From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 1 00:20:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA07141; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 00:18:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199608010317.VAA29217@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:41:00 -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: 3102 > 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. The LXX and Qumran have shown that, in the main, we do in fact have a very good text preserved in the MT. The main place where LXX diverges is in Samuel (leaving aside Jeremiah for the moment, as much of its problems appear to be outside the realm of TC); the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures show a remarkable consistency of transmission, as far back as and including Qumran and the Greek translations. Moreover, Woodruff's comment was about *conjectural* emendation, i.e. emendation when there are no documentary witnesses to support it. In no way did he say (at least I don't see it) that the MT is sacrosanct. As I understand it, he was calling for caution in departing from the actual witnesses into the realm of speculation. > 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? When that uniformity extends clear back to the Qumran documents, it is incredibly significant. Also, the comparison to the so-called Majority Text in the NT is not valid the way you areusing it. There, the uniformity extends over a large body of documents that are not significantly separated from each other in time or geography. With the Hebrew text the picture is different. We have relatively few Hebrew MSS of the MT, but we also have the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and now Qumran. When a high degree of uniformity among this kind of diversity of witnesses is evident, we do well to pay attention. With Qumran, we now have a diverse enough body of evidence that conjectural emendation is hardly ever warranted. > 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). This is not what Woodruff was doing, and using conjectural emendation sparingly can hardly be equated with "elevation of the MT." 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 Thu Aug 1 08:39:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08102; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:32:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199608011228.IAA28960@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: 2592 Due to the high degree of correspondence that the MT has with the Qumram scrolls, I merely meant that the MT should be given a reasonable benefit of doubt. Although it is a late tradition, it displays a high degree of accuracy and we should give it the benefit of doubt before pronouncing it "corrupt" or "non-sensical" For example in I Samuel 13:21. Driver pronounced the text hopelessly corrupt, but archaeology proved that we just didn't know what a _pim_ was. The LXX although closer to the writings, varies in it's literalness of translation and sometimes shows that the translator's didn't have a clue as to what the text meant. I'm just stating that we should be careful to not try to superimpose our idea of what we think the text should say instead of trying to ascertain what does the text actually says. Emendation should be a tool of last resort, not of first resort. At 12:44 AM 8/1/96 -0300, you wrote: >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 > > > 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 Thu Aug 1 10:30:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA08712; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:28:05 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <960731224918_169083518@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:14:59 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" 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: 4342 On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, DrJDPrice@aol.com (James D. Price) wrote: >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." I've kept out of this discussion so far, because Old Testament criticism is not my specialty, but I would like to make a methodological comment here. Conjectural emendation is actually a two-step process: Recognizing a defect, and attempting to correct it. These two should be kept separate. There are good reasons to believe that the MT is often very corrupt. The books of Samuel are obvious examples -- but the simple fact is, *all* ancient documents are corrupt. Chances are, there are many "errors" (that is, readings that do not agree with the original author's text) even in passages where the MT makes perfect sense. But *recognizing* these places is difficult. Then there's the matter of corrections. A correction can be eminently suitable, logical, simple -- everything but correct. This is most easily demonstrated not from literary sources but from that great soup of transmission errors, traditional song. There is a song I know where the singer sang (I kid you not) "a bold brave bonair." Nobody knew what it meant, but conjectures were many: "A bold brave soldier," "a bold brave manner," etc. Turns out the original was "a brave volunteer." Which no one thought of until they started looking for other versions of the song. The point is, emendation is a risky business. I agree with West that there are a lot of places where the MT needs to be fixed -- and the fact that LXX and MT agree, or that the reading "makes sense," does *not* prove that it is original. But if the original reading is lost, chances are that we cannot, at this late date, correct it. So I agree: Conjectural emendation should be kept to a minimum. But let's get our reasons right: Emendation should be our last resort not because the MT is always right, but because chances are that our emendation will only make things worse. ************ "Dave Washburn" then wrote, in part: >> 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. > >The LXX and Qumran have shown that, in the main, we do in fact have a >very good text preserved in the MT. While I do not necessarily disagree, this *does not follow.* It merely shows that the MT, LXX, and Qumran have not diverged widely. It says nothing about the Biblical text in the period *before* they diverged. Chances are that *most* errors in the Biblical text took place in the earliest stages of transmission -- *before* the text was canonized and before the basic text-forms emerged. >The main place where LXX >diverges is in Samuel (leaving aside Jeremiah for the moment, as much >of its problems appear to be outside the realm of TC); the rest of >the Hebrew Scriptures show a remarkable consistency of transmission, >as far back as and including Qumran and the Greek translations. What about Ezekiel (my LXX shows it to be about 10% shorter than the MT) and Job (also much shorter in LXX)? And in the Minor Prohpets, the LXX versions are about the same *length* as MT, but even allowing for many *many* errors in translation, the differences strike me as too large to be accounted for only by translation errors. As for the claim that the situation in Jeremiah "appear[s] to be outside the realm of TC," I cannot accept this claim as it stands. What about the hundreds of instances where MT reads adds "of hosts" after YHWH but LXX omits? There is little doubt in my mind that these are glosses -- and if MT is glossed there, why not in some of the other differences? (remainder omitted; I think I made my point above). Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 2 00:19:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12353; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 00:03:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 00:59:27 -0300 (ADT) Message-Id: <199608020359.AAA06967@loki.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 Cc: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2367 Sorry for the delay in responding. I only read my mail once a day. Kevin Woodruff's original post concerned conjectural emendation, but his statements alluded to an attitude toward MT, to which I drew attention. Again in his clarification, Kevin states: "Although it [MT] is a late tradition, it displays a high degree of accuracy and we should give it the benefit of doubt before pronouncing it "corrupt" or "non-sensical." My questions emerge due to phrases like "we should give it the benefit of doubt" and "extreme conservatism toward the consonantal text." Although the subject was emendation, the statements certainly alluded to a more general attitude toward MT. And, our attitude toward MT has a great deal of influence on our text-critical decisions. Many scholars believe that MT does deserve the benefit of the doubt as a general rule. Does it? or is it a witness like any other? Perhaps, I am reading too much into Kevin's statements (if so I apologize), but the issue is relevant nonetheless. So, I agree that there is much in Qumran, LXX, etc. that agrees with MT, but there are also significant differences and many minor ones. With respect to major differences, they are hardly confined to Samuel and Jeremiah. There is Job, Ex. 35-40, Daniel 4-6 + the additions, the chronological system in Kings, key transitions in Josh-Judges, Prov. and the AT of Esther. Small textual differences abound. Which brings up my initial question, what place does MT hold when doing textual criticism? Further methodological questions arise when dealing with books where there are major differences. Furthermore, the analogy of the MT tradition to the Byzantine text in the NT does hold. If the committee working on BHQ holds to its original intention, there will be one textual apparatus devoted to variants in the Hebrew mss. of the Masoretic tradition. This apparatus will be beneficial for showing the small differences that exist among the Masoretic witnesses (since BHQ will use the Leningrad codex as its base), because the text of MT became so standardized. This is independant from the SP, LXX, etc. That is a majority text and is so defined in text books on textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 5 02:03:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA25428; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 02:02:14 -0400 From: CleonLR@aol.com Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 02:00:54 -0400 Message-ID: <960805020053_377702448@emout15.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: 383 Clearly there are cases where emendation is overused, Toy in Proverbs or in a more modern day commentary Dahood on Psalms. The basic principle I use in OTTC is to understand the various variants, a task that is not always easy. This is not a MT fundamentalism, but a more cautious approach, similar to the one Kevin is suggesting. Sincerely, Cleon L. Rogers III Wetzlar, Germany From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 5 03:14:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA25707; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 03:13:04 -0400 From: Sigrid Peterson Message-Id: <199608050709.DAA57231@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Is 1:25 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 03:09:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199608020359.AAA06967@loki.atcon.com> from "Tim McLay" at Aug 2, 96 00:59:27 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 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3830 According to Tim McLay: > [...] > > Kevin Woodruff's original post concerned conjectural emendation, but his > statements alluded to an attitude toward MT, to which I drew attention. > [...] > does deserve the benefit of the doubt as a general rule. Does it? or is it > a witness like any other? MT as we know it based on Codex Leningradensis is the ONLY witness to the Hebrew text of these books we and the Masoretes held to be authoritative. Lacking the story of the text, except in vignettes, there is no way to know how it became the ONLY witness--perhaps it was the only scroll rescued from the burning Temple in 70 AD, and the Romans confiscated other existing copies. Yet someone has pointed out to me that most probably much of the text had been memorized. But to what textual evidence is the appeal, when two memorized versions disagree? > Perhaps, I am reading too much into Kevin's > statements (if so I apologize), but the issue is relevant nonetheless. > > So, I agree that there is much in Qumran, LXX, etc. that agrees with MT, but > there are also significant differences and many minor ones. And these do not occur to the same extent in the first five books, do they? With respect to > major differences, they are hardly confined to Samuel and Jeremiah. There > is Job, Ex. 35-40, Daniel 4-6 + the additions, the chronological system in > Kings, key transitions in Josh-Judges, Prov. and the AT of Esther. Small > textual differences abound. Which brings up my initial question, what place > does MT hold when doing textual criticism? Further methodological questions > arise when dealing with books where there are major differences. > MT is our source for a continuous Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Hebrew Bible. It is the surviving text form from among the varieties of texts known at Qumran, a fairly good chunk of which agreed for the most part with what we now call MT. I hope I've just described the situation in fairly neutral terms, but somehow I doubt it. The LXX -- the Torah in Greek -- and the OG translations of the rest of the Books of the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures may sometimes antedate the texts that we have from Qumran, but not necessarily. They may witness to a different Hebrew Vorlage, but not necessarily. For the most part, except for the Minor Prophets Scroll from Naxal Xever, south of Qumran, there aren't many early witnesses to the Greek text. As far as I know, and I've worked with a portion of the Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Jewish Scriptures developed by Emmanuel Tov and a team from Penn in the mid-80s, there is NO way to tell whether a conjectured archetypal Hebrew text was translated into Greek and then evolved into the version in Greek we now have, or whether the differences developed in the transmission of the Greek, independently of developing difference in the Hebrew-Aramaic text. The ability to make generalizations about the original form of the text is absent, even for so small a unit as the Biblical book, as LXX or OlD Greek can vary even from chapter to chapter. For further information on some of this, see, in addition to books and articles of Emanuel Tov, the long article by Isaac L. Seeligmann, in Textus vol XV, 1990, originally written in Dutch in 1940, now in English. James Barr, in the first few pages of Comparative Philology, stresses that versional evidence for the text of the OT cannot have the same value that Greek ms variation has for the NT. What *would be of value would be to clarify the development of the Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com > Halifax, Nova Scotia > Canada > Sigrid Peterson UPenn petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 5 03:14:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA25716; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 03:13:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 03:13:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC Editors , TC List Subject: TC articles display Greek & Hebrew 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: 997 After more than two years of anticipation on my part, the display of Greek, Hebrew, and other non-Roman fonts is now possible on the World Wide Web. All of the current articles in TC now have "original script" versions, as will all future articles. The ability to read texts in their original scripts is obviously preferable to transliterations, and it removes the only significant advantage that print journals had over Web journals. To read the TC articles, you will have to do two things: (1) download and install the latest version of Netscape Navigator for your Mac, Windows, or Unix computer; (2) download the required font files from the Scholars Press FTP site. For more details, see the TC home page (URL given below), and, in particular, the editorial entitled TC Note #2 (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol01/TCnotes2.html." 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 Mon Aug 5 14:54:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28989; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 14:51:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3206430B.26FBE7F6@repurk.mw.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 11:52:59 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TC articles display Greek & Hebrew References: 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: 59 Good news indeed, but any relief for us Unix folks ? -lars From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 6 00:49:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA01819; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:48:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 01:44:09 -0300 Message-Id: <199608060444.BAA08220@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: 2832 Sigrid Petersen stated: > The LXX -- the Torah in Greek -- and the OG >translations of the rest of the Books of the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures >may sometimes antedate the texts that we have from Qumran, but not >necessarily. They may witness to a different Hebrew Vorlage, but not >necessarily. For the most part, except for the Minor Prophets Scroll from >Naxal Xever, south of Qumran, there aren't many early witnesses to the >Greek text. True. The Greek mss. are largely from the early centuries CE and later. However, they are earlier than codex Leningradensis and do witness (sometimes) significant and also less dramatic differences. Which brings us to: >As far as I know, and I've worked with a portion of the Parallel >Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Jewish Scriptures developed by Emmanuel >Tov and a team from Penn in the mid-80s, there is NO way to tell whether >a conjectured archetypal Hebrew text was translated into Greek and then >evolved into the version in Greek we now have, or whether the differences >developed in the transmission of the Greek, independently of developing >difference in the Hebrew-Aramaic text. Here Sigrid is being a little too general. Yes, there is always some uncertainty and yes some are very skeptical about the accuracy of retroverting Greek to Hebrew. However, one of the points that those who work with the LXX have been trying to make (not always successfully) is that the translators were translating their source texts faithfully and that we can distinguish textual variants from inner-Greek corruptions and thus be confident in our abilities to discern many places where the source text was different from MT. Please do not turn my statement into a generalization. Obviously, there are instances where one is less confident and each book or even sections of books must be treated individually. But that is why people do this kind of research. E. Tov wrote The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research as an introduction to this process. The work of Soisalon-Soininen, Anneli Aejmelaeus, Raija Sollamo, Tov, Ulrich, Greenspoon and others is providing the basis for using the LXX as a text-critical tool with confidence. Others are working with other versions towards the same ends. So, my point was that we need to give equal weight to the witness of a retroverted variant from a version as we give to MT when that retroverted variant rests on a solid reconstruction. This is critical to our methodology when pactising textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Tov, BTW, states the same in several places including his new text on textual criticism. I am at home so I can't give you page numbers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 6 02:21:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA02024; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 02:19:09 -0400 From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 08:03 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <6891704589171420@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: RE: Re: Is 1:25 X-Mailer: Netmail V3.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1819 > Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Mon, 5 Aug > 96 08:49:40 +0200 > Received: from itu2.sun.ac.za by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP; > Mon, 5 Aug 1996 8:47:57 +0100 (WET-DST) > Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by itu2.sun.ac.za with smtp > (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0unIpw-000Ivca; Mon, 5 Aug 96 08:08 GMT+0200 > Received: from scholar.cc.emory.edu (scholar.cc.emory.edu [170.140.38.9]) by > graf.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id BAA17884; > Mon, 5 Aug 1996 01:59:07 -0400 (EDT) > Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id CAA25428; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 02:02:14 -0400 > From: CleonLR@aol.com > Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 02:00:54 -0400 > Message-ID: <960805020053_377702448@emout15.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 > > Clearly there are cases where emendation is overused, Toy in Proverbs or in a > more modern day commentary Dahood on Psalms. The basic principle I use in > OTTC is to understand the various variants, a task that is not always easy. > This is not a MT fundamentalism, but a more cautious approach, similar to > the one Kevin is suggesting. > > Sincerely, > > Cleon L. Rogers III > Wetzlar, Germany Reservations as far as emendations are concerned are certainly in order as far as Proverbs is concerned. I have just completed a monograph on the Septuagint version of Proverbs in which I indicate that the Greek translation had a Hebrew parent text that did not differ too much from MT. This even applies to the differences in the order of the final 8 chapters! Johann Cook Dept. of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 6 12:37:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA03884; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:36:20 -0400 Message-Id: <9608061632.AA20049@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: TC articles display Greek & Hebrew To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:32:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" Cc: tc-editors@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: from "James R. Adair" at Aug 5, 96 03:13:26 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] 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: 1096 James R. Adair wrote: >After more than two years of anticipation on my part, the display of >Greek, Hebrew, and other non-Roman fonts is now possible on the World >Wide Web. [...] > To read the TC articles, you will have to do two things: >(1) download and install the latest version of Netscape Navigator for >your Mac, Windows, or Unix computer; (2) download the required font files >from the Scholars Press FTP site. For more details, see the TC home page >(URL given below), and, in particular, the editorial entitled TC Note #2 >(http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol01/TCnotes2.html." I have tested with both the Netscape Navigator 3.0 Beta (level 6) and the Microsoft Internet Explorer 2.01, and for both of them it works just great. My only complaint -- and it's a minor one -- is that the fonts can be prettier. 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 owner-tc-list Tue Aug 6 13:13:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04084; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:12:57 -0400 From: CleonLR@aol.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:12:16 -0400 Message-ID: <960806131216_172996805@emout09.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: 720 Moshe Greenberg states in his commentary on Ezekiel is that unfortunately we only have one Hebrew text for most of the Hebrew Bible. All the other witnesses are only translations. To use them we have to "guess" (the technical word is retrovert) what the translator read as a Vorlage. To complicate things there are significant revisions -- as you probably know -- in the LXX, so that it is almost incorrect (contrary to Intro courses) to speak of "The LXX." While the MT is not always correct, the TC problems often indicate an interpretative problem, not simply a transmission problem. The texts of the MT often transmit very early readings, though not always without error. Cleon L. Rogers III Wetzlar, Germany From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 6 13:47:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04350; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:45:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TC articles display Greek & Hebrew In-Reply-To: <9608061632.AA20049@osf1.gmu.edu> 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: 1501 On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > James R. Adair wrote: > >After more than two years of anticipation on my part, the display of > >Greek, Hebrew, and other non-Roman fonts is now possible on the World > >Wide Web. > > I have tested with both the Netscape Navigator 3.0 Beta (level 6) and > the Microsoft Internet Explorer 2.01, and for both of them it works > just great. My only complaint -- and it's a minor one -- is that the > fonts can be prettier. > > Stephen Carlson I'm glad to know that the fonts work with Internet Explorer as well as Netscape. As for the aesthetic qualities of the fonts, I make no claim to be a font designer, and any font designers on the list certainly have no need to worry about competition ;). In fact, if someone wanted to design a nicer looking Greek font, using the same character map as SPIonic, it could be named SPIonic on the local system and substituted for our font, thus improving the display. The important thing to remember is that the character maps must match. If anyone runs across characters that don't display properly (particularly on the screen, but also in print) in either 10 or 12 point size, I would appreciate hearing about it. I have in mind characters that are unrecognizable or just plain wrong, but I'll be glad to at least consider improving particularly ugly letters. 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 Aug 7 15:17:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11107; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:15:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199608071814.MAA01562@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:11:12 -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: 1366 Tim McLay wrote in part: > E. Tov wrote The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research as > an introduction to this process. The work of Soisalon-Soininen, Anneli > Aejmelaeus, Raija Sollamo, Tov, Ulrich, Greenspoon and others is providing > the basis for using the LXX as a text-critical tool with confidence. Others > are working with other versions towards the same ends. > > So, my point was that we need to give equal weight to the witness of a > retroverted variant from a version as we give to MT when that retroverted > variant rests on a solid reconstruction. I just finished reviewing Sollamo's "Repetition of the Possessive Pronoun in the Septuagint" for the online journal TC, and it seems to me that in the majority of cases in that book she says we can't know for sure whether the translator took some liberties or had a different vorlage. I was quite impressed with her tentativeness at saying "this is what the translator's Hebrew text said;" in most cases it appears to be pretty much of an open question (I make this statement only regarding the specific passages in the Pentateuch that she treated in the book, not as a sweeping generalization). 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 Aug 7 16:20:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA11606; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:18:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:18:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 1:25 In-Reply-To: <199608071814.MAA01562@wave.sheridan.wy.us> 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: 2416 On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Dave Washburn wrote: > Tim McLay wrote in part: > > So, my point was that we need to give equal weight to the witness of a > > retroverted variant from a version as we give to MT when that retroverted > > variant rests on a solid reconstruction. > > I just finished reviewing Sollamo's "Repetition of the Possessive > Pronoun in the Septuagint" for the online journal TC, and it seems to > me that in the majority of cases in that book she says we can't know > for sure whether the translator took some liberties or had a > different vorlage. I was quite impressed with her tentativeness at > saying "this is what the translator's Hebrew text said;" in most > cases it appears to be pretty much of an open question (I make this > statement only regarding the specific passages in the Pentateuch that > she treated in the book, not as a sweeping generalization). Dave's review will appear shortly on the virtual pages of TC. In an article in JNSL 20 (1994) entitled "A Methodology for Using the Versions in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," I proposed one model for dealing with the problem of retroverting Greek and Latin texts back into Hebrew. In brief, I think that calling something a "literal translation" is not particularly helpful, since the translation can be very literal in some regards (e.g., word order), only somewhat literal in other ways (e.g., consistent rendering of Hebrew "stem" by a particular Greek voice), and quite free in still other ways (e.g., the translation of conjunctions). It is important to determine how consistent the translator was in rendering lexical items, word classes, grammatical categories, segmentation (rendering compound words in the source language with compound words in the target language), and word order. Only then can one judge the probability of making a valid retroversion in any specific case. However, I agree with Tim that a reasonably sure retroversion should be given as much credence in text-critical decisions as a reading in the MT. A careful study of the translation technique of a particular version in a particular book will help in determining which retroversions are "reasonably sure." 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 Thu Aug 8 00:36:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA13388; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:34:52 -0400 Message-Id: <9608080431.AA18662@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: TC articles display Greek & Hebrew To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:31:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "James R. Adair" at Aug 6, 96 01:45:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] 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: 1716 James R. Adair wrote: >I'm glad to know that the fonts work with Internet Explorer as well as >Netscape. As for the aesthetic qualities of the fonts, I make no claim to >be a font designer, and any font designers on the list certainly have no >need to worry about competition ;). In fact, if someone wanted to design >a nicer looking Greek font, using the same character map as SPIonic, it >could be named SPIonic on the local system and substituted for our font, >thus improving the display. The important thing to remember is that the >character maps must match. Is the SPIonic font mapping unique, or did it borrow it from another font? I'm thinking of the Silver Mountain Software fonts and other packages. As far as I can understand the behavior of the HTML tag, one is allowed to specify multiple font faces to be tried, e.g., Mh=nin a)ei/de qea/. But even that trick will only work if the character maps are identical. > If anyone runs across characters that don't >display properly (particularly on the screen, but also in print) in >either 10 or 12 point size, I would appreciate hearing about it. I have >in mind characters that are unrecognizable or just plain wrong, but I'll >be glad to at least consider improving particularly ugly letters. All I can remember offhand is that the dagesh in the beth is a bit off- center, but that may be due to fit the narrower gimel. 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 owner-tc-list Thu Aug 8 09:59:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA14745; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 09:58:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 09:58:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TC articles display Greek & Hebrew In-Reply-To: <9608080431.AA18662@osf1.gmu.edu> 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: 3176 On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: (I wrote:) > >The important thing to remember is that the > >character maps must match. > > Is the SPIonic font mapping unique, or did it borrow it from another > font? I'm thinking of the Silver Mountain Software fonts and other > packages. As far as I can understand the behavior of the HTML > tag, one is allowed to specify multiple font faces to be > tried, e.g., Mh=nin a)ei/de qea/. > But even that trick will only work if the character maps are identical. Right. The face attribute allows you to specify up to three fonts to try loading, but they must have identical character maps to display properly. We had two primary goals in mind when we designed our fonts: ease of use by scholars in the field (that's why we based our fonts on the TLG and Michigan-Claremont standard encoding schemes) and compatibility between PC and Mac platforms. Our initial inclination was to take an existing, popular font and use the same character map, but there were two problems. First, as far as I can tell, there is no single Greek font, for example, that is used by a majority of people, and since the character maps vary among the various popular fonts, picking a standard would have been arbitrary. Second, and more importantly, we wanted to create fonts that would work on both PCs and Macs. Because of differences between the two platforms, that meant that we restricted ourselves to using the characters between 32 and 127 (i.e., ASCII). Since none of the fonts I knew about did this, we decided to create our own. > > If anyone runs across characters that don't > >display properly (particularly on the screen, but also in print) in > >either 10 or 12 point size, I would appreciate hearing about it. I have > >in mind characters that are unrecognizable or just plain wrong, but I'll > >be glad to at least consider improving particularly ugly letters. > > All I can remember offhand is that the dagesh in the beth is a bit off- > center, but that may be due to fit the narrower gimel. We do have more than one character for a single diacritical in our fonts (e.g., we have four different dageshes), but we don't have as many as most commercial fonts do, so positioning of breathing marks, accents, and vowel points may not be as nice in our fonts. Again, the reasons for this go back to our desire for ease of use and our self-imposed limitation on using only valid ASCII characters. What users should do is to try the diacritical characters in different combinations to see what looks best to them. I have tried to help by specifying that a breathing mark, for example, is designed for either narrow or wide characters. I plan to go back to the readme file and specify what I mean by narrow and wide, but for Greek, wide vowels are alpha and omega, and all the other vowels (and rho) are considered narrow. 