Subject: tc-list digest #53

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 17:09:43 -0400 (EDT)

Because of problems with the computer network, many people did not
receive messages from the list for about a week.  For this reason, I am
sending everyone a copy of digests 53 - 56.  I apologize if you have
already seen these messages, but I have no way of knowing who has and
who hasn't, so please just delete them if they are duplicates.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

From:      owner-tc-list-digest
To:        tc-list-digest
Subject:   tc-list-digest V1 #53
Reply-To:  [email-masked]
Errors-To: owner-tc-list-digest
Precedence: bulk

Subjects of Messages in this Digest:

Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism
Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC
Subject: Re: AV readings
Subject: Re: AV readings
Subject: MS copying simulation program
Subject: Re: archetype and autographs
Subject: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus)
Subject: Re: Mic 1:2
Subject: ms identification schemes
Subject: Re: MS copying simulation program
Subject: Re: AV readings
Subject: Syriac + it-k
Subject: Re: ms identification schemes
Subject: Re: ms identification schemes
Subject: Jn 2:1
Subject: Re: AV readings
Subject: Luke 12,58
Subject: Re: archetype and autographs

tc-list-digest            Thursday, 11 April 1996      Volume 01 : Number 053

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:15:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:

> Maurice Robinson wrote:

> >The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more
> >harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption 
> >of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most 
> >popular gospel in the early church.  The real reflection of the Markan 
> >hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a 
> >non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents 
> >itself.
 
> If this is true, then I don't see why Markan priority (as opposed
> to harmonizing tendencies) would be a good reason.  If we *knew* that
> Mark was first, how does that help us establish which competing claim
> to the text of Mark is stronger?  What Matthew may or may not have
> changed is not relevant, because we don't know if Matthew followed or
> departed from Mark in the first place.

Which from my perspective is a good reason not to make too much of either
Matthean or Markan priority principles as I approach the text.  Presumed
literary dependence can be a bane rather than a blessing, as the
contradictory claims of various two-source scholars come to the forefront. 

Those who postulate a Mk + Q source for both Mt and Lk presumably will
view certain variants in light of their hypothesis to the exclusion of
others, and their text-critical decisions at certain points will 
therefore reflect those underlying hypotheses.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

From: Andrew  Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:33:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Micah 1:1 in the MT reads "devar YHWH asher hayah"; while the LXX has "kai
> egeneto logos kuriou".   Is it my imagination, or does the LXX seem to be
> stressing the idea that the word of the Lord happened, while MT seems to
> stress to whom it happened?

You are quite right in noticing the discrepency.  These represent two
common introduction formulae used for prophecies. 

For a few examples, compare the MT of Hosea 1:1, Zephaniah 1:1, and Joel
1:1, and you will see that they are all identical to Micah 1:1.  However
for each of these three, the LXX reads, "logos kuriou, hos egeneithei pros
PN". 

Now, if we look at the MT of Haggai 1:1, Ezekiel 1:3, and Ezekiel 3:16, we
see "hayah dvar YHWH" (or something close to it), and in every case it is 
rendered in LXX by "egeneto logos kuriou".

You're probably right to assume that the LXX translator had a different 
Vorlage of Micah before him than what we have in MT.

I'm not sure if I am entirely answering your question, because you also
seem to be asking whether or not these two varying formulae each had a
different force of meaning.  To be perfectly honest, I could see them 
occuring in free variation with very little difference in nuance, but I 
have not surveyed the uses of these formulae sufficiently to assert 
anything one way or the other.

Hope this helps,

andrew gross

------------------------------

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: AV readings

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Does anyone know of any Greek MSS that support the following
> readings in the Authorized Version?
 
> Acts 19:20--"the word of God" (AV) vs. "the word of the Lord" (Greek)
> 2 Tim 1:18--"ministered unto me" (AV) vs. "ministered" (Greek)
> Heb 10:23--"profession of our faith" (AV) vs. "profession of our hope"
> (Greek)

Von Soden gives the following for "God" in Ac.19:20 -- (Ia1 group) d5f 382
(ia2 group) 173 252-d459 (Ia3 group) d507, old latin (european, african in
hiatus).  Following Kraft, this translates to the Gregory-Aland MSS D E
915 623 1873 489 and 241.  There may be others, since p.1979 in the
prolegomena is also referenced by VS.  Tischendorf gives in his own
numbering scheme (D) E 21 73 106** k-scr vg sah-txt. I do not have the
minuscule conversion key for Tisch here, but I suspect some of the same
minuscules are indicated. 

