From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 3 20:54:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA23680; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:53:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 20:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: "thief" X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I6NEDZE4C28X1CEW@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 466 Friends, Is it ever possible to translate "lhsths (lestes)" as "thief"; or is "brigand; terrorist" or some other "non thief" rendering possible? Thanks for your help (I am asking because I was blasted by a church person who said "two theives were crucified with Jesus, not two terrorists"; and am trying to get some other opinions to share- I realize this is somewhat outside the intention of this forum- but your help is greatly appreciated). Yours, Jim West From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 3 21:22:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23780; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:21:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607040118.VAA21583@utc-01.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: "thief" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1250 Dear Jim: Both renderings are equally possible. According to Bauer,Arndt, Gingrich and Danker. It can mean: 1. A robber, highwayman, bandit 2. a revolutionary, insurrectionist It is used of Barabbas who was most definitely a insurrectionist (cf Mark 15:7) Thayer makes a distinction between the the lestes (robber) and the kleptes (thief). He says that the AV obscures the distinction between the two. The former being the open robber and the latter being one who takes by stealth ( a cut-purse) At 08:49 PM 7/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Friends, > >Is it ever possible to translate "lhsths (lestes)" as "thief"; or is >"brigand; terrorist" or some other "non thief" rendering possible? > >Thanks for your help >(I am asking because I was blasted by a church person who said "two theives >were crucified with Jesus, not two terrorists"; and am trying to get some >other opinions to share- I realize this is somewhat outside the intention of >this forum- but your help is greatly appreciated). > > >Yours, > >Jim West > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 3 21:24:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23802; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:23:39 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:26:48 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: "thief" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1271 Jim West wrote; >Is it ever possible to translate "lhsths (lestes)" as "thief"; or is >"brigand; terrorist" or some other "non thief" rendering possible? > >Thanks for your help >(I am asking because I was blasted by a church person who said "two theives >were crucified with Jesus, not two terrorists"; and am trying to get some >other opinions to share- I realize this is somewhat outside the intention of >this forum- but your help is greatly appreciated). > The more common word for what we think of as stealing, taking what is not one's own, etc is KLEPTW and its derivitives. LS emphasizes the meanings of LHSTEUW as to rob, be a pirate, plunder, etc. A LHSTHRION is a band of pirates, etc. hence, a LHSTHS is one who is a plunderer, robber, etc. This could cover those whom Josephus mentions who were seeking to cause revolt and were forced out into the wilderness to plunder and pillage to support themselves. Keep in mind though that such words tend to be used as synonyms especially by non-native speakers. Check the dictionaries and commentaries on Barabbas, whom Origen mentioned as in some mss as IHSOUS BARABBAS. Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com From owner-tc-list Fri Jul 5 11:47:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00452; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 11:46:13 -0400 X-SnapMAIL: 2.0.2 Message-ID: <00002370.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Patrick W. Skehan Date: Fri, 5 Jul 96 10:40:13 CST From: Mark_OBrien@dts.edu (Mark OBrien) To: B-HEBREW@virginia.edu, TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-HoloGate: 1.1.7c Lines: 204 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 400 I am trying to obtain an address (email or otherwise) for Patrick W. Skehan (formerly of the Catholic University... might still be there?). He is/was one of the Qumran editors. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary ---- Seek not greatness for yourself, and crave not honor. Practice more than you learn. -- in Rashi, on Perkei Avot 1 From owner-tc-list Fri Jul 5 13:39:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01054; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 13:35:54 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:39:13 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: Patrick W. Skehan Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 458 >I am trying to obtain an address (email or otherwise) for Patrick W. Skehan >(formerly of the Catholic University... might still be there?). He is/was one >of the Qumran editors. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Patrick D. Skehan is listed with the following e-mail address. 