any comments you have on the entities that would be needed or useful for the encoding of actual Greek manuscript witnesses. Abbreviations that are written using special characters, ligatures of common letter pairs and the like would be in the category of graphical characters that would merit a separate entity. If you wish to forward any comments concerning the entities needed for manuscript witnesses to my personal address, I will summarize the comments and suggestions for reposting to the tc-list. Your assistance and comments on these proposed entities is greatly appreciated. Patrick Patrick Durusau Information Technology Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Technical Editor, TC, A Journal of Biblical Textual Crticism ***************Begin included Greek Entity File**************** From majordom Mon Feb 12 11:43:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05443; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:43:09 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:31:05 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 7106 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote: > This is in answer to a post from Rachel off list. > > I wonder why is there is so much hull-a-ba-loo > > over the Maj T. It seems like the conservative spectrum is really > > getting excited over it. Some clarification is probably in order, since there are a number of degrees of "conservative" advocates who seem to use the term "majority text", and this really muddies the waters over this issue. The various groups can be described as follows: Class 1: King James Only advocates (1) There are those who know nothing about textual criticism, and read misleading propaganda from sources such as the tracts and comic books (seriously!) of Jack Chick and the writings of Peter Ruckman, and especially Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions." In all of these a modicum of textual data is highly distorted and misapplied so as to support an agenda defending the KJV-Only position. This view is rightly seen as cultic hyper-fundamentalism at its worst. Mostly affects the anti-intellectual "independent fundamental" churches. (2) Then there are those who know slightly more about the NT text and manuscripts, but who still have the same agenda of defending the KJV-Only position at all costs. These include David Otis Fuller's "Which Bible?" group and D.A.Waite's "Bible for Today" organization, as well as the Trinitarian Bible Society. The viewpoint is still ultra-fundamentalist, and not far removed from the previous position, since all text-critical data must be made to fit a KJV defense mode, with no possibility of any other reading being correct. Within this group, lip service is usually given to the Greek text, but only in the TR form which directly underlies the KJV (the Trinitarian Bible Society currently reprints Scrivener's 1894 TR which was artificially constructed by Scrivener to for the first time reflect the underlying text the KJV translators chose -- even though Scrivener himself did not favor that text!). Needless to say, if the Greek even of the TR differs from the KJV (due to certain Latin readings in the KJV with little or no Greek support), you can guess whether the KJV or TR wins the toss. *:-) (3) Then there are the "numerical majority text" partisans, for whom the basic case is "number" or "counting noses" which Gordon Fee wrongly claims that all partisans of all "majority" groups do). These people see nothing except "majority" as the deciding factor, and may have come from either groups (1) or (2) or from those which follow, due to a misunderstanding of all the ramifications which exist within a "majority text" perspective. This group usually cannot tell the Greek TR from the majority or Byzantine text, and still has a KJV fixation or at least a concern for translations only to reflect the KJV underlying Greek text. Class 2: Majority Text Proper advocates One definite demarcation line is now crossed: the remaining two groups are not tied to the KJV or the TR in any manner whatsoever, even though some of their works are misquoted and misapplied by KJV-Only distortionists. (4) Within the "Majority Text" camp proper one finds Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, who produced the Majority Text Greek NT edition. These are joined by Wilbur Pickering who wrote "The Identity of the NT Text" volume some years back -- a work which was long on critique of the W-H theory but quite short on "majority text" theory. A basic contention of this group is theological: the text found in the greatest number of copies is that which God providentially preserved. Pickering alleged from this that virtually all other variant readings were the result of Satanic and heretical activity, since scribes were (in his opinion) uniformly "orthodox" and had a "high view" of Scripture, including its inerrancy. The theological argument in Hodges and Farstad is not so explicit, but is still mentioned as an underlying factor in their theory (Hodges and Farstad sacrifice much of their theory, however, in Revelation, where they follow stemmatics and end up favoring a sub-group (Ma) comprising only 20% of the known MSS, thus giving rise to the anomaly that their "majority text" in Revelation at times has only 20% support as opposed to the "true" 80% majority. *:-) (5) The Byzantine-priority group (which I claim to reflect) does not begin nor end with a theological agenda regarding providential preservation (i.e., if such occurred, then all MSS of all texttypes reflect that preservation), nor is "number" a primary factor. Rather, the question of whether the Byzantine text as a texttype might be more likely to reflect the autograph text is the primary question. This approach is coupled with a detailed historical transmission hypothesis and takes into account all the relevant data, as well as performs praxis by utilizing standard external and internal criteria of NT textual criticism (with modifications befitting the transmissional hypothesis). William Pierpont and I have produced our own edition of the Byzantine/Majority Textform in both printed and electronic form (text only; no apparatus), utilizing the data from the Von Soden, Tischendorf, and the Nestle26-27/UBS3-4 apparatuses. Even if one does not share the same hypothesis, our edition provides a distinct Byzantine text which is not abandoned at any point for extraneous reasons such as in that of Hodges/Farstad. It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or "Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy. This position does not, however, dictate our choice of variant readings, nor does it imply any desire to make the resultant text match the TR or KJV or any other translation. I have presented a number of papers to the Evangelical Theological Society on aspects of Byzantine priority, and have not made any conclusions which were imposed by inerrantist or "preservationist" beliefs (I originally held to a "reasoned eclectic" position, and only changed that view after a careful consideration of all the evidence and questioning the theories currently in vogue, thanks to the help and guidance received from my text-critical mentor, Kenneth W. Clark). > >But some even feel that anyone who goes along with the TC tradition > >is suspect (of liberalism... humanistic feminism.... and any other > >bogeyman...) This reflects most of those in categories 1-3 above. Categories 4 and 5 make no ad hominem assertions of that type. I will continue a reply on Rachel's other questions in the next post, since this one is already quite long. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Mon Feb 12 11:50:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05480; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:50:45 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:47:35 -0500 From: James.Tauber@East.Sun.COM (James Tauber SunLabs - SML) Message-Id: <199602121647.LAA26882@torino.East.Sun.COM> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Proposed Greek Entities Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Md5: jeqrJVJY/kL5ropcYWHYtg== Content-Length: 211 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I am puzzled by the recently proposed Greek Entity set. The TEI has had an entity set and writing system declaration for Ancient Greek for years. Maybe I've missed something special about this new set. James From majordom Mon Feb 12 12:09:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05582; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:09:56 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:07:17 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 6948 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote: > This is in answer to a post from Rachel off list. > >Why is the Byzantine text type hyped so much? > the dust cover of [Hodges and Farstads's] The Greek NT > according to the Majority Text has a statement to that effect. "The > Majority Text, similar to the kind of text found in the King James Version, > has never before been printed." >From what I understand, that blurb was not from Hodges or Farstad, and no mention of the KJV appears within their own introduction (so far as I can determine from a quick re-read). Credit that to a Thomas Nelson marketing executive who figured it would increase sales to the KJV-only crowd. > I've had several people call me and ask > if I used the Greek text behind the KJV. When I replied that I did not > have a copy of the Beza text, they asked, "who was Beza?" I simply tell them "of course" and let it go at that *:-) Should they question further, I carefully explain that ANY Greek edition reflects about 90-95% of the text of the KJV and that NO single Textus Receptus edition available in 1611 contained ALL the readings found in the KJV. They usually don't pursue it farther than that. > >Do you agree that the Alexandrian text type was > >influenced by the theological debates at that time? > > I can only reply that all mss are corrupt. The Alexandrian scribes tended > to make grammatical corrections (not updating the language like the > Byzantines) and in some places show a tendency to clarify statements that > are used in theology. There are Byzantine readings that seem to do more in > that direction. I will here agree wholeheartedly with Carlton. The KJV-Only propagandists continually allege that the Alexandrian text is "Gnostic", "Arian", "heretical" or part of a "Luciferian Conspiracy" -- and that is simply because they refuse to see anything except the KJV-Only position. There simply is NO evidence whatsoever that the Alexandrian texttype was influenced in any significant manner from the various theological viewpoints which affected orthodox Christianity. Here and there there are isolated readings in some few MSS which might have stemmed from or were utilized by non-orthodox, but insofar as a texttype-as-a-whole would be affected by heretical doctrines would imply that the fathers, pastors, and other theologians of the early church were not keen watchdogs against the intrusion of such heresy in their sacred texts. I do not think this is the case, nor do I consider Ehrman's case (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) to be valid once one gets to the texttype level (Bart will differ on this, of course). Most of the Alexandrian variants I consider to be stylistic and grammatical in nature, along with Carlton. I would not concur with his view of Byzantine readings in his statement above, of course, since I will maintain their autograph originality rather than later corruption. > >Lastly if the Maj Text and the Nestle-Aland (or > >the Alexandrian text type) are nearly identical > >what are the reasons for the small difference? > > All texts have about 90% agreement Here we agree. For the Gospels, 90% is about right, regardless of which manuscripts are compared with each other. In the Epistles the amount of agreement rises to around 95-96%. , but the vast majority of NT mss are > Byzantine and these are further from the early papyrii and uncials than > from other texts or mss that cannot be text-typed. The Byzantine MSS clearly differ further from the early papyri and also from the uncials; this however is primarily a texttype-specific division between Byzantine on the one hand and Alexandrian or Western on the other. > The refinements of > Aland in typing mss as level 1, level 2, etc. is long needed. Although I am not sure Aland's method works without utilizing the Claremont Profile Method or something like it as a standard of comparison. All I seem to see in Aland's method is a summary declaration based upon percentage of agreement in his scattered 1000 test passages, which is not exactly what the more closely-refined Claremont method would recommend. > There are > major differences, as mss go, between the MT as edited by Hodges and the > UBS or Nestle-Aland. I did a review of the MT of Hodges when it first came > out and one of the things I did was show that it was not the Textus > Receptus on which the KJV was based. Absolutely correct on both counts. Daniel Wallace has estimated the Hodges/Farstad text to differ from the TR in over 1800 places. I have never collated my edition against a TR, but it would be about the same. Both the H/F and my edition will differ from the Nestle26-27/UBS3-4 texts in around 5000-6000 places, most of these inconsequential and untranslatable. > >Of course I know that I should read the articles > >below before asking these questions (which I will > >start looking at tonight....;) > >but I just need a brief comment from you or another. In order to be informed regarding all sides, I would suggest at a minimum reading Gordon Fee's critique of the Majority Text position in conjunction with my own response to Gordon Fee on the two "test passages" he mentioned (Mk.1:2 and Mk.13:14) which I presented at ETS Chicago 1994. > My word of caution is "Check it out." Don't accept any conclusion without > checking not only the egs. cited but contra egs. that you can find in other > sources. There is no substitute for reading mss in the process of learning > to apply the canons of TC. When you have mastered the subject of reading > mss, what scribes did and the mass of info about types of mss, you are only > just beginning. Absolutely true. Examine all sides and be absolutely fair in evaluating the evidence. > You still have to study Pauline style, etc., current Greek > style, history and social environment, ecclestical demands, local means of > controling mss production, theological and canonical developments, and > several other disciplines. Hence, most of us are not bold enough to call > ourselves NT Textual Critics, but prefer to say we hope to be someday. Don't make the task too hard, Carlton! None of us are total experts in ALL those fields, but I hardly think that such precludes one from becoming quite skilled in textual criticism merely from an intensive study of all the primary sources and working directly with the MSS themselves. (I certainly would like to encourage and not discourage my own students! *:-) ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Mon Feb 12 12:47:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05732; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:47:12 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:44:27 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1350 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Thanks to Maurice Robinson's explanation of the five differnet kinds of "Majority Text" advocates. It's a very useful taxonomy. I have a question, Maurice, about one of your statements: On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or > "Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a > theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy. This > position does not, however, dictate our choice of variant readings, nor > does it imply any desire to make the resultant text match the TR or KJV > or any other translation. > My question (actually, questions): Do you know of *anybody* who subscribes to such a theory who does not "reflect a theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"? If not, how do you explain this phenomenon, that scholars who have nothing at stake in the matter (I'm excluding the scholars who *do* have something at stake, i.e., those whose agenda include the desire to overthrow conservative views of the Bible) uniformly take the other side of this "debate"? As you probably know, I don't mean for these to sound like rhetorical questions; I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you make of this. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From majordom Mon Feb 12 13:53:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06248; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:53:46 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 10:50:10 PST From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9602121850.AA10444@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: (message from Bart Ehrman on Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:44:27 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: "Majority Text" Content-Length: 874 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu B Ehrman asked M Robinson: > Do you know of *anybody* who > subscribes to such a theory who does not "reflect a theological > conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"? If projected on a spectrum, I might fall somewhere between Sturz and Robinson, but my theory of Biblical authority is very distant from inerrancy. In fact, the desperate pleading of many Burgonites has been a turn-off to me; their need for an inerrant KJV really shows. Of course, my 20+ years of hobbyist study of these issues never involved an accredited religion degree, but that does permit me certain degrees of freedom others may not have. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d43m45s N 117d07m30s W = (_)> (_) From majordom Mon Feb 12 15:03:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06779; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:03:03 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:00:07 -0500 (EST) From: Patrick Durusau X-Sender: pdurusau@larry.cc.emory.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Proposed Greek Entities In-Reply-To: <199602121647.LAA26882@torino.East.Sun.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1853 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, James Tauber SunLabs - SML wrote: > I am puzzled by the recently proposed Greek Entity set. The TEI has had > an entity set and writing system declaration for Ancient Greek for years. > > Maybe I've missed something special about this new set. Sorry, I should have included a statement of the divergence from the TEI Greek entity set and reasons for it as part of my original post. 1. The TEI Greek writing system declaration documents the TLG encoding of Greek and uses a two letter language code appended to each entity, i.e., in this case "gr" rather than the more recent proposal of three letter language codes, which in this case would be "grc." 2. The TEI Greek writing system declaration sets forth composite entities for all the characters plus accents and has no separate entities for accents. As noted in the comments preceding the actual writing system declaration: "contrary to what the TLG summary says, the TLG files I have --> " The proposed set of entities has no composite characters. 3. The TEI Greek writing system declaration does not provide for any other characters that may be found in Greek manuscripts. This is true for the proposed set as well, but as noted, we are interested in using the proposed set of entities as a foundation for a larger set to be used in connection with actual manuscripts. 4. The TEI Greek writing system declaration omits an entity for elision or the number marker. Your interest and comments are appreciated. Patrick Patrick Durusau Information Technology Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Technical Editior, TC, A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism From majordom Mon Feb 12 16:26:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07116; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:26:07 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:23:24 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 6043 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Bart Ehrman wrote: > Thanks to Maurice Robinson's explanation of the five differnet kinds > of "Majority Text" advocates. It's a very useful taxonomy. I have a > question, Maurice, about one of your statements: > > On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > > It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or > > "Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a > > theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy. > My question (actually, questions): Do you know of *anybody* who > subscribes to such a theory who does not "reflect a theological > conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"? Probably it depends upon the time frame we are speaking of. At the present time I am not aware of any outside of a conservative theological framework who hold to a Byzantine-priority or "majority text" position, though there is no _a priori_ reason why non-conservative scholars could not hold to a Byzantine-priority hypothesis. Earlier in this century (ca. 1950) the Roman Catholic scholar Hugh Pope openly acknowledged his text-critical position to be that of Burgon, and (from what Jose O'Callaghan reported to me in private correspondence) the Spanish Catholic scholar M.-J. Bover was strongly moving to the position before his death, and the Greek-Latin-Spanish "edition trilingual" which O'Callaghan completed in Bover's behalf supposedly bears some indication of the change in Bover's views (though admittedly I have not collated the text of that edition to see if these things be so). In the 19th century, the Roman Catholic scholar J.P.P.Martin published a five-volume work in lithograph from his handwritten manuscript taking the same position; and of course the Anglicans J. W. Burgon, Edward Miller and F.H.A. Scrivener (Daniel Wallace's inaccurate claims regarding "historical revisionism" notwithstanding) all held to a basically pro-Byzantine position, though (except for Burgon) I would not exactly categorize those Anglicans as "conservative" in the inerrantist sense. Keith Elliott of course is quite interested in the pro-Byzantine position, not so much because of the transmissional theory, but because the internal defense of various Byzantine readings is right up his alley, and helps him in his continual quest to refute any reading favored by the UBS/Nestle tradition which he chooses not to accept. > If not, how do > you explain this phenomenon, that scholars who have nothing at stake in > the matter (I'm excluding the scholars who *do* have something at stake, > i.e., those whose agenda include the desire to overthrow conservative > views of the Bible) uniformly take the other side of this "debate"? The problem is not at all conservative versus liberal in the matter of accepting or rejecting the various text-critical hypotheses. Most (90%+) conservatives within the ETS would currently not hold to a majority text type of position, and even at my own school, there are only two faculty members who hold this view (even our president, concerning whom you are well aware would be considered ultra-conservative, does not hold to a majority text type of view). The issue is muddied, as I see it, by the slew of pretenders who claim to appropriate the "majority text" label when they in reality have no interest in that theory nor in textual criticism at all, but are solely concerned with the ultra-fundamentalist defense of the KJV-Only position (i.e. my categories 1, 2, and 3). This KJV-Only guilt-by-association keeps a large number, even of conservatives, from seriously considering the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on its own merits. (Just for the record, I don't even use or read the KJV; the language is too archaic and its NT text is simply too inaccurate from a Byzantine-priority perspective). *:-) Further muddying is done by some within category 4 who opt by various means to follow principles which are ultimately destructive of the theory they espouse. Example: Hodges and Farstad's text of Revelation was accurately referred to by Wallace as the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text" in that book rather than anything approaching a "majority text" as the title of their edition claims, solely due to their decision to abandon their own principles once full collation data becomes available. Another example: the tendency of the Category 4 crowd to make everything ultimately revolve around a providential preservation and (ultimately) an inerrantist agenda -- if that won't keep non-conservatives away, nothing will. *:-) My own position (to reiterate) is neither tied to a KJV or TR position, nor is there any theological agenda regarding providential preservation or inerrancy which characterizes my approach. I prefer to keep the discipline of NT textual criticism theologically neutral if possible. > As you probably know, I don't mean for these to sound like rhetorical > questions; I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you make of this. And I definitely believe you. Of course, unless a second-century MS of unquestioned Byzantine character should be discovered in the sands of Egypt (which I hardly think possible), I do not doubt that the "majority text" or Byzantine-priority hypothesis will ever see much play in the SBL. Were such an discovery ever to occur, I would be quite interested in seeing the scurrying which would transpire to preserve the current eclectic method (I can hear it now: "just because the Byzantine text is now seen to be quite early does not make it authentic"). *:-) ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Mon Feb 12 16:56:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07239; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:56:32 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:53:53 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: <9602121850.AA10444@Np.nosc.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4376 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > If projected on a spectrum, I might fall somewhere between Sturz > and Robinson, but my theory of Biblical authority is very distant > from inerrancy. At least to a degree, here is one non-inerrantist who leans in this direction. *:-) > In fact, the desperate pleading of many Burgonites > has been a turn-off to me; their need for an inerrant KJV really shows. I cite the above quote as a perfect illustration of what I was getting at: the KJV-Only crowd indeed has muddied the waters on this issue so much that the guilt-by-association is almost automatic. Additionally, the term "Burgonite" is symptomatic. Wallace called me a "true Burgonite" (which term I accept, so long as it applies to text-critical theory!) in his critique of majority text theory. But I accept the term only in its correct meaning, i.e. the detailed application of text-critical principles in the manner Burgon advocated. If "Burgonite" is taken to mean KJV-Onlyists, or those whose pen drips blood and brimstone, then I certainly do not accept the term. Burgon was NOT a KJV-Only defender, nor even a TR defender. Burgon's own text-critical notes (published only for Matthew 1-14, though his unpublished papers in the Bodleian in Oxford cover the entire NT) show where he would have corrected the TR, and it was not insignificant. In the section covering Matthew 1-14, Burgon would have altered the TR in around 160 places, and his resultant text would very closely approximate either the Hodges/Farstad edition or the Robinson/Pierpont edition (this I have checked). Wherever the changes were translatable, Burgon also urged changes in the KJV text, and he even notes a dozen or so such places within his published works. Burgon was opposed to the English Revision of the KJV for various reasons, and his vituperation spilled over far too much in his writings. He openly admitted he was not opposed to revision, but was opposed to one which was as radical as the ERV 1881. Certain items he opposed were theological (e.g. having a Unitarian on the revision committee); others textual (the committee's instructions were charged not to alter the text underlying the KJV apart from exceptional evidence; Burgon did not consider Aleph/B or the draft copies of the Westcott-Hort text privately circulated to the committee as "exceptional" in itself). Burgon was not a KJV-Only type person. The problem today is that the KJV-Only crowd basically have canonized Burgon as one of their own, and who can utter nothing false. Yet in many instances Burgon is now known to have been wrong due to subsequent discoveries. Example: Burgon thought Origen responsible for creating the Alexandrian text; P75 alone squashes that nonsense. But the KJV-Only crowd (especially Ruckman, Riplinger, and Waite) continues to quote Burgon on that point as if he has "never been answered"). Rubbish. Burgon is not infallible, and never was. As a text critical scholar and collator of MSS, however, Burgon was considered one of the experts of that day, and even Scrivener acknowledges his expertise in that area. Too bad his rhetoric was so harsh, or others might have listened more carefully to him. Edward Miller's little "Guide to Textual Criticism" (1886) clearly reflects a solid Byzantine-priority method based upon Burgon's seven "notes of truth" without all the bombast and rhetoric. Those interested in the "majority text" theory should consult that before reading Burgon in order to see such a position calmly presented. Miller himself even had a formal debate in 1897 with Wm. Sanday (among others) at Oxford over the differing theories of textual criticism. Had Burgon been yet alive, he likely would not have been invited to participate, due to his virulent nature. I do hope this little excursion helps somewhat. As a "true Burgonite," I felt I had to write something to explain my position. *:-) ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Mon Feb 12 20:30:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07640; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:30:49 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:32:04 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: "Majority Text" Cc: Maurice Robinson Content-Length: 4159 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson wrote; >Class 2: Majority Text Proper advocates > >One definite demarcation line is now crossed: the remaining two groups are >not tied to the KJV or the TR in any manner whatsoever, even though some >of their works are misquoted and misapplied by KJV-Only distortionists. > >(4) Within the "Majority Text" camp proper one finds Zane Hodges and >Arthur Farstad, who produced the Majority Text Greek NT edition. These >are joined by Wilbur Pickering who wrote "The Identity of the NT Text" >volume some years back -- a work which was long on critique of the W-H >theory but quite short on "majority text" theory. > >A basic contention of this group is theological: the text found in the >greatest number of copies is that which God providentially preserved. >Pickering alleged from this that virtually all other variant readings were >the result of Satanic and heretical activity, since scribes were (in his >opinion) uniformly "orthodox" and had a "high view" of Scripture, >including its inerrancy. > >The theological argument in Hodges and Farstad is not so explicit, but is >still mentioned as an underlying factor in their theory (Hodges and >Farstad sacrifice much of their theory, however, in Revelation, where they >follow stemmatics and end up favoring a sub-group (Ma) comprising only 20% >of the known MSS, thus giving rise to the anomaly that their "majority >text" in Revelation at times has only 20% support as opposed to the "true" >80% majority. *:-) > >(5) The Byzantine-priority group (which I claim to reflect) does not begin >nor end with a theological agenda regarding providential preservation >(i.e., if such occurred, then all MSS of all texttypes reflect that >preservation), nor is "number" a primary factor. Rather, the question of >whether the Byzantine text as a texttype might be more likely to reflect >the autograph text is the primary question. > >This approach is coupled with a detailed historical transmission >hypothesis and takes into account all the relevant data, as well as >performs praxis by utilizing standard external and internal criteria of NT >textual criticism (with modifications befitting the transmissional >hypothesis). > >William Pierpont and I have produced our own edition of the >Byzantine/Majority Textform in both printed and electronic form (text >only; no apparatus), utilizing the data from the Von Soden, Tischendorf, >and the Nestle26-27/UBS3-4 apparatuses. Even if one does not share the >same hypothesis, our edition provides a distinct Byzantine text which is >not abandoned at any point for extraneous reasons such as in that of >Hodges/Farstad. > >It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or >"Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a >theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy. This >position does not, however, dictate our choice of variant readings, nor >does it imply any desire to make the resultant text match the TR or KJV >or any other translation. > >I have presented a number of papers to the Evangelical Theological Society >on aspects of Byzantine priority, and have not made any conclusions which >were imposed by inerrantist or "preservationist" beliefs (I originally >held to a "reasoned eclectic" position, and only changed that view after >a careful consideration of all the evidence and questioning the theories >currently in vogue, thanks to the help and guidance received from my >text-critical mentor, Kenneth W. Clark). > You have clearly differentiated your position here from that of Hodges and Farstad. Your statement about biblical inerrancy is interesting. I do now wish to open that can of worms again on this list or b-greek, but I suspect that it plays a greater role than you allow, but I must read your work and examine your textual decisions before I make such assertions. I had hoped that when I finished Hodges/Farstad that I could settle back into my easy eclectism and be happy with my new "Textus Receptus" (UBS-N-A) and just read the NT. Grace, Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net From majordom Mon Feb 12 23:30:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08055; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:30:21 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:27:40 -0800 Message-Id: <199602130427.UAA15498@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: "Majority Text" Content-Length: 1434 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Carlton L. Winbery wrote to Maurice Robinson: >You have clearly differentiated your position here from that of Hodges and >Farstad. Your statement about biblical inerrancy is interesting. I do now >wish to open that can of worms again on this list or b-greek, but I suspect >that it plays a greater role than you allow, but I must read your work and >examine your textual decisions before I make such assertions. I had hoped >that when I finished Hodges/Farstad that I could settle back into my easy >eclectism and be happy with my new "Textus Receptus" (UBS-N-A) and just >read the NT. This is a question for Maurice...would you put your position, purely in terms of your rejection of current critical methodology, close to that of Jakob van Bruggen ? What I found fascinating about his critique was that it was almost totally composed of quotes by current critics of their own method; interspersed with quotes from Kilpatrick, Eliot. In terms of where he ends up as to the type of text he chooses, I can't say that I'm sure what he holds. *********************************************************************** 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 Feb 12 23:47:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08220; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:47:54 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:43:45 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Miller To: "Dale M. Wheeler" Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Matthew Fragment In-Reply-To: <199602130427.UAA15498@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 655 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Does anyone have any info on the Matthew fragment discovered at an English university last year? Has it been dated? Is it authentic? Thanks. Chuck Miller University of New Mexico Philosophy Department ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a philosopher there is more | Reality is not limited to the grass growing down in the valleys | familiar, the commonplace, for it of silliness than up on the | consists in huge part of a latent, as barren heights of cleverness. | yet unspoken, future Word. --L. Wittgenstein, | -- F. Dostoevskey, _Notebooks_ _Culture and Value_ | From majordom Tue Feb 13 00:20:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08330; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:20:12 +0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:17:24 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: "Dale M. Wheeler" Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Matthew Fragment In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 453 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Charles Miller wrote: > Does anyone have any info on the Matthew fragment discovered at an > English university last year? Has it been dated? Is it authentic? > > Thanks. > > > Chuck Miller University of New Mexico Philosophy Department There's an article about it in the December 1995 issue of Bible Review. I read it a while ago, and so I cannot really give you an accurate synopsis of its conclusions. andrew gross From majordom Tue Feb 13 00:30:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08376; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:30:37 +0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:30:30 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Re: Matthew Fragment In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1076 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Charles Miller wrote: > Does anyone have any info on the Matthew fragment discovered at an > English university last year? Has it been dated? Is it authentic? I think that you're probably referring to Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (P64) which was not discovered last year, but rather was redated by Carsten P. Thiede from ca. 200 (see Colin H. Roberts, "An Early Papyrus of the First Gospel," Harvard Theological Review 46 [1953]: 233-237) to ca. 70 on the basis on paleography. Thiede's arguments may be found in "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64): A Reappraisal," Zeitschrift fu"r Paleographie und Epigraphik 105 (1995): 13-20 and further in the Tyndale Bulletin (I don't know the full ref.). Thiede's revised date was disputed vociferously on Ioudaios last year by Stuart Pickering and, in greater detail, by Sigrid Peterson. 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 Tue Feb 13 09:34:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09477; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:34:39 +0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:31:46 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Orthodox Corruptions in the Alexandrian text In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2537 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > There simply is NO evidence whatsoever that the Alexandrian texttype was > influenced in any significant manner from the various theological > viewpoints which affected orthodox Christianity. Here and there there > are isolated readings in some few MSS which might have stemmed from or > were utilized by non-orthodox, but insofar as a texttype-as-a-whole would > be affected by heretical doctrines would imply that the fathers, pastors, > and other theologians of the early church were not keen watchdogs against > the intrusion of such heresy in their sacred texts. I do not think this > is the case, nor do I consider Ehrman's case (The Orthodox Corruption > of Scripture) to be valid once one gets to the texttype level (Bart will > differ on this, of course). > I'm not sure what it would *mean* to talk about the corruption of a text-type, since scribes (not text-types) are the ones who create textual variation; if it simply means that mss of the Alexandrian text-type uniformly attest some forms of variation, though, then I do indeed disagree with Maurice's point. The argument would have to be carried out in the details of course, but I should point out that I made as strong a case as I could (none too strong, you might say!) that in a number of significant places Alexandrian witnesses preserve orthodox corruptions of the text. These include such important passages as: -- Luke 3:22 (the voice at Jesus' baptism) -- John 1:18 (the monogenhs theos) -- All of the so-called Western non=interpolations (which are actually non-Western interpolations; all of them anti-docetic) (I saw this as one of the most important "realizations" I had when making my study) -- Numerous others. Maurice suggests that this kind of variation, if conceded, would imply that the church leaders were not "keen watchdogs" over their texts. *Of course* they weren't. How, exactly could they be? One wonders what kind of historical scenario would be required. The fact is that there are numerous corruptions of the text all over the map, many of them affecting the exegesis of entire books and the theology of their interpreters. I'm happy to say, by the way, that my book (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) has just come out in paperback, priced at something under $20 (the hardback, of course, costs something like $3 more to produce, and so costs $25 more to buy...) -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From majordom Tue Feb 13 11:34:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10294; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:34:22 +0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:31:31 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960213113131_143054954@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Majority Text? Content-Length: 1105 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Forgive me, please, if I say something that has already been said in this forum; I am new here online! I have noticed a great deal of discussion concerning the so called "Majority Text". It seems that there is a resurgence of those who would have us believe that manuscripts should be counted, and not weighed. This seems rather unfortunate. When I was a student, not that many years ago, we were taught that manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted, simply because an error in an early manuscript could be and often was repeated in its descendents. If Codex D, for instance, has an incorrect reading at say Mark 16, and those scribes who copied from it kept it close by, then that error would be passed on to all of its descendents. Thus, you might have 300 manuscripts with an error and 1 much closer to the original without that error- yet if those manuscripts were counted the error would win! My question to the majority text adherents then is, what do you do with this excellent dictum- "manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted?" Thanks for any response, D. Jim West Petros TN From majordom Tue Feb 13 13:00:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10867; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 13:00:35 +0500 From: Sigrid Peterson Message-Id: <199602131757.MAA52810@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Matthew Fragment To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:57:27 -0500 (EST) Cc: papy@igl.ku.dk In-Reply-To: from "James R. Adair" at Feb 13, 96 00:30:30 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1598 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu To the bibliography supplied by Paul.Schubert, David Parker, and Andrew Gross on the papy list, and by James Adair on the tc-list, let me add two more items. Emile Puech reviewed Thiede's article in the October 1995 issue of Revue Biblique(Vol 102-4 pp. 570-584). The summary in English is as follows: In opposition to what some authors think, the identification of 7Q5 with Mc 6,52 s and of 7Q4 with 1 Tim 3, 16-4.3 are absolutely impossible. The fragments of Magdalen Greek 17 = P 64 which can not be attributed to the first c., do not confirm the habits of scribes supposed to give a base to this wrong identification. On the contrary, P64 is surely the oldest witness of a reading of the most numerous manuscripts in Mt 26, 22 in Egypt itself, much better than that of the Alexandrine text. Jim Adair, on the TC-LIST, was kind enough to mention my detailed review of the article which appeared on IOUDAIOS-L. Due to the requests I received for copies, I've placed it on my home page on the world wide web. The URL for retrieving it is http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede.txt.final.reply I have a later recension, which quotes the media coverage of Thiede's mid-December announcement, which I will upload to the same file name in the next two days. It will be identifiable as such because I will prefix it with the critical bibliography that has begun to appear. Sigrid Peterson UPenn, Bar-Ilan University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and The British School for Archaeology in Jerusalem petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From majordom Tue Feb 13 14:05:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11229; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:05:43 +0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:02:19 -0500 From: James.Tauber@East.Sun.COM (James Tauber SunLabs - SML) Message-Id: <199602131902.OAA04797@torino.East.Sun.COM> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Proposed Greek Entities Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Md5: JtyhJUyxi/45BaZDH8K3nQ== Content-Length: 689 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Thanks for explaining, Patrick. The reasons you cite do provide a good = grounds for a new entity set. Some of you may be familiar with GreekGIF = (http://www.entmp.org/GreekGIF/) Well I'm currently working on a next generation solution to the problem = of Greek character display (until we get some Unicode fonts in browsers): A Java applet that draws the Greek characters passed to it via parameters. I shall use your proposed entities for this endeavour. It is also likely = that the ENTMP will use them as well. Regards James K. Tauber PS I have now settled in at my internship in Boston so those of you I = owe letters should be hearing from me soon (I have a huge backlog). From majordom Wed Feb 14 00:21:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13604; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:21:27 +0500 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:21:20 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Re: Matthew Fragment Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 776 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 13 Feb 96 15:54:28 EST From: Harold P. Scanlin <73750.2016@compuserve.com> To: "\"James R. Adair\"" Subject: Re: Matthew Fragment Regarding Thiede and P64, I think people were misled into thinking that P64 was a new discovery by some press releases, based on the Dec. 24, 1994 article in the London Times. Thiede's ZPE article has now been reprinted, along with other related articles (some in English for the first time) in a newly published collection of Thiede's essays, (Trinity, 1996). Thiede has also revived the O'Callaghan thesis regarding the identification of 7Q5 as Mark. The Tyndale Bulletin reference, with another article by Phil Comfort on the subject, is . From majordom Wed Feb 14 07:45:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14226; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 07:45:18 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:40:47 -0600 (CST) From: ljgrn@creighton.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Notice of Fall IOSCS Meeting In-Reply-To: <960212142223.129f0@JOE.ALB.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1432 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Some of you who did not receive this notice might find it of interest: Call for Papers -----January 1996 The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies will meet this year in New Orleans, Louisiana, in conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion. The meeting dates are 23-26 November 1996. Any IOSCS member interested in presenting a paper should contact me prior to March 1, 1996. We are planning two sessions in New Orleans: one dealing with "Kaige"; the other, with our usual range of diverse topics. Your proposal should contain your name, the name of your academic institution, the title of your proposed paper and a summary or abstract of the paper. This summary should be no more than 300 words in length and must be double spaced. In keeping with the description provided by SBL, your abstract should: "State the problem, the essential background, and your conclusions.... Be precise and brief; everyone knows you will provide more detail and a defense of your conclusions at the meeting." Also make sure that is clear which session you are interested in. SBL members will find the necessary forms and information in the current SBL Call for Papers. Others can obtain the forms, etc., directly from me. I hope that we will continue our tradition of presenting a strong and interesting program at each of our meetings. Leonard Greenspoon From majordom Wed Feb 14 07:45:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14233; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 07:45:39 +0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:53:32 -0600 (CST) From: ljgrn@creighton.