In 2Tim.1.18, VS gives for the addition of MOI: (Ia1 group) 65; 
(Ia3) 64 216 d259 d505f bohairic Theodotion, and reading "EN MOI"
is (Ic1) 1436 and sy-h.  The Greek MSS here translate into 1836 1845 256 
330 69 and 462, with EN MOI in 2005.  Tischendorf gives (again in his 
numbering), 31 37 46 73 109 116 it-f it-g vg-cl ... syr-utr cop arm eth 
Theodoret Ambrosiaster and Pelagius, the Greek MSS of which may be 
identical to VS.

In Heb.10:23, PISTEWS is read in (H group) d6 (Ia1 group) 70 (Ic1 group) 
158, which translates to MSS Psi, 1898, and 1245.   Tisch. gives nothing 
on this point.

Hope this helps somewhat.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: AV readings

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote:

> According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the reading
> "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23

Not correct -- the original hand of Aleph does add "our", but the main 
text reading is ELPIDOS, which is "hope" and not "faith".  

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:24:20 +0800 (WST)
Subject: MS copying simulation program

I am putting the source code (named simmss.c) for the copying simulation
program I mentioned during the discussion on archetype and autographs on
the tc ftp site: 

ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads

To make it run you need to download it to your area of the machine you use
with ftp. Then compile it (type cc simmss.c on a unix machine) then run
it (type a.out on a unix machine). Lots of the machines through which
you get your email will do this. 

Sometimes you will just get a line of ones, which means that the original
MS was killed or died before it got copied. Other times you will get about
ten rows of numbers, which needs some explanation. For now, ignore the
first row. The other rows are manuscripts. The first five numbers in each
manuscript are: 

1) /* Is daughter MS alive? 1 = yes, 0 = no */
2) /* Year copy made */
3) /* MS lifespan */
4) /* Parent MS number */
5) /* Daughter MS number */

Notes on these numbers:

1) This number will always be 1 in the mss the program selects at the end
of its run because it finishes by selecting 10 (or some other number you
can choose) living mss. 

4) and 5) These are unique numbers consecutively assigned to each copy
as the program makes it, starting with 1 for the original. 

The other numbers are the variants. The original was a line of ones, but
the copies can have other numbers besides one. The way this happens is
that there is a probability (which you can set) that any particular
variation unit will change to a different variant. All the program
does is increments the existing variant by one. The heart of the program
is a random number generator which determines whether a variant is
incremented, whether a ms dies or is killed in a particular year or
whether a copy is made of a particular ms, which must be living to be
copied. 

Now for the explanation of the first row: the first five numbers are
always 1. The rest are the maximum numbers that the respective variants
were incremented to in each variation unit by the end of the program's
run. 

You can change the parameters the program runs with by using a text editor
to change them in the source program, then compiling and running it again.
A number of the parameters are inverse probabilities. An inverse
probability of 20 variants copied means that the likelihood of a variant
being changed (i.e. incremented) is one in twenty variants copied. 

Every time the program runs it should do something different (except for
when the original is killed before copies are made). 

Two files will be found in the same directory as the compiled program
(a.out) after the program has run. One is called Extant, and is a copy of
the mss chosen at random from those still living when the program has run
its course. The other is History which is a running history of the copying
as it happened. 

You can look at these and edit the source code (to change the parameters)
using a text editor. If your machine has pine as a mail program, it may
also have pico, which is a text editor. If so, type pico simmss.c to
edit the source code or pico History or pico Extant to look at those two
files. 