76055.1046@Compuserve.Com Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com From owner-tc-list Fri Jul 5 15:35:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01513; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:33:07 -0400 From: John Wevers Message-Id: <199607051929.PAA06557@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: Patrick W. Skehan To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:29:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <00002370.sm@dts.edu> from "Mark OBrien" at Jul 5, 96 10:40:13 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 391 > > I am trying to obtain an address (email or otherwise) for Patrick W. Skehan > (formerly of the Catholic University... might still be there?). He is/was one > of the Qumran editors. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. >Pat Skehan is deceased. -- John Wm Wevers Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto INTERNET: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 10 10:03:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21619; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:01:37 -0400 X-SnapMAIL: 2.0.2 Message-ID: <000023C2.sm@dts.edu> Subject: 4QPs(b) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 08:59:54 CST From: Mark_OBrien@dts.edu (Mark OBrien) To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-HoloGate: 1.1.7c Lines: 913 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 892 I am currently doing a project focusing on this Qumran fragment, and I have found very little material directly about 4QPs(b). I have looked at Patrick Skehan's original collation published in CBQ (1964), and an earlier description in VT suppl. IV (1957). G.W. Wilson had a little info in his *The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter* (1985), as did Tov in his *Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible* (1992). But that's about all I've managed to find so far. I'm trying to find out if there are any other sources out there that I have missed, particularly if there was a revised publication ever produced (I believe I have found two errors in the section that I am working on). I would appreciate any assistance at all. Regards, Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary ---- Seek not greatness for yourself, and crave not honor. Practice more than you learn. -- in Rashi, on Perkei Avot 1 From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 10 10:22:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21762; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:21:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) Subject: Re: 4QPs(b) X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I6WKBQID9U8X9ZTT@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 658 Mark, see Stephen Reed's "The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue", p. 58 on 4Q84 (which is the number of 4Q Ps (b). Yours, jim west > >I am currently doing a project focusing on this Qumran fragment, and I have >I'm trying to find out if there are any other sources out there that I have >missed, particularly if there was a revised publication ever produced (I believe >I have found two errors in the section that I am working on). I would >appreciate any assistance at all. > >Regards, > >Mark O'Brien >Dallas Theological Seminary >---- >Seek not greatness for yourself, and crave not honor. Practice more than you >learn. -- in Rashi, on Perkei Avot 1 > From owner-tc-list Sat Jul 13 02:53:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA06236; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 02:51:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 01:47:17 -0500 (CDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu From: mirkova1@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu (alexander mirkovic) Subject: Mk 15:45 X-Sender: mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I709EGO5SI8Y09DU@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1283 Dear list, since this is my first post on the tc-list I would like to intruduce my self. I am a graduate student at Vanderbilt preparing for the qualifying examination in the area of New Testament and Early Christianity. A recent post at b-greek list reminded me of the problem conscerning the relationship between different local texts and Greek dialects. The majority text, several uncials like A, C, W, Peshitto and Coptic read in Mk 14:45 SWMA. (I guess the Coptic tradition has PSWMA that peculiar Egyptian pronnunciation of Greek). Syrus Sinaiticus and D have PTWMA AUTOU. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Coridethianus read PTWMA. What is the linguistic evidence to say that, in Alexandria and Egypt, the preffered word for a dead body was SWMA, while in Antioch and Syria it was PTWMA? Would you agree with this statement? Greetings, Alexander ******************************************************************** Alexander Mirkovic Ph.D. student in New Testament and Early Christianity Senior Teaching Fellow for Koine Greek at Vanderbilt University 1410, 25th Ave. S. #1102-E Nashville, TN 37212 ph. (615) 421-8331 mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt,edu ******************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 17 12:50:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01108; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:48:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 96 09:45:09 PDT Message-Id: <9607171645.AA04094@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <01I709EGO5SI8Y09DU@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> (mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu) Subject: Re: Mk 15:45 