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Harry Orlinsky biography In-Reply-To: <960212142223.129f0@JOE.ALB.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 812 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu This is a copy of a message that I had put on IOUDAIOS, but I think (I hope) it will be of interest to many of you as well. I would appreciate whatever help you can provide. Thanks: For a biography of Harry M. Orlinsky that I am writing, I would appreciate receiving recollections, copies of correspondence, and any other relevant materials. As all of you know, Orlinsky was a unique personality, a remarkable scholar, and active founder/participant in a number of scholarly organizations in the field of religious studies. Please contact me. Thank you. Leonard Greenspoon Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization Creighton University 2500 California Plaza Omaha, NE 68178 TEL: (402)280-2303 or 2304 FAX: (402)280-4731 e-mail: ljgrn@creighton.edu Thank you. ************************** From majordom Wed Feb 14 09:48:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14708; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:48:49 +0500 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:48:35 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: P64 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 903 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 14 Feb 96 09:25:36 EST From: Harold P. Scanlin <73750.2016@compuserve.com> To: James Adair Subject: P64 An incomplete version of this message was inadvertently sent yesterday. ____________________________ Regarding Thiede and P64, I think people were misled into thinking that P64 was a new discovery by some press releases, based on the Dec. 24, 1994 article in the London Times. Thiede's ZPE article has now been reprinted, along with other related articles (some in English for the first time) in a newly published collection of Thiede's essays, "Rekindling the Word" (Trinity, 1996). Thiede has also revived the O'Callaghan thesis regarding the identification of 7Q5 as Mark. The Tyndale Bulletin reference, with another article by Phil Comfort on the subject, is Vol. 46, No. 1 (1995). Harold P. Scanlin From majordom Wed Feb 14 16:29:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16735; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 16:29:23 +0500 From: dwashbur@nyx.net (David Washburn) Message-Id: <9602142126.AA04990@nyx.net> Subject: Re: "Majority Text" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:26:26 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: from "Maurice Robinson" at Feb 12, 96 04:23:24 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1260 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson wrote: [snip] > And I definitely believe you. Of course, unless a second-century MS of > unquestioned Byzantine character should be discovered in the sands of > Egypt (which I hardly think possible), I do not doubt that the "majority > text" or Byzantine-priority hypothesis will ever see much play in the > SBL. Were such an discovery ever to occur, I would be quite interested in > seeing the scurrying which would transpire to preserve the current eclectic > method (I can hear it now: "just because the Byzantine text is now seen > to be quite early does not make it authentic"). *:-) Actually, as I recall, this is almost exactly what Harry Sturz concluded after he showed that Byzantine readings were present in early papyri. He wasn't trying to argue that the Byzantine text should be primary, merely put on an equal footing with other text-types for the application of internal criteria. That being the case, I doubt that such a discovery would put much of a dent in eclectic methodology, because virtually all internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine readings lacking anyway. -- Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html Seen in a classified ad: "Parachute for sale. Used once. Never opened." From majordom Thu Feb 15 11:33:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19697; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:33:24 +0500 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 08:29:48 PST From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9602151629.AA12577@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9602142126.AA04990@nyx.net> (dwashbur@nyx.net) Subject: Re: "Majority Text" Content-Length: 693 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu dwashbur@nyx.net said: > ...I doubt that such a discovery > would put much of a dent in eclectic methodology, because virtually all > internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine readings lacking > anyway. This claim is often heard, but aside from the unsatisfying summaries given in Hort's intro, I haven't seen this claim documented. Any references? (to evidence, that is, not to repetitions of the claim). 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 = (_)> (_) From majordom Thu Feb 15 11:55:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19824; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:55:51 +0500 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 08:52:14 PST From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9602151652.AA12609@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <960213113131_143054954@emout06.mail.aol.com> (HuldrychZ@aol.com) Subject: Re: Majority Text? Content-Length: 1140 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu huldrychz@aol.com asked: > My question to the majority text adherents then is, what do you do with this > excellent dictum- "manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted?" With no attempt to speak for Z Hodges, I would say to that dictum: Right on! But, the unspoken added assumption seems to be that the witnesses to the Alpha text type are all descended from one late source, perhaps the conjectural NT edition of Lucian. This is an essential part of Hort's argument that the Syrian witnesses should get near-zero weight, and it has been shown false. Studies by Lake and others show that the earliest Alpha text type witnesses are much less unified than the text type becomes later on, the "Imperial Byzantine text" being a gradual development. With the exception of the known genealogy of the Ka sub-text-type, the early Alphas are not direct descendents of each other or close relations. 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 = (_)> (_) From majordom Fri Feb 16 00:10:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22401; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:10:30 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:10:22 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Cc: "Larry W. Hurtado" Subject: Qumran evidence for textual diversity In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2455 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu A post on Ioudaios on the Qumran texts raises some questions for me. On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Larry W. Hurtado wrote: > As to the *text-critical* question, the Qumran material suggests > that there remained a significant degree of variety/fluidity in the > textual variation of biblical writings. We have Heb. mss that exhibit > readings corresponding to the previously distinctive readings of the LXX. > The far greater number of Qumran biblical mss, however, exhibit MT-type > texts, and are called "proto-Massoretic" mss therefore. At Qumran at > least, therefore, we see proto-MT mss dominant, perhaps indicating an > emerging preference/popularity for proto-MT text-type that eventuated in > this text-type becoming standarized officially as the received Hebrew > text. So, in describing citations of the OT in the NT, it would be > proper to label them as appropriate as "proto-LXX" or "proto-MT", meaning > that they exhibit readings/variants witnessed to in the LXX or MT, and > that these types of texts *were* already circulating in pre-Christian times. Emanuel Tov in _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ estimates that 60% of the Qumran material reflects a proto-Masoretic type of text, 5% are pre-Samaritan, 5% are proto-LXX, 20% are written in the "Qumran scribal practice" (i.e., plene orthography, lengthened pronouns and pronominal suffixes, etc.), and 10% are non-aligned (114-116). I have heard that Tov has recently revised these figures so that the proto-MT group is around 40% (?)--presumably the difference is made up by the non-aligned group. Does anyone have the bibliographic reference for his article that updates these percentages? Also, I have never thought that the "Qumran practice" group belongs in the same discussion as the other mss. This group is characterized by a certain orthography and morphology, _not_ a distinct text-type. On the basis of their texts, do they belong in one of the other groups, or should they be divided among the groups? My impression of 1QIsa-a is that, orthography and morphology aside, it should be classified as non-aligned. Of course, it would be hard to determine a proto-LXX for Isaiah. Does anyone have thoughts on any of these points? 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 Feb 16 00:18:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22428; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:18:27 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:18:19 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Cc: "Larry W. Hurtado" Subject: Re: Mss and Christian origins In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2297 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Another post on Ioudaios from Larry Hurtado caught my attention. On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Larry W. Hurtado wrote: > Having occasion to read again Victor Martin's intro to his edition of the > Bodmer Papyrus II (P66), I was struck again by how much information there > is in NT mss that is relevant for larger historical purposes. It's very > *hot* just now to address social & economic questions about early > Christianity, but in this I've seen scant awareness of the value of NT > mss as artefacts of early Christianity from which careful inferences > could be made. For example, from the physical characteristics of P66 > (and other early mss, esp. the pre-Constantinian ones) we can tell > something of the economics of mss production & use, which in turn > suggests things about the economic level of those for whom the ms was > produced. From the nature of the scribe's hand we can tell something > about the kind of structure that lies behind this ms (a scriptorium?). > >From the many scribal errors something of the ability of this scribe, and > from the many corrections made something of the concern to achieve > accuracy, in spite of the scribe's limited abilities! > In short, we have possible inferences about economic mattters, > institutional developments in late second-century Christianity, and even > attitudes toward the NT text. Why do are so many scholars unable to see > ms studies and textual criticism as good for anything beyond restoring an > "original" text? This is a very important point. One of the goals of both the tc-list and the electronic journal TC is to encourage the exploration of the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines: theology, history of doctrine, social history, literary criticism, etc., etc. The mss that contain the texts we study contain a wealth of information on many topics, if we will just take the time to look at them. I would be interested to hear whether others on the list have used data from mss to illuminate their study of fields other than textual criticism per se. 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 Feb 16 00:47:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22483; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:47:13 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:44:30 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Williams To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Qumran evidence for textual diversity In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2141 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > Emanuel Tov in _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ estimates that 60% > of the Qumran material reflects a proto-Masoretic type of text, 5% are > pre-Samaritan, 5% are proto-LXX, 20% are written in the "Qumran scribal > practice" (i.e., plene orthography, lengthened pronouns and pronominal > suffixes, etc.), and 10% are non-aligned (114-116). I have heard that > Tov has recently revised these figures so that the proto-MT group is > around 40% (?)--presumably the difference is made up by the non-aligned > group. Does anyone have the bibliographic reference for his article that > updates these percentages? They are reported by VanderKam in his _The DSS Today_ (p. 134) The updated figures are: proto-MT 40%; Pre-Sam 5%; texts close to Vorlage of LXX 5%; non-aligned 25%; and Qumran practice texts 25%. I don't believe Tov has published these figures yet. Also, I have never thought that the "Qumran > practice" group belongs in the same discussion as the other mss. This > group is characterized by a certain orthography and morphology, _not_ a > distinct text-type. On the basis of their texts, do they belong in one > of the other groups, or should they be divided among the groups? I totally agree. In a review of Tov I wrote I noted the same thing. Tov should have dealt with "Qumran practice" texts and "non Qumran practice" texts in parallel fashion,and then discuss them according to their textual affiliations (i.e., of the "Qumran practice" texts which are proto-MT, which are non-aligned, etc.). The way he discusses it now he has, e.g., 4QDeut-h and 4QDeut-k listed under both "Qumran practice" and "non-aligned". This does nothing but confuse matters. Tyler ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler F. Williams Wycliffe College Internet: twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto School of Theology Voice/Fax: (416) 963-9082 University of Toronto ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From majordom Fri Feb 16 01:45:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22568; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 01:45:22 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 01:42:42 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Qumran evidence for textual diversity In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3822 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > Emanuel Tov in _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ estimates that 60% > of the Qumran material reflects a proto-Masoretic type of text, 5% are > pre-Samaritan, 5% are proto-LXX, 20% are written in the "Qumran scribal > practice" (i.e., plene orthography, lengthened pronouns and pronominal > suffixes, etc.), and 10% are non-aligned (114-116). I have heard that > Tov has recently revised these figures so that the proto-MT group is > around 40% (?)