Tim Finney
Baptist Theological College
20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102
Australia

------------------------------

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:34:49 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: archetype and autographs

In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996
concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an archetype
of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following:=20

It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the multiple
collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single collection model
which I reiterated (someone else must have already said it). The
difference is that the multiple model gives multiple independent early
witnesses to each component (i.e. autograph or copy of autograph), whereas
the single model does not. Therefore, the multiple model would, all other
things being equal, give a greater chance of recovering the autographs
than the single model, which would only allow recovery of its own
archetype which is the collection and not the autographs. So to answer the
question of the extent to which the autographs of the Pauline collection
are recoverable, it is necessary to decide between these models, if we
can.=20

I am indebted to Maurice for his quote of Tertullian (who was writing a=20
full century after the collection seems to have been made) which favours=20
the multiple model. Nevertheless, I venture to say that Occam's razor=20
favours the single model. (Occam's razor: The hypothesis which explains
the given evidence with the least (in number and difficulty) assumptions
is best.) I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the=20
collection than a number of people or churches acting simultaneously. A=20
kind of early canon would also be required for the multiple model,=20
otherwise one would expect different sets of Pauline Letters in different=
=20
MSS.

> My main argument against the single-corpus =3D archetype scenario is
> again transmissional: if errors existed in the corpus-archetype, why do
> they not exist among the extant MSS in significant quantity,
> transcending the various texttype limits?

Perhaps obvious primitive errors do not exist because they were corrected
by copyists who were used to correcting transcription errors. What happens
at the site of corruption is either a seamless correction, where the
intended text obvious, or =D4an explosion of variants=D5, to paraphrase the
Alands, where not it is not so. How did you correct my errors? The "=D4text
is obvious" in the first case, but did I intend to write "where not so"=20
or "where it is not" or "where it is not so"? (Actually, I intended to
write what I did.)

> First problem: what are the "primitive corruptions" and how does one=20
> authoritatively recognize them?  You cannot test a hypothesis without a=
=20
> standard of comparison, and I doubt any two textual critics would agree=
=20
> on a list of primitive corruptions for even Romans, let alone the=20
> entire Pauline corpus.

Yes, this is a problem. Yet F.F. Bruce was bold enough to list what he=20
thought may be a number of primitive corruptions in Hebrews.

Concerning the C program:

> Did you have a parameter included which would allow for a regular or=20
> almost regular process of cross-comparison and correction to occur,=20
> including a proviso that when the exemplar differed from the second MS=20
> used for correction, a third copy might be sought out in at least 50%=20
> of the cases.  If you can reprogram with that scenario included, I=20
> again would be interested in the results.

I a=D5m about to put the program on the tc ftp site. It is as I wrote it
without the suggested changes. There is a parameter that allows for
=D4correctins=D5 to be made, but not by comparison with otherMSS. The
suggestion to include a facility for MS correction by comparison is duly
noted, but will have to wait for more leisurely times.=20

Tim Finney
Baptist Theological College
20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102
Australia

------------------------------

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:00:05 +0100
Subject: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus)

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy J. Finney wrote:

>In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996
> concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an
> archetype of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following: 

>It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the
> multiple collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single
> collection model which I reiterated (someone else must have 
> already said it)...
> So to answer the question of the extent to which the autographs
> of the Pauline collection are recoverable, it is necessary to
> decide between these models, if we can...
 
> I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the 
>collection than a number of people or churches acting 
> simultaneously. A kind of early canon would also be required for
> the multiple model, otherwise one would expect different sets of
> Pauline Letters in different MSS.

[quoting Robinson:]

>> My main argument against the single-corpus = archetype scenario
>> is again transmissional: if errors existed in the
>> corpus-archetype, why do they not exist among the extant MSS in
>> significant quantity, transcending the various texttype limits?

I would like to comment on Timothy's argument concerning the "different sets of 
Pauline Letters in different MSS". Our extant Greek MSS display three points 
where there are differences with respect to the set of the Pauline Letters.
a) The first and major point of difference with respect to its dissemination is 
the position of Hebrews: partly after 2.Thess, partly after Philemon, at least 
once after both (minuscule 794), once after Romans (P46), two times totally 
absent (F G).
b) A minor point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the changing 
position of Eph Phil Col: only two times the position Eph Col Phil can be found 
(D minuscule 5).
c) Only P46 displays a canging sequence with respect to the position of Gal: Eph 
Gal Phil Col.