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1753 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu asked: > What is the linguistic evidence to say that, in Alexandria and > Egypt, the preffered word for a dead body was SWMA, while in Antioch and > Syria it was PTWMA? The two words are not cognate dialectal variants, like QALATTA and QALASSA, their etymologies are separate. Also, their meanings differ, in that PTWMA is a "fallen", dead body, while SWMA is not a dead body unless context or attached adjectives make it so. The information in Bauer makes it look like there are authors that use both words. Bauer attributes the variant readings interchanging SWMA/PTWMA to a scribe's stylistic preference, because SWMA is more "dignified". The distribution of the witnesses for PTWMA/SWMA cohere geographically because _text_types_ have some geographical coherence, but without further evidence it would be hard to infer a dialectal preference. There are some word pairs like GAMISKW/GAMIZW and APANTHSAI/UPANTHSAI (if memory hasn't failed me) that do vary consistently according to text type and which look more like dialectal preferences. Anyone know other examples? Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMe0YZmCU4mTNq7IdAQGXrAP9EpXpxjXBwrBP1zAnB1+KwlztmmrtFbyf YGa3vXR0s1ofiuvWhx3DoRglvT2XPCNw4CURFxMfzk85Ldgqxam5qtJYRJeeTWnC XQkLeemhTMuXAh31LdEsRmCmwITMzUc1aHeZdZ/boBtJ2WOQm+jzK/uUSiqRSf1o TvVIms6bd64= =ejya -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 17 18:57:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02880; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:54:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 17:48:42 -0500 (CDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu From: mirkova1@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu (alexander mirkovic) Subject: Mk 15:45 X-Sender: mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01I76S5TKGAA8Y4REN@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1413 Thank you Vincent for clarifying some points in my question. Part of the confusion with the interchanging readings SWMA/PTWMA comes from the comment in Bauer which reads (under the entry PTWMA): Mt 14:12 and Mk 15:45 have SWMA (instead of PTWMA), a more dignified word. This is strange since Bauer knows that SWMA is used to denote the dead body since Homer. The entry SWMA makes this clear: SWMA 1. body of man or animal-a.) dead body, corpse (so always in Homer and often later) Therefore, it is not the case that SWMA is more "dignified" than PTWMA. The logical conlusion is that SWMA and PTWMA were used as dialectical variants (no cognates, naturally). Carl Conrad made a comment on b-greek list the that Alexandrians used the word SWMA to refer to Alexander's tomb. The manuscripts from Egypt, in general, prefer the reading SWMA. Does anybody knows about some other pairs of dialectical variants that cohere geographically with the local text types? Regards, Alexander ****************************************************************** Alexander Mirkovic Ph.D. student in New Testament and Early Christianity Senior Teaching Fellow for Koine Greek at Vanderbilt University 1410, 25th Ave. S. #1102-E Nashville, TN 37212 ph. (615) 421-8331 mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt,edu ****************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Sat Jul 20 03:53:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA14709; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:51:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:51:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: New Peshitta mailing list Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4287 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 17:13:37 +0100 (MET) From: M.F.J. Baasten To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Some time ago, a new mailing list was set up by the Leiden Peshitta Institute in order to discuss topics relating to the Peshitta. To subscribe send an email to listserv@nic.surfnet.nl with the message: subscribe peshitta For further information contact Dr. Konrad Jenner (JENNER@RULLET.LEIDENUNIV.NL). Regards, -- Martin Baasten ========================================================== Martin F.J. Baasten - Department of Hebrew, Aramaic and Ugaritic Languages and Cultures - University of Leiden P.O.B. 9515 - NL-2300 RA Leiden - Tel.: +31-71.527.2948 Fax: +31-71.527.2939 - email: Baasten@rullet.LeidenUniv.nl ========================================================== ----- Begin message from IN%"JENNER@rullet.LeidenUniv.nl" 17-Jul-96 From: IN%"JENNER@rullet.LeidenUniv.nl" 17-JUL-1996 16:52 To: IN%"Peshitta@nic.SURFnet.nl" CC: Subj: report Peshitta workshop December 1995 Workshop on "The Peshitta of the Old Testament": 18-19 December 1995. On 18 and 19 December 1995, the "Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions" (LISOR) and the "School for Asian, African and Amerindian Studies" jointly organized a workshop devoted to "The Peshitta of the Old Testament. Text, Standardization, Early Transmission. Methodological Questions". Besides dr. M.P. Weitzman (University College, London), who delivered two main lectures, some Leiden scholars and Ph.D. candidates presented parts of their research. Other important participants were dr. M.D. Koster, whose dissertation of 1977 (on The Peshitta of Exodus) laid the foundation for all subsequent research on the textual history of the Old Testament Peshitta, and dr. A. K. Juckel (Institut f r Neutestamentliche Textforschung, M nster/Westf.), who