--presumably the difference is made up by the non-aligned > group. Does anyone have the bibliographic reference for his article that > updates these percentages? Also, I have never thought that the "Qumran > practice" group belongs in the same discussion as the other mss. This > group is characterized by a certain orthography and morphology, _not_ a > distinct text-type. On the basis of their texts, do they belong in one > of the other groups, or should they be divided among the groups? My > impression of 1QIsa-a is that, orthography and morphology aside, it > should be classified as non-aligned. Of course, it would be hard to > determine a proto-LXX for Isaiah. Does anyone have thoughts on any of > these points? Tov's revised figures appear in the paper he contributed to the volume _Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness_ edited by Lawrence Schiffman and Devorah Dimant (Brill 1995). I have not read Tov's later piece, but I have talked over this subject a little with Dr. Schiffman. In Schiffman's book, he argues from Tov's initial figures that the MT-text family had started to become the dominant one much earlier than had been previously thought. What interests me about this whole line of reasoning is that I believe it involves a big methodological leap of faith. Specifically, even if the figures for distribution of text-types at Qumran support Schiffman's position, one still must assume that the distribution of text-types at Qumran can be extrapolated to all of Palestine at that time. I still don't see how such an extrapolation is justified (I'm supposed to stop in during Dr. Schiffman's office hours to discuss this some day). Tov tries to address this point in an article in the Journal of Jewish Studies (Spring 1988, vol 34:1) -- see especially page 7. The main argument he seems to put forth is the fact that most of the Biblical manuscripts seem to have been copied outside the community and brought to Qumran. For James Adair's question, this would at least explain why the Qumran "practice" texts would not be counted among the groups of text-types. In other words, if we want to figure out the state of the text as it was *throughout* Palestine during the Second Temple Period based on the Qumran finds, the first thing we should do is set aside all of the Qumran-type texts in order to control against any possible idiosyncrasies the Qumran scribes may have brought to the text. As for dividing up the Qumran texts amongst the other text-types, my impression of Tov's approach was that the whole text family picture was a lot blurrier than we once thought, and that we must be careful about trying to neatly place things within text families. More specifically, he wants to get away from the whole Frank Cross "Local Texts" approach because he feels that we have a lot more textual families than previously thought. I'm a little rusty on all this, but I really would love to get this thread rolling because I find it all very interesting (obviously, since I'm on this list ;-)). As a final note, I must say that I still find Tov's argument for extrapolation unsatisfying, but I guess one must deal with evidence one has. What does anyone else think? andrew gross Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies New York University From majordom Fri Feb 16 10:36:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23946; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:36:19 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:33:26 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Williams To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Qumran evidence for textual diversity In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1662 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Andrew Gross wrote: > Tov's revised figures appear in the paper he contributed to the volume > _Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness_ edited by Lawrence Schiffman > and Devorah Dimant (Brill 1995). I stand corrected! (I actually have a copy of Tov's article on file, it must have just slipped my mind). In regards to my previous post, in this article Tov argues that it is not easy to characterize the textual character of the "Qumran practice" texts as the scribes who copied them took so many liberties that their Vorlagen cannot be identified (p. 95). Nevertheless, I still stand by my previous assertion that Tov is comparing apples and oranges and that he should have organized his data differently. > methodological leap of faith. Specifically, even if the figures for > distribution of text-types at Qumran support Schiffman's position, one > still must assume that the distribution of text-types at Qumran can be > extrapolated to all of Palestine at that time. I still don't see how > such an extrapolation is justified The problem, in my mind, is further complicated by the fact that we have only what was found at Qumran; we don't know if we have even fully represents the Qumran community, let alone Palestine. Tyler ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler F. Williams Wycliffe College Internet: twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto School of Theology Voice/Fax: (416) 963-9082 University of Toronto ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From majordom Fri Feb 16 10:56:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24118; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:56:01 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:55:51 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Re: Mss and Christian origins (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2081 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu This message follows up a previous post concerning the use of the information garnered from the study of NT mss in areas other than textual criticism proper. 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 <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:39:39 EST From: Larry W. Hurtado To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Mss and Christian origins On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Ian Hutchesson wrote: > It's natural that one can get more information from the original mss, but > one at least needs high quality photo reproductions of the pages of the > manuscript to do so. We mere mortals who haven't got access to this sort of > resource have to be content with that which we can access and use that the > best we can. Well, yes, to make the actual measurements of ms margins, and to date the scribal hand, etc., one does need either the actual ms or *good* photos, true. But I'm not asking NT scholars to do this. I'm wondering why more of us don't read and use this information, much of which has already been compiled and published in the critical editions of important mss. Victor Martin's edition of P66, for example, has been out since 1956/1958. P75 was published not long afterward. The Beatty Papyri have been in the public domain published since the mid-30s. I'm not asking for NT scholars to be experts in paleography or codicology (I'm not), but I'm remarking how strange it is for scholars in a field to be quite so indifferent to the most readily available "realia" of the early Christians we purport to want to speak about. We get all excited about this or that archaeological artefact, all the while not realizing that these early mss are major archaeological artefacts with *lots* of valuable info that can be analyzed and from which inferences can be made. Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba From majordom Fri Feb 16 11:07:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24179; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:07:38 +0500 Message-Id: <9602161604.AA10673@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Majority Text? To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:04:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <9602151652.AA12609@Np.nosc.mil> from "Vincent Broman" at Feb 15, 96 08:52:14 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 814 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Vincent Broman wrote: >huldrychz@aol.com asked: >> My question to the majority text adherents then is, what do you do with this >> excellent dictum- "manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted?" > >With no attempt to speak for Z Hodges, I would say to that dictum: >Right on! Reading the introduction to Hodges & Farstad's "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority" and considering their stemmatic reconstructions of the Pericope Adultera and Revelation, I would say these majority text adherents also believe that mss should be weighed and not counted. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Fri Feb 16 11:29:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24334; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:29:25 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:26:46 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960216112644_145862276@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Majority Text? Content-Length: 239 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Could someone cite a specific text in the writings of the majority text adherents which suggests or implies that there is, among them, a desire to weigh and not count? The name "Majority Text" indicates the contrary. Thanks, Jim West From majordom Fri Feb 16 12:17:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24638; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:17:27 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:17:18 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Majority Text? In-Reply-To: <960216112644_145862276@emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1086 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice Robinson described five different positions which might be labeled as "Majority Text" positions, and he identified himself with the fifth group. I agree that the term "Majority Text," even (or especially!) for this fifth group, is problematic, because the fact that the resulting text agrees with the Majority Text most of the time is presumably mere happenstance. I would think adherents of the fifth position would call their position the Byzantine Priority position, since it is supposed to be based on the stemmatic priority of a Byzantine-like text. On the other hand, if this fifth position actually ends up reflecting the Majority Text all of the time, rather than most of the time (which is it?), one has to question whether the purported methodology of independent analysis of readings is really being followed. Isn't the proof in the pudding? 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 Feb 16 18:10:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26332; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:10:26 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:07:43 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: Carlton Winbery Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2267 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote: > >Quoting Maurice Robinson: > >It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or > >"Byzantine-priority" hypotheses reflect a > >theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy. This > >position does not, however, dictate our choice of variant readings, nor > >does it imply any desire to make the resultant text match the TR or KJV > >or any other translation. > >I have presented a number of papers to the Evangelical Theological Society > >on aspects of Byzantine priority, and have not made any conclusions which > >were imposed by inerrantist or "preservationist" beliefs > You have clearly differentiated your position here from that of Hodges and > Farstad. Your statement about biblical inerrancy is interesting. I do not > wish to open that can of worms again on this list or b-greek, but I suspect > that it plays a greater role than you allow, but I must read your work and > examine your textual decisions before I make such assertions. Interestingly, my views regarding inerrancy developed about two years AFTER my text-critical position had swung from electic to Byzantine- priority. I would not want to suggest cause or effect in either direction. I do think that if you should read my ETS papers on text-critical issues, the word "inerrancy" will not come up except to criticize some others within the "majority text" and KJV-Only camp who have a theological agenda which supersedes their text-critical views. > I had hoped > that when I finished Hodges/Farstad that I could settle back into my easy > eclectism and be happy with my new "Textus Receptus" (UBS-N-A) and just > read the NT. You can, and you still won't be far off from the Byzantine/Majority Textform in any case, since the agreement runs 90%+ throughout. *:-) ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Fri Feb 16 18:21:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26384; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:21:50 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:19:11 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: <199602130427.UAA15498@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2651 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > Carlton L. Winbery wrote to Maurice Robinson: > > >You have clearly differentiated your position here from that of Hodges and > >Farstad. > This is a question for Maurice...would you put your position, purely in > terms of your rejection of current critical methodology, close to that of > Jakob van Bruggen ? What I found fascinating about his critique was that it > was almost totally composed of quotes by current critics of their own > method; interspersed with quotes from Kilpatrick, Eliot. In terms of where > he ends up as to the type of text he chooses, I can't say that I'm sure what > he holds. I would suggest that Jakob van Bruggen (and Wm. Wisselink, who completed his doctorate under Van Bruggen) would be far closer and more in sympathy with my own views than would Hodges, Farstad, or Pickering. Van Bruggen and I differ often over interpretation of passages, which interpretation affects our manner of internal-evidence defense of various Byzantine readings, but we still favor almost an identical Byzantine/Majority text of the NT (including the major differences in Revelation from the H/F stemmatic text in that book). The use of a string of continual quotes from contemporary eclectic critics, each attempting to shoot down one or another element of internal evidence espoused by another is an entertaining exercise when done well. Van Bruggen is careful enough in this regard, and basically emulates the same type of critique as does Eldon J. Epp in his "Requiem" and "Interlude" articles. However, such academic "proof-texting," while demonstrating that there is not total peace and harmony in eclectic-land, does not of itself establish any alternative as better. I myself avoid that type of proof-texting, since it is not a solution, but (as Epp maintained) a "symptom." I also want to avoid any connection with the utter mess that Wilbur Pickering made out of various scholarly quotes in his "Identity of the NT Text" book, where he blatantly took passages out of context, misquoted other passages, and misapplied the lot in a poor attempt to discredit the eclectic position (and ruined the real thrust of his book in the process). ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Fri Feb 16 18:57:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26440; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:57:15 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:54:34 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Orthodox Corruptions in the Alexandrian text In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 6458 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Bart Ehrman wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > were utilized by non-orthodox, but insofar as a texttype-as-a-whole would > > be affected by heretical doctrines would imply that the fathers, pastors, > > and other theologians of the early church were not keen watchdogs against > > the intrusion of such heresy in their sacred texts. I do not think this > > is the case, nor do I consider Ehrman's case (The Orthodox Corruption > > of Scripture) to be valid once one gets to the texttype level (Bart will > > differ on this, of course). > I'm not sure what it would *mean* to talk about the corruption of a > text-type, since scribes (not text-types) are the ones who create textual > variation; This is true, unless a text-type reflects either a true "recension" (edited by an ancient single scholar or "committee" of scholars) or an accumulation of individual scribal variation which in its cumulative effect shows a "tendency" (e.g., as in the "Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae in Acts" volume, which might extend to other "Western" MSS and Fathers). > if it simply means that mss of the Alexandrian text-type > uniformly attest some forms of variation, though, then I do indeed > disagree with Maurice's point. The argument would have to be carried out > in the details of course, but I should point out that I made as strong a > case as I could (none too strong, you might say!) that in a number of > significant places Alexandrian witnesses preserve orthodox corruptions of > the text. These include such important passages as: > -- Luke 3:22 (the voice at Jesus' baptism) Unless I read Nestle27 wrongly, Lk.3:22 has an adoptionist variant in D it, with virtually all other witnesses reading the non-adoptionist variant. I would not therefore localize the "orthodox" reading merely to the Alexandrian witnesses in this variant. (I will have to re-read your discussion on this point). > -- John 1:18 (the monogenhs theos) Your discussion of this passage I do recall quite well. However, even though you defend the Byzantine reading as original here and suggest the Alexandrian reading is a "strengthening" by the orthodox, you might be surprised to find that I differ on the latter point (not on favoring the Byzantine reading, however!). I think that the archetype of the Alexandrian text here (likely a single scribe's reading which became the root of the Egyptian "local text") simply made a blunder with the nomen sacrum 0C (imagine a Theta for 0 *:-) rather than YC, a blunder which probably reflects attraction to the occurrence of Theon (0N) in what would have been the preceding line of the exemplar. (You will find that I do have a tendency to suspect accidental error rather than deliberate corruption as the explanation for a very large number of minority readings, especially those minority readings prevalent in a texttype situation; the archetype MS of the minority texttype can usually be suspected). > -- All of the so-called Western non=interpolations (which are actually > non-Western interpolations; all of them anti-docetic) (I saw this as one > of the most important "realizations" I had when making my study) I could agree that the Western omissions (why call them by Hort's peculiar term?) would combine with the other tendencies in Bezae and Western witnesses to maintain a consistent theological thematic emphasis. > Maurice suggests that this kind of variation, if conceded, would imply > that the church leaders were not "keen watchdogs" over their texts. *Of > course* they weren't. How, exactly could they be? One wonders what kind > of historical scenario would be required. The fact is that there are > numerous corruptions of the text all over the map, many of them affecting > the exegesis of entire books and the theology of their interpreters. On the contrary, I do think the theologians, leaders, priests, monk-copyists etc. WERE such "watchdogs" against blatant heresy creeping into the text. J. Ernesti wrote long ago in his "Institutio Interpretis" (trans. Charles Terrot, 1848, p.9) to the same effect (Ernesti also is not a pro-Byzantine partisan): Nor was it possible that books which were in the hands of so many persons, which were reckoned so sacred, of which there existed so many copies, and so many versions in different and distant countries, by a comparison of which errors might so easily have been detected, and whose integrity was watched over by so many doctors of the church, could still be so corrupted by heretics, as that their corruptions should extend to all the copies. Tatian's Diatessaron was immensely popular before his condemnation as a heretic. Since then, almost all MSS of that work have been destroyed (only one small fragment in Greek exists today). Not one MS of a canonical book reflecting Marcion's altered text exists today, nor any MSS which stem from the various other corruptors mentioned by the Fathers. Certainly there are variations in individual MSS which might have originated from one or another non-orthodox MS or source, being introduced by a scribe on his or her own initiative. But to imagine that a non-orthodox reading would grown and dominate the tradition as a whole or even a single texttype (such as the Alexandrian) seems to me beyond historical and transmissional probability. > I'm happy to say, by the way, that my book (The Orthodox Corruption of > Scripture) has just come out in paperback, priced at something under $20 > (the hardback, of course, costs something like $3 more to produce, and so > costs $25 more to buy...) Everyone should read Bart's book, even if they end up differing with his conclusions (as I do more frequently than not). I do find it amusing from my perspective to see Bart defending the Byzantine text from time to time (as in Jn.1:18) in opposition to the entire Nestle/UBS committee. Such are the ways of eclecticism *:-) ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Fri Feb 16 23:37:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26839; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 23:37:04 +0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 23:34:21 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Majority Text? In-Reply-To: <960213113131_143054954@emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 8486 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 13 Feb 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > I have noticed a great deal of discussion concerning the so called "Majority > Text". It seems that there is a resurgence of those who would have us > believe that manuscripts should be counted, and not weighed. This seems > rather unfortunate. This is a very good question, and also serves to exemplify why I personally do not favor the term "majority text," since it seems automatically to prejudice the issue and to make all those who happen to favor the Byzantine Textform mere "nose-counters" (as Fee put it). I do not doubt that certain of those in my previously-listed categories 1-3 (i.e. the KJV-Only defenders) have made specific claims toward "number" and "majority" as the primary factors, but even these groups readily abandon such a concept once the majority of MSS no longer support their favored KJV or TR-underlying-the-KJV position. I know of no one within the "proper" majority text realm (my categories 4 and 5) who holds to a mere "count the MSS and may the most numerous win" philosophy. Hodges and Farstad clearly abandon "number" as a primary factor in the book of Revelation, based upon their stemmatic analysis (with which conclusions I differ), and they openly state that, should sufficient data become available for the entire NT, they would follow the same procedure of stemmatic analysis, which definitely leads to results that "number" would not. Wilbur Pickering's view is also quite different, in that he personally happens to favor a small Byzantine sub-group (von Soden's Kr) throughout most of the NT, comprised of no more than about 200 MSS as opposed to the vast majority. (Both H/F and myself differ from Pickering on this point). My own position happens to follow basically Von Soden's Kx group (which is numerically the largest), but not in a quest for "number"; rather in support of reconstructing the basic Byzantine Textform (rejecting the K1 and Ka groups which others thought might be archetypical). As I mentioned in an earlier post, like Scrivener I would be content to ignore all MSS beyond the 10th century (which = about 80% of all known MSS) and work from the documents preceding that point (which does not significantly alter the resultant Byzantine Textform). Unlike H/F and Pickering, who are content with calling their position "majority text" -- which term they adopted simply because they wrongly thought people would "understand it better" -- I prefer to call my own position "Byzantine priority", with the intent being to restore the "Byzantine Textform" -- yet even my own publisher balked and required the title of my edition to read "Byzantine/Majority Textform" because he thought more people would "understand" the concept that way. > When I was a student, not that many years ago, we were > taught that manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted, simply because an > error in an early manuscript could be and often was repeated in its > descendents. If Codex D, for instance, has an incorrect reading at say Mark > 16, and those scribes who copied from it kept it close by, then that error > would be passed on to all of its descendents. Thus, you might have 300 > manuscripts with an error and 1 much closer to the original without that > error- yet if those manuscripts were counted the error would win! Indeed, for those within the "majority text" spectrum, the view remains that MSS should be weighed and not counted. The "seven notes of truth" espoused by Burgon specifically relate to this point. Number might be one criteria of weight, but even the great St.John of Chichester (i.e., Burgon) pointed out that "number" cannot stand when the other six notes of truth stand against it (the other notes of truth are Antiquity, Variety, Continuity, Respectability of Witnesses, Context, and Internal Reasonableness, which, as anyone who reads Burgon will see -- contra Fee -- are NOT merely part of "seven different ways of saying that number wins."). A key problem is in determining the criteria for weighing MSS. Your own example given above basically replaces the single criterion of number with another single criterion, Antiquity. This also is question-begging to a degree, and was used significantly by Westcott and Hort in their "genealogical" argument. Hypothetically, one can presume that the closer to the source, the more pure the stream. But Colwell and other recent critics have demonstrated that Scrivener was correct in urging that, paradoxical as it may seem, the closer one moves to the first century, the more corruptions appear in the MSS and papyri. This causes most critics, including myself, to speak of the "uncontrolled popular text of the second century" due to their lack of commonly-shared variants. The papyri themselves argue against your genealogical scenario: the multitude of readings found in those papyri were in fact NOT perpetuated into the third, fourth, fifth or later centuries in any great number. Rather than Codex D (5th century), use P45 (3rd century) as an example, and see how few of its variant readings persist. The hypothesis admittedly SOUNDS good and logical: if a scribe makes an error which remains "sensible", the error will be recopied into the next exemplar, and the "sensible" errors of the next exemplar will go into the next one, ad infinitum. Thus, the later the MS, the greater the mass of errors. However, this is not what the evidence points to, but (as can be determined from the data of the MSS themselves as well as from what is known historically), copied MSS were soon compared and corrected against either the original exemplar (usually by the scribe himself or herself), or by a "diorthotes" who usually would read against a different exemplar (which provided a greater degree of security for the text). Corrections were made in the MS copy itself, usually in-between the lines, but in the margins where necessary. Later copies made from a corrected MS would in most cases follow the corrected text rather than risk repeating the errors already seen to be corrected. By this means the genealogical perpetuation of false readings would be kept to a minimum, and the evidence of the MSS all the way from the papyri through the late Byzantine era reflects this. > My question to the majority text adherents then is, what do you do with this > excellent dictum- "manuscripts should be weighed, and not counted?" We agree wholeheartedly, but, as intimated above, true "weighing" of MSS has rarely been performed. By this I mean a careful examination of the scribal habits demonstrated in every MS utilized in constructing an edition of the text, and including or excluding its testimony when a variant is typical of what its known scribal habits demonstrate. For example, using Colwell's study of P45, P66, and P75, one can easily see that omissions of one or two letters in MSS where the scribe copied syllable by syllable carry little or no weight in such MSS, whereas those same type omissions may be of great weight where a scribe obviously copied by whole words or phrases. Conversely, the omission of whole words or phrases in MSS where the scribes made such blunders frequently should similarly be discounted in those MSS, but not in the ones where such an error was not prevalent. The only problem is that this type of classification and categorization of MSS and their scribes' habits has not been done on the large scale, and, even in those cases where it has been done, little or no use has been made of it in a textual apparatus or in the utilization of such MSS in constructing a resultant text. So definitely -- "MSS should be weighed and not counted," but weight involves more than mere platitudes about early date and presumed freedom from error and/or originality on that basis alone. "Number" in any case should still remain a factor (and it does within the "majority text" camp), but it most clearly is not the only factor, nor should it be the primary factor. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sat Feb 17 00:44:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27061; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:44:04 +0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:41:23 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: <9602142126.AA04990@nyx.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3464 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, David Washburn wrote: > Maurice Robinson wrote: > > method (I can hear it now: "just because the Byzantine text is now seen > > to be quite early does not make it authentic"). *:-) > > Actually, as I recall, this is almost exactly what Harry Sturz concluded > after he showed that Byzantine readings were present in early papyri. He > wasn't trying to argue that the Byzantine text should be primary, merely > put on an equal footing with other text-types for the application of > internal criteria. That being the case, I doubt that such a discovery > would put much of a dent in eclectic methodology, because virtually all > internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine readings lacking > anyway. Sturz' case was indeed that the Byzantine Textform should be treated as equally early with the Alexandrian and Western Texttypes. Even though some have questioned his data in proof of this point, the problem with their criticisms lies in a redefinition of "distinctive Byzantine readings" from that which Hort originally stated. I think most of Sturz' data is applicable, but only with the proper definition of terms and not with what revisions to such definitions might occur. Sturz did have a method of approach however, and he applied his method in a privately-printed booklet containing "The Second-Century Text of Matthew". His method was NOT a model of how to do textual criticism: it was entirely externally-based, with no use of internal evidence. Further, it was not based upon the MSS, but upon the texttypes (under the assumption that the texttype reading equalled the lost archetype MS of that interrelated group). Then he simply "counted noses" among the texttypes, and let any 2 out of 3 decide the "second century" reading (at least he made no claims that this method would restore the autograph). The problem with Sturz' method is obvious: once you let two out of three decide the case, you end up with a heavily Byzantine text automatically, but without a pro-Byzantine theory to undergird and support the conclusions. I.e., any Alexandrian + Byz combination or Western + Byz combination will rule the day. Using a little algebra, one can see that the common term to A+B and W+B is B, and A and W are basically dispensed with. The only time that Sturz would abandon the Byzantine text would be when both Alex+West united in opposition to Byz -- and anyone knowing the characteristics of those two texttypes know how rarely these two agree against Byz. However, even in the Alex+West union, Sturz' method is flawed, since he in such places ultimately makes the Western text the deciding factor, which no living scholar today would maintain. It all goes back to the original dictum: "Textual criticism without a history of the text is impossible" (Colwell; H.H.Oliver). Sturz' contribution regarding the antiquity of the Byzantine Textform can be appreciated, but his methodology in constructing a text certainly leaves much to be desired. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sat Feb 17 01:03:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27100; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 01:03:52 +0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 01:01:12 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Majority Text" In-Reply-To: <9602151629.AA12577@Np.nosc.