What conclusions can be drawn therof? 
1) Should we take it this way: There are _only_ three points of difference with 
respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS tradition? 
Conclusion: If we favoured the multiple collections model, more points of 
difference should have been expected.
2) Or, should we take it that way: There are _at least_ three points of 
difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek MSS 
tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the single collection model, even three 
points of difference should not have been expected. 
3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive error" 
with respect to the single collection model?
4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model?  

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

------------------------------

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:36:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Mic 1:2

In a message dated 96-04-10 18:48:19 EDT, you write:

>Here's a report on what is to be found in DJD 1:
>
>The reading yhwh )dny yhyh exists only in fragmentary form in the ms. 
> The first yod of the divine name is in a lacuna, as are the entirety 
>of )dny and the first three letters, i.e., yhy, of yhyh.  Thus apart 
>from the divine name most of the reading is a reconstruction.  There 
>is a problem in relying on this reconstruction since the surviving 
>letters of the divine name and the he from yhyh are on two entirely 
>separate, small fragments.  Moreover, there is nowhere a physical 
>join between the two fragments, and no intervening fragment to bridge 
>the gap.
>
>The fragment containing the divine name has characters in a line below 
>it.  The only clear characters are the first two letters of a second 
>occurrence of the divine name.  This is a reasonable reading since 
>the letters are in archaic script.  The editor doubtless placed the 
>fragment based on a calculation of line length and a realization that 
> using Mic 1:2-3 to reconstruct the text would fit the constraints.
>
>On the other fragment, the one containing the he from yhyh, there is 
>a following word, bkm.  Thus if the divine name in this ms is written 
>in archaic script, bkm probably does not follow the divine name, 
>making the reconstruction yhwh )dny yhyh bkm reasonable.
>
>The difficulty comes in the weak link for the fragment containing the 
>divine name.  Since the divine name occurs nowhere else in the 
>extant fragments for 1QpMic, we do not know with certainty whether 
>the document used archaic script for the divine name or not.
>
>What would I conclude about this variant?  Well, I can see where the 
>editors got their reconstruction, and they may have had some reason 
>for associating the fragment with 1QpMic that we are now unaware of.  
>Nevertheless, it seems a very weak basis for saying we even have a 
>variant.
>
>By the way, in this particular instance those with DJD 1 will want to 
>consult the plates.  There is good reason to disagree with the 
>editor's proposals about the boundaries of lacunae and the degrees of 
>certainty in reading damaged letters.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>All the best,
>Rich Weis

Sir, 
It helps a great deal.  Your efforts on my behalf are genuinely appreciated.

Yours,

Jim West

------------------------------

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:39:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ms identification schemes

The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use
different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of recent
posts to the list.  Is there a single reference work that relates the
various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big
LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a
list?  Maurice Robinson mentioned Bob Kraft in regard to Von Soden's
numbers--can you give us more details, Maurice?  If there are different
numbering schemes in use for Syriac, Latin, or other versions, I would
also appreciate information on these as well.  I would like to create a
single reference list that ties them all together.  It would also be nice
if the contents of each ms were included in the description, so maybe this
could tie in with what James Tauber and others are doing with the
Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project. 

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: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:50:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: MS copying simulation program

Tim Finney has supplied us with the source code for his ms copying 
simulation program.  Thanks, Tim!  I need to correct the URL, however.  
The program can be downloaded from ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/simmss.c
(it is not possible to download from the uploads directory that Tim 
mentioned).  If anyone else on the list has material related to textual 
criticism that they would like to share with others, feel free to upload 
it ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads.  Then let me (or the list) know 
that it is there, and I will move it to the /pub/TC directory.

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: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: AV readings

My mistake, sorry about that! I only looked for the sigla indicating an
insertion. At 1:30 AM I was sleep and careless. Mea maxima culpa!