is responsible for the Syriac edition of the New Testament. In his first lecture ("Between Judaism and Christianity. The Origin of the Peshitta"), M.P. Weitzman unfolded his intriguing theory on the origin of the Old Testament Peshitta, seen by him as the product of a non-rabbinic Jewish community, which gradually moved away from Judaism and eventually adopted Christianity. In the course of this process, the Peshitta translations of the different books of the Hebrew Bible would have come into existence. The question of the earliest accessible text forms of the Peshitta was dealt with in two papers, by R.B. ter Haar Romeny and by A.G.P. Janson, devoted to the Syriac Bible quotations in the Genesis Commentaries of the 4th century authors Eusebius of Emesa and Ephrem the Syrian. Despite some noteworthy variants, there can be no doubt that both authors used a version of the Peshitta which only slightly differed from the text as it is presently known. A. Juckel's illuminating presentation of the methods adopted for the edition of the Syriac New Testament brought to light some interesting parallels as well as discrepancies between the M nster and Leiden Institutes (dealing with the Peshitta New and Old Testament respectively). Prof. A. van der Kooij gave a survey of the textual problems in the Peshitta text of Genesis 6:1-4 and dr. K.D. Jenner, director of the Peshitta Institute, draw the attention to Jacob of Edessa and his revision of the Peshitta. M.P. Weitzman's second lecture ("Reconstructing the Peshitta. Methodological Questions"), which concluded the workshop, was a detailed and well-structured exposition of the various methodological problems with which Peshitta editors have to cope. Dr. P.B. Dirksen and Prof. J. Cook (Stellenbosch), both involved in the Leiden Peshitta edition, responded to Weitzman's presentation, whereas the other participants as well actively took part in the following discussion. The exchange of ideas between scholars and students who, with different backgrounds and interests, are all working in the field of Peshitta studies proved to be most fruitful and stimulating. Luk Van Rompay ----- End forwarded message ----- End forwarded message From owner-tc-list Fri Jul 26 15:19:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14921; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:15:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Jer 29:32 X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960726150304.2797422c@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 312 Does anyone know if there is any evidence from Qumran that would support either the LXX or the MT at BHS's note a-a on this verse? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, QHST PO Box 310 Petros TN 37845 USA From owner-tc-list Sat Jul 27 16:06:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17779; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 16:05:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 16:04:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List , TC Editors Subject: new TC article Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 777 TC is pleased to announce the publication of another article in TC, a critical note by Daniel S. Mynatt. Abstract: The Masoretic note in BHS on the word Uc:bf)ow (and his host) in Num 2:15 is an attempt to correct a note in L associated with the word r:(U)"l (Reuel) in 2:14. The necessity of such a "correction," however, is obviated by a proper understanding of the Masorah Parva note in L itself. Another reminder: TC encourages the submission to the journal of articles in the area of biblical textual criticism (HB/OT or NT), broadly construed. Several book reviews should appear in TC in the near future. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 13:27:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04254; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:25:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Is 1:25 X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960731132032.2e475eec@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 532 The MT here reads "kabor" (as lye) but the emendation "bkr" (in the furnace) has been suggested. The emendation seems to make emminently more sense than the MT. So, should I follow the emendation in translation or should I let the non-sensical reading stand? Or, how often may we legitamately use emendation without feeling a pang of guilt? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, QHST PO Box 310 Petros TN 37845 USA From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 14:21:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04654; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:19:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607311816.OAA22654@utc-01.