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2568 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > dwashbur@nyx.net said: > > virtually all internal criteria of the eclectic method leave Byzantine > > readings lacking anyway. > This claim is often heard, but aside from the unsatisfying summaries > given in Hort's intro, I haven't seen this claim documented. > Any references? (to evidence, that is, not to repetitions of the claim). I would dispute this claim, since my own practice in defending Byzantine readings on internal ground makes use of almost all the same internal criteria as the eclectics themselves use. I merely redirect their application in favor of the Byzantine text. I have no problem with the judicious application of the "harder reading" or "reading which explains the rise of all the others" concept. I do question the "shorter" reading criterion -- as many eclectics themselves have done, e.g. Royce -- since it almost becomes a case of begging the question to prejudice the internal criteria in favor of the Alexandrian witnesses. There are certain criteria which presume too much about what scribes "regularly" or "generally" did or what their overall "tendency" might be (e.g. expand divine names and titles, harmonize parallels etc.). Most of these claims (again going back to Hort) are often incorrect when taken to the texttype level. If the scribes were indeed so "regular" in these cases we should always find "the Lord Jesus Christ" and never "Jesus" or "Christ" alone on the texttype level; also parallel passages would be in FAR greater harmony than actually exists, etc. The evidence is plainly that scribes of any era did NOT have these tendencies en masse. Certainly, individual scribes may have had their own tendencies, but all scribes certainly were not alike, nor did they possess common tendencies. Metzger's Textual Commentary volume continually berates Byzantine readings for being "typical" of what scribes would do in a given situation, but he almost never applies the same criteria to the Alexandrian scribes. Like Hort, Metzger seems to think all the early scribes were angels (Colwell said that about Hort -- not me. *:-) ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sat Feb 17 01:56:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27212; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 01:56:23 +0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 01:53:43 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Majority Text? In-Reply-To: <960216112644_145862276@emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 402 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 16 Feb 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > Could someone cite a specific text in the writings of the majority text > adherents which suggests or implies that there is, among them, a desire to > weigh and not count? The name "Majority Text" indicates the contrary. I believe this has already been answered by myself and others (being off the internet for 3 days does cause a huge backlog *:-) From majordom Sat Feb 17 02:11:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27246; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 02:11:21 +0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 02:08:40 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Majority Text? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3472 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > Maurice Robinson described five different positions which might be > labeled as "Majority Text" positions, and he identified himself with the > fifth group. I agree that the term "Majority Text," even (or > especially!) for this fifth group, is problematic, because the fact that > the resulting text agrees with the Majority Text most of the time is > presumably mere happenstance. It is more than "happenstance," unless one would consider that the Byzantine Textform merely "happens" to have the greatest numerical support. I would suggest that the reason for such "happenstance" would be directly interrelated to the transmissional history of the text which resulted in that numerical dominance of that particular texttype -- but if it is a historical result which should be expected from a certain transmissional hypothesis, it isn't happenstance....(are we talking in circles here?) > I would think adherents of the fifth > position would call their position the Byzantine Priority position, since > it is supposed to be based on the stemmatic priority of a Byzantine-like > text. I definitely prefer the term "Byzantine-priority," though I do not directly proceed from a stemmatic basis in the manner of Westcott and Hort (wherein the lower elements on a stemma are supposedly combined from earlier elements). I rather see the Western and Alexandrian elements as two distinct divergences from a Byzantine text placed higher on a stemma, but with no subsequent interdependence or combining. > On the other hand, if this fifth position actually ends up > reflecting the Majority Text all of the time, rather than most of the > time (which is it?), one has to question whether the purported > methodology of independent analysis of readings is really being > followed. Isn't the proof in the pudding? Within a Byzantine-priority method, the internal criteria do remain secondary to the external data as well as to the theoretical history-of- transmission model which has been developed for the hypothesis. There is no grand design, however, to improperly "force" the internal defense of Byzantine readings to that end by perverting or misapplying standard text-critical criteria. Were this the case, any internal defense statements made by pro-Byzantine partisans would be so full of holes you could drive the proverbial truck through. I trust my own comments on individual readings from internal grounds are not that sloppy -- I do attempt to maintain a "normal" use and approach regarding the application of internal evidence to any given variant unit. I would suggest that the "forcing" and misapplication of internal criteria is often done by the eclectic school merely by virtue of their anti-Byzantine bias. My mention of the cases in Metzger's Textual Commentary stand as an example, since he clearly deprecates Byzantine readings as due to scribal tendencies continually, but fails to apply the same standards when the external evidence is reversed. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Sun Feb 18 18:20:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00889; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 18:20:23 +0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 18:17:39 -0500 (EST) From: LECHEM777@delphi.com Subject: Re: Qumran evidence for textual dive To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <01I1D9FAC1DQ9EHFIQ@delphi.com> X-Vms-To: IN%"tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 13750 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu VERY, VERY LONG. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DELETE. > > On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Andrew Gross wrote: > > > Tov's revised figures appear in the paper he contributed to the volume > > _Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness_ edited by Lawrence Schiffman > > and Devorah Dimant (Brill 1995). > > > methodological leap of faith. Specifically, even if the figures for > > distribution of text-types at Qumran support Schiffman's position, one > > still must assume that the distribution of text-types at Qumran can be > > extrapolated to all of Palestine at that time. I still don't see how > > such an extrapolation is justified > > The problem, in my mind, is further complicated by the fact that we have > only what was found at Qumran; we don't know if we have even fully > represents the Qumran community, let alone Palestine. > > Tyler But much that was found in Qumran was also found in other sites and dicoveries. The Chairo Ghenizah for example. The Damascus document was utilized (for whatever reason) for almost a thousand years (poss. only 500 yrs). I believe that the Qumram documents are a fine example of what sociologists call a "cross section of a given society" or Judaean Society. (Below is an important cross reference into another discipline) From: IN%"tkavanag@INDIANA.EDU" "thomas w kavanagh" 15-FEB-1996 21:38:29.30 To: IN%"ANTHRO-L@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU" "Multiple recipients of list ANTHRO-L " CC: Subj: Variable Ethnicity; VERY LONG, few quotes, ANALYTICAL Never said I was a SeAist, Luv, but I am mildly familiar with Leach, and at least with Kunstadter's Ethnic Group, Category, and Identity: Karen in Northern Thailand. As for changing identity, people change "ethnic" identity all the time. No problem there, just note that the "new" identity is also based on purported "facts of birth"; everything is negotiable in politics. I know a respected folklorist who, with a change of emphasis, went from being "regional folklorist" to being Texas Cherokee, and thus a whole new occupational vista opened up. Ethnic identity is different from other political identities, such as Unionist, Democrat, etc. Now I haven't read Leach in a while, and didn't fully comprehend his argument then, and probably still don't now. However, I remember something about people (or groups) changing their basic outlook, from egalitarian (Ack! I said it, No I said it again. Ni, MPATHG) to stratified, but I can't remember it that cycle was in years or generations. On looking at my copy, I find no mention of ethnicity in the index, and at a major bookmark at p 44, the comment "the sub-categories of Kachin, as I use the term, are of three kinds, (a)linguistic, (b) territorial, (c) political." As for Kunstadter, I have used his Ethnic Group, Category and Identity article in my Pol. Anth classes, but mostly for his categorization as a starting point for discussion. According to Kunstadter: By *ethnic group* I mean a set of individuals with similar consciousness and mutual interests centered on some shared understandings or common values. . . . By *ethnic identification* I mean the process of assigning an an individual (including oneself) to a group or category, and thus implicity recognizing boundaries of community of interests and predicting a set of behavioral traits appropriate to members of the group or category By *ethnic category* I mean a class of people or groups, based on real or presumed cultural characteristics, with the implication that a categorization is a more or less systematic application of some kind of rules to the variety of known individuals or groups The points for discussion are "similar consciouness and mutual interest" (what distinguishes an ethnic group from other communities of interest, such as trade unions); how much does "recognizing boundaries... and predicting ... behavior" border on sterotyping; how "systematic" is the categorization? Kunstadter goes on to note that "Leach ... demonstrated that ethnic groups or ethnic categorizations are not necessarily synonymous with a culture or social system," and that "as we study varieties of ethnicity in SEA, we begin to understand that ethnicity, at least in part, depends on reference to some other group...." That is, political identification is (1) not necessarily an empirical statement of cultural difference; and (2) it IS an us-them (political) situation; it takes two to ethnicize (see Cohen below). I have also used Charles Keyes' somewhat earlier (? I don't have Kunstadter citation handy--my photocopy does not have the book citation.) 1976 article "Towards a New Formulation of the Concept ofof the Concept of Ethnic Group" (1976 Ethnicity). Keyes does note that the dictionary definition of "ethnic group" is "a group of people of the same race or nationality who share a common and distinctive culture." Like Kunstadter, he notes that, as shown by Leach's material, "a people, socially defined [Kunstadter's "ethnic group"?, "category"?], do not always share a distinctive culture or language." Rather, following an apparent practice of translating the Thai term, *chat* [Sanskrit *jati*] 'birth' to the English "ethnic," Keyes notes that "The idea of shared descent, abstracted from the web of kinship, is basic, I would insist, to the concept of ethnic group." Several points to consider. The classification of ethnicity can be both, dare I use the words, "emic" and "etic." The perceptions of cultural difference by the people themselves may be totally different from the "objective" (note quotation marks) outside observer. [I have had Comanche women insist to me that the small "tabs" at the bottom of the side seam in women's dresses is a Comanche mark, and want me to do the museum work to verify it. It's not that I can't do the work, I can't verify it. Lots 'o folks seem to have had it.] And there is ethnic manipulation. As a political phenomena--you should think otherwise?--people manipulate the "facts" for their immediate purposes. There are several dimensions to those manipulations: there are the kinds of concentric identites that Boyd talked about in her "This Indian is not and Indian" article: One is at the same time a Lumpwood, Absaroke, Crow, 'Skin, Indian, Native American, and the choice of which label to use is related to the social context. Being one does not deny any of the others. There are also the non-concentric identities: it is difficult to switch back and forth from being Crow to being, say, Hispanic: in the modern American political climate ethnicity is generally perceived of as permanent, and based on the "facts of birth." The person who discovers late(r) in life that their grandmother was a XXX, is a wannabe, [in contrast to the "cultural" labels 'apple', 'oreo', etc. which designate difference from the proper "ethnic" cultural values associated with birth into a particular community]. [Nothing spectacular in my family; because of the ways my family worked, growing up I spent more time with the Kavanaghs than with the Whitneys. Moreover, because of the demographics, I never "knew" (intellectually) until grown that there were Strauses involved with the Whitneys and that it was possible that the Strauses were Jewish. However, I can claim not only the Irish of the Kavanaghs, but the Welsh (and or English) of the Whitneys, and the German (and or Jewish) of the Strauses [not to mention the Melicks, Luddingtons, Bamforths, etc.; or even the rumor that the Kavanaghs were "black Irish," descendants of the Spanish Armada: Can I claim Hispanic?] But when asked on one of those forms, "Ethnicity:", I say simply, American: that is who/what I am not who my ancestors were.] Then there is the kind of "retribalization" that Abner Cohen talked about, which can also be called "ethnogenesis", the intentional creation of a political group based on an emphasis on a "fact" of cultural commonality: the process by which a group . . . involved in a struggle for power and privilege with another [group] . . . manipulate[s] some customs, values, myths, symbols, and ceremonials from their cultural tradition in order to articulate a political organization, which is used as a weapon in that struggle. [1969:2] Nancy Gonzalez paralleled Cohen: ethnogenesis was the breaking down [of] old loyalties, and merging old symbols from diverse cultural patterns into a new and self-conscious ideological framework (1975:120); Sturtevant (1971) called it the establishment of [self-conscious] group distinctiveness. It is the use of invidious and chauvinistic Us-Them comparisons as political ammunition. While I like the term "ethnogenesis" (first used by the editor of a Charleston SC, newspaper to celebrate the new Confederacy in 1861), I want to emphasize that the possession of those traits, patterns, etc, which are essential to the new organization are often "facts of birth". It doesn't matter how well I play the blues (once, at a gig, a New Orleans born blues singer reached over, put her hand on my knee and said, "Honey [semantic analysis begin, end], you sure you ain't from N'orleans?"), that is, although I may possess the outward and visible symbols of the cultural traits, the inward and spiritual {i.e. genetic, ethnic} essence ain't there. But when I am at Walters, Oklahoma, dancing with Comanches at Homecoming as I have for most of the last 25 summers, I am Comanche. And I do play the blues. You figure it out. The above was a position from another field in helping to understand cultural transmition of a socio-political heritage. There existed a Jewish society in the dawn of the developments in the early sectarianism that pleagued later Judaean Society. If Murphy O'Connor is correct, we may be dealing with documents whose origins were found in the Babylonian Exile, that survived into in Midieval times and unearthed in Qumran. Here is a representative of the "Folkgeist" that existed through two millenias. This was a constitution for a collective that reflected a semi-autonamous lifestyle. To a certain extent, a democratic lifestyle. A Lifestyle that did not