At 01:21 AM 4/11/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote:
>
>> According to my NA27, the original hand of Sinaticus supports the reading
>> "our faith" in Hebrews 10:23
>
>Not correct -- the original hand of Aleph does add "our", but the main 
>text reading is ELPIDOS, which is "hope" and not "faith".  
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
>Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252
[email-masked]

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:46:38 -0400
Subject: Syriac + it-k

Regarding Maurice Robinson's two long posts in response to my reply to him,
I leave it to list readers to examine the evidence and decide.  I must,
however, take exception to one point in his post, namely that

>the word "may" utterly and dogmatically
>opposes any opposite notion that such could _not_ be the case.  To
>express uncertainty in any given situation is to dogmatically claim
>that statements to the contrary are to be considered erroneous.  E.g.,
>"Scholars who agree with my views _may_ be right, even if no other
>scholar should agree."

Robinson has failed, in my view, to make a distinction here between known
situations and unknown situations.  "May" is certainly inappropriate where
we have absolute knowledge to the contrary ("Trees _may_ not need oxygen or
light to live.").  But where we do NOT have absolute knowledge--and Robinson
admits that this is the case in the instance of the text of the NT (see the
last paragraph of his second post)--then _may_ is not dogmatic on Souter's
part, but is entirely appropriate, for _neither_ side can speak with
absolute certainty ("The time-space continuum _may_ be infinite.").  While
this is a subtle distinction, I'm sure it is not lost on this erudite audience.

P.S.:  As for being hung in cages in that beautiful university city of
Muenster, I would guess that those who _did_ the hanging _also_ had an
aversion to "may"... [ :-)]

Petersen--Penn State University.

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Vincent Broman)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 09:26:31 PDT
Subject: Re: ms identification schemes

[email-masked] asked:
> Is there a single reference work that relates the
> various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two big
> LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of such a
> list?

The Aland Kurzgefasste Liste has tables matching up
Gregory-Aland numbers with Von Soden numbers and Tischendorf numbers.
The IGNTP Luke volumes have a table with these three nomenclatures
for the MSS cited therein.
I have a table of Von Soden <-> Gregory numbers I found in
Gregory's Textkritik.

I am not aware of any such list in machine-readable form.
The IfNTTF in Muenster might have such lists,
but I doubt they would make such available to the public.

Vincent Broman             Email: [email-masked]                    =   o     
2224 33d St.               Phone: +1 619 284 3775                  =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W     =  (_)> (_)  
___ PGP protected mail preferred.  For public key finger [email-masked] ___

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (James Tauber SunLabs - SML)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:28:11 -0400
Subject: Re: ms identification schemes

> The fact that Von Soden and Tischendorf (and I think also Swete) use
> different ms identification schemes has been noted in a couple of =
recent
> posts to the list.  Is there a single reference work that relates the
> various schemes to one another (including Gregory-Aland and the two =
big
> LXX editions), and in particular, is there an electronic version of =
such a
> list?
[...]
> I would like to create a single reference list that ties them all =
together.
> It would also be nice if the contents of each ms were included in the
> description, so maybe this could tie in with what James Tauber and =
others are
> doing with the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project.=20

If you or someone else could produce even a partial list, I'd be more =
than happy=20
to incorporate the information in the ENTMP's manuscript database.

James K. Tauber

------------------------------

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:09:58 -0400
Subject: Jn 2:1

The text of this verse seems fairly straightforward.  Why, then, do some
translations have "on the second day"; or something like it.  There are no
variants which read "second day" are there?

Thanks,

Jim West

------------------------------

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:57:00 -0400
Subject: Re: AV readings

Dear Maurice:
Thanks for the textual data from von Soden and Tischendorf. That's what I was
looking for.
Jim Price

------------------------------

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:20:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Luke 12,58

On 9 Apr 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

[quoting Robinson]

>>> The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the
>>> classical perspective.

>>Oops!...If I wrote that, it was a "lapsus manus", and I must have typed
>>"Byzantine" instead of "Alexandrian"; I confess scribal error in that
>>case (or maybe I became totally confused and discombobulated).
>>Please correct any assumptions based upon this error...

>So happily the _source variant_ of the misunderstanding is identified
>which set off a chain reaction of misunderstandings.

Obviously so, and my fingers, which were not coordinated with my mind,
accept all blame.