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 Thu Aug 8 11:30:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15019; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:28:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 11:09:47 EDT From: george howard Subject: Re: Is 1:25 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000 Message-Id: <960808.112419.EDT.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 813 In regard to LXX retroversions to Hebrew, another matter that needs to be addressed is whether the Hebrew text we possess is corrupt. Often, scholars turn to the Greek when the Hebrew is difficult to read or is corrupt. But, when this happens, it is sometimes the case that the Hebrew was difficult for the LXX translator as well. The Greek in these instances is often little more than a guess on the part of the translator. After all, he had to put something down for a translation. Retroversions of the Greekin these cases are of little value in recovering the original Hebrew text. How often does this occur? Ask yourself. Do you turn to the Greek when the Hebrew is easy and good, or when it is difficult to read or corrupt? George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 8 14:59:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16140; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:57:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:57:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 1:25 In-Reply-To: <960808.112419.EDT.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> 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: 1789 On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, george howard wrote: > In regard to LXX retroversions to Hebrew, another matter that needs to > be addressed is whether the Hebrew text we possess is corrupt. Often, > scholars turn to the Greek when the Hebrew is difficult to read or is > corrupt. But, when this happens, it is sometimes the case that the > Hebrew was difficult for the LXX translator as well. The Greek in these > instances is often little more than a guess on the part of the > translator. After all, he had to put something down for a translation. > Retroversions of the Greekin these cases are of little value in recovering > the original Hebrew text. This is a good point. It is always important to ask if the reading of the MT (or of the SP, or a Qumran scroll) could lie behind the Greek. Tov's discussion of these issues in _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research_ is excellent. Particularly when the Hebrew is difficult is it pertinent to ask whether the Greek is a desperate attempt to render the Hebrew. In these cases, conjecture becomes a viable possibility. > How often does this occur? Ask yourself. Do > you turn to the Greek when the Hebrew is easy and good, or when it is > difficult to read or corrupt? But should the only time we turn to the Greek be when the Hebrew is difficult? A proper text-critical approach would be to read the Greek alongside the Hebrew all the time, not just when difficulties arise in the Hebrew text. After all, Hebrew scribes could have smoothed over difficulties just as easily as Greek translators. 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 Fri Aug 9 04:14:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA19284; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 04:13:29 -0400 From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za Date: Fri, 9 Aug 96 09:58 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <8308257858824111@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: RE: Re: Is 1:25 X-Mailer: Netmail V3.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3698 > Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Thu, 8 Aug > 96 00:02:57 +0200 > Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP; > Thu, 8 Aug 1996 0:01:13 +0100 (WET-DST) > Received: from scholar.cc.emory.edu (scholar.cc.emory.edu [170.140.38.9]) by > gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id > QAA20979; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:18:38 -0400 (EDT) > Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id QAA11606; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:18:38 -0400 > Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:18:27 -0400 (EDT) > From: "James R. Adair" > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Is 1:25 > In-Reply-To: <199608071814.MAA01562@wave.sheridan.wy.us> > 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 > > On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Dave Washburn wrote: > > > Tim McLay wrote in part: > > > So, my point was that we need to give equal weight to the witness of a > > > retroverted variant from a version as we give to MT when that retroverted > > > variant rests on a solid reconstruction. > > > > I just finished reviewing Sollamo's "Repetition of the Possessive > > Pronoun in the Septuagint" for the online journal TC, and it seems to > > me that in the majority of cases in that book she says we can't know > > for sure whether the translator took some liberties or had a > > different vorlage. I was quite impressed with her tentativeness at > > saying "this is what the translator's Hebrew text said;" in most > > cases it appears to be pretty much of an open question (I make this > > statement only regarding the specific passages in the Pentateuch that > > she treated in the book, not as a sweeping generalization). > > Dave's review will appear shortly on the virtual pages of TC. In an > article in JNSL 20 (1994) entitled "A Methodology for Using the Versions > in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," I proposed one model for > dealing with the problem of retroverting Greek and Latin texts back into > Hebrew. In brief, I think that calling something a "literal translation" > is not particularly helpful, since the translation can be very literal in > some regards (e.g., word order), only somewhat literal in other ways > (e.g., consistent rendering of Hebrew "stem" by a particular Greek voice), > and quite free in still other ways (e.g., the translation of > conjunctions). It is important to determine how consistent the translator > was in rendering lexical items, word classes, grammatical categories, > segmentation (rendering compound words in the source language with > compound words in the target language), and word order. Only then can one > judge the probability of making a valid retroversion in any specific case. > However, I agree with Tim that a reasonably sure retroversion should be > given as much credence in text-critical decisions as a reading in the MT. > A careful study of the translation technique of a particular version in a > particular book will help in determining which retroversions are > "reasonably sure." > > 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 <----------------- Any one interested in the article by Jimmy Adair can contact me as co-editor of JNSL. Greetings Johann Cook Dept of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 STELLENBOSCH SOUTH AFRICA > From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 10 04:10:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA24284; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:08:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:25:30 +0800 (WST) From: "James K. Tauber" To: tc-editors@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: TC List Subject: Re: TC articles display Greek & Hebrew In-Reply-To: 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: 1045 This announcement came just as I was starting to put up similar information on my Hellenistic Greek Linguistics Pages http://www.entmp.org/HGrk/ I shall include a pointer to your information. Furthermore, as the FACE attribute is something the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project has planned to make use of, I shall ensure that the ENTMP uses the same fonts and/or font mapping as Scholars' Press to make things easiest for users. Just one point of correction like to make though. The FACE attribute is not infact a Netscape invention. I believe Microsoft's Internet Explorer has had it for a while. Also, it is probably worth noting that while the FACE attribute is an excellent solution for the moment, style sheets will ultimately provide a better solution because font names then don't have to be hard-wired into the documents. While IE already supports this, Netscape doesn't. James K. Tauber http://www.entmp.org/people/jtauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 14 13:33:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16252; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:31:39 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:30:25 -0400 Message-ID: <960814133024_501234383@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: REElliott@aol.com Subject: Differences in MSS Re: 1 John 5:7 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 885 Questions Concerning Differences in Manuscript Evidence Greek Manuscript listings for the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7 as listed in “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” by Bruce Metzger© 1st Ed. 1971 2nd Ed. 1994__ MS Date MS Date 61 16th C 61 early 16th C 88vr, lh 12th C 88vr, lh16th 14th C 629 14-15C 221vr, lh 10th C 635vr,lh 17th 11C 429vr, lh 16th C 636vr, lh 16th C 918 16th C 2318 18th C Note: vr = variant(marginal) reading, lh = later hand Questions: 1) Why aren’t MSS 629 and 635 also listed in the second edition; was there a typographical error that transposed 629 to 429, and 635 to 636? 2) Why and how does the dating for MSS 61 and 88 change (and possibly 629, 429, 635,& 636). Submitted by RE Elliott@aol.com From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 14 13:42:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16389; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:41:47 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:40:34 -0400 Message-ID: <960814134032_501242258@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: REElliott@aol.com Subject: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism"! Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2158 The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism A work whose time has come! A volume that I always wished was on my shelf. A single work that would easily answer questions about NT TC. The people, places, things, and dates that are relevant to the study and understanding of this Biblical discipline. Made primarily for pastors and students new to this area of study, as well as for the scholar who could use a quick reference . The idea to create a volume that would serve this purpose was first conceived in 1992/93 while I was first learning exactly what textual criticism was. As I collected as many texts as I could get my hands on ( I now have nearly 100 volumes relevant to this area), It became apparent to me that there was a great need for such a volume. I first researched if there was anything like this on the market. To date I have found none. I then began to make inquires to some scholars that I had been in contact with, such as: Bruce Metzger, Dan Wallace, Philip Comfort, J.K. Elliott, H.J. DeJonge, and David Alan Black. Their collective response was that of encouragement. Encouragement for a work that some asked, “Why didn’t I think of that?” I felt honored that these great scholars thought so highly of a work that to me seemed like such a simple solution to the problem of easily referencing the history and current facts entailed in this discipline. A volume that might become a standard reference work for this field. Of course, such an immense work needs the diligent support from the scholars such as those listed, (I am currently awaiting responses from, Fee, Epp, Holmes, Ehrman and the Institute at Munster). I will gladly accept any assistance from scholar and student alike. So, I optimistically post this request to all those who enjoy and work in the field of NT TC. I am hopeful that all those reading this will be as excited about this work as I am. All subscribers to the TC-List (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html) are welcome and encouraged to participate in this project and suggest any ideas. Rich E. Elliott Assistant Librarian, Simon Greenleaf University (RE Elliott@aol.com) From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 14 13:59:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16553; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:58:48 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <960814133024_501234383@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:52:11 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Differences in MSS Re: 1 John 5:7 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1439 On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, REElliott@aol.com wrote: [snip] >1) Why aren=EDt MSS 629 and 635 also listed in the second edition; was= there a >typographical error >that transposed 629 to 429, and 635 to 636? >2) Why and how does the dating for MSS 61 and 88 change (and possibly 629, >429, 635,& 636). Since I don;t have all the editions of Metzger, I can't comment in full. But I can speak of some of these manuscripts. 629, a Greek-Latin diglot, contains *part* of the comma, presumably derived from its late Vulgate parallel. The dating for 61 did not change; the fact is, 61 is the manuscript used to force Erasmus to include the comma in his text. Therefore it dated before Erasmus's 3rd edition. Hence it *must* be early XVI (or earlier, but of course the evidence is that it was written just to confute Erasmus). I don't believe the dating for 88 has changed; the dating applies to the comma only, which is inserted in 88 in a late hand. Since the insertion is short, it is probably hard to date it exactly. 635, according to Richards, does not contain the comma. 429 and 636, according to NA27, contain the comma in the margin. Nestle lists a few other mss. with the reading. I suspect that some of the confusion relates to the conversion of Tischendorf and von Soden numbers to Gregory numbers. You should check those editions against a Gregory conversion table. I hope this helps somewhat. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 14 14:02:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16595; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:01:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199608141757.NAA15482@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: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism"! Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2865 Dear Rich: I'm excited by this project. I would suggest contacting Dr. James D. Price at Temple Baptist Seminary (DrJDPrice@aol.com). He has a great deal of material on the use of computers to reconstruct geneological trees of various readings. If you could find room for a discussion of the "King James Onlyism" in this Encyclopaedia, I would be happy to contribute any material that I have on the subject At 01:40 PM 8/14/96 -0400, you wrote: >The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism >A work whose time has come! A volume that I always wished was on my shelf. > A single work that would easily answer questions about NT TC. The people, >places, things, and dates that are relevant to the study and understanding of >this Biblical discipline. Made primarily for pastors and students new to >this area of study, as well as for the scholar who could use a quick >reference . >The idea to create a volume that would serve this purpose was first conceived >in 1992/93 while I was first learning exactly what textual criticism was. As >I collected as many texts as I could get my hands on ( I now have nearly 100 >volumes relevant to this area), It became apparent to me that there was a >great need for such a volume. I first researched if there was anything like >this on the market. To date I have found none. I then began to make >inquires to some scholars that I had been in contact with, such as: Bruce >Metzger, Dan Wallace, Philip Comfort, J.K. Elliott, H.J. DeJonge, and David >Alan Black. Their collective response was that of encouragement. > Encouragement for a work that some asked, "Why didn't I think of that?" I >felt honored that these great scholars thought so highly of a work that to me >seemed like such a simple solution to the problem of easily referencing the >history and current facts entailed in this discipline. A volume that might >become a standard reference work for this field. >Of course, such an immense work needs the diligent support from the scholars >such as those listed, (I am currently awaiting responses from, Fee, Epp, >Holmes, Ehrman and the Institute at Munster). I will gladly accept any >assistance from scholar and student alike. So, I optimistically post this >request to all those who enjoy and work in the field of NT TC. I am hopeful >that all those reading this will be as excited about this work as I am. All >subscribers to the TC-List (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html) >are welcome and encouraged to participate in this project and suggest any >ideas. > >Rich E. Elliott >Assistant Librarian, Simon Greenleaf University (RE Elliott@aol.com) > > > 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 Aug 14 14:12:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16676; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:11:04 -0400 From: ptl@sprynet.com Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:08:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199608141808.LAA25426@m2.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism"! To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <960814134032_501242258@emout08.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.10.06.22 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2706 I am very excited about the proposed work. Don't know that I can contribute anything worth while but if there is something I could do to assist, I would love to help. Paul Lorenzen Northern Sierra Bible Institute ============================== On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, REElliott@aol.com wrote: >The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism >A work whose time has come! A volume that I always wished was on my shelf. > A single work that would easily answer questions about NT TC. The people, >places, things, and dates that are relevant to the study and understanding of >this Biblical discipline. Made primarily for pastors and students new to >this area of study, as well as for the scholar who could use a quick >reference . >The idea to create a volume that would serve this purpose was first conceived >in 1992/93 while I was first learning exactly what textual criticism was. As >I collected as many texts as I could get my hands on ( I now have nearly 100 >volumes relevant to this area), It became apparent to me that there was a >great need for such a volume. I first researched if there was anything like >this on the market. To date I have found none. I then began to make >inquires to some scholars that I had been in contact with, such as: Bruce >Metzger, Dan Wallace, Philip Comfort, J.K. Elliott, H.J. DeJonge, and David >Alan Black. Their collective response was that of encouragement. > Encouragement for a work that some asked, “Why didn’t I think of that?” I >felt honored that these great scholars thought so highly of a work that to me >seemed like such a simple solution to the problem of easily referencing the >history and current facts entailed in this discipline. A volume that might >become a standard reference work for this field. >Of course, such an immense work needs the diligent support from the scholars >such as those listed, (I am currently awaiting responses from, Fee, Epp, >Holmes, Ehrman and the Institute at Munster). I will gladly accept any >assistance from scholar and student alike. So, I optimistically post this >request to all those who enjoy and work in the field of NT TC. I am hopeful >that all those reading this will be as excited about this work as I am. All >subscribers to the TC-List (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html) >are welcome and encouraged to participate in this project and suggest any >ideas. > >Rich E. Elliott >Assistant Librarian, Simon Greenleaf University (RE Elliott@aol.com) > > ============================ Paul Lorenzen -- Sparks, Nevada http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/ptl/lorenzen.htm Only one life, 'twill soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last! ============================  From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 14 14:32:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16835; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:30:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 02:45:30 +0800 (WST) From: "James K. Tauber" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism"! In-Reply-To: <199608141757.NAA15482@utc-01.campus.mci.net> 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: 541 On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > I'm excited by this project. I would suggest contacting Dr. James D. Price > at Temple Baptist Seminary (DrJDPrice@aol.com). He has a great deal of > material on the use of computers to reconstruct geneological trees of > various readings. Hmm. I wonder if Dr Price knows about the ENTMP work. One of our goals is to facilitate just this very thing. James K. Tauber http://www.entmp.org/people/jtauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 14 16:54:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18009; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:52:55 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:52:47 -0400 Message-ID: <960814165246_501386913@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism"! Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1572 Dear James K Tauber: In a message dated 96-08-14 14:35:03 EDT, you wrote: << On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > I'm excited by this project. I would suggest contacting Dr. James D. Price > at Temple Baptist Seminary (DrJDPrice@aol.com). He has a great deal of > material on the use of computers to reconstruct geneological trees of > various readings. << Hmm. I wonder if Dr Price knows about the ENTMP work. One of our goals is to facilitate just this very thing.>> << James K. Tauber http://www.entmp.org/people/jtauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project>> PRICE Yes I have heard of ENTNP but only from a distance. I did not know you were working on a genealogical approach. That has been looked down on from most sectors. I haven't published much, but have been involved in this area for almost 20 years. An early form of my work appears in these articles: "A Computer Aid for Textual Criticism," Grace Theological Journal, Spring, 1987. "A Computer-Aided Textual Commentary on the Book of Philippians," Grace Theological Journal, Fall, 1987. I have software that constructs a genealogical tree for a given data base of manuscripts. It is still experimental and not in shape for sharing. I will be happy to discuss these things. Sincerely, James D. Price ====================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Prof. of Hebrew and OT Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ====================================================== >> From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 15 03:18:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA20081; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 03:17:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 00:03:37 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199608150703.AAA09953@trojan.neta.com> From: Deke Barker To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re[2]: Differences in MSS Re: 1 John 5:7 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver 1.02 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1373 >From Bob Waltz: > The dating for 61 did not change; the fact is, 61 is the manuscript used > to force Erasmus to include the comma in his text. Therefore it > dated before Erasmus's 3rd edition. Hence it *must* be early XVI (or > earlier, but of course the evidence is that it was written just to > confute Erasmus). According to the latest (third) edition of Metzger's _The Text of the New Testament_, there is NO evidence that 61 "was written just to confute Erasmus". In a note in the appendix, Metzger states that his original statement (still in the text) was in error: Erasmus specialist H. J. de Jonge found "no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assumption". Of course, that doesn't mean that the assumption is incorrect; the circumstances surrounding 61 (especially its apparent date) are at the least interesting. NOTE: The text of the 3rd edition still supports your statement, as the text hasn't been changed since the 1st edition. Both revisions have merely added an appendix containing the updated information, with marginal references to the appendix next to the original text. I can see the benefit to this approach, especially for struggling seminarians (it eliminates the cost of re-typesetting and replating the entire manuscript), but I was disappointed to see it repeated in the THIRD edition. Deke Barker dbarker@andbar.com From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 15 10:27:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21114; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 10:26:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 96 10:21:21 EDT From: george howard Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism"! To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <960814134032_501242258@emout08.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000 Message-Id: <960815.102209.EDT.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 190 The NT text criticism volume sounds good. I'd be glad to contribute to it. George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 16 10:03:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26917; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 10:01:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 10:01:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new reviews on TC 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: 1759 Three new book reviews have appeared on the pages of TC in recent days, and more are on the way. These are the books that are reviewed: Reuben J. Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus Raija Sollamo, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods As with all of the articles published in TC, these reviews are available in two Web-based forms (where necessary): one that renders Greek and Hebrew (and other languages) with transliterated characters and another that uses the original script. I encourage those of you who are currently working on reviews for TC to submit them in a timely fashion. Remember that one of our goals is to have reviews of books on textual criticism available to readers as soon as possible after the publication of the book. Again, I will ask scholars on the list who are writing books dealing with textual criticism to ask their publishers to send a review copy to Leonard Greenspoon, our book review editor, at the following address: Leonard Greenspoon Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization Creighton University 2500 California Plaza Omaha, NE 68178 USA In addition, we would appreciate anyone who has contacts with publishers to ask them to send relevant books to Leonard for distribution to reviewers. As always, we are also looking for articles on any aspect of biblical textual criticism, and contributions from members of the tc-list are welcome. 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 Fri Aug 16 11:50:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27627; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:48:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199608161448.IAA03408@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 09:44:36 -7 Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti 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: 107 Count me in! Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 16 17:25:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA00127; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 17:24:44 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 17:21:04 -0400 Message-ID: <960816172103_180700445@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: REElliott@aol.com Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 379 Dear Dave; Thanks so much for your help. Please let me know (for my files) what area of textual studies you specialize in and/or teach. Also list any published papers or books (if any) that I may read. I hope to hear from you soon and that the Lord is blessing you! God Bless, Rich. p.s. so far I'm batting 1,000 with nothing but positive responses, like yours. Thanks again! From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 16 19:20:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00506; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:19:37 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:19:51 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Cc: REElliott@aol.com Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 998 Hi all First off, please note that this isn't a flame, I'm merely playing devil's advocate (as well as being genuinely interested in knowing the answer). Currently I own the intros to TC by Metzger and the Alands. To name two other notable recent books, I also own the _Studies in the Theory and Method of NT TC_ (the collection of essays by Eldon Epp and Gordon Fee) and _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_ (the altogether wonderful festschrift for Metzger's 80th birthday, edited by Bard Ehrman and Michael Holmes). Given 1] the thorough coverage of the material provided by the first two books and 2] the fact that, taken together, the latter two books comprise just about as extensive a survey of the current state of TC of the NT as one could imagine having, what would the proposed "Encyclopedia" offer me that I don't already have? Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 16 21:49:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA00961; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:48:43 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 20:41:39 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2196 Nichael Lynn Cramer listed some "devil's advocate" objections to the TC Encyclopedia. I'm not sure I agree with him; I think there is a lot of material that is not covered in the books he listed. But I have another concern. It has to do with editorial supervision. How does someone decide what goes in the Encyclopedia? More to the point, *who* decides? This list is very eclectic -- far more so than most of the libraries or introductory manuals I've seen. For example, we have Maurice Robinson, who believes in Byzantine priority. We have a number of people who would elevate the role of the father in NT criticism. And we have me, with my emphasis on the role of text-types and the need to properly define them. Some things we can all agree on, e.g. "Hort was a member of the committee that prepared the English Revised Version." But most of the basic work in this field could be called opinion (e.g. if someone says, "B is an Alexandrian text in Paul," I would be forced to disagree). Who decides whether we say , "B is an Alexandrian text in Paul," or "Hort felt that B is mostly Alexandrian in Paul," or "Hort considered B in Paul to be mostly Alexandrian in Paul, with some Western mixture, but Zuntz felt that B and p46 formed their own text-type. Waltz agrees with this view, with some reservations." I, for instance, would very much like to write about manuscript families in Paul and the Catholics, and also on the nature of text-types. But would anyone here accept my interpretations? I never did get people to give me a definition of a text-type :-) (other than Colwell's, which many of us agree is defective). I could also contribute articles on the nature of oral transmission. So how do we handle this? Minority reports? An editorial board? Something else? Also, who decides what articles go in the Encyclopedia? Does someone have a list of topics we need covered? Don't get me wrong; I think this is a great idea. It can be hard to find information in this field; a good summary would be immensely helpful. I just think there are some issues that have to be hashed out. And they need to be hashed out now, *before* the arguments start. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 10:45:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02631; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 10:40:09 -0400 X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/SMTP 2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Mike Phillips Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 09:40:07 -0700 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1220 > From: "Robert B. Waltz" , on 8/16/96 8:41 PM: > Nichael Lynn Cramer listed some "devil's advocate" objections to the > TC Encyclopedia. > > I'm not sure I agree with him; I think there is a lot of material that > is not covered in the books he listed. But I have another concern. > > It has to do with editorial supervision. How does someone decide what > goes in the Encyclopedia? More to the point, *who* decides? > > This list is very eclectic -- far more so than most of the libraries > > Bob Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com If you folk would forgive an intrusion by a lurker, I'd find an encyclopedia which was eclectic and carried a diversity of viewpoints on entries that were disputed (like a mishnah, for example, where opposing opinions are reported, while some conclusions are allowed to be drawn) much more meaningful 'in the field' than any tome which reflects the opinions of its sponsor(s) to the expense of others. Good luck on your project! ------------- Mike Phillips mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of living thought and changes from day to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 13:04:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02940; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:03:30 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:03:46 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 770 Mike Phillips wrote: > If you folk would forgive an intrusion by a lurker, I'd find an >encyclopedia which was eclectic and carried a diversity of viewpoints on >entries that were disputed (like a mishnah, for example, where opposing >opinions are reported, while some conclusions are allowed to be drawn) much >more meaningful 'in the field' than any tome which reflects the opinions of its >sponsor(s) to the expense of others. Which is precisely why I mentioned the Metzger, Aland, Ehrman & Holmes and Fee & Epp volumes in my original query. I.e. they are readily available, excellent texts that do exactly that. Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 17:02:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03813; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:01:33 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:30:15 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1582 On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote: [ ... ] > >Which is precisely why I mentioned the Metzger, Aland, Ehrman & Holmes and >Fee & Epp volumes in my original query. I.e. they are readily available, >excellent texts that do exactly that. I can't agree with this. I have *nine* introductions to textual criticism (Westcott & Hort, Metzger, Aland, Greenlee, Hammond, Vaganay/Amphoux, Black, Lake, Kenyon), and even combined they don't make up a complete introduction. Aland gives a lot of useful information about manuscripts, but is very brief when it comes to the *practice* of textual criticism. Metzger gives more examples, but his textual theory is really little more than an update of Westcott & Hort. I have a lot of respect for Epp; he has a clearer vision of what needs to be done than anyone else I know of. But nobody is *responding* to his vision. As for Ehrman & Holmes, I agree, it is the best available summary of the state of the art. But there are a lot of holes. I can't blame them for leaving me out; I'm nobody. But what about the essay on the Majority Text debate? It completely leaves out Maurice Robinson, who is the only supporter of the Majority Text whose opinions I value. Ehrman and Holmes show the state of mainstream textual criticism. But mainstream criticism, as Epp pointed out, has hardly advanced at all since Hort's day. What we need is to look at the crackpot theories. Most of them will prove to be worthless -- but chances are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 17:55:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04067; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:54:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:50:51 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960817174850.30bf7836@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: 552 At 03:30 PM 8/17/96 -0700, you wrote: as Epp pointed out, has hardly advanced >at all since Hort's day. What we need is to look at the crackpot >theories. Most of them will prove to be worthless -- but chances >are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere. > >Bob Waltz >waltzmn@skypoint.com > > > The whole point of an encyclopedia is to summarize current scholarship from every respectable perspective. This would be an invaluable tool to students and practitioners who cannot invest in 2 dozen books on one subject. Jim West Petros TN From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 18:29:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04160; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:28:02 -0400 Message-Id: <3216459E.1E1D@dhinternet.com> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:20:14 -0500 From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: [Fwd: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti] 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: 96 I agree with Mike Phillips's point...the Encyclopedia should include a diversity of viewpoints. From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 19:17:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04259; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:16:36 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:13:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti In-Reply-To: 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: 3585 On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > As for Ehrman & Holmes, I agree, it is the best available summary of > the state of the art. But there are a lot of holes. I can't blame them > for leaving me out; I'm nobody. But what about the essay on the > Majority Text debate? It completely leaves out Maurice Robinson, > who is the only supporter of the Majority Text whose opinions I value. Robinson (and his co-editor Pierpont) _are_ mentioned in Daniel Wallace's article in the Fee and Epp volume which also has been cited. Of course, Robinson/Pierpont receive only footnote mention, and that not in the least favorable (though I do consider Wallace's jibe that I am a true "Burgonite" as a compliment, left-handed as it may be, within a proper assessment of Burgon's theories, since Burgon's seven canons of criticism were openly stated in our Introduction to be our basic working principles). > Ehrman and Holmes show the state of mainstream textual criticism. This should be qualified as "mainstream eclectic textual criticism", unless you want to specifically define "mainstream" as "modern eclecticism" (sort of like all the "mainline denominations" when mentioned tend to include all the larger ones except the Southern Baptists *;-) > But mainstream criticism, as Epp pointed out, has hardly advanced > at all since Hort's day. What we need is to look at the crackpot > theories. Most of them will prove to be worthless -- but chances > are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere. I suppose from a modern eclectic standpoint my own theory might be considered "crackpot"; however, should one be able clearly to disassociate my "Byzantine-priority" theory from whatever is advocated by the TR defenders, the KJV-Only crowd, and even the other "majority text" supporters" who often have questionable agendas and methodologies, I would suggest that there is at least a modicum of plausibility within my theory which is defensible. Some subscribers to this list already know this from what I have previously posted on this list; some from private correspondence. At least there is some recognition that there is a certain viability in what I am claiming. Next Spring a lengthy published article will appear from my own hand regarding my position (in the journal _Faith and Mission_), which might move me somewhat outside of the "crackpot" stage. (I hope all participants realize that I was fully within the modern eclectic fold for some time before departing upon recognition of its theoretical weaknesses; I have stated this before, but it likely needs repeating to avoid any further "crackpot" impressions). *;-) I will be interested indeed to see if the proposed Encyclopedia of TC will end up as anything more than the Encyclopedia of Modern Eclectic Textual Theory and Praxis, and whether opposing positions will be stated fairly and whether all sides of various theories will be presented by advocates and critics alike (which of course, if done in fairness, will likely make the proposed volume so large as to be economically unpublishable). The other volumes previously mentioned have in my opinion been rather myopic when it comes to theories which the editors themselves do not hold ("Hort has put ... blinders on our eyes" -- Colwell). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 19:57:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04352; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:56:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:52:36 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: P75 X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960817195048.2f2f5d7c@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: 566 Does anyone have access to a copy of P75 they could mail or fax me? Or is there a web site which has it available? Thanks, Jim West Petros TN ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 Aug 17 19:59:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04368; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:58:21 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:58:34 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1996 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote: >>Which is precisely why I mentioned the Metzger, Aland, Ehrman & Holmes and >>Fee & Epp volumes in my original query. I.e. they are readily available, >>excellent texts that do exactly that. >I can't agree with this. I have *nine* introductions to textual criticism >(Westcott & Hort, Metzger, Aland, Greenlee, Hammond, Vaganay/Amphoux, >Black, Lake, Kenyon), [Just as a note, I have (almost) all of these also; I was simply mentioning the most obvious (and useful) texts.] >As for Ehrman & Holmes, [...] But what about the essay on the >Majority Text debate? It completely leaves out Maurice Robinson, >who is the only supporter of the Majority Text whose opinions I value. The essay on the MT is a good example of exactly what I was talking about. On the contrary, the essay in questions _does_ give a balanced, comprehensive examination of the topic. It also demonstrates --quite thoroughly IMnsHO-- why it is all but impossible to take it seriously as a model. Despite much protestation on this mailing list, these things --a balanaced discussion and demonstration of the errors of a method-- are not incompatible. > ... What we need is to look at the crackpot >theories. I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe that you are being serious here. Why is this different from arguing that a text on Physics should give equal space to Hollow Earth theories or Alien Abductions? > ... Most of them will prove to be worthless -- but chances >are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere. No; chances are, the odds are --as demonstrated innumerable times before in every field imaginable-- that crackpot theories are exactly that. As many people have said before, open-mindedness is our primary asset. But open-mindness doesn't mean checking ones mind at the door. Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 17 21:00:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA04543; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 20:59:09 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:52:35 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3442 On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) [ ... ] > >On the contrary, the essay in questions _does_ give a balanced, >comprehensive examination of the topic. It also demonstrates --quite >thoroughly IMnsHO-- why it is all but impossible to take it seriously as a >model. Despite much protestation on this mailing list, these things --a >balanaced discussion and demonstration of the errors of a method-- are not >incompatible. I should interject a comment here.... While it will be obvious to those who have read my previous posts that I do not agree with Maurice Robinson, I *have* come to respect his erudition and his viewpoint. It is by no means identical with the King James First group, or even the Majority Text group. I would not consider it crackpot, merely wrong. :-) >> ... What we need is to look at the crackpot >>theories. > >I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe that you are being serious here. Why >is this different from arguing that a text on Physics should give equal >space to Hollow Earth theories or Alien Abductions? To be picky, Alien Abductions have nothing to do with physics. As for hollow earth theories, they deserve to be considered. Considered and rejected, but *considered.* Physics has an advantage over textual criticism: In most cases you can conduct rigidly controlled experiments. So you can disprove -- or at least give strong evidence against -- many theories. But until that evidence is presented, *all* theories deserve to be listened to, whether orthodox or not. >> ... Most of them will prove to be worthless -- but chances >>are that the next big advance is in there. Somewhere. > >No; chances are, the odds are --as demonstrated innumerable times before in >every field imaginable-- that crackpot theories are exactly that. Perhaps it depends on your definition of a crackpot. But certainly conventional wisdom can be proved wrong. The examples in physics are endless. A handful of examples: * Aristotle said heavy objects fall faster than light objects. Galileo demonstrated that they don't, and Newton showed why. * Ptolemy, and his predecessors, said the sun moved around the earth. Galileo, Kepler, and company proved otherwise. * The Greeks generally considered the universe to consist of four elements, each infinitely indivisible. A number of scientists demonstrated the existence of other elements, and Dalton showed that those elements consist of atoms which cannot be divided. * Conventional wisdom had it that light moved in an ether at a non-constant velocity. Michelson and Morley got rid of the ether, and the speed of light is constant. And so forth, ad nauseum. We can find the same thing in textual criticism. E.g., Hort had it that B, in Paul, was a slightly messed up Alexandrian text. Zuntz showed this is not so; it belongs to another text-type. >As many people have said before, open-mindedness is our primary asset. But >open-mindness doesn't mean checking ones mind at the door. Agreed. Most "crackpot" notions are just crazy. But there is no law that says conventional wisdom is always right. And where it is wrong, the correct answer will be viewed as crackpot *until* it is proved right. All I am saying is that we need to be truly open-minded. That doesn't mean being feeble-minded. It does mean being open to theories that are more than modernized versions of Westcott and Hort. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 18 01:06:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA05309; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:00:24 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:00:33 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2065 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) >[ ... ] > >> >>On the contrary, the essay in questions _does_ give a balanced, >>comprehensive examination of the topic. It also demonstrates --quite >>thoroughly IMnsHO-- why it is all but impossible to take it seriously as a >>model. Despite much protestation on this mailing list, these things --a >>balanaced discussion and demonstration of the errors of a method-- are not >>incompatible. > >I should interject a comment here.... > >While it will be obvious to those who have read my previous posts that >I do not agree with Maurice Robinson, I *have* come to respect his >erudition and his viewpoint. It is by no means identical with the >King James First group, or even the Majority Text group. I would not >consider it crackpot, ... Re-reading my earlier note, I realize there was a possibility for misunderstanding, and I want to make it clear that I most definitely was _not_ including Dr Robinson --for whom I share your respect-- in this group... > ... merely wrong. :-) ... OTOH, I too agree with this point. ;-) >As for hollow earth theories, they deserve to be considered. Considered >and rejected, but *considered.* As they have been. What I object to is this notion that we have to start from ground zero with every new notion which is presented. >Perhaps it depends on your definition of a crackpot. But certainly >conventional wisdom can be proved wrong. The examples in physics are >endless. A handful of examples: > >* ... Galileo... Newton .... >* ... Galileo, Kepler, and company ... >*... existence of other elements ... Dalton ... >* ... Michelson and Morley ... Exactly so. And in each of these cases these scientists presented evidence and argument that supported the new view that they offered and were --by and large-- universally and quickly accepted by the scientific community at large. Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 18 01:37:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA05411; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:36:59 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:33:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti In-Reply-To: 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: 814 On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > >King James First group, or even the Majority Text group. I would not > >consider it crackpot, ... > > Re-reading my earlier note, I realize there was a possibility for > misunderstanding, and I want to make it clear that I most definitely was > _not_ including Dr Robinson --for whom I share your respect-- in this > group... I am sincerely relieved to know that I am not a crackpot. *;-) > > ... merely wrong. :-) That point, however, I will dispute..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 18 03:04:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA05648; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 03:03:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199608180602.AAA01005@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:58:57 -7 Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual C 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: 1630 Maurice Robinson wrote: > I will be interested indeed to see if the proposed Encyclopedia of TC will > end up as anything more than the Encyclopedia of Modern Eclectic Textual > Theory and Praxis, and whether opposing positions will be stated fairly > and whether all sides of various theories will be presented by advocates > and critics alike (which of course, if done in fairness, will likely make > the proposed volume so large as to be economically unpublishable). The > other volumes previously mentioned have in my opinion been rather myopic > when it comes to theories which the editors themselves do not hold ("Hort > has put ... blinders on our eyes" -- Colwell). If, as seems likely, I get to have some input into this work, it will definitely not end up being the "Encyclopedia of Modern Eclectic Textual Theory and Praxis"; I hope it will present various sides of the issues under appropriate headings--for example, under "Text Types" an article might present the Hort-inspired viewpoint, as well as Colwell's, Bob Waltz', and even some variation of Zane Hodges' suggestion that the NT mss do not have text-types as they are defined in classical TC. Each theory ought to be presented using in-context citations from its adherents, and (as much as possible in a work written by human hands) refrain from judgmentalism and caricature. Presumably, the average reader of this encyclopedia will be fairly capable of looking at the various theories and sifting through them to arrive at informed conclusions. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 18 09:21:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06121; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:20:03 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:16:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti In-Reply-To: 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: 656 On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, Maurice A. Robinson wrote: >Robinson (and his co-editor Pierpont) _are_ mentioned in Daniel Wallace's >article in the Fee and Epp volume which also has been cited. Ooops.....correcting myself, I believe that the Wallace article is in the Ehrman and Holmes volume. The Fee and Epp volume contains nothing except Fee and Epp. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 19 00:41:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA08380; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:40:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:40:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new review on TC, changes to home page 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: 1963 Another new review has appeared on the pages of TC: Review of Leonard Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich, eds., VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992 Also, the TC home page has undergone a major facelift, bringing old information up to date and adding new information. Some of you may be particularly interested in the list of links to other sites dealing with textual criticism. The list is far from exhaustive. I have a few more to add, but I would appreciate hearing from any of you if you know of other links you think should be added. You may have noticed that the links in TC articles to the Bible Browser no longer work. As Richard Goerwitz, the author of Bible Browser, notes on the Bible Browser Web page, the Bible Browser experienced a system crash a few weeks ago. I've continued to put in links to the Bible Browser in new articles and reviews, even though I know they are temporarily non-functional. Richard has given us the source code to the Bible Browser, and we're working on a customized TC version of it that I think everyone who uses it will appreciate. It's slow going, however, considering we're all engaged in this project in our "spare time," so please bear with us. You'll just have to settle for the limited functionality of a print journal for a while longer ;-). Finally, a bit of trivia for OT scholars reading the review of Greenspoon and Munnich's book. You may wonder why the official TC abbreviation for the Syrohexapla is SyrHex instead of Syh (as in BHS). The reason, as any NT text critic could tell you, is that Syh (with the h as a superscript) is the abbreviation for the Harklean Syriac version of the NT in NA27! In TC, we'll use the UBS4's syrh (with the h as a superscript) for that version. 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 Mon Aug 19 19:50:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15290; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:49:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Manuscripts X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960819194415.19c704ba@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: 1016 Colleagues, In Theology we are constantly told that we must deal directly with the sources themselves. In text criticism this is particularly important. Yet, if the manuscripts are not widely available, how can we do our own collations? Is there a collection of photographs of the papyri available? The Uncials? If not, then, again, how can we do independent research in this exceedingly important field; and why can't such a collection be produced (as has been done for the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls)? Just some questions I hope someone can answer. Yours, Jim West Petros TN ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 Mon Aug 19 23:28:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16058; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:27:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:44:23 +0800 (WST) From: "James K. Tauber" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscripts In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19960819194415.19c704ba@mail.sunbelt.net> 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: 933 On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Jim West wrote: > In Theology we are constantly told that we must deal directly with the > sources themselves. In text criticism this is particularly important. > Yet, if the manuscripts are not widely available, how can we do our own > collations? Is there a collection of photographs of the papyri available? > The Uncials? If not, then, again, how can we do independent research in > this exceedingly important field; and why can't such a collection be > produced (as has been done for the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls)? This is the very aim of the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project which moves very slowly because it is entirely voluntary. God willing, the overall framework will be set up by the end of this year and we will be displaying images and accepting transcriptions. James K. Tauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 02:30:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA16545; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 02:29:28 -0400 From: ptl@sprynet.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:26:38 -0700 Message-Id: <199608200626.XAA00023@m2.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Manuscripts To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.10.06.22 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1394 If this project is voluntary, how does a person "volunteer" to assist? Paul Lorenzen Northern Sierra Bible Institute Sparks, Nevada ======================= On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, "James K. Tauber" wrote: >On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Jim West wrote: >> In Theology we are constantly told that we must deal directly with the >> sources themselves. In text criticism this is particularly important. >> Yet, if the manuscripts are not widely available, how can we do our own >> collations? Is there a collection of photographs of the papyri available? >> The Uncials? If not, then, again, how can we do independent research in >> this exceedingly important field; and why can't such a collection be >> produced (as has been done for the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls)? > >This is the very aim of the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project >which moves very slowly because it is entirely voluntary. God willing, >the overall framework will be set up by the end of this year and we will >be displaying images and accepting transcriptions. > >James K. Tauber >Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project > > ============================ Paul Lorenzen -- Sparks, Nevada http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/ptl/lorenzen.htm Only one life, 'twill soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last! ============================  From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 02:33:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA16564; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 02:32:56 -0400 From: ptl@sprynet.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:30:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199608200630.XAA00285@m2.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Manuscripts To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.10.06.22 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1523 If this is voluntary, how does one "volunteer"? Paul Lorenzen Northern Sierra Bible Institute Sparks, Nevada <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:44:23 +0800 (WST) From: "James K. Tauber" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscripts Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Jim West wrote: > In Theology we are constantly told that we must deal directly with the > sources themselves. In text criticism this is particularly important. > Yet, if the manuscripts are not widely available, how can we do our own > collations? Is there a collection of photographs of the papyri available? > The Uncials? If not, then, again, how can we do independent research in > this exceedingly important field; and why can't such a collection be > produced (as has been done for the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls)? This is the very aim of the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project which moves very slowly because it is entirely voluntary. God willing, the overall framework will be set up by the end of this year and we will be displaying images and accepting transcriptions. James K. Tauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project <---- End Forwarded Message ----> ============================ Paul Lorenzen -- Sparks, Nevada http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/ptl/lorenzen.htm Only one life, 'twill soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last! ============================  From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 03:25:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA16657; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 03:24:27 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 03:20:51 -0400 Message-ID: <960820032049_183164404@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: REElliott@aol.com Subject: Re: Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 846 Dear Jim and colleagues: Your question is right on the money! I'm quite sure many others have thought the same thing. I know that I have many times (and if necessity is the mother of invention then frustration is the father!). Had I (and everyone else) a ready acccess to the Greek MSS via internet and/or fax, my paper on the Comma Johenneum would have been completed long ago! This is exactly why we should all (to the best of our time and capability) work with and encourage James Tauber and the "Electronic NT MSS" Project. He can be reached at: (http://www.entmp.org/people/jtauber). Rich Elliott (RE Elliott@aol.com) Simon Greenleaf University p.s. I will ask again for any assistance in locating the 8 MSS listed in Metzgers textual commentary that contain the Comma. If anyone can help with this i would greatly appreciate it!!!:-} From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 11:07:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18061; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:05:26 -0400 From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org Message-ID: <9608201000.0E21X01@chrysalis.org> Organization: Chrysalis * 96 Lines * 214.690.9295 * Telnet: chrysalis.org X-Mailer: TBBS/TIGER v1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 10:00:22 -0500 Subject: MANUSCRIPTS To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1014 Jim West wrote: > Yet, if the manuscripts are not widely available, how can we do our > own collations? Is there a collection of photographs of the papyri > available? The Uncials? If not, then, again, how can we do independent > research in this exceedingly important field; and why can't such a > collection be produced (as has been done for the vast majority of the Dead > Sea Scrolls)? Well, if a university has a good religion department and a good library (Baylor comes to mind), it should have *some* facsimiles, reproductions, etc. I know that Metzger's *Manuscripts of the Greek Bible* has bibliographical information on many of the "most important" ms. And many ms are available on microfiche/microfilm, if one knows where to look. (I don't know where to look, but I know who to ask!) Maybe someone else knows about resources on the net: I imagine that the present forum is the place to ask? (Consider the question tendered.) Grace and peace, Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 12:28:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18605; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:26:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Manuscripts (again) X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960820122039.24ffce4e@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: 456 I have learned today that the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont has a catalogue of mss which they have on hand. I have a call in requesting this info from them. If anyone wants the number I will be happy to forward it and any other info I get from them. Yours, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunt Professor of Biblica Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 13:25:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19073; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:23:10 -0400 From: BillCombs@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:19:42 -0400 Message-ID: <960820131940_183449781@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 546 Jim West wrote: >In Theology we are constantly told that we must deal directly with the >sources themselves. In text criticism this is particularly important. >Yet, if the manuscripts are not widely available, how can we do our own >collations? I have heard this question asked a number of times, but I have never been sure why. Are the collations we have in the apparatus of UBS4 and NA27 not to be trusted? I have talked to people to imply this. Or is it that they are not complete enough? Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 14:05:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19413; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:01:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 10:57:49 PDT Message-Id: <9608201757.AA04306@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199608200630.XAA00285@m2.sprynet.com> (ptl@sprynet.com) Subject: Re: Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1542 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ptl@sprynet.com asked about the ENTMP: > If this is voluntary, how does one "volunteer"? First, subscribe to nt-mss@entmp.org, and look at the archives of mail by HTTP or FTP to that machine. Propose to do something, and see if anyone else already wanted to do it. Work could be done in: 1. Getting electronic images (with permissions) of important MSS or samples thereof. 2. Making transcriptions or collations of MSS (or versions I suppose) in machine-readable form. Hebrews and Jude are mostly spoken for. I have dibs on the Freer Gospels and Luke 13-15. Some of the images of fragments already acquired are getting transcribed. The project has guidelines on how best to do this. 3. Negotiating with people outside the project who have transcriptions or collations to get them to donate some files. (like Vinton Dearing) 4. Helping correct or extend the MS catalogs Tauber is working on. 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 iQCVAwUBMhn8XmCU4mTNq7IdAQGJVgQAv5JQxm76po/PO5YVpV/xUz1AdRy40ZNT /WVcyHUKkWmmp5Yc2wSHg8A95CuqDTiCErtX/DKe/QtIIYJR0t63RccZCnITBP4d 4dPL1FIS5cxgeIyX/SUI1acHxTq5nBaSyaBSwb9enPPxcSOQE1nTwIvh77YDDZZQ tXqxyFaKHjc= =Un+H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 14:48:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19680; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:47:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Manuscripts X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960820144031.2cbf4ce0@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: 451 At 01:19 PM 8/20/96 -0400, you wrote: > >I have heard this question asked a number of times, but I have never been >sure why. Are the collations we have in the apparatus of UBS4 and NA27 not to >be trusted? I have talked to people to imply this. Or is it that they are not >complete enough? > >Bill Combs >Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary > It is not that NA27 is untrustworthy. It is that scholars like to do their own work. Yours, Jim W From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 14:48:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19687; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:47:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 11:43:35 PDT Message-Id: <9608201843.AA04324@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <960820131940_183449781@emout07.mail.aol.com> (BillCombs@aol.com) Subject: Re: Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1647 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- BillCombs@aol.com asked: > ... Are the collations we have in the apparatus of UBS4 and NA27 not to > be trusted? NA27 et al are trustworthy enough as far as they go, but they are tightly constrained by space, by editor's theories, etc, to give one narrow viewport out onto the mass of data available. Compare NA27/IGNPT/Swanson on a verse or two in Luke and you quickly find out how much selection and simplification has to be done to produce a "hand edition" of the NT. It's a lot. I'm happy to use acccurate transcriptions and collations instead of manuscript images, as long as the transcription is reporting on the aspects of the text of interest to me. You'd need a very detailed transcription to learn much about mis-spellings, nomina sacra, and the like. From NA27 you could only gain a rough impression of how closely different witnesses are related to each other and no clear idea at all of how reliable any one witness (even a "constant" witness) is in terms of faithful copying. 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 iQCVAwUBMhoHPmCU4mTNq7IdAQGiWwP+JrXRmWWqxdgzo91eUD3MK153CmoMOQnI /65nJHmi0nWpMhN9mOFXVf+6u+SG8QD21PdfL+rlnhYqWTcvV7h5JPYVQIbkiJpY s+w6hOTjkJqFkiRh+BxW+dAhXpdracAwbVItVpoZAdr0ZzRWkllZK6p97GDBtgzC xXhaOF3tAGQ= =K5wu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 20 16:58:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA20926; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 16:56:57 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9608201843.AA04324@Np.nosc.mil> References: <960820131940_183449781@emout07.mail.aol.com> (BillCombs@aol.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:49:56 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3115 On Tue, 20 Aug 96 11:43:35, Vincent Broman wrote: >BillCombs@aol.com asked: >> ... Are the collations we have in the apparatus of UBS4 and NA27 not to >> be trusted? > >NA27 et al are trustworthy enough as far as they go, but they are tightly >constrained by space, by editor's theories, etc, to give one narrow viewport >out onto the mass of data available. Compare NA27/IGNPT/Swanson on a verse or >two in Luke and you quickly find out how much selection and simplification has >to be done to produce a "hand edition" of the NT. It's a lot. > >I'm happy to use acccurate transcriptions and collations instead of >manuscript images, as long as the transcription is reporting on the aspects >of the text of interest to me. You'd need a very detailed transcription >to learn much about mis-spellings, nomina sacra, and the like. From NA27 >you could only gain a rough impression of how closely different witnesses >are related to each other and no clear idea at all of how reliable any >one witness (even a "constant" witness) is in terms of faithful copying. To give an example of VIncent Broman's point, let me take Philippians 4 as an example. I have done an edition that cites all meaningful (i.e. non-rothpgraphic) variants in about two dozen manuscripts (checking a dozen or so others at certain points). In this chapter, NA27 cites fourteen variants (plus 1 conjecture). My text cites *ninety-eight.* And this, be it noted, is based on only a handful of manuscripts, and in a book that has fewer variants than most, in a part of the corpus that has relatively few variants. But I personally have an even bigger complaint with NA27: The selection of witnesses. If you look at the Greek "constant witnesses," three are "Western" (D F G). Four are predominantly Byzantine (K L; also Psi and 1241, which are much more Byzantine than anything else). One stands apart (1505). Other than that, *every witness cited in NA27 is what Aland would call Alexandrian.* Now I'm very glad to have most of those Alexandrian manuscripts; I'd hate to be without a reference for 33, or 81, or 1175, or 1506, or 1881. (I have access to a collation of 1739, so I don't need that.) But the NA27 list includes some really rather minor manuscripts (104, 1241, 2464) and omits some *key* texts -- 330/451/2492, which form a unique manuscript family; 1611, the best text of a Syriac-flavoured group; 2127, 1962, and 442, which *may* hold the key to unravelling the history of the late Alexandrian text and Von Soden's I group (365 is close to 2127, but not as good). Obviously not all of us can afford all the volumes of the IGNTP (even if they were available), or the equivalent work from the Munster Institute. What is desperately needed is a volume about three times the size of NA27, with perhaps half again as many manuscripts (of all sorts!), twice as many readings -- and a *good* determination of which readings are the true majority readings. (I once made a very big fool of myself because NA26/27 list the wrong reading as the majority text in 2 Cor. 2:17). Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 08:04:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23372; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:01:54 -0400 From: "Sipil{ Seppo" Organization: University of Helsinki To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, sollamo@Teologi1.Helsinki.fi Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:00:10 EET DST Subject: Re: new reviews on TC Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: 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: 1813 Dear listmembers The dean Raija Sollamo has kindly requested me to send the following message to the list. If you would like to discuss with her, please note that she is NOT a member of this list and that her e-mail address is added in the end of her message. -------------- forwarded message -------------------------------- Review of David L. Washburn's review of my book "Repetitions of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint". Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 40. Scholars Press 1955. I was very happy to see a review of my book so soon and, of course, I was very delighted with David L. Washburn's high evaluation of it. Unfortunately, he has misunderstood one of my main results. David L. Washburn writes in his review: "Sollamo shows ... that repetition of possessive pronouns in lists of two or more nouns is not a Hebraism at all; it is perfectly good Koine Greek. Authors such as Polybius, the Ptolemaic Papyri, Pseudo-Aristeas, Philo and Josephus repeated the pronouns more often than not." This is not correct. I have demonstrated that there is only one case involving the repetition of possessive pronouns by the Koine authors, namely Bell. Iud. 1,558. My examples are not taken at random from Koine authors. I have presented my text corpus on p. 7, and it has been scrutinized thoroughly. My examples are all that appear in this text corpus. As a result I state on page 17: "Firstly, the normal LXX practice of repeating the possessive pronoun with coordinate items proves to be a Hebraism." I understand that it is not very common to criticize a review. I would consider it very unfortunate, however, if wrong information concerning my book was spread among the scholars. Yours sincerely, Raija Sollamo University of Helsinki e-mail: raija.sollamo@helsinki.fi From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 09:34:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23646; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:33:16 -0400 Message-ID: <00002923.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Re: Manuscripts Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 14:02:34 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: 638 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 903 BillCombs@aol.com asked: > ... Are the collations we have in the apparatus of UBS4 and > NA27 not to be trusted? One thing I have noticed on occasion is that when working out Gothic M (majority readings), and using the tables in the back of NA, there are sometimes references to a particular MS containing a verse, but when I've actually checked a facsimile of the MS, it is sometimes missing the word/s in question. This is because those tables in the back of NA cite a MS as containing a verse, even if only part of the verse is present, but the variant in question may not actually be supported by that MS. I'm curious to know whether anyone has ever written a program to automatically calculate gothic M... given the fact that we actually have the bulk of the data available, I don't think the algorithm itself would be too complex. Regards, Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary ---- From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 10:30:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23949; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:27:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Collation X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960821102136.27473ba4@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: 756 The necessity of important manuscripts in every researcher's hand can be demonstrated by a brief comparison of the apparatus of NA27 with P75 (at Luke 24:51- John 1:16) NA27 does not note the (apparent?) change of spelling for skotia in verse 5 (P75 has skoteia); nor does it mention that P75 has martyrion for its martyrian. Likewise there is no notice that kekragen in NA27 is kekrage in P75. (the moveable nu is absent). True enough, these are "orthographic" differences. But such items are of interest, and are in fact textual variants. This brief sample could be multiplied many times over, if only the papyri were completely included in a critical apparatus. So, ENTMP, I encourage your work and hope it can soon be completed. Jim West From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 11:02:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24208; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:01:16 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:55:30 GMT Subject: Re: Collation Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1352 Jim West observes that NA27 does not record the v.l. _skoteia_ for _skotia_ (twice) at Jn 1.5 in P75. Such v.ll. are recorded in our IGNTP _The Gospel According to St John 1. The Papyri_ (NTTS 20), Brill, 1995. We also include transcriptions and plates of all Johannine papyri except P66 and P75, which are readily available in facsimile. The rationale for this, covering most of the points raised in the discussion, is given in the Introduction There is also much useful information in Toshio Hirunuma's _The Papyri bearing the NT Text_ Vol. 1, Osaka, 1994, which covers P1 to P45. The move towards electronic formats is important. But I must add a word of caution. Little of the MS evidence (especially the papyri and fragmentary majuscules) is unambiguous. You can't just sit down and collate it. There are endless details of reading and interpretation. It takes a lot of experience, and even then some things have to be left to the judgement of a full-time papyrologist. I note this, not as discouragement, but because electronic apparatus critici still require the care and skill of traditional books, and it's too easy to think that the new medium will resolve all difficulties. David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 15:28:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA26486; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:26:59 -0400 From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org Message-ID: <9608211422.0K6OE02@chrysalis.org> Organization: Chrysalis * 96 Lines * 214.690.9295 * Telnet: chrysalis.org X-Mailer: TBBS/TIGER v1.0 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 14:22:07 -0500 Subject: COLLATION To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1602 Jim West wrote: > The necessity of important manuscripts in every researcher's hand > can be demonstrated by a brief comparison of the apparatus of NA27 with > P75 (at Luke 24:51- John 1:16) > > NA27 does not note the (apparent?) change of spelling for skotia in > verse 5 (P75 has skoteia); nor does it mention that P75 has martyrion for > its martyrian. Likewise there is no notice that kekragen in NA27 is > kekrage in P75. (the moveable nu is absent). > > True enough, these are "orthographic" differences. But such items > are of interest, and are in fact textual variants. With respect to the variants you note here, they were probably excluded on several grounds. First, there just isn't room in the NA27 apparatus to include every itacism. Second, the introduction of the NA27 clearly states that v.l. will generally be included if they make one of two contributions, either toward determining the correct reading (if some doubt exists) or helping trace the history of the v.l. Third, P75 (and the other papyrii, for that matter) shows some strange variations in spelling (check the plate of P75 in Metzger's *Text*--you'll see John's name spelled two different ways, IWANNHS and IWANHS, on a single leaf!) The papyrii largely come from places and times where spelling was not standardized, as we think of it. The variations you describe are "normal" for the papyrii, and text critics usually note these itacisms and then disregard them. Grace and peace, Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 15:34:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA26586; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:33:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:30:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Collation In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19960821102136.27473ba4@mail.sunbelt.net> 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: 2266 On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Jim West wrote: > The necessity of important manuscripts in every researcher's hand can be > demonstrated by a brief comparison of the apparatus of NA27 with P75 (at > Luke 24:51- John 1:16) > > NA27 does not note the (apparent?) change of spelling for skotia in verse 5 > (P75 has skoteia); nor does it mention that P75 has martyrion for its > martyrian. Likewise there is no notice that kekragen in NA27 is kekrage in > P75. (the moveable nu is absent). > > True enough, these are "orthographic" differences. But such items are of > interest, and are in fact textual variants. > > This brief sample could be multiplied many times over, if only the papyri > were completely included in a critical apparatus. On the contrary, items such as these -- whether itacistic variation, spelling errors/variants, or movable nu and sigma which in no way affect the translation or exegesis of the text or even the interpretation of near variants -- are basically irrelevant for textual criticism, and should _not_ appear in a general critical apparatus. Even a vast and comprehensive apparatus such as that of Von Soden does not waste its time with mere itacism, let alone movable nu or sigma (although it does list variations between the generally insignificant "all" and "alla"). Of course, if someone is presenting a full collation or exact representation of the complete unaltered text of a MS, items such as these should be included. But this is a completely different item from that which should properly appear in a critical apparatus. The only real significance among the variants cited for P75 is the indication regarding certain tendencies toward itacism and spelling errors on the part of the scribe of P75. If these continually recur, then P75 would be marked as an untrustworthy witness in variant readings where its testimony might be merely due to accident rather than as a reflection of the original text of its exemplar. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 16:08:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26773; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:07:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:04:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscripts In-Reply-To: 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: 3129 On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > twice as many readings -- and a *good* determination of which readings > are the true majority readings. (I once made a very big fool of myself > because NA26/27 list the wrong reading as the majority text in 2 Cor. 2:17). Seems the onus of foolship rests on those who wrongly determined one or the other reading in that variant unit was "the" Byzantine. This variant is an interesting case, since according to the Text und Textwert data, there is _no_ dominant Byzantine/Majority reading here. The "loipoi" reading has 315 MSS in support, plus 8 others which would obviously also support that reading, while "polloi" has 280 MSS in support, plus 1 other which would support that same reading. The small numerical difference between 323 MSS vs 281 MSS (53% vs 47%) is not sufficiently significant (e.g. Colwell's 70%) to establish either reading as "Byz" in this case. The UBS and Nestle editions _are_ in error in claiming either "Byz" or "M" support for only the "polloi" reading (which also happens to be that of the TR). Von Soden, on the other hand, is just as much in error by claiming "loipoi" is "the" bold-faced K (Byzantine) reading while asserting that "polloi" is "the" bold-faced H (Alexandrian) reading. Although the wrong variant (whichever it may have been) certainly arose accidentally from metathesis ("loipoi" is a phonetic anagram of "polloi"), there simply is _no_ clear Byzantine reading here. "Loipoi" was chosen in my edition on the basis of internal grounds (it is the "more difficult" reading, not generally being used in the Pauline epistles in the masculine nominative, but more normally in the phrase "to loipon"). Metzger of course defends "polloi", but primarily, I suspect, on external grounds of favored MS support (Aleph A B C K P Psi 88 1739) rather than real internal evidence, since his claim that "loipoi" is "too offensive for Paul to have used" doesn't seem to cut it in light of other Pauline strong language (e.g. Gal.1.8-9, 1 Cor 3, 5, etc.) where he has few scruples concerning whom he might offend. It is of significant passing interest that only _one_ MS out of the entire divided "Byzantine/Majority" group actually follows the alleged "typical" Byzantine practice of "conflation" and combines both readings into "loipoi polloi." Seems that under current eclectic theory well over 80% of those MSS should have conflated in this place, since Metzger clearly stated that, when confronted with more than one variant reading, both of which made sense, "MOST SCRIBES" [sic, with emphasis added] would choose to combine both opposing readings into a single unit. Here in a requisite case, they chose not to do so. Should anyone be surprised that neither would the same Byzantine scribes elsewhere go and do likewise. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 17:27:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27324; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 17:25:41 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:18:47 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4611 On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> twice as many readings -- and a *good* determination of which readings >> are the true majority readings. (I once made a very big fool of myself >> because NA26/27 list the wrong reading as the majority text in 2 Cor. 2:17). > >Seems the onus of foolship rests on those who wrongly determined one or >the other reading in that variant unit was "the" Byzantine. > >This variant is an interesting case, since according to the Text und >Textwert data, there is _no_ dominant Byzantine/Majority reading here. > >The "loipoi" reading has 315 MSS in support, plus 8 others which would >obviously also support that reading, while "polloi" has 280 MSS in >support, plus 1 other which would support that same reading. The small >numerical difference between 323 MSS vs 281 MSS (53% vs 47%) is not >sufficiently significant (e.g. Colwell's 70%) to establish either reading >as "Byz" in this case. >The UBS and Nestle editions _are_ in error in claiming either "Byz" or "M" >support for only the "polloi" reading (which also happens to be that of >the TR). Von Soden, on the other hand, is just as much in error by >claiming "loipoi" is "the" bold-faced K (Byzantine) reading while >asserting that "polloi" is "the" bold-faced H (Alexandrian) reading. Exactly. The NA apparatus *should* have marked *both* "loipoi" and "polloi" as "pm." >Although the wrong variant (whichever it may have been) certainly arose >accidentally from metathesis ("loipoi" is a phonetic anagram of "polloi"), >there simply is _no_ clear Byzantine reading here. I agree. Which, based on my critical principles, is important. You see, loipoi is supported by 6 630, two weak witnesses of family 1739, while polloi is supported by 1739 1881, the two lead witnesses of the family. If one believes that "polloi" is the Byzantine reading, then it would appear that 1739 1881 had both been corrected toward that reading, and that "loipoi" is the true reading of family 1739. Since, however, there *is* no Byzantine reading, it looks as is "polloi" is the family 1739 reading. That fact threw off a major portion of an exposition in the only text-critical paper I ever dared/was allowed to expose to the wide world. >"Loipoi" was chosen in my edition on the basis of internal grounds (it is >the "more difficult" reading, not generally being used in the Pauline >epistles in the masculine nominative, but more normally in the phrase "to >loipon"). > >Metzger of course defends "polloi", but primarily, I suspect, on external >grounds of favored MS support (Aleph A B C K P Psi 88 1739) rather than >real internal evidence, since his claim that "loipoi" is "too offensive >for Paul to have used" doesn't seem to cut it in light of other Pauline >strong language (e.g. Gal.1.8-9, 1 Cor 3, 5, etc.) where he has few >scruples concerning whom he might offend. Exactly. I think it clear that internal evidence favors "loipoi" as the harder reading. It also has strong manuscript support (p46 and the "Western" text). On that basis, I also read "loipoi," though my critical approach obviously differs completely from Robinson's. Whereas the UBS people can generally be relied upon to print the reading of Aleph+B whatever the other evidence says. >It is of significant passing interest that only _one_ MS out of the entire >divided "Byzantine/Majority" group actually follows the alleged "typical" >Byzantine practice of "conflation" and combines both readings into "loipoi >polloi." Seems that under current eclectic theory well over 80% of those >MSS should have conflated in this place, since Metzger clearly stated >that, when confronted with more than one variant reading, both of which >made sense, "MOST SCRIBES" [sic, with emphasis added] would choose to >combine both opposing readings into a single unit. Here in a requisite >case, they chose not to do so. Should anyone be surprised that neither >would the same Byzantine scribes elsewhere go and do likewise. It seems to me that the theory that scribes conflated when confronted with two variants has been pretty well demolished. Westcott and Hort's examples are far too few to mean anything. I would say that scribes, when faced with conflicting readings, will tend to choose the reading they think *most appropriate* -- but how they decide what is "most appropriate" is frequently beyond *my* understanding. :-) See, folks, even Maurice Robinson and I agree on some things. In this instance, we agree at all points. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 17:27:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27332; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 17:26:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Collation X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960821163644.271ffe60@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: 2117 At 03:30 PM 8/21/96 -0400, you wrote: > >On the contrary, items such as these -- whether itacistic variation, >spelling errors/variants, or movable nu and sigma which in no way affect >the translation or exegesis of the text or even the interpretation of near >variants -- are basically irrelevant for textual criticism, and should >_not_ appear in a general critical apparatus. Even a vast and >comprehensive apparatus such as that of Von Soden does not waste its time >with mere itacism, let alone movable nu or sigma (although it does list >variations between the generally insignificant "all" and "alla"). > >Of course, if someone is presenting a full collation or exact >representation of the complete unaltered text of a MS, items such as these >should be included. But this is a completely different item from that >which should properly appear in a critical apparatus. > >The only real significance among the variants cited for P75 is the >indication regarding certain tendencies toward itacism and spelling errors >on the part of the scribe of P75. If these continually recur, then P75 >would be marked as an untrustworthy witness in variant readings where its >testimony might be merely due to accident rather than as a reflection of >the original text of its exemplar. > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament >Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > The point of my posting was not to generate a discussion of itacisms (valuable though this may be). In my estimation no variant is insignificant, and I certainly do not want an editor to determine for me what is relevant and what is not. That was the meaning of my original post. I am sorry I was not clear enough about this. Yours, Jim West ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunt Professor of Biblica Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 18:43:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27848; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:41:42 -0400 Message-ID: <00002958.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Colwell's 70% Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 15:19:04 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: 648 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 640 I see this figure quoted a lot in comments regarding quantitative analysis, but I'm curious to know why 70% is "the magic number". Surely this percentage is going to vary (to some extent) according to the number of manuscripts being compared? I don't recall whether Colwell had a minimum number of MSS in mind for applying this "rule", but perhaps someone can set me straight on this issue (I'm sure!)... Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary ---- "I have always thought that the acquisition of language and culture gave a person completely new aspects of personality." -- Head of Humanities and Art, Worcestor Polytechnic Institute From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 19:49:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA28033; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:47:49 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00002958.sm@dts.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:41:31 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Colwell's 70% Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1535 On Wed, 21 Aug 96, Mark_OBrien@dts.edu (Mark OBrien) wrote: >I see this figure quoted a lot in comments regarding quantitative >analysis, but >I'm curious to know why 70% is "the magic number". Surely this percentage is >going to vary (to some extent) according to the number of manuscripts being >compared? I don't recall whether Colwell had a minimum number of MSS in mind >for applying this "rule", but perhaps someone can set me straight on this >issue >(I'm sure!)... We had an extensive discussion on this topic some months back, starting from the question "What is a text-type." The discussion revealed that a *lot* of us don't like that criterion. Someone (I think it was Ulrich Schmid) even speculated that Colwell came up with that number to make sure that the Alexandrian text really did qualify as a text-type. Remember, the 70% is not a measure of the number of manuscripts that agree, but of the *rate* at which two manuscripts agree. Still, your point is absolutely sound: The percentage of agreement between manuscripts is dependent on the sample of readings studied. Frankly, I consider the Colwell criterion to be all but worthless. The relationship between manuscripts should not be pursued based on their *percentage* of agreement (unless one is seeking sister manuscripts). After all, *all* manuscripts actually agree on about 95% of the text. Rather, one needs to look at the *nature* of the agreements. My humble opinion, of course. Not that I'll brook any argument. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 22:14:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA28501; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:12:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:09:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Manuscripts In-Reply-To: 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: 2339 On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > It seems to me that the theory that scribes conflated when confronted with > two variants has been pretty well demolished. Westcott and Hort's examples > are far too few to mean anything. However, my citing of Metzger is from his Text of the NT, and still is maintained in print by him, as well as other eclectics such as D.A.Carson and Gordon Fee, so the news of any "demolition" of such a concept apparently still needs to be communicated to at least some modern eclectics. > I would say that scribes, when faced > with conflicting readings, will tend to choose the reading they think > *most appropriate* -- but how they decide what is "most appropriate" is > frequently beyond *my* understanding. :-) I would agree, depending on what the definition of "most appropriate" might be in any given case. If transmissional history were merely haphazard and purely chance-oriented, there would be a 50-50 chance of any reading being perpetuated at any given time, but of course in most variant units where conflation _could_ have occurred, such in fact did _not_ occur, including the 2 Cor.2.17 passage noted, where only a single MS actually conflated the two readings. I suspect most times that the scriptorium/scribal solution to the problem of exemplar document 1 reading one way and the correction (diorthotes) document 2 reading the other way would be to call for a document 3 and simply go with the 2 out of 3 reading (which of course will generally tend toward the Byzantine Textform, since it would have the best odds of being the "majority" reading in most such cases in the era following the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine. Only in cases where the corruption would have occurred extremely early would the results tend to closely approximate 50%-50% as in the "loipoi" vs "polloi" case of 2Cor.2.17. > See, folks, even Maurice Robinson and I agree on some things. In this > instance, we agree at all points. But certainly for _very_ different reasons! *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 22:27:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA28621; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:26:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:23:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Colwell's 70% In-Reply-To: <00002958.sm@dts.edu> 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: 2464 On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Mark OBrien wrote: > I see this figure quoted a lot in comments regarding quantitative analysis, but > I'm curious to know why 70% is "the magic number". The simplest answer is because Ernest Colwell of Chicago said so. I personally think 72.3% is somewhat more accurate *;-) Seriously, there is _no_ real cutoff point, and all such suggestions are of necessity arbitrary. However, it also is obvious that as support for a texttype approaches the 50% mark, the relative strength of that texttype is seriously called into question; conversely, as the support for a texttype approaches 100%, the relative strength is increased. Merely splitting the difference would suggest 75% as a reasonable boundary for establishing a texttype relationship among MSS. Colwell chose to slightly broaden the definition by going to 70%; Hodges and Farstad chose to narrow the definition by going to 80%. I am personally quite comfortable with 70% (making small allowances on either side of that figure), since such a "majority" relationship among MSS should be adequately sufficient to establish a working texttype identification of relationship. > Surely this percentage is > going to vary (to some extent) according to the number of manuscripts being > compared? The percentages are based upon quantitative analysis of pair of MSS -- one compared directly to another in significant places of variation. No matter how many MSS might be compared in such a situation, they still will be counted in pairs which cover the entire spectrum, and only those MS pairs with high interrelationships will be considered primary members of a texttype. Once a texttype relationship has been determined, a reading would be considered as "belonging" to the archetype of the texttype if it occurred in 70% (or whatever other figure is settled upon) of the MSS which were previously assigned to that texttype. This is why in the "loipoi"/"polloi" reading with a 53%/47% split, _neither_ reading is in any way texttype-specific to the Byzantine Textform, although one could correctly claim that the "polloi" reading _is_ specific to the Alexandrian texttype. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 21 22:40:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA28696; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:39:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:35:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Colwell's 70% In-Reply-To: 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: 2038 On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Frankly, I consider the Colwell criterion to be all but worthless. > The relationship between manuscripts should not be pursued based > on their *percentage* of agreement (unless one is seeking sister > manuscripts). After all, *all* manuscripts actually agree on about > 95% of the text. Rather, one needs to look at the *nature* of the > agreements. > My humble opinion, of course. Not that I'll brook any argument. :-) My humble opinion differs as usual (the agreement between us did not last long *;-), since I think the criterion has validity, even though the precise percentage point of 70% may be subject to some adjustment up or down. Certainly all MSS agree on about 95% of the text in most cases, but the establishment of the Colwell-style percentages reflect a 70% agreement as found within the 5% or so of the text where the variants actually occur, and this is plainly stated in Colwell's "Methodology" article. I do not think that the "nature" of the agreements is the significant item; rather the fact that the agreements occur in a definite and regular pattern -- this pattern-agreement is precisely what establishes a "texttype", even if MSS with a definite pattern may find that some portions of that pattern otherwise appear in MSS of another texttype. For example, as mentioned in my previous post, the 2Cor.2.17 passage finds the "polloi" reading specific to the Alexandrian texttype, but merely a divided variant within the Byzantine Textform. It just happens that at that specific unit of variation, a characteristic reading of one texttype happens to exist in quantity within another texttype, but simply has _no_ texttype-definitive status in the latter. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 05:53:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA29789; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 05:51:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:47:38 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V1 #117 In-Reply-To: <199608210630.CAA22808@scholar.cc.emory.edu> 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: 2502 Someone asked how to get involved in helping with the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project ('entemp' for short). The project aims to run on voluntary power. A major goal is to have people transcribe mss and make their transcriptions available to others. Inclusion of high quality digital images of the manuscripts is also an essential part of the Project. Once obtained they would provide a sound basis for transcription work and allow verification of existing transcriptions. The genesis of the project was partly motivated by precisely the kind of frustration some of the correspondents have mentioned. It is especially bad for those of us isolated from the great libraries of the world that might be expected to have some of the rare editions or even the mss themselves. Unfortunately, not many images are presently available to the Project. However, much progress could be made on the transcription front by parcelling out particular jobs to volunteers. After transcribing the pre-1000 AD mss of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I think that the best approach is to begin by converting existing editions into machine readable form -- that is, alter a standard Greek New Testament text until it conforms exactly to the text given in the edition. (If you can make OCR work, go ahead!) Here are some editions that would be most useful if interested volunteers would key them in: 1) Tischendorf's editions of the great uncials (01, 03, 04, 06, etc); 2) Schofield's edition of the papyri (those known up to 1936); 3) Kenyon's edition of P46 4) numerous other editions as found in J.K. Elliott's _Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts_ Most of these are difficult to get, but should be available in large libraries. There are all kinds of barriers standing before the Project, especially with regard to obtaining images. A recurring issue is that of Intellectual Property Rights. Is a conversion to machine readable form an infringement of copyright? Which editions could we convert without fear of litigation? We want to do the right thing, and we do not intend to give up. If you have a web browser you can look at the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project's web site which is maintained by James K. Tauber. The address is http://www.entmp.org/ If you want to become a volunteer transcriber, please e-mail James or me. Tim Finney Associate Director, ENTMP finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 09:23:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00147; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:22:36 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:07:14 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Colwell's 70% Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3137 I suppose I need to clarify something here.... On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> Frankly, I consider the Colwell criterion to be all but worthless. >> The relationship between manuscripts should not be pursued based >> on their *percentage* of agreement (unless one is seeking sister >> manuscripts). After all, *all* manuscripts actually agree on about >> 95% of the text. Rather, one needs to look at the *nature* of the >> agreements. > >> My humble opinion, of course. Not that I'll brook any argument. :-) > >My humble opinion differs as usual (the agreement between us did not last >long *;-), since I think the criterion has validity, even though the >precise percentage point of 70% may be subject to some adjustment up or >down. > >Certainly all MSS agree on about 95% of the text in most cases, but the >establishment of the Colwell-style percentages reflect a 70% agreement as >found within the 5% or so of the text where the variants actually occur, >and this is plainly stated in Colwell's "Methodology" article. True enough; my point is merely that very few scholars (except for Hurtado in his work on Mark and Richards in his sadly flawed work on the Johannine Epistles) have tried to study *all* readings. So the cutoff percentage will depend -- significantly -- on the particular sample. >I do not think that the "nature" of the agreements is the significant >item; rather the fact that the agreements occur in a definite and regular >pattern -- this pattern-agreement is precisely what establishes a >"texttype", even if MSS with a definite pattern may find that some >portions of that pattern otherwise appear in MSS of another texttype. I am willing to agree with Maurice Robinson that, if we choose the number carefully, based on the sample, we can find *some* percentage that defines text-types -- as long as we are working with unmixed or minimally mixed manuscripts. That restriction ("unmixed or minimally mixed manuscripts") is, however, very important. Other than the Byzantine manuscripts, almost all texts are mixed. Taking Paul as an example, of the roughly 600 manuscripts, * About 520, or 87%, are Byzantine * About 70, or 12%, are mixed. * As best I can tell, exactly ten (p46 Aleph A B C D F G 33 1739) are non-Byzantine and unmixed or minimally mixed manuscripts. That's 1.7%. (Before someone asks -- yes, C is mixed in the Gospels, but in Paul it's almost purely Alexandrian. 33 is Byzantine in Romans, where it comes from a second hand, but in the rest of Paul, it is the closest relative of Aleph.) So, of the non-Byzantine manuscripts, seven-eighths are mixed (usually mixed Byzantine and Alexandrian or mixed Byzantine and family 1739). Such a mixed manuscript may not agree with *either* the Alexandrian or the Byzantine text 70% of the time. But they have a text-type -- indeed, they are blessed enough to have two. :-) That's why I say one must examine the *nature* of agreements -- in order to figure out what the components of the mixture are. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 10:08:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00363; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 10:08:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:22:34 +0800 (WST) From: "James K. Tauber" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: ENTMP In-Reply-To: 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: 527 The additional interest in helping out with the ENTMP has come just as the web site is being transferred from the University of Western Australia (which hosted the server but didn't have anything else to do with the project) to a site I'm paying for in the US. I apologize if people have problems accessing stuff on the web site over the next week or so. Once the transfer has taken place, things should work again. James K. Tauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 11:27:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00989; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:26:15 -0400 Message-Id: <9608221522.AA10795@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V1 #117 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:22:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Timothy John Finney" at Aug 22, 96 05:47:38 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] 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: 1410 Timothy John Finney wrote: >There are all kinds of barriers standing before the Project, especially >with regard to obtaining images. A recurring issue is that of Intellectual >Property Rights. Is a conversion to machine readable form an infringement >of copyright? Which editions could we convert without fear of litigation? >We want to do the right thing, and we do not intend to give up. You realize that the international aspect tremendously complicates the copyright aspects. Although the U.S. Constitution requires limited terms for copyrights, I'm not sure that that is true in other countries. (Isn't the 1611 AV still under copyright in the Commonwealth?) As a result, one would have to investigate the copyrights of the editions in every country in which they were published, and whether web-publication in the U.S. would infringe an Australian copyright, for example. Generally, conversion to machine readable form of copyrighted material without permission and not excused by fair use is an infringement (in the U.S.). However, what portions of the edition constitute copyrightable material and what is fair use are not easy questions to answer. 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 owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 20:03:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA04056; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:02:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199608222301.RAA10300@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:57:46 -7 Subject: Re: new reviews on TC CC: raija.sollamo@helsinki.fi 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: 2718 > Dear listmembers > The dean Raija Sollamo has kindly requested me to send the following > message to the list. If you would like to discuss with her, please > note that she is NOT a member of this list and that her e-mail > address is added in the end of her message. > > -------------- forwarded message -------------------------------- > > Review of David L. Washburn's review of my book "Repetitions of the > Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint". Septuagint and Cognate > Studies Series 40. Scholars Press 1955. > > I was very happy to see a review of my book so soon and, of course, I > was very delighted with David L. Washburn's high evaluation of it. > Unfortunately, he has misunderstood one of my main results. David L. > Washburn writes in his review: "Sollamo shows ... that repetition of > possessive pronouns in lists of two or more nouns is not a Hebraism > at all; it is perfectly good Koine Greek. Authors such as Polybius, > the Ptolemaic Papyri, Pseudo-Aristeas, Philo and Josephus repeated > the pronouns more often than not." This is not correct. I have > demonstrated that there is only one case involving the repetition of > possessive pronouns by the Koine authors, namely Bell. Iud. 1,558. >My examples are not taken at random from Koine authors. I have presented > my text corpus on p. 7, and it has been scrutinized thoroughly. My > examples are all that appear in this text corpus. As a result I state > on page 17: "Firstly, the normal LXX practice of repeating the > possessive pronoun with coordinate items proves to be a Hebraism." Yikes! And I even had that sentence underlined. My lapse here was due to a statement on page 16 that was developed earlier in the chapter: "...repetition of the possessive pronoun with coordinate items is grammatically a perfectly correct mode of expression..." I'll make the necessary correction and re-issue the review. As for the "random" comment, I believe Prof. Sollamo has misunderstood my use of the term. When I said "examples taken more or less at random from Koine authors" I was referring to her selection of passages to study and to the selection of authors themselves. The book gives no criteria for choosing these particular authors (other than the fact that they wrote in Koine) nor for the passages chosen from among these authors' writings, so I gathered that their selection was "more or less" random. This in no way suggests that the passages themselves were not "scrutinized thoroughly." They most certainly were. A cc of this has been sent to Prof. Sollamo. I thank her for the correction. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 20:05:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA04066; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:04:23 -0400 X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 23-Aug-1996 9:30:07 -0400; at TP.BAEA To: scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: Subject: Australian copyright. From: AKULIKOV@baea.com.au (KULIKOVSKY, Andrew) Date: 23 Aug 96 09:30:03 EDT References: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 970 Stephen, The KJV is certainly not under copyright in Australia. I believe the only place it is still under copyright is the UK. cheers, Andrew +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer | British Aerospace Australia | Technology Park, Adelaide | ph: +618 343 8211 | email: akulikov@baea.com.au | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, when you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IESOUS KURIOS! +------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 21:15:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA04238; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:14:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:10:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Collation and Reproduction In-Reply-To: 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: 3188 On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: > 2) Schofield's edition of the papyri (those known up to 1936); I have a complete copy of Schofield's 1936 dissertation, and the transcriptions would be easy enough to reproduce electronically. Now if I could only find something called "spare time"....*;-) > There are all kinds of barriers standing before the Project, especially > with regard to obtaining images. A recurring issue is that ofIntellectual > Property Rights. Is a conversion to machine readable form an infringement > of copyright? Which editions could we convert without fear of litigation? Obviously any edition which was produced in printed form over 75 years ago (pre-1921) is now in the public domain and may be freely used by anyone. Independent collations from current published photographic or printed editions (e.g. the Bodmer plates) are of course entirely permissible, since they are merely the recording of factual data taken from such facsimiles or reproductions. Should one choose to utilize such a collation to reproduce in full form that collation as a continuous text, no infringement would occur (though errors from any poor collation procedures might exist). Only if you were intending to reproduce photographic plates from currently copyrighted published works would there be any possible problems, and then more likely with the holding institution which may have given permission to the publisher or author of the copyrighted book. Of course, if the photographic plates were published over 75 years ago, they are totally within the public domain, and free for reproduction, regardless of the library or monastery holding them. If dealing with _unpublished_ photographs or microfilms, one of course is subject to whatever restrictions the holding institution (e.g. Muenster) might impose in granting access to them, though I would hope that in most cases there would be no restrictions whatever on making collations and freely distributing collation data; anyone then could reconstruct a continuous text from such collations with no infringment. Anything less than free and unhindered access by major holding institutions would reflect a practice almost as scandalous as the current Dead Sea Scrolls situation, being a hindrance to free inquiry and the scholarly endeavor. (I seriously question whether a "real" copyright can or should exist on any ancient MS data in the first place, since under all copyright laws, the "original" publication was hundreds of years ago, and such should by all rights now be in the public domain). I would mention that the microfilms of all the MSS at Mt.Sinai, Mt.Athos, and Jerusalem which were made by the Kenneth W. Clark expedition in the late 1940s were deposited in the US Library of Congress, and have been from the beginning totally available for any scholarly purposes and/or publication. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 21:59:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA04363; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:57:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:54:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Colwell's 70% In-Reply-To: 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: 3853 On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > True enough; my point is merely that very few scholars (except for > Hurtado in his work on Mark and Richards in his sadly flawed work > on the Johannine Epistles) have tried to study *all* readings. So > the cutoff percentage will depend -- significantly -- on the > particular sample. The point of a representative sample is of course to eliminate the massive amount of work needed to compare on a full collation basis. For the purpose for which Colwell's quantitative analysis method was designed, it will offer tolerably reliable results by comparing a quantity of MSS and establishing general texttype relationships on the basis of patterns of variation shared in high percentage among certain MSS. > I am willing to agree with Maurice Robinson that, if we choose the > number carefully, based on the sample, we can find *some* percentage > that defines text-types -- as long as we are working with unmixed > or minimally mixed manuscripts. The percentage value will of necessity differ depending on the texttype and the internal constituency of its member MSS, which varies according to the amount of mixture which appears among them. The Western text is the least precisely defined, and the percentage of interrelationship among the strongest MSS of that texttype remains significantly below Colwell's 70% line (usually around 55%-60%); the Alexandrian MSS more closely approach the 70% designator, while the "average" Byzantine MS will be more likely around 90% (a "Byzantine" MS with only 70% agreement with the Byzantine pattern of readings is a very weak member of that texttype, while an Alexandrian MS with such a percentage is a strong member of its texttype). Certainly the matter of "mixture" exists, and even strong Byzantine MSS have some mixture, but usually only a smattering of non-Byzantine readings between 5%-10%. Alexandrian MSS on the other hand will have often up to 30%-35% mixture from readings of other texttypes, and the Western MSS even a greater percentage. Quantitatively speaking, this does _not_ disqualify any of them from being in a texttype relationship with other MSS sharing most of their same variations; it merely indicates that there are levels of strength to be found among the witnesses comprising each separate texttype, and the standards applied to one texttype should not be applied directly to another texttype. Mixture itself does not destroy the establishment of texttype status for MSS sharing a common pattern; the differences in the percentage of mixture prevailing in MSS of any given texttype _do_, however, suggest something significant about the transmissional history of the MSS comprising such individual texttypes. Mixture alone, in my opinion, does _not_ seriously harm the texttype designation of a MS as established from quantitative analysis based upon a reasonable selection of significant variant units. > Such a mixed manuscript may not agree with *either* the Alexandrian > or the Byzantine text 70% of the time. But they have a text-type -- > indeed, they are blessed enough to have two. :-) Few if any "mixed" MSS are so mixed that they in actuality totally fail to align fairly well (if only in a "weak" state) with one or another known texttype. As pointed out in the "loipoi"/"polloi" discussion, a reading so equally divided among the MSS in general can be seen to be part of the pattern for the Alexandrian MSS, even though it is merely a divided "mixed" reading within the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 22 23:10:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA04618; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:09:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:09:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Copyright In-Reply-To: <9608221522.AA10795@osf1.gmu.edu> 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: 1368 The question of copyright is indeed an important one, and few people would argue that the author of an original work deserves to have exclusive rights to his or her own work for some period of time. However, the same can hardly be said for ancient documents, like the mss of the Old and New Testaments. Transcriptions of ancient mss probably fall in the same category. I personally can't see how an individual's transcription of a ms can be copyrighted. After all, someone else might easily look at the same ms and arrive at the same conclusions concerning difficult readings. The bottom line for me, however, is this: scholars in general should promote the dissemination of knowledge, and scholars of the biblical text in particular should support the free transmission of the contents of the biblical text. In other words, it would be nice if the scholars themselves, those producing transcriptions and even translations of ancient texts, would voluntarily waive whatever rights they might claim in the interest of scholarship. This is exactly what those involved in the ENTMP are doing, and I would like to see others do it as well. 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 Thu Aug 22 23:37:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA04732; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:36:45 -0400 Message-Id: <9608230333.AA02764@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Collation and Reproduction To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:33:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Maurice Robinson" at Aug 22, 96 09:10:57 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] 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: 1100 Maurice Robinson wrote: [Pretty good overview of copyright law snipped] > Anything less >than free and unhindered access by major holding institutions would >reflect a practice almost as scandalous as the current Dead Sea Scrolls >situation, being a hindrance to free inquiry and the scholarly endeavor. >(I seriously question whether a "real" copyright can or should exist on >any ancient MS data in the first place, since under all copyright laws, >the "original" publication was hundreds of years ago, and such should by >all rights now be in the public domain). Does anybody know the status of the Qimron v. Shanks lawsuit? The last I've heard is that Qimron prevailed in the District Court of Jerusalem, enjoining Hershel Shanks from publishing the Dead Sea Scrolls anywhere in the world. 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 owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 00:16:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA04921; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:15:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:12:14 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Transcribing mss, Colwell's 70% etc. 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: 3958 D.C. Parker, who knows what he is talking about, wrote: > The move towards electronic formats is important. But I must add a > word of caution. Little of the MS evidence (especially the papyri and > fragmentary majuscules) is unambiguous. You can't just sit down > and collate it. There are endless details of reading and interpretation. > It takes a lot of experience, and even then some things have to be > left to the judgement of a full-time papyrologist. As an advocate of the digitisation and dissemination of New Testament text critical resources, one might expect me to reply to Dr Parker's statement. I will try not to do any ax(e) grinding or hobby horse riding. I have come to the conclusion that all manuscript evidence has an associated degree of uncertainty. Even a tau which you are absolutely certain is a tau has some small probability of being a gamma or something else. Levels of certainty range from almost 0 to almost 100 percent, but that should not stop us from trying to transcribe these important resources to make them widely available at last. The TEI transcription system provides for the attachment of a certainty level to any word, letter, jot or tittle, as well as the transcription of just about any writing phenomenon imaginable (that was one of the developers' aims). Web based electronic transcriptions have the potential to allow peer review including rectification of errors and discussion of points of dissension to happen in a far more convenient way than in the print based system. Comparisons with the Dead Sea Scrolls have been made in the last few days. One can buy microfilms of them now. But not so the New Testament mss. I know that some are available, and I also know that some are completely inaccessible. I know where they are but for one reason or another I am not allowed to see them. Difficulties of access are aggravated for those living in out of the way places like Australia. Dr Parker is right when he says that some points of transcription call for a lifetime of learning to resolve, but I urge interested people to get their hands dirty with transcription, nevertheless, and to give their transcriptions to ENTMP at the end. The fact that Erasmus did not do a very good editorial job on his first edition of the Greek New Testament is widely known. Yet its publication using the then new printing technology shook the world's foundations. The same kind of opportunity to make currently obscure and inaccessible documents more widely available lies before us now. I do not advocate a poor editorial job. However, the presence of a relatively few points of ambiguity and even errors (which could be readily fixed once detected) in electronic transcriptions would not prevent an electronic New Testament mss corpora from being enormously useful to the field. With respect to Colwell's 70 percent rule, a possible application of electronic transcriptions is their use to look for a more objective way to measure association among NT mss with a view to mapping the transmission history of the NT. I am now using an electronic collation and a numerical taxonomy program to do this. It is possible to define a boundary using the much more intellectually satisfactory notion of a 95 percent confidence level, as is conventionally used in many analytical studies. I am aiming to finish this study by the end of the year and will let you know what happens. One last totally unrelated point. I read in a recent Offline article by James Adair that it is now possible to use a piece of material the size of a seed to obtain a carbon date. Perhaps it is time to snip a piece off P64 and send it to the physicists! You could take lots of photos of the little piece (without writing of course) for posterity. And why stop at P64? Best regards, Tim Finney Associate Director, ENTMP finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 11:39:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07008; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:37:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199608231436.IAA22632@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:33:08 -7 Subject: Re: COLLATION 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: 2043 > > Jim West wrote: > > > The necessity of important manuscripts in every researcher's hand > > can be demonstrated by a brief comparison of the apparatus of NA27 with > > P75 (at Luke 24:51- John 1:16) > > > > NA27 does not note the (apparent?) change of spelling for skotia in > > verse 5 (P75 has skoteia); nor does it mention that P75 has martyrion for > > its martyrian. Likewise there is no notice that kekragen in NA27 is > > kekrage in P75. (the moveable nu is absent). > > > > True enough, these are "orthographic" differences. But such items > > are of interest, and are in fact textual variants. > > With respect to the variants you note here, they were probably excluded on > several grounds. > > First, there just isn't room in the NA27 apparatus to include every itacism. > > Second, the introduction of the NA27 clearly states that v.l. will generally be > included if they make one of two contributions, either toward determining the > correct reading (if some doubt exists) or helping trace the history of the v.l. > > > Third, P75 (and the other papyrii, for that matter) shows some strange > variations in spelling (check the plate of P75 in Metzger's *Text*--you'll see > John's name spelled two different ways, IWANNHS and IWANHS, on a single leaf!) > The papyrii largely come from places and times where spelling was not > standardized, as we think of it. The variations you describe are "normal" for > the papyrii, and text critics usually note these itacisms and then disregard > them. Yes. The printed texts we use generally have been standardized wrt spelling, regardless of variations in the mss themselves. This is largely for the sake of our convenience. Sinaiticus, for example, abounds in itacisms that substitute I for EI, U for OU and so on. Recording each of these in an apparatus would make a work roughly the size of my house. Makes it hard to carry it to class :-) Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 13:49:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07826; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:48:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Collation X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960823134234.278fc704@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: 417 True enough, there are plenty of minor orthographic differences between virtually all manuscripts. But the issue I am concerned with is; do scholars simply need to be told "they are there, so were are going to ignore them" or "here are the manuscripts, decide for yourself"? I think wide accessibility is a "necessity" for genuine scholarship to occur. That was my only (poorly put, obviously) point. Jim West From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 16:33:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08879; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 16:32:10 -0400 From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org Message-ID: <9608231531.0LSQQ04@chrysalis.org> Organization: Chrysalis * 96 Lines * 214.690.9295 * Telnet: chrysalis.org X-Mailer: TBBS/TIGER v1.0 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 15:31:00 -0500 Subject: RE: COLLATION To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1454 Dave Washburn wrote (quoting me, responding to Jim West): > > Third, P75 (and the other papyrii, for that matter) shows some > > strange variations in spelling (check the plate of P75 in Metzger's > > *Text*--you'll see John's name spelled two different ways, IWANNHS and > > IWANHS, on a single leaf!) > > The papyrii largely come from places and times where spelling was > > not standardized, as we think of it. The variations you describe are > > "normal" for the papyrii, and text critics usually note these itacisms > > and then disregard them. > Yes. The printed texts we use generally have been standardized wrt > spelling, regardless of variations in the mss themselves. This is > largely for the sake of our convenience. Sinaiticus, for example, > abounds in itacisms that substitute I for EI, U for OU and so on. > Recording each of these in an apparatus would make a work roughly > the size of my house. Makes it hard to carry it to class :-) But even more to the point (to *my* point, at least): we shouldn't think of these itacisms as spelling errors or solecisms. In an era when spelling is not standardized, "spelling error" is a meaningless concept. For the author of the itacisms in P75, there weren't a thread of difference between IWANNHS and IWANHS--at least until someone slapped him/her upside the head and said, "at least be CONSISTENT!" Grace and peace, Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 16:44:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09017; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 16:43:17 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9608231531.0LSQQ04@chrysalis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:37:03 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Spellings in p75 (was: COLLATION) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1018 On Fri, 23 Aug 96, perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote: >But even more to the point (to *my* point, at least): we shouldn't think of >these itacisms as spelling errors or solecisms. In an era when spelling >is not >standardized, "spelling error" is a meaningless concept. For the author >of the >itacisms in P75, there weren't a thread of difference between IWANNHS and >IWANHS--at least until someone slapped him/her upside the head and said, "at >least be CONSISTENT!" As I recall, in the case of p75, the scribe consistently wrote IWANHS in Luke, got started on John and then -- apparently -- noticed that the "official" spelling was IWANNHS. From that point on, he used IWANNHS almost consistently; presumably IWANHS was his native spelling, but he was trying very hard to get it right. Even today, most of us have a few words we just can't seem to get right. It took me about ten years to learn to write "government" for "govronment," and I *still* hesitate over "necessarily." Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 19:28:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09697; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:26:53 -0400 Message-Id: <321E3C5A.15D6@dhinternet.com> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:18:50 -0500 From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: COLLATION References: <199608231436.IAA22632@wave.sheridan.wy.us> 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: 603 Dave Washburn Wrote: > Yes. The printed texts we use generally have been standardized wrt > spelling, regardless of variations in the mss themselves. This is > largely for the sake of our convenience. Sinaiticus, for example, > abounds in itacisms that substitute I for EI, U for OU and so on. > Recording each of these in an apparatus would make a work roughly the > size of my house. Makes it hard to carry it to class :-) But a Text with such a "super-apparatus" would fit nicely on a six cd set for the home PC. I seldom do research during class, so portability isn't that important to me. From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 21:55:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA10248; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:53:28 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960824014830.238710bc@pop.washdc.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.washdc.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:48:30 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Transcribing mss, Colwell's 70% etc. Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 782 At 12:12 8/23/96 +0800, Timothy John Finney wrote: >One last totally unrelated point. I read in a recent Offline article by >James Adair that it is now possible to use a piece of material the size of >a seed to obtain a carbon date. Perhaps it is time to snip a piece off P64 >and send it to the physicists! You could take lots of photos of the little >piece (without writing of course) for posterity. And why stop at P64? Wouldn't you have to carbon date the ink to get a better idea of when it written rather than when the papyrus/vellum was prepared? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 22:51:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10436; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:50:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199608240149.TAA03573@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:45:47 -7 Subject: Re: Collation 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: 994 Jim West wrote: > True enough, there are plenty of minor orthographic differences between > virtually all manuscripts. But the issue I am concerned with is; do > scholars simply need to be told "they are there, so were are going to ignore > them" or "here are the manuscripts, decide for yourself"? > I think wide accessibility is a "necessity" for genuine scholarship to > occur. That was my only (poorly put, obviously) point. I suspect it depends on the scholar. Many, if not most, researchers who work with textual criticism at all do it as a secondary matter to exegesis; for those, things like itacisms and other orthographic matters are non-essentials. Most of us on this list probably fall into a different category of researchers, ones who delve more deeply into TC and hence may need to know more about matters beyond the basic variants. That was my (equally poorly put) point. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 22:56:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10472; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:55:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199608240153.TAA03651@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:50:36 -7 Subject: RE: COLLATION 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: 1825 > > Dave Washburn wrote (quoting me, responding to Jim West): > > > > Third, P75 (and the other papyrii, for that matter) shows some > > > strange variations in spelling (check the plate of P75 in Metzger's > > > *Text*--you'll see John's name spelled two different ways, IWANNHS and > > > IWANHS, on a single leaf!) > > > > The papyrii largely come from places and times where spelling was > > > not standardized, as we think of it. The variations you describe are > > > "normal" for the papyrii, and text critics usually note these itacisms > > > and then disregard them. > > > Yes. The printed texts we use generally have been standardized wrt > > spelling, regardless of variations in the mss themselves. This is > > largely for the sake of our convenience. Sinaiticus, for example, > > abounds in itacisms that substitute I for EI, U for OU and so on. > > Recording each of these in an apparatus would make a work roughly > > the size of my house. Makes it hard to carry it to class :-) > > But even more to the point (to *my* point, at least): we shouldn't think of > these itacisms as spelling errors or solecisms. In an era when spelling is not > standardized, "spelling error" is a meaningless concept. For the author of the > itacisms in P75, there weren't a thread of difference between IWANNHS and > IWANHS--at least until someone slapped him/her upside the head and said, "at > least be CONSISTENT!" Agreed. I hope I didn't convey the impression that I consider itacisms etc. as "errors." I see them in a similar category as the American vs. European "honor/honour" variations. The places where they affect our actual understanding of the text are quite few, thankfully. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 22:59:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10508; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:58:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199608240157.TAA03707@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:53:47 -7 Subject: Re: COLLATION 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: 880 Hubert Arthur Bahr III wrote: > Dave Washburn Wrote: > > > Yes. The printed texts we use generally have been standardized wrt > > spelling, regardless of variations in the mss themselves. This is > > largely for the sake of our convenience. Sinaiticus, for example, > > abounds in itacisms that substitute I for EI, U for OU and so on. > > Recording each of these in an apparatus would make a work roughly the > > size of my house. Makes it hard to carry it to class :-) > > But a Text with such a "super-apparatus" would fit nicely on a six cd > set for the home PC. I seldom do research during class, so portability > isn't that important to me. > When you come across such a set, please let me know where you found it and how much it costs :-) Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 23 23:55:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA10670; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 23:54:26 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:50:47 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: Curt Niccum Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: RE:Carbon dating In-Reply-To: <37896.larry.niccum.2@nd.edu> 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: 400 Dear Curt, Thanks for your reply: thoughtful and true. But it would still be good to get a few more handles on the papyri in general. There is potential for error through circular reasoning in palaeographical papyrus dating which a physical test could see through. Best regards, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 24 10:20:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA11721; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:19:55 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <37896.larry.niccum.2@nd.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:04:52 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: RE:Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1271 On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: Dear Curt, > >Thanks for your reply: thoughtful and true. But it would still be good to >get a few more handles on the papyri in general. There is potential for >error through circular reasoning in palaeographical papyrus dating which >a physical test could see through. I have to add a comment here. It's my opinion that carbon dating can't help us much. Even under ideal conditions, Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of about a century. That's enough to prove, for instance, that the Shroud of Turin is late -- but it's not good enough to prove, for instance, the date of p52. Another point: I don't know how many of you know how carbon-14 dating works, but it's based on the rate at which radioactive carbon 14 breaks down. And, very disturbingly, it *doesn't work according to the theory.* That is, when one carbon dates something, the ratios of isotopes produce a theoretical date. Then the researcher *adjusts the date* to make up for the fact that, when objects of known date have been studied, the results don't match the theory. It really makes me worry about depending too much on C-14 dating. There's something wrong with the system.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 24 23:31:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA13364; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:30:18 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:26:50 -0400 Message-ID: <960824232649_187058236@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1489 In a message dated 96-08-24 10:22:35 EDT, you write: << I have to add a comment here. It's my opinion that carbon dating can't help us much. Even under ideal conditions, Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of about a century. That's enough to prove, for instance, that the Shroud of Turin is late -- but it's not good enough to prove, for instance, the date of p52. Another point: I don't know how many of you know how carbon-14 dating works, but it's based on the rate at which radioactive carbon 14 breaks down. And, very disturbingly, it *doesn't work according to the theory.* That is, when one carbon dates something, the ratios of isotopes produce a theoretical date. Then the researcher *adjusts the date* to make up for the fact that, when objects of known date have been studied, the results don't match the theory. It really makes me worry about depending too much on C-14 dating. There's something wrong with the system.... >> For myself, coming from a medical (clinician) background, I have to agree with Robert's objections to this test in the textual critical arena. I ask two basic questions concerning C-14 dating: 1. As for the testing procedure itself, where is a "control"? 2. From a mathematical standpoint (and I'm no genius here) how does one solve an equation that has more than one variable, such as the one behind this method? If I'm wrong concerning the second question, please reply and show formulae. Rich E. Elliott RE Elliott@aol.com From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 24 23:42:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA13424; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:41:07 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:37:38 -0400 Message-ID: <960824233737_187063453@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 593 Fellow TC Colleagues: Is anyone aware of any software (for windows) which has the NA27 or UBS4 WITH an aparatus? I would love to find some software for aiding in NT TC. I was told by the "Bibleworks for Windows" company (Hermeneutika), that they were working on adding this to their already wonderful bible software CD. I encourage any and all TC subscribers to write and encourage the completion of this addition to their software. You may write to: biblewrx@cyberport.net or check the website: http://www.intr.net/bibleworks. Thanks all. In His Service Rich Elliott (RE Elliott@aol.com) From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 00:34:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA13736; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 00:33:06 -0400 Message-Id: <199608250331.VAA09584@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 22:28:25 -7 Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? 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: 755 > > Is anyone aware of any software (for windows) which has the NA27 or UBS4 WITH > an aparatus? I would love to find some software for aiding in NT TC. > I was told by the "Bibleworks for Windows" company (Hermeneutika), that they > were working on adding this to their already wonderful bible software CD. > I encourage any and all TC subscribers to write and encourage the completion > of this addition to their software. You may write to: biblewrx@cyberport.net > or check the website: http://www.intr.net/bibleworks. I believe the CD-ROM from the American Bible Society has UBS4, but I don't know about the apparatus. It might be worth looking into. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 12:18:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14887; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 12:17:22 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <960824232649_187058236@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 08:49:18 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2752 On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, REElliott@aol.com wrote: [ ... ] > >For myself, coming from a medical (clinician) background, I have to agree >with Robert's objections to this test in the textual critical arena. > >I ask two basic questions concerning C-14 dating: >1. As for the testing procedure itself, where is a "control"? >2. From a mathematical standpoint (and I'm no genius here) how does one solve >an equation that has more than one variable, such as the one behind this >method? > >If I'm wrong concerning the second question, please reply and show formulae. Under certain circumstances, one *can* solve an equation with more than one variable, by imposing other limits (Diophantine equations, etc.). But in the case of Carbon-14 dating, there is only one variable. I can't give exact numbers (at least not easily; it's too much work to dig through my CRC handbook). But I'll outline the process. Carbon occurs in nature in three different isotopes: C-12, C-13, and C-14. C-14 is radioactive; the others aren't. Since C-14 is generated constantly, the supply in the atmosphere is (very nearly) constant. Living things, by their very nature, are always taking in carbon. (Plants take it in in the form of Carbon Dioxide; animals consume sugars.) Since effectively all this carbon comes from the atmospehere, living plants and animals have the same ration of C-12, C-13, and C-14 as the atmospehere does. When a plant or animal dies, it stops taking in carbon. So from that point on it ceases to replenish C-14 as it breaks down. So, over time, the amount of C-14 breaks down, while the C-12 and C-14 remain behind. Carbon-14 dating works by taking a sample of a once-living thing and comparing the amounts of C-12, C-13, and C-14. The half-life of C-14 is (I *think* -- this is the part I would have to look up) 1440 years. So after 1440 years, the amount of C-14 is exactly what it was when the object died. After 2880 years, it is one-fourth. Etc. To get the *theoretical* carbon date, one just finds the ratio of carbon isotopes, then compares it with a graph of the C-14 decay rate. This part is very easy (a lot easier than measuring the quantities of the isotopes, which requires a very accurate mass spectrometer). Which returns us to the problems: First, C-14 is so rare in nature that it never constitutes more than a fraction of a percent of the total. So even a highly accurate mass spectrometer has about a 5% error (hence the inaccuracy of about a century in the findings). Second, the theoretical scheme doesn't work. I don't know why, and neither does anybody else. All dates have to be adjusted. And until we know *why*, it's hard to be sure that we are perfectly accurate. I hope this helps. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 13:08:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14999; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:07:13 -0400 X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/SMTP 2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Mike Phillips Subject: Re: Carbon dating Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 12:07:12 -0700 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2514 > From: "Robert B. Waltz" , on 8/25/96 8:49 AM: > Carbon-14 dating works by taking a sample of a once-living thing and > comparing the amounts of C-12, C-13, and C-14. The half-life of > C-14 is (I *think* -- this is the part I would have to look up) 1440 > years. So after 1440 years, the amount of C-14 is exactly what it was > when the object died. After 2880 years, it is one-fourth. Etc. To > get the *theoretical* carbon date, one just finds the ratio of carbon > isotopes, then compares it with a graph of the C-14 decay rate. This > part is very easy (a lot easier than measuring the quantities of the > isotopes, which requires a very accurate mass spectrometer). > > Which returns us to the problems: First, C-14 is so rare in nature that > it never constitutes more than a fraction of a percent of the total. So > even a highly accurate mass spectrometer has about a 5% error (hence the > inaccuracy of about a century in the findings). Second, the theoretical > scheme doesn't work. I don't know why, and neither does anybody else. > All dates have to be adjusted. And until we know *why*, it's hard to > be sure that we are perfectly accurate. The reason it doesn't work is due to the underlying assumption that C-12, C-13, and C-14 are deposited, each at their own rate, at constant rates (unique to each individual isotope) over time. Hence, the calculations depend on X amount of C-12 accruing in 100 years, Y amount of C-13 accruing in 100 years, and Z amount of C-14 accruing in 100 years. Since the ratio would be constant between C-12, C-13, and C-14, if this assumption was true, and since only C-14 decays (and the rate of that decay is known) then all the researcher need do is adjust the amount of C-14 in the sample back to it's "original" ratio by using the rate of decay, and determining the amount of time that decay was in process. The system fails because C-12, C-13, and C-14 are not deposited at the same rate in the atmosphere in any given period, i.e., solar flares, floods, meteor strikes, climactic changes, volcanic activity, plate shifts, etc., all may effect the rate at which C-12, C-13, and C-14 are 'made', hence 'assimilated', hence, 'occur.' The underlying assumption of constancy is the weak link. ------------- Mike Phillips mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of living thought and changes from day to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 14:50:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15269; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:50:00 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960825184554.006871a0@omail.eee.org> X-Sender: jt124041@omail.eee.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 11:45:54 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Jim Mendelson Subject: Re: Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1068 > Another point: I don't know how many of you know how carbon-14 dating > works, but it's based on the rate at which radioactive carbon 14 > breaks down. And, very disturbingly, it *doesn't work according to > the theory.* That is, when one carbon dates something, the ratios > of isotopes produce a theoretical date. Then the researcher *adjusts > the date* to make up for the fact that, when objects of known date > have been studied, the results don't match the theory. > Your absolutely right. And one of the biggest problems with C-14 dating is that it is dated in a "perfect environment". So no elements are allowed during the breakdown period. Think there ever was even one day in the history of the world that there was no temperature change, no weather change or no chemical breakdown in the earth's atmosphere? C-14 is nothing than a process to show that the earth and its elements are older than the Bible shows they are. In CHRIST, Jim jim_mendelson@eee.org From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 15:11:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15301; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:10:27 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:04:01 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2267 I realize this probably isn't of much interest to the list as a while, but maybe somebody cares.... On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Mike Phillips wrote: [snipping my remarks about the methods of radiocarbon dating... wouldn't you know that there's probably only one person on the list who understood what I said -- and he disagrees with me :-) ] > > The reason it doesn't work is due to the underlying assumption that >C-12, C-13, and C-14 are deposited, each at their own rate, at constant rates >(unique to each individual isotope) over time. Hence, the calculations depend >on X amount of C-12 accruing in 100 years, Y amount of C-13 accruing in 100 >years, and Z amount of C-14 accruing in 100 years. Since the ratio would be >constant between C-12, C-13, and C-14, if this assumption was true, and since >only C-14 decays (and the rate of that decay is known) then all the researcher >need do is adjust the amount of C-14 in the sample back to it's "original" >ratio by using the rate of decay, and determining the amount of time that >decay >was in process. > The system fails because C-12, C-13, and C-14 are not deposited at the >same rate in the atmosphere in any given period, i.e., solar flares, floods, >meteor strikes, climactic changes, volcanic activity, plate shifts, etc., all >may effect the rate at which C-12, C-13, and C-14 are 'made', hence >'assimilated', hence, 'occur.' The underlying assumption of constancy is the >weak link. But if the effect is not constant, how does one decide how much to correct -- particularly for early periods when we have no dated artifacts? Also, doesn't this mean that there will be *geographic* variations in C-14 count? I'm not saying you're wrong (though this strikes me as a theory supplied to explain away a failed method); I'm just asking how one can possibly apply the revised method? I would also remind people that this isn't really important to the point; the crucial matter is that radiocarbon dating can only date to the nearest century or so, and so is not much use in precisely dating manuscripts. This has nothing to do with theoretical problems; this is based simply on our inability to measure the amount of C-14 with absolute precision. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 15:17:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15323; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:16:50 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960825184554.006871a0@omail.eee.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:10:59 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1026 On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Jim Mendelson wrote: >Your absolutely right. And one of the biggest problems with C-14 dating >is that it is dated in a "perfect environment". So no elements are allowed >during the breakdown period. Think there ever was even one day in the >history of >the world that there was no temperature change, no weather change or no >chemical breakdown in the earth's atmosphere? C-14 is nothing than a >process to show that the earth and its elements are older than the Bible >shows they are. I'm not going to touch *that* with a ten-metre pole (some of us have scientific training, after all). But I will observe that "temperature change," "weather change," and "chemical breakdown" have no effect on the results of C-14 dating, which is a nuclear process dependent *only* on the radioactive behavior of C-14. In general, I accept the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. Even the wildest adjustments don't change the values by more than about 20%. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 17:46:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15686; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 17:45:56 -0400 X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/SMTP 2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Mike Phillips Subject: Re: Carbon dating Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:45:49 -0700 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2274 > From: "Robert B. Waltz" , on 8/25/96 2:04 PM: > But if the effect is not constant, how does one decide how much to correct -- > particularly for early periods when we have no dated artifacts? Also, > doesn't this mean that there will be *geographic* variations in C-14 > count? If you are reading me as defending -14 dating, you are misreading me. It is a method that can tell us something, but as a method, it relies to heavily on the assumptions (constant rate) that I've already dilineated which is precisely why it fails in so far as it cannot be depended upon. It's kind of like lagging marbles. It may or may not get you close. Other factors have to be employed. If I were going to define C-14 dating I'd call it a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess). Sometimes SWAGs are a great motivator for finding other means of verifying your (preliminary) conclusions -- unfortunately, more weight was placed on the SWAGs involving C-14 before it occured to anybody to check the assumptions, i.e., that any given sample may have been exposed to variables that causes the rate of deposition to be a variable unaccounted for by the method, i.e., a formula buster. > > I'm not saying you're wrong (though this strikes me as a theory supplied > to explain away a failed method); I'm just asking how one can possibly > apply the revised method? I think we agree more than you reckoned. I don't know, maybe I just sound like the kind of guy nobody would possibly want to agree with and provoke disagreement... > > I would also remind people that this isn't really important to the point; > the crucial matter is that radiocarbon dating can only date to the > nearest century or so, and so is not much use in precisely dating > manuscripts. This has nothing to do with theoretical problems; this > is based simply on our inability to measure the amount of C-14 with > absolute precision. > > Bob Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com I think that's an accurate assessment. Do you have a flag I could wave? ------------- Mike Phillips mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of living thought and changes from day to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 18:22:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15785; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 18:21:19 -0400 Message-Id: <199608252120.PAA20184@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:13:23 -7 Subject: Re: Carbon dating 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: 933 Bob Waltz wrote: > But I will observe that "temperature change," "weather change," and > "chemical breakdown" have no effect on the results of C-14 dating, > which is a nuclear process dependent *only* on the radioactive > behavior of C-14. I believe his point was that the generation and uptake of C-14 in relation to other carbon isotopes is affected by these factors (as opposed to its decay rate, which you correctly point out is a constant nuclear process), and hence we can't really assume that quantities of C-12, C-13 and C-14 will have started out equal. And without that equality factor, C-14 dating is on even less certain footing than we thought it was. I'm not enough of a molecular scientist to say whether I agree with this assessment, I just wanted to point out that this is what I understood him to be saying. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 19:19:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15994; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 19:18:29 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 19:14:56 -0400 Message-ID: <960825191455_509650713@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1193 In a message dated 96-08-25 18:26:05 EDT, Dave Washburn wrote: << I believe his point was that the generation and uptake of C-14 in relation to other carbon isotopes is affected by these factors (as opposed to its decay rate, which you correctly point out is a constant nuclear process), and hence we can't really assume that quantities of C-12, C-13 and C-14 will have started out equal. And without that equality factor, C-14 dating is on even less certain footing than we thought it was. I'm not enough of a molecular scientist to say whether I agree with this assessment, I just wanted to point out that this is what I understood him to be saying. >> I have read a couple of research reports that compare C-14 dates with tree-ring dates for bristle-cone pine trees. The evidence supports the fact that the level of C-14 in the atmosphere fluctuates over time, and that C-14 levels were significantly lower in remote antiquity. James D. Price ================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Prof. of Hebrew and OT Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ================================================== From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 21:12:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16245; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 21:10:58 -0400 X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/SMTP 2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Mike Phillips Subject: Re: Carbon dating Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 20:10:46 -0700 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: <199608252120.PAA20184@wave.sheridan.wy.us> In-Reply-To: <199608252120.PAA20184@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1606 > From: "Dave Washburn" , on 8/25/96 4:13 PM: > Bob Waltz wrote: > > But I will observe that "temperature change," "weather change," and > > "chemical breakdown" have no effect on the results of C-14 dating, > > which is a nuclear process dependent *only* on the radioactive > > behavior of C-14. > > I believe his point was that the generation and uptake of C-14 in > relation to other carbon isotopes is affected by these factors (as > opposed to its decay rate, which you correctly point out is a > constant nuclear process), and hence we can't really assume that > quantities of C-12, C-13 and C-14 will have started out equal. And > without that equality factor, C-14 dating is on even less certain > footing than we thought it was. Yes, that is what I was saying. The rate of deposition is not a constant, while the rate of decay is. If you have an unanticipated variable, you have too many variables (any variable unaccounted for by a formulaic expression makes the result variable). Yet, given the great amounts of time we're dealing with, some results might actually be worth having around. The problem is that we can't be certain which results are worth keeping without confirmation from other sources, hence, C-14 dating is not a stand-alone method (or at least, shouldn't be, though it has been used as such at times). ------------- Mike Phillips mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of living thought and changes from day to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 23:15:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16751; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:14:24 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960826030922.5dc7f23e@pop.washdc.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.washdc.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:09:22 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Carbon dating Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1389 At 08:10 8/25/96 -0700, Mike Phillips wrote: > Yes, that is what I was saying. The rate of deposition is not a >constant, while the rate of decay is. If you have an unanticipated variable, >you have too many variables (any variable unaccounted for by a formulaic >expression makes the result variable). Yet, given the great amounts of time >we're dealing with, some results might actually be worth having around. The >problem is that we can't be certain which results are worth keeping without >confirmation from other sources, hence, C-14 dating is not a stand-alone method >(or at least, shouldn't be, though it has been used as such at times). I think that is why the C-14 readings are calibrated to the dendro- chronological (tree rings, very precise) findings. The original point in this thread that the precision (i.e., the range of possible dates) of the C-14 dating is no better and perhaps worse than the paleo- graphical dating is a good one. C-14 dating is not the magic bullet. However, I believe that the C-14 dating of the DSS have shown that the old paleographical dating may have been off by a century. Paleography too has its drawbacks. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 26 00:54:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA17100; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 00:53:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199608260352.VAA27332@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:48:37 -7 Subject: Re: Carbon dating 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: 1569 Stephen Carlson wrote: > At 08:10 8/25/96 -0700, Mike Phillips wrote: > > Yes, that is what I was saying. The rate of deposition is not a > >constant, while the rate of decay is. If you have an unanticipated variable, > >you have too many variables (any variable unaccounted for by a formulaic > >expression makes the result variable). Yet, given the great amounts of time > >we're dealing with, some results might actually be worth having around. The > >problem is that we can't be certain which results are worth keeping without > >confirmation from other sources, hence, C-14 dating is not a stand-alone method > >(or at least, shouldn't be, though it has been used as such at times). > > I think that is why the C-14 readings are calibrated to the dendro- > chronological (tree rings, very precise) findings. The original point > in this thread that the precision (i.e., the range of possible dates) > of the C-14 dating is no better and perhaps worse than the paleo- > graphical dating is a good one. C-14 dating is not the magic bullet. > > However, I believe that the C-14 dating of the DSS have shown that the > old paleographical dating may have been off by a century. Paleography > too has its drawbacks. It's my understanding that Carbon-14 dating of some Dead Sea scrolls basically confirmed the accuracy of the paleographical datings that had been done. Do you know of NT manuscripts that have been C-14 dated that gave the results your describe? Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 26 13:01:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19609; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:59:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 09:55:18 PDT Message-Id: <9608261655.AA09178@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <960825191455_509650713@emout19.mail.aol.com> (DrJDPrice@aol.com) Subject: Re: Carbon dating Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1708 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There is a little confusion about who adjusts C-14 dates and how. The order of events goes like this a. People do C-14 dating assuming constant production of C-14 in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. b. They eventually see some discrepancies compared to known dates of artefacts, too large to be explainable as isotope measurement error. c. They _estimate_ the nonconstant rate of C-14 formation by fitting measurements to known dates. The variation is not huge. This gives an adjusted scale of concentrations <-> dates. d. They validate the estimates by tests of new known-date artefacts not included in the curve fitting process. After this point no more "adjusting" of dates occurs. e. They use the new validated curves, which give more accurate dates than before, and they occasionally scratch their heads over unrepeatable anomalies, just like in any other science. Anyone who fudges his data by "adjusting" a C-14 date just to fit some a priori theory of his (and admits it) gets laughed out of a job, I imagine. 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 iQCVAwUBMiHWwGCU4mTNq7IdAQG9MgP/VfYpqXJNpui6tdMDdDR/T2ZyvdO/i4Zk Mvn6jmYT2Nuwvyufb8OlqNW9S6gw5mxEV9giTUzniaG19A09nP4D9En/5SibVbau srKGhTM7oqvSYisFl+ISSXKckgdEBODi1Xv4ulH4grwGnigRX+rhCRSJsDWFQB57 zOIZ+HyiKSM= =c8mN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 26 14:02:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20033; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:59:17 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960826175415.5dc7ac70@pop.washdc.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.washdc.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:54:15 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Carbon dating Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1320 At 10:48 8/25/96 -7, Dave Washburn wrote: >Stephen Carlson wrote: >> However, I believe that the C-14 dating of the DSS have shown that the >> old paleographical dating may have been off by a century. Paleography >> too has its drawbacks. > >It's my understanding that Carbon-14 dating of some Dead Sea scrolls >basically confirmed the accuracy of the paleographical datings that >had been done. Do you know of NT manuscripts that have been C-14 >dated that gave the results your describe? I was referring to the doubts raised on IOUDAIOS-L last year about the paleographical dating of the "Herodian" script in the DSS (as far as I know the radiocarbon dating of the other DSS samples confirmed the paleography quite well). For example, the 1QpHab dated to 104-43 BCE, but the Herodian script ranges from 30 BCE - 70 CE. (The other sample in the Herodian script, 4Q171, dated to 22-78 CE.) See http://www.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-l/archives/9508c and 9510b for the discussion on IOUDAIOS-L. I don't know anything about the radiocarbon dating of NT mss (7Q5 wasn't tested ;-). Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 26 16:14:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21030; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:13:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:13:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19960826175415.5dc7ac70@pop.washdc.mindspring.com> 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: 2281 As others in this discussion have already noted, radiocarbon dating is by no means a straightforward exercise. Furthermore, the dates it gives may not be precise enough to answer the questions we may want to ask. The following points should be kept in mind by anyone using radiocarbon dates. 1. If possible, radiocarbon dates should be checked against dates determined by some other method (e.g., paleography, dendrochronology [tree rings], another radio-isotope dating method). Dates may also be checked against the "known date" that an event occurred. However, many people are calling for a reassessment of some of these "known dates" (cf. Peter James et al., _Centuries of Darkness_, which puts forward the case for compressing the period generally dated from ~1500 to 1000 in Europe and the Middle East), so they should be used with caution. 2. C14 was not distributed with perfect regularity over time, so adjustments to the "Apparent Radiocarbon Age" need to be made. Scientists working at radiocarbon testing facilities, however, have made extensive measurements of thousands of samples, so the amount of adjustment necessary for a particular sample can be approximated fairly well. 3. The amount of C14 in the immediately surrounding environment varies widely depending on whether an organism lived on land or in the ocean. There are other complicating factors as well related to the "radiocarbon reservoir." Despite the complexity involved in measuring radiocarbon dates, they are probably about as accurate as most other dating schemes for ancient materials, particularly when they are calibrated against the results of other methods. It is not a methodologically sound procedure to reject the results of a method just because the method itself is complex or the results do not correspond with our preconceived notions of dating. On the other hand, we need to be aware of the difficulties inherent in the method. For additional online information, see the Radiocarbon Web-Info page at http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html. 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 Mon Aug 26 17:23:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA21860; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:21:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 14:17:32 PDT Message-Id: <9608262117.AA09293@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199608240149.TAA03573@wave.sheridan.wy.us> (dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us) Subject: Re: Collation Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1272 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > there are plenty of minor orthographic differences between > virtually all manuscripts. You can get an idea of how much/little you gain from being able to see minor variations alongside major ones by looking at http://archimedes/gnt/manuscripts/Ka.tei where in Luke 13-15 you get a very detailed transcription of 7 witnesses, plus complete data on 7 more as far as the IGNTP reports it, with supporting attestation from a bunch more. Compare it with NA27 for a few verses, then imagine what hundreds more witnesses would do to the picture. It would be highly daunting to do on paper, but exciting in machine-readable form. 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 iQCVAwUBMiIUA2CU4mTNq7IdAQGBNAQAkKMKAKyEo7nbj5GczXCaHQhiF7sclLFn ER+ZAhxfZN04mctLi+bmUKqYiZMcOUc2sAN/6T0YH99gaw7HZ+iClGHDIlOODGVj iMOWzTK4mcPuLbQcXuA9GFmb2lQZEzxstf9Kq4/hPABM9smsZLf/f+QLpp3GAVTJ sc4wq86OKVg= =Z3ES -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 26 18:42:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA22974; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:41:04 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960826223635.006b1de8@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 15:36:35 -0700 To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2331 >From: REElliott@aol.com >Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:37:38 -0400 >Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? > >Fellow TC Colleagues: > >Is anyone aware of any software (for windows) which has the NA27 or UBS4 WITH >an aparatus? I would love to find some software for aiding in NT TC. >I was told by the "Bibleworks for Windows" company (Hermeneutika), that they >were working on adding this to their already wonderful bible software CD. >I encourage any and all TC subscribers to write and encourage the completion >of this addition to their software. You may write to: biblewrx@cyberport.net >or check the website: http://www.intr.net/bibleworks. >Thanks all. >In His Service >Rich Elliott (RE Elliott@aol.com) I'm sure that if you asked any of the scholarly software producers (GRAMCORD Institute, Logos, etc.), they would tell you that they are trying to get the apparatus into their program. The problem is not the software companies-- they'd put such a database into their programs in a heartbeat if they could get access to it. The problem is the reluctance of the United and German Bible societies; they are at this point unwilling to license out the data for electronic use. As I have been privy to some of these discussions, it seems that their basic concern is the misappropriation and misuse of the electronic versions, ie., someone makes a minor adjustment to the data and, voila, publishes their own GreekNT with textual apparatus (they had the same fears for the text, which delayed its electronic distribution for years). UBS has just recently appointed a new person to be in charge of electronic rights (Herr Dr. Bader), and as yet we don't know what his philosophy will be with respect licensing (I and some others have some requests pending...). Jimmy Adair or Harold Scanlin, who I believe is also on this list, from the ABS, might be able to supply some additional insight and up-to-date info on the licensing situation... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 26 19:27:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23225; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:26:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:22:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960826223635.006b1de8@mail.teleport.com> 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: 1701 On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > The problem is the reluctance of the United and German > Bible societies; they are at this point unwilling to license out the data > for electronic use. As I have been privy to some of these discussions, it > seems that their basic concern is the misappropriation and misuse of the > electronic versions, ie., someone makes a minor adjustment to the data and, > voila, publishes their own GreekNT with textual apparatus (they had the same > fears for the text, which delayed its electronic distribution for years). This is all the more reason why the bible societies should simply recognize and declare the biblical text itself to be public domain instead of trying to be selfishly proprietary with the very texts they were constituted to distribute freely or at the lowest possible cost. The same likewise should occur for the simple _factual_ data regarding manuscript variations in the apparati (mere facts under US law cannot be copyrighted). In view of the non-cooperation of the bible societies in this area, someone (anyone!) would do the entire scholarly community a wonderful service if they merely would prepare an electronic edition of the public domain texts and apparatuses of Tischendorf and/or Von Soden, with the older numbers simply converted to those in current use. Correction of errors in those apparati could be made later. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Aug 26 20:14:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA23343; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:13:29 -0400 X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 27-Aug-1996 9:39:06 -0400; at TP.BAEA To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <2364765001870370@-SMF-> Subject: C-14 dating assumptions From: AKULIKOV@baea.com.au (KULIKOVSKY, Andrew) Date: 27 Aug 96 09:39:03 EDT References: <2364765002870370@-SMF-> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1331 The most significant problem with C-14 dating is the assumption that C-14 decays at a constant rate. It has been shown in a laboratory (I can't remember the guys name off hand but I can look it up) that when C-14 is placed across a potential difference ie. in an electrical field, the rate of decay speeds up significantly This means that everytime an electrical storms passes by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual. Therefore, the dates obtained always indicate older ages. cheers, Andrew +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer | British Aerospace Australia | Technology Park, Adelaide | ph: +618 343 8211 | email: akulikov@baea.com.au | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, when you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IESOUS KURIOS! +------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 00:01:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA24249; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:00:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:00:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960826223635.006b1de8@mail.teleport.com> 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: 1184 I'm afraid I don't have any additional information about the licensing of the NT text with an apparatus (either NA or UBS). I, too, am very interested in making the text _and_ apparatus freely available to scholars via the Internet. Maybe a compromise that those at the Bible societies would be interested in would be to make the text and apparatus of UBS3 and NA26, which are not the latest editions, available. I'd be interested to hear from those associated with the Bible societies concerning this idea. I also second Maurice Robinson's suggestion that the texts & apparatuses of Tischendorf, Von Soden, etc., be keyed in and made available to all. This would supplement the work of the ENTMP (which is just doing mss, as far as I know). If someone is interested in heading up the project, at least to get started, we could use this list to coordinate efforts, and we could make results available on the TC home page. I'd really like to know if anyone is interested in either coordinating the project or participating in it. 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 Tue Aug 27 08:49:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA25745; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:48:26 -0400 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, broman@Np.nosc.mil Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:45:12 AST4ADT Subject: Re: Collation Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-Id: <709ECD3F9D@ace.acadiau.ca> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 310 > From: Vincent Broman > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Collation > http://archimedes/gnt/manuscripts/Ka.tei Try: http://archimedes.nosc.mil/gnt/manuscripts/Ka.tei Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 09:34:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26097; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:33:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:33:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) 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: 1249 This message ended up in my mailbox, but was intended for the list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:12:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Farrar To: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: your mail > The most significant problem with C-14 dating is the > assumption that C-14 decays at a constant rate. > > It has been shown in a laboratory (I can't remember > the guys name off hand but I can look it up) that when > C-14 is placed across a potential difference ie. in an > electrical field, the rate of decay speeds up significantly > > This means that everytime an electrical storms passes > by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual. > > Therefore, the dates obtained always indicate older ages. > > cheers, > Andrew > That is false. The largest known variation for element transmutation is 0.18% for 7Be. C has no significant natural variation. I've seen some accurate explanations, and a lot of complete nonsense on this thread. May I recommend a book, such as Sheridan Bowman, _Radiocarbon Dating_ from the UC/British Museum Interpreting the Past Series? Also check _Radiocarbon_ magazine, especially their calibration issues. (I believe the last one was vol. 35.) From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 09:46:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26216; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:45:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:45:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) In-Reply-To: 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: 1419 (Andrew S. Kulikovsky:) > > It has been shown in a laboratory (I can't remember > > the guys name off hand but I can look it up) that when > > C-14 is placed across a potential difference ie. in an > > electrical field, the rate of decay speeds up significantly > > > > This means that everytime an electrical storms passes > > by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual. > (Paul Farrar:) > That is false. > > The largest known variation for element transmutation is 0.18% for > 7Be. C has no significant natural variation. I agree with Paul Farrar here. We have to distinguish variation in the rate of _deposit_ of C14 in the environment (due to volcanic activity, meteorites, etc.), which does occur, from variation in the rate of decay, which is a process internal to the Carbon atom. It seems unlikely to me that one fundamental force of nature (the electromagnetic) would affect the workings of another fundamental force (the weak nuclear force, if I remember correctly, is what causes nuclear decay in radioactive substances), at least under normal circumstances (i.e., outside of a particle accelerator, where the various forces tend toward a single force, according to theory). 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 Tue Aug 27 09:47:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26231; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:46:53 -0400 From: Paul Farrar Message-Id: <199608271339.IAA22782@osh1.datasync.com> Subject: Re: Carbon dating To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:39:09 -0500 (CDT) 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: 1308 > The most significant problem with C-14 dating is the > assumption that C-14 decays at a constant rate. > > It has been shown in a laboratory (I can't remember > the guys name off hand but I can look it up) that when > C-14 is placed across a potential difference ie. in an > electrical field, the rate of decay speeds up significantly > > This means that everytime an electrical storms passes > by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual. > > Therefore, the dates obtained always indicate older ages. > > cheers, > Andrew > That is incorrect. The largest known variation for element transmutation is 0.18% for 7Be. C has no significant natural variation. I've seen some accurate explanations, and a lot of complete nonsense on this thread. May I recommend a book, such as Sheridan Bowman, _Radiocarbon Dating_ from the UC/British Museum Interpreting the Past Series? Also check _Radiocarbon_ magazine, especially their calibration issues. (I believe the last one was vol. 35.) -- | Paul Farrar | | home -- http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/ | email -- farrar@datasync.com | | earth science pages -- http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/earth_sci.html | | work -- farrar@msrcnavo.navy.mil | From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 09:49:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26270; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:48:05 -0400 From: Paul Farrar Message-Id: <199608271340.IAA22855@osh1.datasync.com> Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:40:23 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "James R. Adair" at Aug 27, 96 09:33:23 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: 59 Sorry, I used the reply function, and didn't check headers From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 10:36:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26762; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:35:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 22:51:00 +0800 (WST) From: "James K. Tauber" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? In-Reply-To: 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: 643 On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > In view of the non-cooperation of the bible societies in this area, > someone (anyone!) would do the entire scholarly community a wonderful > service if they merely would prepare an electronic edition of the public > domain texts and apparatuses of Tischendorf and/or Von Soden, with the > older numbers simply converted to those in current use. Correction of > errors in those apparati could be made later. Tim and I have talked about this for a while as a first big step for the ENTMP. James K. Tauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 10:41:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26799; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:40:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 22:55:24 +0800 (WST) From: "James K. Tauber" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? In-Reply-To: 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: 1059 On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > I also second Maurice Robinson's suggestion that the texts & apparatuses > of Tischendorf, Von Soden, etc., be keyed in and made available to all. > This would supplement the work of the ENTMP (which is just doing mss, as > far as I know). No, the ENTMP is very much interested in apparatus too. > If someone is interested in heading up the project, at > least to get started, we could use this list to coordinate efforts, and we > could make results available on the TC home page. I'd really like to know > if anyone is interested in either coordinating the project or > participating in it. Once the ENTMP site has finished moving over to the U.S., I'll gladly provide as much information as needed on how people can help the ENTMP, keying in aparatus, manuscript transcriptions and more. There's no need to start anything new up as it would just duplicate parts of what the ENTMP is trying to do. James K. Tauber Associate Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 10:52:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26898; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:51:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:51:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? In-Reply-To: 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: 744 On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, James K. Tauber wrote: > Once the ENTMP site has finished moving over to the U.S., I'll gladly > provide as much information as needed on how people can help the ENTMP, > keying in aparatus, manuscript transcriptions and more. > There's no need to start anything new up as it would just duplicate parts > of what the ENTMP is trying to do. I absolutely agree. Since the ENTMP is interested in doing Tischendorf et al., all of us who are interested should work with them. I know they will take volunteers! 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 Tue Aug 27 11:24:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27157; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:23:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 08:19:11 PDT Message-Id: <9608271519.AA09371@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, nt-mss@entmp.org In-Reply-To: (jtauber@entmp.org) Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1269 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > I also second Maurice Robinson's suggestion that the texts & apparatuses > of Tischendorf, Von Soden, etc., be keyed in... Clint Yale has produced the text of Tischendorf8 (the lemma) in machine-readable form (which he sent me) and is now working on the apparatus, using OCR plus proof-reading. It looks hard and I don't know the schedule, but no one should start without coordinating with him. Maurice Robinson intended some time back to produce conversion tables between Tischendorf - Von Soden - Gregory sigla for MSS, based on Gregory's Textkritik (now PD) et al. I'm not sure how far along he is with that task. 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 iQCVAwUBMiMRqWCU4mTNq7IdAQGi4gQAgjy03EN10d7hEL5KswjXsdefXOsOwVyg XgAUKpa9Tt1U0KtSoMtx1I1sXgwSkstymNUnD8ssFE2U4skbohHSt/I8o5IOQYWd fhqn7C/99lT1jQSau5xX8x3PnkO9x/am/UkU71M7cTVbFbwEcQr80VU7pX6nAjtZ AwQ+NiDhGT4= =OYop -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 13:05:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27697; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:04:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:01:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Conversion tables for Tisch. and V.S. In-Reply-To: <9608271519.AA09371@Np.nosc.mil> 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: 1055 Is there something wrong with the conversion tables in Kurt Aland, _Kurzgefasste Liste der Grichischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments_, 2nd ed. 1994 (pp. 377-427)? These indicate the equivalents of Tischendorf's and von Soden's ms designations in Gregory numbers and, helpfully as well, provide a reverse conversion of Gregory to von Soden, in three separate tables. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > > Maurice Robinson intended some time back to produce conversion > tables between Tischendorf - Von Soden - Gregory sigla > for MSS, based on Gregory's Textkritik (now PD) et al. > I'm not sure how far along he is with that task. > > > 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 ___ From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 16:35:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA29735; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:34:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 13:10:42 PDT Message-Id: <9608272010.AA09517@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: (message from Bart Ehrman on Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:01:01 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Conversion tables for Tisch. and V.S. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 135 > Is there something wrong with the conversion tables in Kurt Aland, > _Kurzgefasste Liste... Only copyright restrictions. V Broman From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 20:24:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA01325; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 20:21:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 20:16:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: nt-mss@entmp.org Subject: Tischendorf et al In-Reply-To: <9608271519.AA09371@Np.nosc.mil> 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: 1685 On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > Clint Yale has produced the text of Tischendorf8 (the lemma) > in machine-readable form (which he sent me) and is now working > on the apparatus, using OCR plus proof-reading. It looks hard > and I don't know the schedule, but no one should start without > coordinating with him. I don't know if you have Clint's latest version, but his initial version was so chock-full of errors that I suggested he redo from start. I still intend later to go over his text in light of the collation data from the N26/27 appendix. Until then (or until someone else checks it carefully), I would take it as Tischendorf in less than reliable form. > Maurice Robinson intended some time back to produce conversion > tables between Tischendorf - Von Soden - Gregory sigla > for MSS, based on Gregory's Textkritik (now PD) et al. > I'm not sure how far along he is with that task. Believe it or not, I am about 2/3 of the way complete on that lengthy project. Full page scanning from Gregory got most of the numbers ok, though there still were numerous errors, and these all have to be manually checked, and the ASCII data reformatted significantly. I would be happy to release the portions which are complete, but unless someone has a pressing need for this material in incomplete form, I think it would be best to make all available at one time. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Aug 27 20:26:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA01338; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 20:24:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 20:21:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Conversion tables for Tisch. and V.S. In-Reply-To: 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: 1323 On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Bart Ehrman wrote: > Is there something wrong with the conversion tables in Kurt Aland, > _Kurzgefasste Liste der Grichischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments_, > 2nd ed. 1994 (pp. 377-427)? These indicate the equivalents of Tischendorf's > and von Soden's ms designations in Gregory numbers and, helpfully as > well, provide a reverse conversion of Gregory to von Soden, in three > separate tables. Absolutely nothing wrong with those, Bart, and in fact I have my own personal electronic form of those already scanned in. *;-) The problem is in getting permission to post these data from the highly proprietary folk at Muenster and/or Walter deGruyter in Berlin. I would definitely be pleased if in your capacity within the SBL textual criticism seminar if you could convincingly persuade them to give permission for free and unhindered presentation on the internet. Please try, and it will save me a LOT of time working with the errors and formatting of the scanned-in Gregory data. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 28 00:37:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA02239; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:28:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:24:39 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: More C-14 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: 1313 Sorry to mention C-14 in the first place. The comment about the testing the ink was interesting, but I don't think many curator's would take kindly to someone scraping all the ink off as many pages as it takes to get the required sample size. But there are other less destructive procedures you could do to get some useful information from early NT mss. 1) Fluorescent spectroscopy to determine ink composition. 2) Create an 'image cube' of particularly important mss. E.g. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (04) to try to recover the underlying text. An image cube is a set of narrow wavelength band images of the same think. The procedure is described by Gregory H. Bearman and Sheila I. Spiro in their article 'Archaeological applications of advanced imaging techniques', _Biblical Archaeologist_, 59:1 (1996). 3) Get a pollen sample from the ms (use a clean piece of sticky tape, press it on, pull it off and you have a pollen sample). Give this to someone with an electron microscope and they might be able to tell you where in the world it came from. I have no idea how reliable this test is. All of these procedures would be expensive. I think the second one is the most promising. Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 28 03:22:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA02691; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:07:33 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:03:00 -0400 Message-ID: <960828030259_467004188@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 441 I think Jimmy Adair's suggestion is very good; that is to first get the NA26 and/or UBS3 for internet dissemination since these are no longer the profit makers and would have no profit loss for the separate Bible societies. For James and Tim at ENTMP, the electronic publication of these works seems to me a paramount inclusion to their project (although I, as most, would really want the most up-to-date version - NA27/UBS4). Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 28 09:42:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03821; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:39:49 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <960828030259_467004188@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:28:14 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1206 On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, REElliott@aol.com wrote: >I think Jimmy Adair's suggestion is very good; that is to first get the NA26 >and/or UBS3 for internet dissemination since these are no longer the profit >makers and would have no profit loss for the separate Bible societies. >For James and Tim at ENTMP, the electronic publication of these works seems >to me a paramount inclusion to their project (although I, as most, would >really want the most up-to-date version - NA27/UBS4). >Rich Elliott I'm not sure I agree. Oh, an on-line version of the UBS text would be nice, and the apparatus nicer still -- but I actually already *have* the UBS text in electronic form (Zondervan sells it). And if I need to consult the apparatus, I have both UBS3 and UBS4. What's more, the text is readily and inexpensively available for those who need it. But how about a collation of, say, 6, or 33, or 424, or 1175, or 1739? The only one of those that's available at my local seminary library is 1739 -- and even that has some defects. So I would argue that the ENTMP should start by making collations available, not commonly-available editions. My own humble opinion, of course. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 28 12:15:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04938; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:13:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199608281512.JAA18147@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 10:09:06 -7 Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? 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: 821 Jimmy Adair wrote:" > I also second Maurice Robinson's suggestion that the texts & apparatuses > of Tischendorf, Von Soden, etc., be keyed in and made available to all. > This would supplement the work of the ENTMP (which is just doing mss, as > far as I know). If someone is interested in heading up the project, at > least to get started, we could use this list to coordinate efforts, and we > could make results available on the TC home page. I'd really like to know > if anyone is interested in either coordinating the project or > participating in it. I'm already involved in doing transcription etc. for ENTMP, and can easily see some "cross-platform" possibilities here...I'll be glad to help out any way I can. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 28 23:09:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA09141; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:08:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:05:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Software for NT TC?? In-Reply-To: <960828030259_467004188@emout10.mail.aol.com> 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: 1227 On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 REElliott@aol.com wrote: > I think Jimmy Adair's suggestion is very good; that is to first get the NA26 > and/or UBS3 for internet dissemination since these are no longer the profit > makers and would have no profit loss for the separate Bible societies. > For James and Tim at ENTMP, the electronic publication of these works seems > to me a paramount inclusion to their project (although I, as most, would > really want the most up-to-date version - NA27/UBS4). Since the text (but not the apparatus) of the UBS3/N26 is identical to that of the UBS4/N27, the same objections would be made to its dissemination. The facts are plain: most of those who are in it for the money are proprietary to the core, and require absolute control over anything they produce, even if it is 99.44% public domain material. It is not likely that such people will ever release anything for free and open scholarly use. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Aug 28 23:17:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA09229; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:16:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199608290215.UAA09594@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:12:24 -7 Subject: Paleo-Hebrew font 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: 1085 I got a few requests for my archaic Hebrew font, so rather than try to mail it to several people (my mailer isn't all that reliable with attachments) I put a link to it on my home page so it can be downloaded directly. My home page is http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html The font file is http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/siloam.zip This file includes the .afm, .pfm and .pfb files needed for Adobe Type Manager to install and use the font. I hope to make some improvements to the typeface in coming months, and also to create a TrueType version of it. For now, as I said before, it's nothing spectacular, but it works. I find that it looks better when it's a couple of points bigger than the surrounding type, and bolded. Jimmy, if you want to put a copy of it on the TC server with the other fonts, that's fine with me. I don't consider it private or protected in any way. And if anybody improves it or makes a TrueType version of it, all I ask is that you send me a copy! Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 13:28:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13181; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:26:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: P75's inverted text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960829132157.22cf4d9a@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: 380 I would be grateful if someone could explain the significance of the inverted lines at John 8:22 in P75. They seem to have nothing to do with the context, and are simply out of place. Thanks, Jim West ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 14:02:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13381; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:01:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 10:57:09 PDT Message-Id: <9608291757.AA09910@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: "in ras" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 845 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Could anyone tell me what "in ras" means in a MS collation? I could not dig anything appropriate out of my latin dictionary, but context and etymological atmosphere suggest something about erasures. 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 iQCVAwUBMiXZo2CU4mTNq7IdAQGNKAP/Xs9ut6U22rI+agNGcDiE1euo91XpwPE8 NlfwsVQ6x5cgbUtD+YBr5BQAakOP6e75OQvYwxGDWsNZGnSUzRmqQ5sARGGYUPXg juOY/jJ3C9iVTpepglq5o0ZxDcrkds+16IRgM4wjeyHxT7PuaDO0WAP6190AoHTU cs7FHQAgvHY= =a6Fm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 15:10:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13903; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:08:24 -0400 From: Joe_Adler@tvo.org >From: Joe_Adler@tvo.org (Joe Adler) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "in ras" Date: 29 Aug 1996 20:03:43 GMT Message-Id: <65535.766044@tvo.org> Organization: TVOntario's Online System Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 246 Hello everyone...... I am looking for a good source (I.e., Journal article or Text) that compares the Book of Chronicles with the Book of Samuel, particularly with respect to the story of King David. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Joe From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 15:21:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13977; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:20:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: "in ras" X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960829151621.2637550e@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: 501 At 10:57 AM 8/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >Could anyone tell me what "in ras" means in a MS collation? >I could not dig anything appropriate out of my latin dictionary, >but context and etymological atmosphere suggest something about erasures. > >Vincent Broman Maybe its just a misspelling for "in res"(?) JIm West ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 16:35:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14484; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:31:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: "in ras" X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19960829162643.22df25de@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: 638 At 08:03 PM 8/29/96 +0000, you wrote: >Hello everyone...... > >I am looking for a good source (I.e., Journal article or Text) that compares >the Book of Chronicles with the Book of Samuel, particularly with respect to >the story of King David. > >Any suggestions would be appreciated. > >Joe Jurgen Kegler and Matthias Augustin edited a volume titled "Synopse zum Chrosisischen Geschichtswerk" It has the Dtr. and the Chr. in parallel columns in Hebrew. Jim West ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 16:47:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14635; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:46:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199608291945.NAA06583@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:41:58 -7 Subject: Re: "in ras" 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: 601 > At 08:03 PM 8/29/96 +0000, you wrote: > >Hello everyone...... > > > >I am looking for a good source (I.e., Journal article or Text) that compares > >the Book of Chronicles with the Book of Samuel, particularly with respect to > >the story of King David. > > > >Any suggestions would be appreciated. > > > >Joe In English there's always the classic Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles by Crockett, published by Baker. I understand that Baker has also published a newer such text based on the RSV. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "Just reach out, and He'll reach in..." From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 17:03:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14750; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:02:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:02:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "in ras" In-Reply-To: <9608291757.AA09910@Np.nosc.mil> 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: 546 On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > Could anyone tell me what "in ras" means in a MS collation? > I could not dig anything appropriate out of my latin dictionary, > but context and etymological atmosphere suggest something about erasures. Vincent, I believe it refers to text that has been erased, but can still be made out. 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 Thu Aug 29 17:20:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14872; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:19:06 -0400 Message-ID: <32260901.49D3BB38@repurk.mw.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:17:53 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu CC: lars@repurk.mw.com Subject: Accents References: 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: 640 I have a relatively simple question regarding manuscripts. If this group is not appropriate, please let me know. Our Greek texts like Westcott & Hort and UBS all have accents on the words. I understand that uncial manuscripts did not have accents. I was told that miniscule manuscripts did have accents. In some cases the accents can affect translation. Is the placement of accents up to the editors of the Greek text, are they taken from miniscules, or are the rules for accents unambiguous ? If this is not compatible with the purpose of this list, is there another list which would deal with this issue. Thanks in advance, -lars From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 18:53:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15367; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:52:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199608292244.SAA07803@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: "in ras" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1296 I believe that "in ras" is an abbreviation for something to do with "erasure" literally "scraped" In Tacitus it carries the meaning "to erase" from the verb _rado_ At 10:57 AM 8/29/96 PDT, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Could anyone tell me what "in ras" means in a MS collation? >I could not dig anything appropriate out of my latin dictionary, >but context and etymological atmosphere suggest something about erasures. > >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 > >iQCVAwUBMiXZo2CU4mTNq7IdAQGNKAP/Xs9ut6U22rI+agNGcDiE1euo91XpwPE8 >NlfwsVQ6x5cgbUtD+YBr5BQAakOP6e75OQvYwxGDWsNZGnSUzRmqQ5sARGGYUPXg >juOY/jJ3C9iVTpepglq5o0ZxDcrkds+16IRgM4wjeyHxT7PuaDO0WAP6190AoHTU >cs7FHQAgvHY= >=a6Fm >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > 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 Thu Aug 29 20:07:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15608; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 20:06:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 20:02:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Paul F. Schaffner" X-Sender: pfs@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: re:in ras 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: 350 in ras. = "on an erasure"; i.e., the text now visible and recorded by the editor is written on top of something else, no longer visible because erased. ("ras." = Germ. rasur). ________________________________________________________ Paul Schaffner http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/ Middle English Dictionary pfs@umich.edu From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 20:57:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15819; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 20:56:47 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32260901.49D3BB38@repurk.mw.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:50:44 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Accents Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2125 On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Alan Repurk wrote: >I have a relatively simple question regarding manuscripts. If >this group is not appropriate, please let me know. If it involves manuscripts, I'd say it's appropriate. :-) >Our Greek texts like Westcott & Hort and UBS all have accents on >the words. I understand that uncial manuscripts did not have >accents. I was told that miniscule manuscripts did have accents. It's a little more complicated than that. It's true that the papyri and early uncials have almost no accents, breathings, word divisions, or punctuation (I say "almost no" accents because many have some kind of mark for word divisions or breathings; they just don't *use* them). But *late* uncials such as K will show most of those markings, and some valuable minuscules such as 33 have relatively few accents (if you look at the Nestle apparatus at a place where an accent affects the interpretation -- for example, Rom. 3:6 -- you'll notice that B** D** K L have accents, while 33 lacks them). >In some cases the accents can affect translation. Is the placement >of accents up to the editors of the Greek text, are they taken >from miniscules, or are the rules for accents unambiguous ? The editors apply accents as they see fit. Usually there is no question about accents or breathings; the editors will follow the usage of Blass or some other authority. Sometimes this will place them in conflict with the manuscripts (I remember that there is an instance -- I don't remember what it is -- where the only manuscript to support the UBS accent is 1506). Also, there are places where scholars disagree on accents (see, for example, the comments in the UBS3 commentary volume at Phil. 3:21, Col. 1:20). To sum up: If you see a *very* strong reason to question word division, accents, breathings, or (especially) punctuation, you can alter it; these things have no strong manuscript basis. However, what you see in the printed editions generally represents scholarly consensus -- indeed, there is probably more agreement here than on the original text! Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Aug 29 23:29:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16215; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:27:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199608300324.XAA11122@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:30:03 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Re: "in ras" Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 775 Vincent Broman wrote: > Could anyone tell me what "in ras" means in a MS collation? > I could not dig anything appropriate out of my latin dictionary, > but context and etymological atmosphere suggest something about erasures. "In ras" is an abbreviation for "in rasura". It indicates that the reading was written over an erasure. Best wishes, Richard Weis ******************************************************************************* Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-908-246-5591 17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-908-937-8185 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA ******************************************************************************* From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 30 00:36:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16528; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:35:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:32:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "in ras" In-Reply-To: <199608300324.XAA11122@erebus.rutgers.edu> 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: 1430 On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Richard D. Weis wrote: > > Could anyone tell me what "in ras" means in a MS collation? > > I could not dig anything appropriate out of my latin dictionary, > > but context and etymological atmosphere suggest something about erasures. > > "In ras" is an abbreviation for "in rasura". It indicates that the > reading was written over an erasure. Not exactly -- it means the text originally contained a certain reading which had later been erased, but the original reading is still visible in the erased portion. The reading indicated as "in ras" is that original reading, and not the replacement reading (if any). Some twenty years ago I collated an interesting MS at Duke in which the original text of Luke was apparently of the f1 type, but which a later scribe had systematically erased and replaced with the standard Byzantine text. Where words were replaced, he or she simply erased and wrote over the erased portion; however, where words were omitted with no replacement, the scribe just left a lengthy blank space, and it was in that portion where the words "in ras" could most easily be read. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 30 04:59:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA17217; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:55:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:50:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: Johannes van der Tak X-Sender: joannest@cclsun01 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "in ras" In-Reply-To: <9608291757.AA09910@Np.nosc.mil> 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: 1419 "in ras" means "in rasura", denoting text that has been obliterated in some way, but still legible on film, photo or original. You may add these tags to your witness files while preparing them them for collation in the collation program 'Collate' by Peter Robinson. I have some quite good experience with it in the field of the Slavic version of the NT. Contact me for details. Johannes van der Tak University of Amsterdam, Slavic department e-mail johannes.van.der.tak@let.uva.nl On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Could anyone tell me what "in ras" means in a MS collation? > I could not dig anything appropriate out of my latin dictionary, > but context and etymological atmosphere suggest something about erasures. > > 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 > > iQCVAwUBMiXZo2CU4mTNq7IdAQGNKAP/Xs9ut6U22rI+agNGcDiE1euo91XpwPE8 > NlfwsVQ6x5cgbUtD+YBr5BQAakOP6e75OQvYwxGDWsNZGnSUzRmqQ5sARGGYUPXg > juOY/jJ3C9iVTpepglq5o0ZxDcrkds+16IRgM4wjeyHxT7PuaDO0WAP6190AoHTU > cs7FHQAgvHY= > =a6Fm > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 30 16:05:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA20820; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:02:52 -0400 Message-Id: <322747F0.62BA@eee.org> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 12:58:40 -0700 From: Jim Mendelson Organization: Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) References: 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: 2041 James R. Adair wrote: > > This message ended up in my mailbox, but was intended for the list. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:12:34 -0500 (CDT) > From: Paul Farrar > To: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: Re: your mail > > > The most significant problem with C-14 dating is the > > assumption that C-14 decays at a constant rate. > > > > It has been shown in a laboratory (I can't remember > > the guys name off hand but I can look it up) that when > > C-14 is placed across a potential difference ie. in an > > electrical field, the rate of decay speeds up significantly > > > > This means that everytime an electrical storms passes > > by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual. > > > > Therefore, the dates obtained always indicate older ages. > > > > cheers, > > Andrew > > > > That is false. > > The largest known variation for element transmutation is 0.18% for > 7Be. C has no significant natural variation. > > I've seen some accurate explanations, and a lot of complete nonsense > on this thread. May I recommend a book, such as Sheridan Bowman, > _Radiocarbon Dating_ from the UC/British Museum Interpreting the Past > Series? Also check _Radiocarbon_ magazine, especially their calibration > issues. (I believe the last one was vol. 35.) James--I know that you believe or trust C14 test, and may JESUS CHRIST bless you for that. But make sure when you give references like you do for these issues, tell us weather or not the books or magazines are bias or not. I am a creationist and I would never use National Geographic for a reference, even though they use some good material. They are 100% evolution, so how can a Christian use them as a reference. Science magazine is another example. I belong to a Creation board and 1000's of scientist's around the globe don't use C14 because it is so inacurrate. Put a scroll in a dark cold place, put another in the sun and wind and rain. 2000 years later, which has dated more? Take care, From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 30 16:49:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21270; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:47:42 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <322747F0.62BA@eee.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:41:35 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Theology on this list (was: Re: Carbon dating (fwd)) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2072 On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Jim Mendelson wrote: >James--I know that you believe or trust C14 test, and may JESUS CHRIST >bless you for that. But make sure when you give references like you do >for these issues, tell us weather or not the books or magazines are bias >or not. I am a creationist and I would never use National Geographic >for a reference, even though they use some good material. They are 100% >evolution, so how can a Christian use them as a reference. Science >magazine is another example. I belong to a Creation board and 1000's of >scientist's around the globe don't use C14 because it is so inacurrate. >Put a scroll in a dark cold place, put another in the sun and wind and >rain. 2000 years later, which has dated more? Take care, I find this post very disturbing. Please, folks, let's keep theology off this list. As soon as that starts, our ability to exchange information becomes badly damaged. Jim Mendelson admits to being a creationist, and presumably thinks those of us who are not to be less than perfect Christians. I admit to believing in the law of conservation of mass-energy, and I freely admit that I think those who believe otherwise are less than rational. But I can exchange information with those people, as long as they don't get obnoxious about it. The people on this list, be it noted, come from all different denominations -- and normally don't talk about it. So please, let's *not* start in on theology. This list is devoted to textual criticism. Let's keep the discussion on that topic. Though I can't help one last comment. In this case, about radiocarbon dating. Be it noted that even a creationist should be able to accept C-14 dating, as long as the date is within the last five thousand years or so. It's only *before* that that problems come in. After all, you must have some belief in science if you are using a computer... and electric lights... and sterile bandages... and automobiles... and telephones... and food grown with modern farm machinery.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Aug 30 16:54:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21332; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:52:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199608302047.QAA15421@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: Harmony of Samuel/Kings/Chronicles Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1202 William Day Crockett's _A Harmony of the Books of Samuel Kings and Chronicles._ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952. Based on the RV of 1885 Another is edited by James Newsome, _A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. It is based upon the RSV. At 04:27 PM 8/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 08:03 PM 8/29/96 +0000, you wrote: >>Hello everyone...... >> >>I am looking for a good source (I.e., Journal article or Text) that compares >>the Book of Chronicles with the Book of Samuel, particularly with respect to >>the story of King David. >> >>Any suggestions would be appreciated. >> >>Joe > >Jurgen Kegler and Matthias Augustin edited a volume titled "Synopse zum >Chrosisischen Geschichtswerk" >It has the Dtr. and the Chr. in parallel columns in Hebrew. > >Jim West > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI >Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology > > > 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 Fri Aug 30 20:24:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA22094; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:23:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:23:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) In-Reply-To: <322747F0.62BA@eee.org> 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: 1579 On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Jim Mendelson wrote: > James--I know that you believe or trust C14 test, and may JESUS CHRIST > bless you for that. But make sure when you give references like you do > for these issues, tell us weather or not the books or magazines are bias > or not. I am a creationist and I would never use National Geographic > for a reference, even though they use some good material. They are 100% > evolution, so how can a Christian use them as a reference. Science > magazine is another example. I belong to a Creation board and 1000's of > scientist's around the globe don't use C14 because it is so inacurrate. > Put a scroll in a dark cold place, put another in the sun and wind and > rain. 2000 years later, which has dated more? Take care, Jim, In the first place, this list is not the place to debate creation vs. evolution. Second, if you will re-read the message you quoted, you will note that I merely forwarded someone else's message (on that occasion, although I did address the issue in a different post). I think we have probably addressed the C14 issue sufficiently, at least for the purposes of the present list, since it is after all something of a tangent, so I will leave it to the members of the list to come to their own conclusions about radiocarbon dating on the basis of the various arguments that have been put forward. 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 Fri Aug 30 21:03:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA22234; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:02:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:59:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Williams To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Harmony of Samuel/Kings/Chronicles In-Reply-To: <199608302047.QAA15421@utc-01.campus.mci.net> 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: 894 In regards to a harmony of the DtrH and Chronicles, version 2.0 of Accordance software for biblical studies from the GRAMCORD Institute also has a parallel text module available in which the texts can be displayed in parallel columns in any text or translation that you have on the system (e.g., BHS, LXX, NRSV, JPS, NIV, etc.). With the same module you also get a synposis of the gospels (based on Aland) and OT quotes in the NT. (Accordance 2.0 is for the MacOS). -Tyler ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler F. Williams Wycliffe College, Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto Phone:(416) 963-9082 * Fax:(416) 979-0471 * E-mail:twilliam@chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~twilliam ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 31 03:01:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA23276; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 03:00:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 03:00:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199608310700.DAA23271@scholar.cc.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5728 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but these difficulties can be overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in the early stages of implementation (our first articles are now ready!), and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 31 05:15:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA23577; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 05:14:00 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 05:10:22 -0400 Message-ID: <960831051021_273808270@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2229 Jim Mendelson wrote to Jim adair: >James--I know that you believe or trust C14 test, and may JESUS CHRIST >bless you for that. But make sure when you give references like you do >for these issues, tell us weather or not the books or magazines are bias >or not. I am a creationist and I would never use National Geographic >for a reference, even though they use some good material. They are 100% >evolution, so how can a Christian use them as a reference. Science >magazine is another example. I belong to a Creation board and 1000's of >scientist's around the globe don't use C14 because it is so inacurrate. >Put a scroll in a dark cold place, put another in the sun and wind and >rain. 2000 years later, which has dated more? Seems to me, in my Christian life, that the (secular) world of science (evolutionarily biased as it may be) has done quite a bit of valid research and discovery in fields such as archaeology and Near Eastern studies to substantiate the validity of the Bible. Don't get me wrong; I'm a staunch creationist (young Earth or old, doesn't matter). I believe that the Bible is God's 100% inspired Word, living and true. But, if an atheistic scientist supplies me with the evidence I need to destroy his presuppositional and a priori argumentation, then I'll take it. I don't care who comes up with the evidence, but we as open minded and honest Christians should be willing to examine the evidence and evaluate it for what it is worth. No, I do not expect to find any balanced reporting in National Geographic in terms of theology, but they have printed things that have supported the Bible. And Mr. Mendelson, as far as I can see, 99% of all books are biased. It is again our job to evaluate them, point out errors and find the truth. It must be very frustrating to be an atheistic archaeologist. I view their frustration as God's pre-punishment to those (atheists and agnostics) seeking to destroy His Word (or offer a means of salvation). I have a little saying to sum it up: The longer they dig, trying to bury God, they end up deeper and deeper in a hole while supplying the world with more reasons to believe! In His Service Rich Elliott p.s. Where's any Mormon archaeologists??? From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 31 12:47:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24648; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 12:45:55 -0400 Message-Id: <32286B49.5D9B@eee.org> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:41:46 -0700 From: Jim Mendelson Organization: Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) References: <960831051021_273808270@emout09.mail.aol.com> 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: 2689 > Seems to me, in my Christian life, that the (secular) world of science > (evolutionarily biased as it may be) has done quite a bit of valid research > and discovery in fields such as archaeology and Near Eastern studies to > substantiate the validity of the Bible. Don't get me wrong; I'm a staunch > creationist (young Earth or old, doesn't matter). I believe that the Bible > is God's 100% inspired Word, living and true. But, if an atheistic scientist > supplies me with the evidence I need to destroy his presuppositional and a > priori argumentation, then I'll take it. I don't care who comes up with the > evidence, but we as open minded and honest Christians should be willing to > examine the evidence and evaluate it for what it is worth. No, I do not > expect to find any balanced reporting in National Geographic in terms of > theology, but they have printed things that have supported the Bible. And > Mr. Mendelson, as far as I can see, 99% of all books are biased. It is again > our job to evaluate them, point out errors and find the truth. > It must be very frustrating to be an atheistic archaeologist. I view their > frustration as God's pre-punishment to those (atheists and agnostics) seeking > to destroy His Word (or offer a means of salvation). I have a little saying > to sum it up: The longer they dig, trying to bury God, they end up deeper and > deeper in a hole while supplying the world with more reasons to believe! > In His Service > Rich Elliott > p.s. Where's any Mormon archaeologists??? Rich--Excellent point. I think, I know that my reply was taken way of of context. The very point that I was trying to make on C14 is that it is used in the secular world to PROLONG the date issue of any find. When was the last time you saw a published article on a fossil, text fragment, bone ect that was 2000 years old. Did you ever notice how the finds get older and older when the digs on the contenents are digging parallel? One reply to me was that he saw nothing wrong with C14 as long as it was in line with the 4000 years of the Bible. As a scientist, you can not pick and choose when to use a theory that man uses in line with "his" findings. We as Christians have to stick together as men of GOD and not men of this world. The Bible will stand on its own. No matter what C14 comes up with on dating, the fact that GOD created this world at a certain date, still stands. This is the real challenge for the secular world. This is why most Christian Geologists don't use C14 because of the laws that govern it. Sorry it the original note was taken out of context, but flaming doesn't help the botherhood, just hurts it. GOD bless, From owner-tc-list Sat Aug 31 16:47:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25766; Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:45:05 -0400 Message-Id: <3228A25A.4D6D@dhinternet.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 15:36:42 -0500 From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd) References: <960831051021_273808270@emout09.mail.aol.com> <32286B49.5D9B@eee.org> 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: 396 Jim Mendelson wrote: > > > Seems to me, in my Christian life, that the (secular) world of science > > Rich Elliott > Rich--Excellent point. I think, I know that my reply was taken way of > of context. Please continue this discussion off list. It doesn't seem to be dealing with textual criticism any longer. Thank you. Hubert Arthur Bahr, III hbahr3@.dhinternet.com or HBahr@aegonusa.com