recognize the "authorities'" legitamacy to power at certain stages of development. This being a source for the observation of the development of the Synagogue. As well as certain developmentary stages in the advant of certain sectarians. The Karaites most likely preserved the Damascus Document that found it's way into the Chairo synagogue. Perhaps through intermarriage or such it found its way into the ghenizah. The Karaites rejected Rabbinic authority. So this document (CD) would represent their cultural differences to Rabbinic Judaism. But the Text (CD) was also found in Qumran. And no matter how you slice it, I do not see how a Karaite community existed that early in Qumran. But are we dealing with a document that was utilized by only one sect? Or did it represents a "standard formula" in Jewish political history and culture which transcends many historical events. Hence the lack in the use of names as in the Righteouse Teacher. Is he real or is he an Archeotype? Or is he both? But that document (CD) certainly represents a dynamic adaptable society that retained a certain cultural political heritage. As far as I know, but I could be mistaken. The "monastary" is not yet linked to the finds in the Cavers. I would suggest that some documents were put in the caves as the business of recopying them went on. These documents may have been already ancient when they were finaly deposited and the caves could have been known depositories long before the monastary was built. Were the scrolls put into new Jars before they were deposited? This is why I would like to see TL testing on the Jars. Can there be seen a trend when compared to C14 and other dating methods? Sorry for the long post. But I tend to start flamewars unintentionally due to others unfamiliarality to other disciplines. I do not wish that my posts be so long, but I feel that much is being neglected as seen in this statement: > The problem, in my mind, is further complicated by the fact that we have > only what was found at Qumran; we don't know if we have even fully > represents the Qumran community, let alone Palestine. > > Tyler There is a disreguard here for a dynamic society that did not stagnate. A disreguard for what I call the Folkgeist, the spirit of the people. Qumran was a find amongst many in a "living" culture. I can tie links in working models that will bring a greater awareness of Jewish political culture (even in modern Zionism -pre-state kibbutzim in the 1880's), in early church constitutions and others. Qumran represents alot more than just the Qumran community, it represents a cross-section of Judaean society (poss. even a random one), and then some. Though I am certain this was not Tyler's intention nor do I accuse him of anything wrong or inappropriate. It was perhaps even a subconciouse Freudian slip, or I may be taking his statement completely out of context:)~ Sorry:( but I like sharing my ideas with schooled superiors.:) So, Tyler and Gross, if I offend you I am sorry:) I suspect that Tyler is simply stating that we cannot assume that these documents were utilized outside their location in Qumran. But as I stated we find this material in other places in the "Living Folkgeist". I believe many remember my mishap with my Keterim, now revised Ketarim, paper. But if you like I can submit it again but privately. But Stuart A Cohen "The Three Crowns" is my central source. Bradley Harrison Phila. Pa MA JS Gratz College From majordom Sun Feb 18 19:35:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01001; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:35:48 +0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:32:53 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: LECHEM777@delphi.com Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Qumran evidence for textual dive In-Reply-To: <01I1D9FAC1DQ9EHFIQ@delphi.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2128 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sun, 18 Feb 1996 LECHEM777@delphi.com wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Andrew Gross wrote: > > > > > methodological leap of faith. Specifically, even if the figures for > > > distribution of text-types at Qumran support Schiffman's position, one > > > still must assume that the distribution of text-types at Qumran can be > > > extrapolated to all of Palestine at that time. I still don't see how > > > such an extrapolation is justified > > > > The problem, in my mind, is further complicated by the fact that we have > > only what was found at Qumran; we don't know if we have even fully > > represents the Qumran community, let alone Palestine. > > But much that was found in Qumran was also found in other sites and > dicoveries. The Chairo Ghenizah for example. The Damascus document was > utilized (for whatever reason) for almost a thousand years (poss. only 500 > yrs). > I believe that the Qumram documents are a fine example of what > sociologists call a "cross section of a given society" or Judaean Society. > (Below is an important cross reference into another discipline) [LOTS of stuff deleted] > Bradley Harrison > Phila. Pa > MA JS Gratz College Hello Bradley, I think you have totally misunderstood the topic of this discussion. If I am wrong, please correct me, but we are not talking about the Qumran texts as a whole, but only the Biblical texts found in the Qumran caves. While I would dispute your statement that "much" that was found at Qumran was also found at other sites (what other Qumran document besides CD was found in the Cairo Genizah?), that is immaterial. Our primary focus here is to reconstruct the text of the Hebrew Bible and not the social structures of Second Temple Judaism (though we can try doing that on the side if we like). Because you are subscribed to the textual criticism list, I'm assuming that you are aware of the methodologies and approaches that define textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. If not, I would be happy to rehearse for you what we had been talking about in the early stages of this thread. cheers, andrew gross From majordom Tue Feb 20 12:16:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07659; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:16:40 +0500 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Cc: David Jay Kaufman Subject: Hacohen Harosh Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1312 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu This is an interesting text-critical question from Ioudaios. Perhaps some on the tc-list would care to comment. 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 <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:10:37 EST From: David Jay Kaufman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hacohen Harosh Dear Ioudaioi, I have encountered an interesting question. Why does the LXX translate Hacohen Harosh in four different ways in its four occurrances in the text of II Chronicles? These are 19:11, 24:11, 26:20 and 31:10. It renders Ierous Egoumenos, Iereus O Megas, Iereus O Prwtos and Iereus O Archon respectively. For its other occurrances in the LXX (Ezra 7:5, II Kings 25:18, and Jeremiah 52:24) Iereus O Prwtos seems to be the translation of choice. The differences in the translation seem to be purely stylistic on the surface, but there may be more to them. Iereus O Megas usually is rendered for Hacohen Hagadol. I realize that the vorlage of the LXX may have had this in the Hebrew, but this would not explain the other three renderings. Just wondering, -David K. From majordom Tue Feb 20 12:50:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07826; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:50:49 +0500 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 11:43:30 CST From: robin@utafll.uta.edu (Robin Cover) Message-Id: <9602201943.AA21524@utafll.uta.edu> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: SGML entities for Greek (non-roman) chars Cc: robin@utafll.uta.edu Content-Length: 1136 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Apropos of the recent proposal on SGML-style entities for non-roman (Greek) characters, interested readers may wish to look at the results of an effort to create entity declarations for all UNICODE characters. The work is credited to Rick Jelliffe (http://www.allette.com.au/allette/ricko). "All the ISO 10646 (Unicode) characters as SGML SDATA entities, arranged into convenient subsets according to the script of the characters. From SPREAD, the Standardization Project Regarding East Asian Documents." WWW-viewable at http://www.allette.com.au/sgml/ercs/allent.html Gzipped tar file at http://www.allette.com.au/sgml/ercs/entities/spread.tar.gz -robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Cover Email: robin@utafll.uta.edu ("uta-ef-el-el") 6634 Sarah Drive Dallas, TX 75236 USA In case of link failure, use: Tel: (1 214) 296-1783 (h) robin@acadcomp.sil.org Tel: (1 214) 709-3346 (w) FAX: (1 214) 709-3380 SGML Web Page: http://www.sil.org/sgml/sgml.html ========================================================================= From majordom Wed Feb 21 11:41:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12257; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:41:26 +0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:41:16 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List , Biblical Hebrew , Biblical Greek , ELENCHUS Subject: public domain fonts from Scholars Press 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 Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Scholars Press has updated its public domain TrueType fonts available on its FTP site. We have Hebrew (SPTiberian), Greek (SPIonic), Syriac (SPEdessa), and Transliteration (SPAtlantis) fonts currently available. Changes from earlier versions include additional characters in the transliteration font, vowels and other characters added to the Syriac font, and cosmetic changes to all the fonts. Feel free to download and use the fonts. Comments are welcome. URLs: ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/fonts/mac ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/fonts/windows 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 Feb 21 12:53:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12785; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:53:57 +0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 12:17:44 EST From: Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts Subject: Septuagint apparatus To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000 Message-Id: <960221.125019.EST.LAROCCAP@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Content-Length: 916 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu First I want to thank those who answered my question on pronouns at Qumran. I have since acquired Qimron & Kutscher and many other questions have been answered. I know have two other questions: 1) For the LXX of Isaiah I am using the one edited by Joseph Ziegler (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). In his alphabet like apparatus for the LXX (not the Hexapla-apparat) he uses a symbol, that for the life of, I cannot find anywhere in his introduction. The symbol is a small circle with a dot in its center. (It sometimes appears without the dot also.) It first appears with Isa 1:4 and on almost every page after. What does this symbol mean? 2) Could someone please recommend a good reference &/or grammer for the Peshitta version of the Syriac OT, esp. using the Estangela script (Is that redundant?). I am using the version published by Brill (1987). Thank you in advance, Mark. laroccap@uga.cc.uga.edu From majordom Wed Feb 21 16:59:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14399; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 16:59:20 +0500 Message-Id: <9602212159.AA14393@scholar.cc.emory.edu> X-Organization: University of Notre Dame Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 16:56:48 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Eugene.C.Ulrich.1@nd.edu Subject: Re: Septuagint apparatus Content-Length: 1912 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >First I want to thank those who answered my question on pronouns at >Qumran. I have since acquired Qimron & Kutscher and many other questions >have been answered. > >I know have two other questions: 1) For the LXX of Isaiah I am using the >one edited by Joseph Ziegler (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). >In his alphabet like apparatus for the LXX (not the Hexapla-apparat) he >uses a symbol, that for the life of, I cannot find anywhere in his >introduction. The symbol is a small circle with a dot in its center. (It >sometimes appears without the dot also.) It first appears with Isa 1:4 >and on almost every page after. What does this symbol mean? > > >Thank you in advance, >Mark. >laroccap@uga.cc.uga.edu _________________________ In the apparatus of Ziegler's LXX Isaiah edition the circle with a dot in its center is the equivalent of an exclamation mark, to mark important or rare/unusual attestations; see p.112 in the Einleitung if you're using the 1967 edition. Regarding the pronoun suffixes at Qumran, they are exactly that--AT Qumran. But not QUMRAN morphology. Tov's "Qumran practice" of orth., morph., scribal practices, etc. is nuanced, but the simplified understanding (and short quotes) is misleading. The forms are found AT Qumran, but they're not UNIQUE to Qumran; rather, reflective of general Jewish practice in the late Second Temple Period (See Kutscher, *A History of the Hebrew Language,* 1982, p.95). A number of those longer suffixes can be found (unusually) in the MT. Though there is evidence that a few biblical mss were copied at Qumran (4QSam-c, for instance, was copied by the same hand as 1QS), I find little evidence that the majority were copied there. Rather, I suspect they were general Jewish mss simply brought by "Those entering the New Covenant" at Qumran from wherever they came from (Jerusalem and beyond). Hope some of this helps. Gene Ulrich From majordom Wed Feb 21 17:22:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14468; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 17:22:07 +0500 Message-Id: <199602212219.RAA16930@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 17:19:24 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Septuagint apparatus & Syriac Grammar Content-Length: 1361 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Re the question posed by Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts on 2-21-96: >2) Could someone please recommend a good reference &/or grammer for the >Peshitta version of the Syriac OT, esp. using the Estangela script (Is >that redundant?). I am using the version published by Brill (1987). > Depending on what you are after, (1) the standard is Carl Brockelmann, *Syrische Grammatik* (originally eprinted by VEB Verlag, Leipzig, 1981); (2) there also exists a grammar which presumes a knowledge of Hebrew: Takamitsu Muraoka's *Classical Syriac for Hebraists* (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987); (3) there is an abbreviated grammar: Theodore Robinson, *Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar* (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962); (4) W.M. Thackston, Jr., has a grammar/exercises which I understand are used at Harvard, but it is not officially published. Of these, Lambdin, Robinson, and Brockelmann use Serta script totally or partly (sometimes the lexicon or some reading text is in Estrangela); only Muraoka uses a (sometimes skinny) Estrangela consistently. Incidentally, Brockelmann, p. 5, Robinson, p. 4, and Muraoka, p. 4, have "conversion tables" which show the various Serta forms, the Estrangela, the Nestorian, as well as the transliteration of the letters... Rather helpful when one is learning the different scripts. Good luck. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From majordom Wed Feb 21 20:35:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15028; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:35:58 +0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 20:28:45 EST From: Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts Subject: Re: Septuagint apparatus & Syriac Grammar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 21 Feb 1996 17:19:24 -0500 from X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000 Message-Id: <960221.203222.EST.LAROCCAP@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Content-Length: 106 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Thanks to Gene Ulrich and William Petersen for their thorough and speedy answers to my questions. Mark.