>The referrence to Kilpattrick's article on Atticism in the Greek NT is
>totally misleading here. Note, I referred to "the grammatical features
>under discussion", i.e. MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind., and to the "INA
>clauses" with the same variation. Kilpattrick did _not_ deal with this
>particular features in his article.

This is granted; the issue under discussion was _not_ addressed by
Kilpatrick.  I cited Kilpatrick only as an example of one case where it
is maintained that the Byzantine text maintains a "normal" and
"earlier" Koine and does not follow the later revival of Attic
classical style whereas the Alexandrian text does.

>Nevertheless, Kilpattrick reviewed in his article (inter alia) the use
>of the optative. Since his reasoning on the optative subject can be
>paralleld with my own reasoning on the MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind.
>subject, I may quote Kilpattrick ...

        [quote omitted, but passages discussed below]

>Note, in two out of three instances in Ephesians the _Byzantine text_
>seems to display a tendency "mistakenly to introduce an optative".

I suspect the optative is original and reflects an earlier usage and
not a later one which would be adopted by Byzantine scribes in a period
when the fading optative would be more likely to be replaced by a more
current form of expression.  I.e., my contention is merely that the
Byzantine MSS preserve a more ancient form of text in those optatives,
a form which goes back to the original.

Despite Kilpatrick's grammatically-based argument, I believe 
that Eph.1.17, 3.16, and 4.29 can more readily be explained
transcriptionally without requiring grammar to be a primary
consideration:

E.g. in 1.17, the majority DWH is followed by UMIN.  The final -H could
have dropped out due to the blending of sequential vowels which were
pronounced similarly (as in modern Greek where no distinction remains
between H and U). The net result of such phonetic error could easily
be the minority DW reading.

In 3.16 (not in N27, but in Von Soden) we again find the majority DWH
followed by UMIN, where the same phenomenon may have repeated itself,
and thus DW might appear in a minority of MSS.

(It is peculiar that N27 reads DWH in 1.17 and provides variants, but
leaves DW without notice of variant in 3.16, even though there the
evidence is far more divided)

In 4.29 (also not in N27), the fluctuation between the majority DWi,
and the Western DOI is probably merely itacistic, and does not really
reflect a problem with the optative.

Now, one might also suggest that transcriptional probability might cut
both ways, and that an original DWi UMIN could phonetically be expanded
into DWH UMIN.  This is less likely, since to do so would require the
H/U sound not only to be phonetically held longer, but also to be
differentiated as parts of two separate words by the scribes.  It is
far easier to presume a phonetic blending and shortening of similar
sounds which would result in a single letter dropping out of the text,
but still producing a grammatically "correct" reading.

One further note which might be of significance regarding the first two
examples: since the iota subscript would not likely be written adscript
in most papyri and uncials, without the iota subscript, the Optative
DWiH otherwise looks like the alternate subjunctive form DWHi which
is functionally equivalent to DWi.  The potential for grammatical
confusion due to alternative form considerations needs also to be taken
into account, though I still prefer to suspect phonetic considerations 
as the root cause of the variants.

>Note, I do _not_ blame the Byzantine tradition for _not_ having altered
>every single reading where the subj. vs ind. and/or optative subjects
>are involved. I only try to assemble as many data as possible in order
>to get a most comprehensive picture. And, the data assembled up to now
>point to the conclusion I drew thereof.

And we still obviously differ in our interpretation of the evidence;
but this is only to be expected.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: archetype and autographs

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote:

> It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the multiple
> collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single collection model
> which I reiterated (someone else must have already said it). The
> difference is that the multiple model gives multiple independent early
> witnesses to each component (i.e. autograph or copy of autograph), whereas
> the single model does not. Therefore, the multiple model would, all other
> things being equal, give a greater chance of recovering the autographs
> than the single model, which would only allow recovery of its own
> archetype which is the collection and not the autographs. 

This much is of course helpful to my own position, and I appreciate the 
slight nod in that direction.

> I am indebted to Maurice for his quote of Tertullian (who was writing a 
> full century after the collection seems to have been made) which favours 
> the multiple model. Nevertheless, I venture to say that Occam's razor 
> favours the single model. (Occam's razor: The hypothesis which explains
> the given evidence with the least (in number and difficulty) assumptions
> is best.) I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the 
> collection than a number of people or churches acting simultaneously. A 
> kind of early canon would also be required for the multiple model, 
> otherwise one would expect different sets of Pauline Letters in different 
> MSS.

Occam's Razor cuts both ways (a terrible pun), and I have myself argued 
that the hypothesis which offers the least amount of difficulties is that 
which should be presumptively favored.  

I can agree that, in the _absence_ of a recognized "canon" of Paul's
letters (disregarding theological or inspirational issues, but dealing
only with the primary issue of recognizing a basic "Pauline Corpus" as in
some way authoritative), the single model hypothesis would seem more
likely, and then the issue would become the date at which the single model
was created or collected, and how many intermediate steps may have
intervened between the autograph and that initial formation of the corpus
collection. 

However, if (as I obviously believe) the notion existed of some
"authority"  residing in the letters of Paul from the earliest stages or
very close thereto (as noted in e.g., 2Pet.3.15-16), then the multiple
model once more becomes the better hypothesis under Occam's razor.  If
there were an early concept of significance regarding Paul's letters, the 
Tertullian scenario becomes more likely than the alternatives, and it 
would be most logical for various churches to each secure their own 
copies of the Pauline epistles which were so recognized.  Although Paul 
certainly wrote other epistles, e.g. to the Corinthians and to the 
Laodiceans, either these were lost or destroyed, or for a significant 
reason they were not considered authoritatively Pauline or Pauline but 
not authoritative. 

Even within the single model hypothesis occurring at a later date, there 
would be no necessary reason why the one creator of the 14-epistle 
collection would suddenly be imbued with inviolability in the contents of 
that collection.  The text itself differs regarding texttype within the 
Pauline Corpus -- why could there not be multiple Pauline collections, 
some of which possessed only the longer epistles, some which contained 
only the prison epistles, some which included everything but the 
pastorals, and (especially) some which contained everything except Hebrews?
The single-model hypothesis does not prevent any of this from occurring, 
unless one desires to endow that original collector with infallibility 
which all churches subsequently recognized.   All in all, I still 
maintain that the multiple model not only best fits the historical 
situation, but also accords with the spread and development of texttypes 
within the Pauline Corpus without key errors spread among MSS of all 
texttypes, which should normally be the result if the archetype were 
founded at a point remote from the autographs.

> Perhaps obvious primitive errors do not exist because they were corrected
> by copyists who were used to correcting transcription errors. 

This once more argues from silence for primitive errors which underlay 
significant portions of the text but are not present in our extant MSS, 
versions or fathers (or, alternatively, not in our Greek MSS, but 
preserved in versional or patristic witnesses alone).  Under the single 
model created remotely from the autograph, it would become highly 
unlikely that errors which already permeated the later archetype of the 
corpus would be independently and systematically eliminated by all 
scribes of all texttypes.  Cross-comparison and correction can go so far 
as to restore the text of the archetype, but would be unlikely to go 
beyond that archetype (assuming that the archetype and the autograph were 
unidentical).

> How did you correct my errors? The "text
> is obvious" in the first case, but did I intend to write "where not so" 
> or "where it is not" or "where it is not so"? (Actually, I intended to
> write what I did.)

But in that case, there was _no_ primitive error, but what was actually 
intended, and which made sense within the context, though still liable to 
correction by later revisionists.  Genealogical study of MSS which are 
known to be closely related (e.g. f1 f13 f1424, F-G, etc.) always tends 
to find commonly-held errors among the MSS comprising such a group.  It 
would be asking too much to assume that the case of the Pauline Corpus 
would be so different from what we see elsewhere.

> Yes, this is a problem. Yet F.F. Bruce was bold enough to list what he 
> thought may be a number of primitive corruptions in Hebrews.

Bruce was a pessimist or an optimist, depending upon your point of view.  
I still want to see a place where _only_ the supposition of a primitive 
error can make sense out of the text we possess and where the existing 
text is otherwise incomprehensible or in utter error.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

End of tc-list-digest V1 #53
****************************