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Is 1:25 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1829 Dear Jim: This where I think we need to used extreme caution whenever we are doing exegesis. Emending the text should be used only as a "last resort" According to the commentators that I have checked (Keil & Delitzsch) _kabor_ (lye , _natron_ or alkali) was "used in the refining process to accelerate the process of smelting". Consequently before we resort emendation, we should make sure we understand the passage, before declaring it to be "non-sensical". I think we should thoroughly research the passage to understand what the Biblical author was trying to say before we start to emend. Second we should check the ancient versions, Qumram, LXX, Targums, the Vulgate , and the Peshitta, to understand how it was regarded by those closer to the time period than we are. sometimes it's merely a matter of choosing differing vowel-points (which I don't regard as necessarily sacrosanct, but they should be regarded with respect). But when emending the consonantal text, we should use EXTREME conservatism. At 01:21 PM 7/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >The MT here reads "kabor" (as lye) but the emendation "bkr" (in the furnace) >has been suggested. The emendation seems to make emminently more sense than >the MT. So, should I follow the emendation in translation or should I let >the non-sensical reading stand? >Or, how often may we legitamately use emendation without feeling a pang of >guilt? > >Thanks, > > >Jim > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI >Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, QHST >PO Box 310 >Petros TN 37845 >USA > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 15:16:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04911; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:15:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Is 1:25 X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960731151114.0bf75f6c@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 847 I did indeed look at both commentaries (ancient and modern) as well as versional evidence before posting my note. Nevertheless, I cannot accept the notion that simply because someone "maintains" that a soap prduct was used in the smelting of metals that I am obliged to agree. Who do such gymnastics when we all know that letters can be turned around quite easily, even in the modern era? And why be so fearful of an emendation that makes sense, and fits into the context of the passage? Now of course I am not advocating the wholesale slaughter of the MT. But when an emendation makes sense, why not pursue it? Yours (and thanks for the help and suggestions) Jim W. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, QHST PO Box 310 Petros TN 37845 USA From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 16:29:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05385; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:28:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607312024.QAA23465@utc-01.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Is 1:25 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2902 Dear Dr. West: I suppose that I have a basic assumption that a text is "innocent until proven guilt." If I try to reconstruct a text based upon a supposition of how I think it should read rather than on the empirical evidence of how does it read and how has it been historically understood, then I am guilty of importing my own ideas into it. I have to realize that the Masoretic text has a very remarkable degree of accurate transmission (far more than the New Testament text) If a text "makes sense" within reason Occam's razor would demand that we do not need to multiply entities unnecessarily. If a custom is documented, such as using natron/alkali in the smelting process, then to emend the text to read something different is wrong. I would maintain that the gymnastics are performed when we seek to modify a reading to suit our limited understanding of background, culture, linguistics, and philology, rather than admit that perhaps the writer knew more about what he was writing than we do. I suppose it all depends on one's definition of 'makes sense" but one of the cardinal principles of textual criticism is" the more difficult reading is to be preferred". Difficult readings do not mean necessarily mistakes, only misunderstandings. I have a great deal of confidence in the Masoretes who jealously (almost fanactically) guarded the text and who were on much more intimate terms with it than many modern critics. I suppose it best boils down to "if it don't appear to be broken why fix it" LOL. I'm only fearful of emending a text that is accurate as it stands, to suit what I consider to be "right" or reasonable when in fact it is correct as it stands. Far too often the problem is with our understanding of the text rather than the text itself At 03:12 PM 7/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >I did indeed look at both commentaries (ancient and modern) as well as >versional evidence before posting my note. >Nevertheless, I cannot accept the notion that simply because someone >"maintains" that a soap prduct was used in the smelting of metals that I am >obliged to agree. > >Who do such gymnastics when we all know that letters can be turned around >quite easily, even in the modern era? And why be so fearful of an >emendation that makes sense, and fits into the context of the passage? > >Now of course I am not advocating the wholesale slaughter of the MT. But >when an emendation makes sense, why not pursue it? > > >Yours >(and thanks for the help and suggestions) > > >Jim W. > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI >Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, QHST >PO Box 310 >Petros TN 37845 >USA > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 16:59:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05586; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:58:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199607311956.NAA20463@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:53:55 -7 Subject: Re: Is 1:25 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1130 > The MT here reads "kabor" (as lye) but the emendation "bkr" (in the furnace) > has been suggested. The emendation seems to make emminently more sense than > the MT. So, should I follow the emendation in translation or should I let > the non-sensical reading stand? As has already been pointed out, it doesn't necessarily appear to be nonsensical. From a strictly TC POV, there isn't much to go on except speculation. LXX reads EIS KAQARON, "to purity," so it's not much help; 1QIsa(a) has a lacuna here so we don't know what it read, and I haven't been able to find any other DSS that preserve this passage. In the absence of any variant readings (BHS doesn't show any variants here either), and since the reading does apparently make sense of a sort, I would hesitate to emend based on such slim evidence. > Or, how often may we legitamately use emendation without feeling a pang of > guilt? As often as the text actually warrants it, which IMHO isn't very often... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "I like being second in line because I can learn from other people's mistakes." -Naomi From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 22:54:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA06824; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:52:37 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:51:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960731224918_169083518@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 1:25 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 582 Dear Jim West: In a message dated 96-07-31 13:26:32 EDT, you wrote: >Or, how often may we legitamately use emendation without feeling a pang of >guilt? > Conjectural emendation is unwise. It may just introduce another variant. Emendations that have ancient support from Hebrew mss and/or ancient versions can be entertained. A good rule of thumb is "consensus among ancient independent witnesses." James D. Price ===================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Prof. of Hebrew and OT Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 ===================================== From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 22:54:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA06837; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:53:06 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:52:21 -0400 Message-ID: <960731224958_169083553@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 1:25 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 270 Dear Dave Washburn: In a message dated 96-07-31 16:59:18 EDT, you wrote: > LXX reads EIS KAQARON, "to purity," so it's not >much help; The LXX is supporting the MT consonantal text here. The Hebrew word BOR means "purity." (BDB 141). Respectfully, James D. Price From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 23:42:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA07005; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:40:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199608010239.UAA28418@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:15:06 -7 Subject: Re: Is 1:25 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 566 > Dear Dave Washburn: > In a message dated 96-07-31 16:59:18 EDT, you wrote: > > > LXX reads EIS KAQARON, "to purity," so it's not > >much help; > > The LXX is supporting the MT consonantal text here. The Hebrew word BOR > means "purity." (BDB 141). > > Respectfully, > James D. Price Ack! Caught like a rat in a trap for not digging deep enough. Of course you're correct. Mea culpa. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html I realize the beans have to be counted. I just wish the bean counters would quit counting their beans in my pocket. From owner-tc-list Wed Jul 31 23:52:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA07077; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:48:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 00:44:40 -0300 Message-Id: <199608010344.AAA12932@thor.atcon.com> X-Sender: tmclay@mail.atcon.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: tmclay@atcon.com (Tim McLay) Subject: Re: Is 1:25 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1415 I'm not so interested in this particular passage as Kevin Woodruff's assertion that "when emending the consonantal text, we should use EXTREME conservatism." On what basis would you justify that position? MT is the latest witness we have, so why should it be sacrosanct? The LXX and Qumran are far closer in time to the time of the writing of the Biblical texts. Furthermore, when you later stated: "[we] have to realize that the Masoretic text has a very remarkable degree of accurate transmission (far more than the New Testament text)" I have to say, SO? MT is a witness to a majority text that was standardized by one group in the 5th cent. though it derives from earlier efforts which formost authorities such as E. Tov and E. Ulrich date as late as the 2d cent. Despite the arguments of a few who want to elevate the position of the Majority Text in the NT, the majority of scholars recognize that uniformity does not mean that much in most cases. Why, then, should uniformity amongst late texts be highly regarded when it comes to the Hebrew Bible? In the end, elevation of the MT means that you are reconstructing A majority text and not the closest possible reading of the original (or of a literary edition in those texts which exhibit multiple forms). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada