From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 1 04:01:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA15855; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 03:59:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:55:26 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: TC intro course etc. In-Reply-To: <199609250630.CAA03371@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: 1954 Concerning the request for texts for a TC intro. course, Leonard Greenspoon has already noted that my review of Elliott and Moir's introductory text should be available through the TC website soon. You may wish to consider this as it talks about a number of introductory texts (but not all). I heartily agree with Paul Lorenzen's e-mail about the hands on lesson in textual variation. There is nothing like giving a group of university students three verses of an English Bible and getting them to copy it. I have now settled on what you might call a geometric progression -- there is no rule about who copies from whom, only a requirement that everyone makes a copy if possible as the lesson proceeds. This provides a nice distracting atmosphere. I also take a bucket of sand, a lighter and a bucket of water. Someone's copy is buried, someone else's is drowned and another person's is burnt. Fortunately no one has cried yet. The copying spreads out like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond rather than in a straight line. The mistakes that are made are wonderful! I remember this one in particular: AFTERMAKINGSACRIFICEFORSINSHESATDOWN became AFTER MAKING SACRIFICE FOR SIN SHE SAT DOWN Not only is this a useful exercise for students, it is very instructive for those considering the relative probablities of various kinds of scribal errors. On a different matter, can anyone give me an authoritative reference that says when people first began to read silently? I heard or read somewhere that some ancient was astounded to see someone (I think the someone might have been Clement or Jerome) sitting in a room full of books but not making any sound as he read. If early copyists always read aloud as they copied, perhaps certain implications would follow for New Testament textual research? Best regards, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 1 04:39:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA16130; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 04:38:46 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:35:14 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: TC intro course etc. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <7756766E29@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 399 Timothy Finney asks for refs on reading (aloud) in antiquity. Easiest place to begin now is in H.Y. Gamble's fine new book: _Books & Readers in the Early Church_ (Yale, 1995), esp. pp. 2-3-4 (with refs to other lit.). Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 1 05:02:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA16173; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 05:01:03 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:57:16 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: TC intro course etc. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <77B4CA0E63@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 219 OOPs! The pp. in Gamble's book should be 203-4 (& notes). L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 1 09:33:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16932; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:30:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:30:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Silent Reading 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: 1254 On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: > On a different matter, can anyone give me an authoritative reference that > says when people first began to read silently? I heard or read somewhere > that some ancient was astounded to see someone (I think the someone might > have been Clement or Jerome) sitting in a room full of books but not > making any sound as he read. If early copyists always read aloud as they > copied, perhaps certain implications would follow for New Testament > textual research? Augustine (Confessions 6.3) was amazed that Bishop Ambrose of Milan read silently, since silent reading was definitely not the norm. For a thorough discussion of this phenomenon, see three articles/notes in JBL: Paul J. Achtemeier, "Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity," JBL 109 (1990): 3-27; Michael Slusser, "Reading Silent in Antiquity," JBL 111 (1992): 499; Frank D. Gilliard, "More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non omne verbum sonabat," JBL 112 (1993): 689-694. 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 Oct 1 10:42:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17510; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:38:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 10:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Bart's New Book X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961001103313.27173fd2@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: 1856 Colleagues, For your information, Bart Ehrman's new book, "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" is now out. (By OUP). The Publication date is 1997 ! The chapters are 1- What is the New Testament? The Early Christians and their Literature 2- The World of Early Christian Traditions 3- The Traditions of Jesus in their greco-Roman Context 4- The Christian Gospels: A Literary and Historical Introduction 5- Jesus, the Suffering Son of God; The Gospel According to Mark 6- The Synoptic Problem and Its Significance for Interpretation 7- Jesus the Jewish Messiah: The Gospel According to Matthew 8- Jesus the Savior of the World: the Gospel According to Luke 9- Luke's Second Volume: The Acts of the Apostles 10- Jesus, the Man Sent from Heaven: The Gospel According to John 11- From John's Jesus to the Gnostic Christ 12- Jesus from Different Perspectives: Other Gospels in Early Christianity 13- The Historical Jesus: Sources, Problems and Methods 14- The Historian and the Problem of Miracle 15- Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet 16- From Jesus to the Gospels 17- Paul the Apostle; the man and his Mission 18- Paul and his Apostolic Mission; Thessalonians as a test Case 19- Paul and the Crises of His Churches 20- The Gospel According to Paul 21- Does the Tradition Miscarry? 22- In the Wake of the Apostle 23- From Paul's Female Colleagues to the Pastor's Intimidated Women: The Oppression of Women in early Christianity 24- Christians and Jews 25- Christians and Pagans 26- Christians and Christians 27- Christians and the Cosmos 28- Epilogue: Do we Have the Original New Testament? The book has 421 pages, lots of illustrations, and appears to be excellent. Perhaps many of the questions we have recently discussed are addressed here. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Petros TN From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 1 11:03:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17723; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:00:36 -0400 From: Joe_Adler@tvo.org >From: Joe_Adler@tvo.org (Joe Adler) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Silent Reading Date: 01 Oct 1996 15:54:34 GMT Message-Id: <239464414.5331842@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: 1563 tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu,Internet writes: On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: > On a different matter, can anyone give me an authoritative reference that > says when people first began to read silently? I heard or read somewhere > that some ancient was astounded to see someone (I think the someone might > have been Clement or Jerome) sitting in a room full of books but not > making any sound as he read. If early copyists always read aloud as they > copied, perhaps certain implications would follow for New Testament > textual research? Augustine (Confessions 6.3) was amazed that Bishop Ambrose of Milan read silently, since silent reading was definitely not the norm. For a thorough discussion of this phenomenon, see three articles/notes in JBL: Paul J. Achtemeier, "Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity," JBL 109 (1990): 3-27; Michael Slusser, "Reading Silent in Antiquity," JBL 111 (1992): 499; Frank D. Gilliard, "More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non omne verbum sonabat," JBL 112 (1993): 689-694. Actually, there seems to be an earlier reference....in the first chapter of 1 Samuel, Eli the priest observes Hannah mouthing words (but no one is around and she is making no sounds) and consequently believes that she is drunk.....in response, Hannah states that she is simply praying.....perhaps this may be evidence that most people would have prayed aloud in ancient times? Or Perhaps that demonstrates that people would generally not make any sounds while reading? From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 3 16:05:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08022; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:01:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 15:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Qoheleth X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961003155538.23ef5f6c@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: 356 A fellow I know keeps inisisting that there is MSS evidence which attributes Qoheleth to Solomon. This is, of course, pure poppycock. Yet in an effort to be thorough I thought I would throw out the line and see if anyone has ever heard of any such manuscript evidence. Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Petros TN From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 3 20:27:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA10115; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:26:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199610040015.UAA02911@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: Qoheleth Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1162 Dear Jim: Traditionally, (at least until the 19th century) Ecclesisastes was regarded to be of Solomonic authorship, by the Jews in the Talmud (Megilla 7a, Shabbath 30). Internally the book seems to speak of one who: 1. Was of royal lineage (1:1) 2. Had great wisdom (1:16) 3. Had great wealth (2:8) 4. Was involved in great building projects (2:4-6) 5. Posessed a huge retinue of servants (2:7) Gleason Archer and Walter Kaiser are both two who argue for Solomonic authorship for the book, along with Merrill Unger. At 03:56 PM 10/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >A fellow I know keeps inisisting that there is MSS evidence which attributes >Qoheleth to Solomon. This is, of course, pure poppycock. Yet in an effort >to be thorough I thought I would throw out the line and see if anyone has >ever heard of any such manuscript evidence. > >Thanks, > > >Jim > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West >Petros TN > > > 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 Oct 4 08:42:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12570; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:41:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:37:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Williams To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Qoheleth In-Reply-To: <199610040015.UAA02911@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: 1741 First, there has been no new (or old) manuscript evidence that attributes Qohehet to Solomon. In regards to the tradition that associated Solomon with Qohelet (Kevin's post), this move was clearly part of a larger movement that associated Moses with the Torah and David with the Psalms, and associated wisdom with Solomon. What is significant is that the identification is only implicit in Qohelet; the author never comes right out and says he's Solomon (as opposed to the headings in Proverbs and Song of Songs, and the much later Wisdom of Solomon), and the allusions to kingship, etc., stop after the second chapter (though I would argue that we are supposed to keep reading the book as Solomonic because of the implicit identification of Solomon with Qohelet in 1:1). To me it seems clear that the author adopts the persona of Solomon to make his point--and who better to test the limits of wisdom than the sage par excellance? (akin to fictional Akkadian autobiography, if you follow Longman's analysis). In regards to the views of Archer, Kaiser, and Unger who still maintain Solomonic authorship, I think that they would even be a minority among conservative scholars (though I could be wrong). The language and thought of the book clearly place it in the late Persian or Hellenistic period. -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 Fri Oct 4 09:31:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA12860; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 09:30:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:30:09 -0500 (CDT) From: William T Weatherly To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Qoheleth In-Reply-To: <199610040015.UAA02911@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: 1 From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 6 15:05:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25871; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 15:03:26 -0400 From: "Michael Fox" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 13:58:00 -0600 Subject: LXX Prov 9:18 X-Gateway: iGate, (GroupWise) vers 4.05g - 1032 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <32580174.6047.014C.000@lss.wisc.edu> 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: 555 Can anyone explain petauron (var. peteuron) in LXX Prov 9:18: "For he does not know that mortals (ge:geneis) perish with her, and he meets with the pole (?)" of Hades (kai epi peteuron hadou synanta(i) ? Heb has "... b`imqey $'ol qru'eyha "and her guests are in the depths of Sheol" qr'yh is parsed as qr', so peteuron must come from b`mqy. But how? Looks like an inner-Gk error. Mike Michael V. Fox Professor, Dept. of Hebrew University of Wisconsin 1220 Linden Drive, rm. 1346 Madison, WI 53706 email: mfox@lss.wisc.edu = mvfox@facstaff.wisc.edu From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 6 15:29:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25942; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 15:28:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 15:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199610061923.PAA23365@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: LXX Prov 9:18 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1118 Dear Michael: In LSJ I find that _peteuron_ can also have meaning of "springboard." This could be an interpretive paraphrase in a very vivid mannerof the "depths" to which one will plunge if he consorts with the wrong type of woman. Her house is the "springboard" to Hades. At 01:58 PM 10/6/96 -0600, you wrote: >Can anyone explain petauron (var. peteuron) in LXX Prov 9:18: > >"For he does not know that mortals (ge:geneis) perish with her, and he >meets with the pole (?)" of Hades (kai epi peteuron hadou synanta(i) ? > >Heb has "... b`imqey $'ol qru'eyha "and her guests are in the depths of >Sheol" qr'yh is parsed as qr', so peteuron must come from b`mqy. But >how? Looks like an inner-Gk error. > >Mike > > > >Michael V. Fox >Professor, Dept. of Hebrew >University of Wisconsin >1220 Linden Drive, rm. 1346 >Madison, WI 53706 >email: mfox@lss.wisc.edu = mvfox@facstaff.wisc.edu > > 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 Mon Oct 7 08:22:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29266; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:21:01 -0400 From: "Michael Fox" To: tc-list-digest@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 07:16:00 -0600 Subject: Prov 9:18 ctd X-Gateway: iGate, (GroupWise) vers 4.05g - 1032 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3258F4B6.6047.0157.000@lss.wisc.edu> 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 Kevin suggests that peteuron means spirngboard--the springboard to Hades. But what would a springboard in the ancient world be? All I can come up with is an image of the sinner taking a couple of bounces on the diving board and plunging into Hell. Seems somewhat anachronistic. Mike Michael V. Fox Professor, Dept. of Hebrew University of Wisconsin 1220 Linden Drive, rm. 1346 Madison, WI 53706 email: mfox@lss.wisc.edu = mvfox@facstaff.wisc.edu From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 7 08:49:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29475; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:48:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199610071242.IAA27916@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: Prov 9:18 ctd Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 849 According to LSJ, it may also mean "spring, trap" but the only example they give is from the passage in question. At 07:16 AM 10/7/96 -0600, you wrote: >Kevin suggests that peteuron means spirngboard--the springboard to >Hades. But what would a springboard in the ancient world be? All I can >come up with is an image of the sinner taking a couple of bounces on the >diving board and plunging into Hell. Seems somewhat anachronistic. > >Mike > > > > >Michael V. Fox >Professor, Dept. of Hebrew >University of Wisconsin >1220 Linden Drive, rm. 1346 >Madison, WI 53706 >email: mfox@lss.wisc.edu = mvfox@facstaff.wisc.edu > > 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 Mon Oct 7 22:31:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05776; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 22:29:45 -0400 From: Sigrid Peterson Message-Id: <199610080226.WAA05495@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Prov 9:18 ctd To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 22:26:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3258F4B6.6047.0157.000@lss.wisc.edu> from "Michael Fox" at Oct 7, 96 07:16:00 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: 709 According to Michael Fox: > > Kevin suggests that peteuron means spirngboard--the springboard to > Hades. But what would a springboard in the ancient world be? All I can > come up with is an image of the sinner taking a couple of bounces on the > diving board and plunging into Hell. Seems somewhat anachronistic. > > Mike > Acrobats and bareback riders of horses also use springboards--that's modern, as well, but may not be so anachronistic as the diving board. > Michael V. Fox > Professor, Dept. of Hebrew > University of Wisconsin > 1220 Linden Drive, rm. 1346 > Madison, WI 53706 > email: mfox@lss.wisc.edu = mvfox@facstaff.wisc.edu > Sigrid Peterson UPenn/UJ petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 14 17:50:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26141; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 17:43:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 17:42:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new reviews in 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: 588 Two new book reviews are now available in TC: Karen H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text, reviewed by Tim McLay J. K. Elliott and Ian Moir. Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament: An Introduction for English Readers, reviewed by Tim Finney More are on the way! This list has been quiet lately. Maybe someone has comments to offer on these or other reviews or articles published in TC. 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 Oct 16 09:28:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10283; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:25:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Technical help X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961016092203.234f2332@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: 737 Colleagues, I am transcribing P75 (Luke) for the ENTMP. And I have a question about computer software (I hope this is not too far afield). As P75 is an uncial, I am having to type it all in (which is, as you can imagine, quite time consuming)- and I was hoping to use the Greek text I have on my computer already and simply capitalize all the letters. I have NA 26 on my computer, in miniscule type. P75 is an uncial (!). I cannot seem to "select all" and change my miniscule to an Uncial. Does anyone know how to change small letters to capitals in Word for Windows 4.0 (running under Windows 95)? Thanks for your help. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros Tn From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 16 13:35:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA12821; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:33:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Oops Technical help X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961016133114.0bff0536@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: 360 I requested help earlier for Word 4, (concerning making text all capitals, etc) and inreality I meant that the program I am using is Microsoft WORKS 4.0 Boy, is my face red. Thanks for the earlier help; now if you could help with this. Yours, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 16 18:32:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15736; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 18:31:06 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 18:27:24 -0400 Message-ID: <961016182724_128423835@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Technical help Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 903 Hi Jim: In a message dated 96-10-16 09:28:00 EDT, you wrote: << I have NA 26 on my computer, in miniscule type. P75 is an uncial (!). I cannot seem to "select all" and change my miniscule to an Uncial. Does anyone know how to change small letters to capitals in Word for Windows 4.0 (running under Windows 95)?>> No. But a simple transliteration program can be written to accomplish the task. Ask one of your programmer friends to write one for you. If not I could write one. Another way of doing the task is to use the Find-Replace feature of the word processer a character at a time. It takes a little time, but the replace function is fast. Jim Price ==================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ==================================================== From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 16 20:29:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA16432; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:29:02 -0400 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:27:41 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Technical help Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 945 >Colleagues, > >I am transcribing P75 (Luke) for the ENTMP. And I have a question about >computer software (I hope this is not too far afield). > >As P75 is an uncial, I am having to type it all in (which is, as you can >imagine, quite time consuming)- and I was hoping to use the Greek text I >have on my computer already and simply capitalize all the letters. > >I have NA 26 on my computer, in miniscule type. P75 is an uncial (!). I >cannot seem to "select all" and change my miniscule to an Uncial. Does >anyone know how to change small letters to capitals in Word for Windows 4.0 >(running under Windows 95)? > >Thanks for your help. > >Jim > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Professor of Biblical Languages >Petros Tn Why not select evreything and replace by a Coptic font? It's uncial and you have chances to find one with the same keyboard mapping as your Greek. Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 16 22:42:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA17156; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:41:43 -0400 From: lfirrantello@BIX.com Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Technical help To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <9610162231.memo.24669@BIX.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-CoSy-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: 830 >Hi Jim: >In a message dated 96-10-16 09:28:00 EDT, you wrote: > ><< I have NA 26 on my computer, in miniscule type. P75 is an uncial (!). >I > cannot seem to "select all" and change my miniscule to an Uncial. Does > anyone know how to change small letters to capitals in Word for Windows >4.0 > (running under Windows 95)?>> > >No. But a simple transliteration program can be written to accomplish the >task. >Ask one of your programmer friends to write one for you. If not I could >write > There ought to be no need for a program/macro to do so. Word 2.0 can change capitalization on selected text to lower case/mixed case/upper case by using one of the function keys. I cannot locate my template or the manual but it should be indexed in help under keyboard shortcuts or function keys. --Mick Brown (lfirrantello@bix.com) From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 18 02:15:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA28090; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 02:11:25 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 02:07:41 -0400 Message-ID: <961018020740_1447668276@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Oops Technical help Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 659 Jim: First of all, you should get rid of MS Works and work in MS Word (6.0 or newer) especially if you are using Windows 95. Works is a very weak and limited program in comparison to Word. Anyway, try this, it works in Word and should work in Works: Highlight all of the text and pull down the "tools" menu, select "font" and then choose the "all caps" box. That should do it. If you would like some other font programs I have some share ware of Greek and Hebrew that I can send you. I'd be glad to help. Let me know. In His Service Rich Elliott (RE Elliott@aol.com) p.s. yes I am still working on the Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism! From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 18 08:57:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29520; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:54:05 -0400 Message-Id: From: pfeller@skypoint.com (Phillip Feller) Subject: Byzantine Paleography Web Page (fwd) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:50:12 -0500 (CDT) 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: 2017 I thought this might be of interest to members of this list: Forwarded message: > From UKANVM.CC.UKANS.EDU!owner-mediev-l Thu Oct 17 17:36:11 1996 > Message-Id: > Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:49:42 -0400 > Reply-To: Medieval History > Sender: Medieval History > From: Paul Halsall > Subject: Byzantine Paleography Web Page > To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L > Content-Type: text > Content-Length: 1345 > > Message-ID: <3266A760.57FA@bway.net> > Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:38:41 -0400 > From: halsall > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: Discussions of issues in Byzantine Studies > CC: halsall@murray.fordham.edu, cath-l@american.edu > Subject: Byzantine Paleography WWW Page > References: <844536468.27463.0@icons.demon.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > List members may be interested in knowing that I have added a Byzantine > Paleography page to the Byzantine studies web site at > http://www.bway.net/~halsall/byzantium.html > > The specific URL of the page is > http://www.bway.net/~halsall/paleog.html > > It comprises a guide to Byzantine manuscript sources, with examples, > images, > letter form tables, abbreviation tables, glossaries, scholarly aides, > annotated bibliographies, and links to other paleography sites. > > The site is directed less at specialists than those interested in where > information about Byzantine [and in fact Ancient] Greek culture comes > from. It > might, however, be useful for those just beginning to deal with MSS. > > I would be interested in comments and suggestions for improvements. I am > also interested in adding more high resolution Greek MS images if anyone > has > them to share. > > > Paul Halsall > halsall@murray.fordham.edu > From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 18 12:26:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01328; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:24:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3267BC61.2896@ionsys.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:20:33 -0700 From: John Cameron Organization: Canadian Institute for Telecommunications and Emmerging Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Oops Technical help References: <961018020740_1447668276@emout13.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: 293 Rich: I am a quiet participant on this TC list..I liked the solution you mentioned for our other collegue re Word..There is just no other WP worth bothering about. I am very interested in the shareware Hebrew-Greek font programs you mentioned.Could you possible send me a copy.. Thank you. From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 21 04:51:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA18620; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 04:43:43 -0400 X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 21-Oct-1996 18:09:47 -0400; at TP.BAEA To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <4089674201870370@-SMF-> Subject: pronunciation of uncial From: AKULIKOV@baea.com.au (KULIKOVSKY, Andrew) Date: 21 Oct 96 18:09:30 EDT References: <4089674202870370@-SMF-> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1272 Hi everyone. I am just a lurker on this list. In my reading of TC I always come across the word uncial because these are some of the most important manuscript examplars available. Now I know what a uncial is but I would love to know how to pronounce this word properly... is it pronounced: 1. yunsial or 2. yunkial or 3. unsial or none of the above!!! Sorry if this is a silly question... cheers, Andrew +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer | British Aerospace Australia | Technology Park, Adelaide | ph: +618 8290 8268 | fax: +618 8290 8800 | email: akulikov@baea.com.au | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IESOUS KURIOS! +------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 21 13:13:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA22151; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:10:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199610211706.RAA418776@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:06:41 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: Re: pronunciation of uncial Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2246 Check a dictionary. My Random House gives only one pronounciation: a "soft" "C" --un'-she-el. The word's etymology, however, is Latin. Random house gives the Latin "uncia" as the origin ( which means a "twelfth" or a measure of length--and therefore doesn't really fit; they then direct you to "uncus"). "Uncus," means "hooked, curved, or crooked," and this seems to be more accurate an etymology, esp. since Random House themselves define "uncial letters" as "having more curves than capitals." It is from the Latin that the various pronounciations arise. In classical Latin, the "c" was always hard, as in "can"--not soft, as in "city". Ecclesiastical Latin eventually softened the "c", so we hear "Cicero" as "sisero," not the classical "kikero." All in all, there both are frequently heard, and the difference is probably equivalent to "tomato" verses "tomaato." --Petersen, Religious Studies, Penn State Univ. >Hi everyone. > >I am just a lurker on this list. > >In my reading of TC I always come across the word uncial >because these are some of the most important manuscript >examplars available. > >Now I know what a uncial is but I would love to know how >to pronounce this word properly... > >is it pronounced: > >1. yunsial >or >2. yunkial >or >3. unsial >or none of the above!!! > >Sorry if this is a silly question... > >cheers, >Andrew > >+------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS >| >| Software Engineer >| British Aerospace Australia >| Technology Park, Adelaide >| ph: +618 8290 8268 >| fax: +618 8290 8800 >| email: akulikov@baea.com.au >| >| What's the point of gaining everything this world has >| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? >| >| ...Look to Jesus Christ >| >| hO IESOUS KURIOS! >+------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 21 13:18:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA22172; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:13:01 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961021170817.3e37a6a6@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.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, 21 Oct 1996 13:08:17 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: pronunciation of uncial 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: 664 At 06:09 10/21/96 EDT, KULIKOVSKY, Andrew wrote: >Now I know what a uncial is but I would love to know how >to pronounce this word properly... > >is it pronounced: > >1. yunsial >or >2. yunkial >or >3. unsial >or none of the above!!! Throckmorton's GOSPELL PARALLELS has a very useful pronunciation guide in it for text critical words. "Uncial" is pronounced "UHN-shuhl" or /,Vn S@l/ in ASCII IPA (Internation Phonetic Alphabet). 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 Oct 21 19:50:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26785; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:48:18 -0400 From: KHGrenier@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:44:33 -0400 Message-ID: <961021194431_215738187@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6604 My apologies if this is a second copy. My computer took a coffee break in the middle of my first attempt to send this. - Kevin Dear all, I have been a lurker on this list for some time now and have enjoyed the many exchanges of ideas--this summer especially. Things have calmed down recently, however, so this seems like a good time to come out of hiding and stir things up. As one who is interested in tc, but has little experience and no formulated viewpoint, I'd like to take some time setting out my thoughts on the subject so far. I doubt any of these will be profound. They will probably reveal more about what I don't know than what I do know. I'm just doing this off of the top of my head, so let me say my mea culpa's in advance. Hopefully, though, any misconceptions I have can be corrected and perhaps something I say may be a springboard for further discussion. What I propose to talk about is the current state of textual criticism with regard to its theoretical underpinnings. I do this with some timidity based on my own inexperience and uncertainty over what I am unleash, but here goes. History Textual criticism is a relatively new field of study in NT circles. While tc has been performed since the Church fathers (as demonstrated by Origin's), there was no widespread systematic approach to its practice until Wescott & Hort in 1881. Prior to that time, many had posited arguments against mere acceptance of the TR, but it wasn't until W&H that a methodology for a different selection was proposed. Since then, the entire tc world has lived in the shadow of W&H, either supporting them or fighting them. However, even though there are some severe weaknesses with W&H, no one has yet to dethrone their view, primarily, it seems, because no one has been able to come up with a theoretical framework to replace it that has met with wide acceptance. The most recent attempt past the logjam has been the eclectic movement, which, it seems, everyone tries to lump everyone but themselves into. The problem with the eclectic view, however, is that it does not seem to provide enough of a framework to build a truly unified theory of tc. It still leaves too much up to the individual textual critic and too little up to our understanding of the transmission of the text. Therefore, in the tc world today, we conduct our affairs generally within the W&H paradigm whether we agree with it or not. However, there are still some very divergent views of the nature of NT textual criticism. I'm sure I do not know them all and I've probably missed the mark in some cases. I do know that very few people seem to fit well in any category except in cases where their view defines the category. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head: 1. KJV only - the TR was shepherded by God to us through the centuries and we should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom." 2. Byzantine priority - While the Byzantine text is not present significantly prior to 500 (?) CE, it does reflect the autographs better than the other text types. Maurice Robinson would say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the process of copying and cross-checking would generally bring most deviant texts back into line with the autographs. 3. Alexandrian priority - Although there are far more Byzantine witnesses than any other type, the earlier witnesses must be given priority by virtue of their date and quality. 4. Eclectic - The best way to determine the nature of the autographs is through an eclectic process examining each significant issue on its own merits. The decision for which reading is best is based on the internal evidence and the external evidence, however, it is up to the textual critic to determine in each instance which evidence has the most weight in each instance. The Difficulty of the Task Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500 (?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. One of the main problems facing the textual critic is that there are no truly satisfactory ways to place the different MSS into their place in the family tree. First, we don't have enough MSS to really trace out the branches and second the nature of the variants is of little help. Variants may be categorized in general into 2 categories - intentional and accidental. The intentional variants are those made on purpose by the scribe for a variety of reasons. i.e., to correct a "bad" reading, to make it more understandable, to harmonize texts, to correct grammar, to push a theological point, ad nauseam. Accidental variants include the whole range of scribal errors that may occur. The problem with variants is that they may be corrected at any time. Therefore, just because one MS has a misspelling that doesn't mean that its ancestors will. Likewise, variants may be introduced at anytime. In addition, cross correction may occur from any one of a number of different textual traditions. The result, therefore is that we have not so much a family tree, but rather a spider's web connecting all of the different MSS. Instead of an autograph leading to archetypes leading to families, etc., what we have is a web radiating out from the autograph (or archetype) with an unknown maze of interconnections following that. Dumb Thoughts from a Novice While the most significant battles in tc will be fought over the theologically significant variants, it seems that those are precisely the wrong places to understand tc. Just like in Greek we want to learn the grammar from the mundane areas so that we can apply it accurately to the more theological ones, so perhaps the same is true in tc. It seems to me that our critical apparati all seem to focus our attention on the significant variants and ignore the large mass of minor variants to include slight misspellings and other obvious issues. Maybe we need to start grouping readings based on their insignificant variant readings and their date. If we do that, the four text types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, Whatever) will probably fade away, while the basic principles of W&H would remain. There. I'm sure I have said much wrong, much over-generalized, but occasionally a few things right. I'd appreciate any comments from others on my misconceptions and any thoughts on what type of paradigm, if any, should replace W&H. Kevin Grenier From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 21 20:41:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27177; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:40:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 02:35:50 GMT X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1854 > >I'm sure I have said much wrong, much over-generalized, but occasionally a >few things right. I'd appreciate any comments from others on my >misconceptions and any thoughts on what type of paradigm, if any, should >replace W&H. > > > >Kevin Grenier Hello Kevin, I'm also new to the list. I notice you don't mention the works of the outstanding French textual critic, C.-B. Amphoux. His recent works tend to give paramount supremacy to the text of Codex Bezae as representing the oldest text of the Gospels. He finds that the shift from the D-text to the B-text is a changing in literary _genre_, from a wisdom/initiatic/intellectual (nearly gnostic) literature, that must be approached globally and structurally, to an ecclesiastical, simplified form of text, in which each pericope can be read independently, for example in order to form the base for a homily. The other texts (palestinian texts, byzantine text, early versions) all mix these two oldest texts. For those interested, his revision of Vaganay's manual has been recently translated into English, and updated: L. Vaganay and C.-B. Amphoux, An introduction to New Testament textual criticism (Cambridge University Press, 1991) =46or those interested, I will give references to some important articles of the same author, in French. I have the impression that he is not known in the US as he is here in Europe. These works are very important because they, for the first time, offer a global, literary explanation of the earliest phases of the history of the text. Any comments? shlomo w-shayno ! Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est inutilisabl= e. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 21 22:36:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA27772; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 22:35:50 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <961021194431_215738187@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:19:35 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 10630 On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, KHGrenier@aol.com wrote: >Dear all, > >I have been a lurker on this list for some time now and have enjoyed the many >exchanges of ideas--this summer especially. Things have calmed down recently, >however, so this seems like a good time to come out of hiding and stir things >up. What a subject to start on right before I go to bed. Oh well, here goes.... [ ... ] >History > >Textual criticism is a relatively new field of study in NT circles. While tc >has been performed since the Church fathers (as demonstrated by Origin's), >there was no widespread systematic approach to its practice until Wescott & >Hort in 1881. Prior to that time, many had posited arguments against mere >acceptance of the TR, but it wasn't until W&H that a methodology for a >different selection was proposed. > >Since then, the entire tc world has lived in the shadow of W&H, either >supporting them or fighting them. However, even though there are some severe >weaknesses with W&H, no one has yet to dethrone their view, primarily, it >seems, because no one has been able to come up with a theoretical framework >to replace it that has met with wide acceptance. I would say that the WH *text* has now been replaced by UBS/GNT, although this is largely a "Hortian" text. >The most recent attempt past the logjam has been the eclectic movement, >which, it seems, everyone tries to lump everyone but themselves into. :-) Actually, most people except those who believe in Byzantine priority are eclectics. (This includes even W&H.) They're just different *types* of eclectics. Some stress manuscripts (W&H), some internal criteria (Elliot), some a mixture of the two. And so everyone tries to "grab hold" of the word eclectic, or label someone else with the term, because our language is not precise enough. [ ... ] > >Therefore, in the tc world today, we conduct our affairs generally within the >W&H paradigm whether we agree with it or not. However, there are still some >very divergent views of the nature of NT textual criticism. I'm sure I do not >know them all and I've probably missed the mark in some cases. I do know that >very few people seem to fit well in any category except in cases where their >view defines the category. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my >head: > >1. KJV only - the TR was shepherded by God to us through the centuries and we >should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom." This isn't really a theory of textual criticism, just a theory about the text. As Daniel B. Wallace points out, there has never been a legitimate textual scholar who has held *this* point of view. >2. Byzantine priority - While the Byzantine text is not present significantly >prior to 500 (?) CE, it does reflect the autographs better than the other >text types. Maurice Robinson would say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the >process of copying and cross-checking would generally bring most deviant >texts back into line with the autographs. This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups. 1. The followers of Dean Burgon. Maurice Robinson is a modern example. They believe that the majority text is always "original." 2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text. There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis. This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least of the text-types. >3. Alexandrian priority - Although there are far more Byzantine witnesses >than any other type, the earlier witnesses must be given priority by virtue >of their date and quality. I would be inclined to call this category "Single text-type priority." For W&H, the Alexandrian text was the best -- but, as someone has already noted, there are scholars (e.g. Vaganay, Amphoux, also Clark) who consider the "Western" text the best. For that matter, Streeter apparently regarded the "Caesarean" text as best. The crucial point is that all of these people choose *one* text type as "best" and follow that. Of course, most of them have chosen the Alexandrian text as best, but this is not universal. It should also be noted that what was considered Alexandrian in Hort's time now appears (at least in Paul, the Catholics, and the Apocalypse) to break down into multiple text-types (e.g. in Paul we have p46-B verses Aleph-A-C-33; so Zuntz, and I independently verified this). >4. Eclectic - The best way to determine the nature of the autographs is >through an eclectic process examining each significant issue on its own >merits. The decision for which reading is best is based on the internal >evidence and the external evidence, however, it is up to the textual critic >to determine in each instance which evidence has the most weight in each >instance. Again there are at least three schools here. Various terminologies have been applied to this; I'll use my own (influenced by Epp) 1. Internal eclecticists (Kilpatrick; Elliot; earlier Weiss and Lagrange). These stress the internal evidence of readings. Manuscripts carry relatively little weight. 2. Generalists -- those who use internal and external evidence. Most editors of critical editions fall into this group, though their rules and historical reconstructions vary widely. The UBS committee, for instance, gave great weight to the Alexandrian text; the editors of the New English Bible applies more internal criteria. 3. External eclecticists. This is a relatively rare breed these days. I'm one, but I don't count. I understand that Deering is one. People in this classification always take external (manuscript) evidence first. So in Paul, for example, if a reading is attested by p46 Aleph A B C D F G 33 1739, I *must* adopt it no matter what internal evidence says. Only if the text-types (p46-B-sa, Aleph-A-C-33-bo, D-F-G-latt, 1739-0243-1881-424**-6) divide am I even *allowed* to look at internal evidence. >The Difficulty of the Task > >Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with >certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the >majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500 >(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture >and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. > >One of the main problems facing the textual critic is that there are no truly >satisfactory ways to place the different MSS into their place in the family >tree. First, we don't have enough MSS to really trace out the branches and >second the nature of the variants is of little help. Debatable. It is true that we cannot, for the most part, construct stemma (exact family trees). But we *do* find text-types. Everyone concedes the existence of the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. Most will concede at least one or two others (e.g. I find four or five in the Gospels; five in Paul; four in the Catholics. Zuntz finds four in Paul. Schmidt finds four in the Apocalypse). Within these text-types we can find sub-text-types (e.g. in the Gospels, the Alexandrian text has a p75-B-T subtype and an Aleph-Z subtype). Within these we can possibly find clans, and within these, at times, families. However, most eclectic scholars make little use of this information. It is, obviously, my opinion that we should make *more* use of this data. Of course, if two early text-types disagree, we still have the same old problem: Deciding which one preserves the original reading. But at least we have more tools at our disposal. >Variants may be categorized in general into 2 categories - intentional and >accidental. The intentional variants are those made on purpose by the scribe >for a variety of reasons. i.e., to correct a "bad" reading, to make it more >understandable, to harmonize texts, to correct grammar, to push a theological >point, ad nauseam. Accidental variants include the whole range of scribal >errors that may occur. In principle this is true. But I would stress that it can be *very* hard to tell which type is which, and we should not place much stress on which variants are "intentional" and which "accidental." Indeed, an variant may be both -- an accidental error caused a scribe to attempt a deliberate correction. See, for example, 1 Cor. 13:3. The original reading is probably KAUCHSWMAI (p46 Aleph A B 33 1739* pc). An error converted this to KAUQHSWMAI (K Psi Byz). This is impossible, so scribes "corrected" it to KAUQHSOMAI (D F G L al). [ ... ] >Dumb Thoughts from a Novice > >While the most significant battles in tc will be fought over the >theologically significant variants, it seems that those are precisely the >wrong places to understand tc. Just like in Greek we want to learn the >grammar from the mundane areas so that we can apply it accurately to the more >theological ones, so perhaps the same is true in tc. No argument there -- although we must be careful to distinguish between variants that are textually significant and those which are not. >It seems to me that our critical apparati all seem to focus our attention on >the significant variants and ignore the large mass of minor variants to >include slight misspellings and other obvious issues. Maybe we need to start >grouping readings based on their insignificant variant readings and their >date. If we do that, the four text types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, >Whatever) will probably fade away, while the basic principles of W&H would >remain. I could be sarcastic here, and say that W&H's basic principle was "Prefer the Alexandrian reading." Suffice it to say that here I disagree with you, and agree with W&H. Text-types are not insignificant; they are our basic tools. (IMHO.) > >There. > >I'm sure I have said much wrong, much over-generalized, but occasionally a >few things right. I'd appreciate any comments from others on my >misconceptions and any thoughts on what type of paradigm, if any, should >replace W&H. I think I've covered that above. If I haven't -- well, there's always the eight thousand words or so I hope to slip into the Textual Criticism Encyclopedia. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 22 11:54:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02397; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:51:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:47:39 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk> X-Sender: duff@ermine.ox.ac.uk 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: Jeremy Duff Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1700 Kevin, I am in no sense at all an expert on textual criticism: hence, perhaps, why I enjoyed your summary. One point, however, At 19:44 21/10/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with >certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the >majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500 >(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture >and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. I find this a little hard to believe. Church writers from the end of the second century onwards at least see to have a definite conception of certain texts being scripture. I would have thought it natural, given no evidence to the contrary, that scribes would have also thought this. OK, there may not be a fixed definitive canon, but that does not mean that the scribe who copied say p46 did not think this was scripture. Indeed, various features might point to the conclusion that he did - e.g. use of the codex form (which seems more common for Christian scriptures than for the writings of the church fathers, I think) and the use of the nomina sacra (can anyone tell me if these are used in copies of the writings of church fathers? I guess they probably are). Anyway, even without definite evidence that the scribes did see the texts as scripture, I would have thought that their status generally as evidenced by other writers would be enough to suggest that scribes from the second century onwards did understand the writings as scripture. Yours, Jeremy Duff ========================================= Jeremy Duff D. Phil. Student Jesus College, Oxford From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 22 19:59:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA07863; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:57:55 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:02:40 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2112 Jeremy Duff wrote in answer to Kevin; >>Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with >>certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the >>majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500 >>(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture >>and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. > >I find this a little hard to believe. Church writers from the end of the >second century onwards at least see to have a definite conception of certain >texts being scripture. I would have thought it natural, given no evidence to >the contrary, that scribes would have also thought this. OK, there may not >be a fixed definitive canon, but that does not mean that the scribe who >copied say p46 did not think this was scripture. Indeed, various features >might point to the conclusion that he did - e.g. use of the codex form >(which seems more common for Christian scriptures than for the writings of >the church fathers, I think) and the use of the nomina sacra (can anyone >tell me if these are used in copies of the writings of church fathers? I >guess they probably are). Anyway, even without definite evidence that the >scribes did see the texts as scripture, I would have thought that their >status generally as evidenced by other writers would be enough to suggest >that scribes from the second century onwards did understand the writings as >scripture. > The statement by Kevin is probably an overstatement, for different writers seem to have had differing opinions about some to the later books. However, that was not the only factor that caused early variants. No doubt the edict of toleration in 311 helped give the Christians more time to think about mss. I don't think the fact that scribes used the codex form is significant. Many others did that. The great disparity between the ability of scribes is also evident. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu Fax (318) 442-4996 Phone (318) 487-7241 From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 22 20:10:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08006; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:09:46 -0400 Message-Id: <326D5FCB.721D@dhinternet.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:59:07 -0500 From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories References: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 532 I wonder how these theories can be restated to include the HB/LXX instead of just the NT. What are the benefits to be derived from each theory? What are the shortcomings of each? how can we best overcome those shortcomings? I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type. perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups 1. Textually uncritical. 2. Champions of a particular text type. 3. Eclectics. coments anyone? From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 22 20:26:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08134; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:25:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:20:37 GMT X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1064 >I wonder how these theories can be restated to include the HB/LXX >instead of just the NT. What are the benefits to be derived from each >theory? What are the shortcomings of each? how can we best overcome >those shortcomings? > >I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type >should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type. > >perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups > 1. Textually uncritical. > 2. Champions of a particular text type. > 3. Eclectics. >coments anyone? Another way of classifying, probably complementary, is: 1. Those who have something to say about a global history of the text. 2. Those who have no hypothesis about the relation of text-types to one anot= her. shlomo w-shayno ! Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est inutilisabl= e. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 22 20:59:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08397; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:58:32 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <326D5FCB.721D@dhinternet.com> References: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:54:11 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3433 On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III wrote: >I wonder how these theories can be restated to include the HB/LXX >instead of just the NT. What are the benefits to be derived from each >theory? What are the shortcomings of each? how can we best overcome >those shortcomings? I would say that the MT/LXX debate is much like a truncated version of the NT debate. The MT and LXX correspond roughly to the *text-types* of NT criticism. It's like scholars choosing whether they prefer the Alexandrian or "Western" text. They make the decisions on some idiosyncratic basis. This means, obviously, that any critical rule that applies to number or provenance of manuscripts has little application to OT criticism. Those which have to do with the nature of variation units still apply. >I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type >should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type. There is a similarity between the two classes, but there is also a difference. Two differences, in fact. First, the majority of those who prefer the Byzantine text prefer it on theological grounds ("God must consider the Byzantine text right, of (s)he would not have made so many copies") or on numerical grounds ("it's the majority; it must be right"). There are, of course, exceptions (so don't say it, Maurice), but this is how most Byzantine prioritists feel. The proponents of the other text, by contrast, make their choice based on some perceived "inner excellence" (obviously a subjective matter). Second, the fact that Byzantine texts are so numerous forces a change in approach. Unlike the other text-types, it is possible to do stemmatic work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text. This inevitably will affect the final text (note the differences between Hodges & Farstad and Robinson on this very point). >perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups > 1. Textually uncritical. > 2. Champions of a particular text type. > 3. Eclectics. >coments anyone? Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-) Seriously, I don't think this division is fair. Eclecticism *must* be categorized. My approach, based strongly on text-types, is very distinct from Kilpatrick and Elliot, whose approach is based on internal evidence. I'm willing to lump it as 3a (internal eclecticism), 3b (external eclecticism), and 3c (mixed) -- but if my choices are to be an internal eclectic or to choose to always follow the text of family 1739, I'll take 1739 any day. jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote: >Another way of classifying, probably complementary, is: >1. Those who have something to say about a global history of the text. >2. Those who have no hypothesis about the relation of text-types to one >another. This strikes me as a much more important way of doing things. (My opinion, obviously.) It strikes me that I could much more easily work with a person whose theory of the text disagreed with mine than with someone who had no theory of the text. As witness the fact that I have learned from Maurice Robinson, whereas that person -- whoever it was -- who preferred the TR was beyond my comprehension. By my standards, Robinson's text and the TR are almost equally bad -- but Robinson himself is a knowledgeable and insightful scholar. My two cents. Now back to our regularly scheduled lives. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 00:30:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA09694; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:29:08 -0400 Message-Id: <326D9C90.2E68@dhinternet.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:18:24 -0500 From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories References: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk> 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: 1794 > > Hubert Bahr > Bob WaltzHubert Bahr > >perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups > > 1. Textually uncritical. > > 2. Champions of a particular text type. > > 3. Eclectics. > >coments anyone? > > Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-) I think I could name a handful of competent Biblical scholars who have never ventured into textual criticism but simply accepted the verdict of others. Scholarly yes, text-critical no. > > Seriously, I don't think this division is fair. It wasn't. > Eclecticism *must* > be categorized. My approach, based strongly on text-types, is very > distinct from Kilpatrick and Elliot, whose approach is based on > internal evidence. So there is a full spectrum of approaches instead of three primary colors. Discarding group 1 which would represent scholars in other fields. Groups two and three appear to blended in varying degrees to make the field we know as textual criticism. Am I getting it or getting way off? Red exclusive use of a particular text Orange strong preference for a particular text Yellow external eclecticism Green mixed, mostly external Blue Mixed, about evenly Indigo Mixed, mostly Internal Violet Internal Eclecticism Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the original language? Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the languages? > -- but if my > choices are to be an internal eclectic or to choose to always follow > the text of family 1739, I'll take 1739 any day. What are the weaknesses you see to internal eclecticism? From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 03:14:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA10190; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 03:13:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:09:14 +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: Textual Criticism Theories In-Reply-To: <326D9C90.2E68@dhinternet.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: 699 Yes, Hubert Bahr, that is a correct suggestion about versions. I have been working on the text of the Slavonic version, of which by the way up to now no critical or other edition exists, and I noticed that the Slavonic version may in some minor cases contribute something to the correct choice in establishing the Greek text. My publications on this have appeared in Paleobulgarica (1995) and Polata Knigopisnaya (1996). I showed, however, that it concerns only minor points, not "main issues" in belief or that sort of Christian topics. Interesting. I follow most discussions attently. Johannes van der Tak University of Amsterdam, Slavic department e-mail Johannes.van.der.Tak@let.uva.nl From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 08:25:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA11252; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:23:38 -0400 Date: 23 Oct 96 08:18:25 EDT From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Message-ID: <961023121825_102147.2045_EHT76-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3168 Gentlemen, Pardon this late rejoinder regarding a point raised early on. :-) >1. KJV only - the TR was shepherded by God to us through the centuries and we >should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom." >This isn't really a theory of textual criticism, just a theory about the >text. As Daniel B. Wallace points out, there has never been a legitimate >textual scholar who has held *this* point of view. Actually Wallace is not entirely accurate. There was in fact a legit scholar who advocated a TR/KJV only position, namely Edward F. Hills. His Th.D diss (at Harvard) was on the "Caesarean Family of NT MSS" and 3 articles of his were published by JBL. There is no doubt as to his academics, but Hills' arguments regarding the superiority of the TR over against even the Byzantine tradition itself pretty much go against all that he learned in New Testament Textual Criticism. His _entire_ position is theological and full of holes (MSS evidence is secondary). I consider Hills to be the father of modern KJV onlyism (esp. in light of comments from modern KJV worshippers - like Ruckman - who said he owes "a great deal to Hills for his own view re. the transmission of the text" ). Hills' defense for the TR/JKJV is still the most "scholarly" in print. >2. Byzantine priority - While the Byzantine text is not present significantly >prior to 500 (?) CE, it does reflect the autographs better than the other >text types. Maurice Robinson would say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the >process of copying and cross-checking would generally bring most deviant >texts back into line with the autographs. >This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups. >1. The followers of Dean Burgon. Maurice Robinson is a modern example. > They believe that the majority text is always "original." This is correct. Robinson is a legit "Burgonite" ;-) as compared to Donald Waite, president of the "Dean Burgon Society". Waite merely uses Burgon's name as a smokescreen to pass on his TR/KJV agenda. >2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that > the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times > smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text. External/internal evidence is legit and was used by Robinson/Pierpont in their edition of the GNT. The primary diff between Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont is the use of stemmatics, which in a number of cases allows Hodges/Farstad and Pickering to prefer "minority" readings over "majority". >There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not >claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they >deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one >of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis. >This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values >the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least >of the text-types. I'm not sure of how many Byzantine supporters actually accept this view. I suspect Sturz may be alone on this. Blessings. Mike Arcieri From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 08:26:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA11262; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:24:40 -0400 Date: 23 Oct 96 08:19:20 EDT From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Message-ID: <961023121919_102147.2045_EHT76-3@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5771 >I am also confused as to why those who prefer the Byzantine text type >should be a seperate group from those who prefer a particular text type. >There is a similarity between the two classes, but there is also a >difference. Two differences, in fact. >First, the majority of those who prefer the Byzantine text prefer >it on theological grounds ("God must consider the Byzantine text >right, of (s)he would not have made so many copies") or on numerical >grounds ("it's the majority; it must be right"). There are, of >course, exceptions (so don't say it, Maurice), but this is how >most Byzantine prioritists feel. The proponents of the other text, >by contrast, make their choice based on some perceived "inner >excellence" (obviously a subjective matter). I think this is a slight confusion here re. Byzantine defenders. The "theological" argument is _primary_ among TR/KJV onlyism, followed with little or no text-critical argumentation. Byzantine supporters make their case _primarily_ from the MSS evidence. Hodges/Farstad and Robinson?pierpont did NOT use theological arguments to produce their GNT, but canons of criticism. Secondly, it is not entirely true that "most Byzantine prioritists" hold to "it's the majority; it must be right". In my review of the Robinson/pierpont GNT, I quoted the leading proponants of the Byzantine text to show precisely that "majority" does _not_ always rule: "Before dealing with this question, it will serve us well to see exactly what Byzantine defenders think of the 'rule' of 'majority = autograph': a] F. H. A. Scrivener That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never ought to have been asserted by any one; never has been asserted by a respectable scholar. If you shew us all, or nearly all, the uncials which you prize so deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text which is recommended by all the best versions and the most ancient Fathers, depend upon it we will not urge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number of the cursive copies, be they ever so numerous on the other side. That where there is real agreement between all the documents prior to the tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be rejected unheard, is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported by strong internal evidence, can hardly be adopted. b] J. W. Burgon/E. Miller Besides which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than number is. Be so obliging as not to say concerning me that I 'count' instead of 'weighing' my witnesses. The same may be said of 'o Ihsous"' in S. Matth. xiv. 22, -words which Origen and Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the ixth Sunday after Pentecost begins at that place... {FOOTNOTE: _The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark_ (Oxford: J. Parker and Co., 1871), p. 216. It appears, however, from Miller's _Textual Commentary_, that Burgon may have changed his mind concerning the non-authenticity of this variant. My decision to include it was to show that Burgon did not hesitate to reject the reading of the majority of MSS when necessary.} c] W. N. Pickering Chapter 6 of my book makes clear that all of Burgon's 'Notes of Truth' need to be applied, not just 'majority' (Burgon's 'Number'). Burgon himself never argued that a simple majority of MSS was sufficient, by itself, to determine the text. On page 274 Wallace correctly points out that neither Hodges nor van Bruggen espouse mere majority. In fact, I am not aware of any "Majority Text' theorist who does. d] J. van Bruggen we must agree with modern textual criticism that the majority in itself is not decisive. Not the majority of manuscripts, but the weight decides. e] M. Robinson In sum, a strong emphasis was made on Continuity and Variety, with Number taking a secondary role. The goal is to reconstruct the Byzantine textform, and not merely to count noses, as Fee suggested. The 'Majority' partisans have yet to overcome this problem in their methodology...Antiquity of course plays its proper role; Respectability of witnesses (scribal character) is considered significant; and Context as well as Reasonableness are also taken into account on the Internal side. f] Z. Hodges I have never held the position that every single original reading must have a majority (or, plurality) among the extant manuscript copies. All other things being equal, a reading with a very large majority is likely to be right, but as the numerical advantage decreases so does this probability...I hold, then, that the Majority textform is the preferred form of the original, but not that all of its actual readings must survive in greater numbers than any of their rivals. This latter view is basically a petitio principii, and is transcriptionally implausible. So it does indeed appear, as Pickering stated, that no 'Majority text' theorist believes that a numercal superiority of MSS will always attest to the true reading." (pp. 7-10) >Second, the fact that Byzantine texts are so numerous forces a change >in approach. Unlike the other text-types, it is possible to do stemmatic >work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text. Stemmatic work on the Byz _text_, or merely on some small _family_ within the Byz tradition? >perhaps we could group scholars into 3 groups > 1. Textually uncritical. > 2. Champions of a particular text type. > 3. Eclectics. >coments anyone? >Does group 1 really qualify as "scholarly"? :-) If you refer to KJV onlyism, then I think they are scholarly.....not!! ;-) Mike Arcieri From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 10:00:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA12105; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:59:04 -0400 From: "Michael Fox" To: tc-list-digest@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:54:00 -0600 Subject: uncials & majuscules X-Gateway: iGate, (GroupWise) vers 4.05g - 1032 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <326E23A2.6047.009B.000@lss.wisc.edu> 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: 87 While we're at it, is there in any difference between "uncial" and "majuscule"? Mike From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 10:07:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12174; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:06:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:06:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories In-Reply-To: <326D9C90.2E68@dhinternet.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: 4368 On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III wrote: > Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the > original language? Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on > the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, > Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to > offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the > languages? And, on Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Johannes van der Tak responded: > Yes, Hubert Bahr, that is a correct suggestion about versions. I have > been working on the text of the Slavonic version, of which by the way up > to now no critical or other edition exists, and I noticed that the > Slavonic version may in some minor cases contribute something to the > correct choice in establishing the Greek text. > My publications on this have appeared in Paleobulgarica (1995) and Polata > Knigopisnaya (1996). I showed, however, that it concerns only minor > points, not "main issues" in belief or that sort of Christian topics. The question of how (or even whether!) to use the versions in textual criticism illustrates a significant difference in approaches among OT and NT textual critics. While most NT people would probably agree in theory with Metzger that the versions are important for determining the "original text" (Aland disputes this, however--and the whole question of "original text" deserves another thread), the fact is that there is probably not a single reading in NA27 based primarily, let alone exclusively, on versional evidence. Although Bill Petersen and a few others have issued a call for more attention to be paid to the early versions (and fathers), it seems that few are heeding it. The reason for setting aside the versions is easy to see: there are so many early Greek witnesses that many people find it hard to believe that the versions can really add anything of substance to the conversation. Of course, the difficulty in dealing with other languages (especially languages like Slavonic!) also comes into play. OT textual critics, on the other hand, are forced to look more closely at the versions, because most Hebrew witnesses (i.e., the MT) are medieval in date, and so many readings throughout the OT are obviously corrupt in Hebrew. Of course, some OT text-critics make every effort to support the MT whenever possible (by resorting to linguistic criticism, for example), but few, if any, would say that the LXX especially never provides a superior reading. Of course, many OT scholars frequently prefer readings of the LXX (or occasionally one of the other versions) to that of the MT or of other Hebrew witnesses. OT textual critics' need to deal with the versions has led them to begin to develop methodologies for using the versions. The best-known example is Tov's book _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint_, but there are several other studies dealing with one version or another. The practice of pulling a reading from a Syriac witness more or less haphazardly is surely unjustifiable from a methodological perspective, and I think that text-critics of the OT, and especially of the NT, need to focus more on the question of methodology. Here are some questions that must be addressed. (1) Which text of a version should I use (i.e., is there a critical text?)? (2) What are the characteristics of the target language that reflect aspects of the source language? (3) What grammatical or stylistic features of the target language make it difficult or impossible to represent the source language? (4) What grammatical or stylistic features of the _version_ make it unlikely that the _Vorlage_ can be reconstructed at a given point in the text? (5) What procedures should be followed to retrovert a versional text into the source language? (6) Where does a particular version fit within the textual stemma that includes all the witnesses (as nearly as can be determined)? These, it seems to me, are some of the questions that ought to be addressed by anyone who wants to use versional evidence in textual criticism. No wonder the versions are so neglected! 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 Wed Oct 23 10:25:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12356; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:23:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:19:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199610231419.JAA28360@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu 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: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1810 At 08:54 AM 10/23/96 -0600, Michael Fox wrote: >While we're at it, is there in any difference between "uncial" and >"majuscule"? In common usage, not really. But D. C. Parker, in his contribution to _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_ (ed. Ehrman & Holmes; Eerdmans, 1995) points out that among palaeographers "uncial" applies "only to a particular kind of Latin majuscule." Thus "majuscule," "of a fair size," stands against "minuscule," "rather small," as the general category, with "uncial" being one type of majuscule. He also points out that in NT text-critical usage, "uncial" is almost a description of the character of a book, not just the script, since to fall into the category of "uncial" in the Gregory-Aland system, an item must not only be written in a certain script (majuscule/uncial), but also on parchment or paper (since uncial/majuscule writing on papyrus goes in the "Papyri" category) and with a continuous text (since the ca. 270 lectionaries written in majuscule/uncial script are categorized under the Lectionaries). The latter two criteria, of course, having nothing to do with script. So, the use of the term "uncial" in NT textual criticism is typically idiosyncratic. In light of the history of the usage of the term "uncial" in our discipline, it is unlikely that we will abandon "uncial" as a category reference (for continuous-text MSS in a certain script on parchment or paper). But perhaps for clarity and precision we might follow Parker's suggestion and use the term "majuscule" if we intend to refer just to the script, apart from other characteristics of a MS. If nothing else, it would make it less easy to forget that the papyri and many lectionaries are written in the same type of majuscule script as our "uncial" MSS. Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 10:32:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12405; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:30:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961023102632.22ff55ee@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: 526 At 08:54 AM 10/23/96 -0600, you wrote: >While we're at it, is there in any difference between "uncial" and >"majuscule"? > > Mike > According to W.G. Kuemmel- "Nach der Art der Schrift zerfallen die Handschriften in Grossschrift (oder Kapitalschrift-) Handschriften: Majuskel- oder Unzial Handschriften und in Kleinschrift-Handschriften: Minuskelhandschriften". So there is evidently no difference between Majuscule and Uncial. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 10:41:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12557; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:41:01 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <326D9C90.2E68@dhinternet.com> References: <199610221547.QAA31046@ermine.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:36:21 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 13942 I'm replying to three different posts here, so forgive me if I can't keep all the threads straight. I'll try to produce a coherent whole. Hubert Arthur Bahr III , replying to me: > >> Eclecticism *must* >> be categorized. My approach, based strongly on text-types, is very >> distinct from Kilpatrick and Elliot, whose approach is based on >> internal evidence. > >So there is a full spectrum of approaches instead of three primary >colors. Discarding group 1 which would represent scholars in other >fields. Groups two and three appear to blended in varying degrees to >make the field we know as textual criticism. Am I getting it or getting >way off? > >Red exclusive use of a particular text >Orange strong preference for a particular text >Yellow external eclecticism >Green mixed, mostly external >Blue Mixed, about evenly >Indigo Mixed, mostly Internal >Violet Internal Eclecticism In a way, I like this, since it very nearly -- er -- covers the entire spectrum. But I worry a little about trying to classify ourselves this way. I can just see people trying to classify themselves exactly: "Hi, I'm a magenta textual critic." "I tend more toward mauve myself...." :-) >Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the >original language? Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on >the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, >Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to >offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the >languages? In some cases, e.g. Georgian, it is lack of knowledge and critical editions. (Georgian is neither Indo-European nor Semitic. Combine this with the region's physical and political inaccessibility, and it's not surprising that the language is not well known.) There is a lot to be said for the use of the versions. The Old Latin is our primary witness to the "Western" text of the Gospels and Acts (since Codex Bezae is at least partly edited.) The Sahidic Coptic is one of only three witnesses to its text-type in Paul. The Harklean Syriac is the earliest representative of its text-type (family 2138) in the Catholics. The Armenian and Georgian versions are leading witnesses to the "Caesarean" text of the Gospels, and are also unique and interesting elsewhere. The caution, of course, is that one must be *absolutely* sure what the underlying Greek of the version was. If a version has a reading which is not found in any Greek witness, the concern must always arise that this is a paraphrase or a mistake in the transmission of the version. >> -- but if my >> choices are to be an internal eclectic or to choose to always follow >> the text of family 1739, I'll take 1739 any day. > >What are the weaknesses you see to internal eclecticism? Subjectivity. As a person trained in physics and math, I find it hard to accept a system that is not rigorous. There are a dozen or so "basic" canons of internal criticism floating around (although they are all, in fact, corollaries of the rule "That reading is best which best explains the others"). How do you decide when to apply "prefer the harder reading" as opposed to "prefer the reading which matches the author's style"? Note that I sometimes use internal criteria. Since I find four early text-types in Paul, there are often instances where the text-types split in two, with two on each side. Here I must turn to internal criteria. But internal criteria are my *last* refuge, whereas for others they are the first. ******************* Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@compuserve.com>: >Pardon this late rejoinder regarding a point raised early on. :-) > >>1. KJV only - the TR was shepherded by God to us through the centuries and we >>should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom." > >>This isn't really a theory of textual criticism, just a theory about the >>text. As Daniel B. Wallace points out, there has never been a legitimate >>textual scholar who has held *this* point of view. > >Actually Wallace is not entirely accurate. There was in fact a legit >scholar who >advocated a TR/KJV only position, namely Edward F. Hills. His Th.D diss (at >Harvard) was on the "Caesarean Family of NT MSS" and 3 articles of his were >published by JBL. There is no doubt as to his academics, but Hills' arguments >regarding the superiority of the TR over against even the Byzantine tradition >itself pretty much go against all that he learned in New Testament Textual >Criticism. His _entire_ position is theological and full of holes (MSS >evidence >is secondary). I consider Hills to be the father of modern KJV onlyism >(esp. in >light of comments from modern KJV worshippers - like Ruckman - who said he >owes >"a great deal to Hills for his own view re. the transmission of the text" ). >Hills' defense for the TR/JKJV is still the most "scholarly" in print. I suppose I should have been clearer: There is a legitimate textual scholar (Hills) who supports the TR -- but his defense of the TR does not make use of any sort of textual methodology. Hills defends the TR in much the same way that I would defend the belief that humans have free will: I can't offer any proof, but I just *know* it. :-) >>2. Byzantine priority [ ... ] > >>This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups. >>1. The followers of Dean Burgon. Maurice Robinson is a modern example. > > They believe that the majority text is always "original." > >This is correct. Robinson is a legit "Burgonite" ;-) as compared to Donald >Waite, president of the "Dean Burgon Society". Waite merely uses Burgon's name >as a smokescreen to pass on his TR/KJV agenda. > >>2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that >> the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times >> smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text. > >External/internal evidence is legit and was used by Robinson/Pierpont in their >edition of the GNT. The primary diff between Hodges/Farstad and >Robinson/Pierpont is the use of stemmatics, which in a number of cases allows >Hodges/Farstad and Pickering to prefer "minority" readings over "majority". As I understand what Robinson has said (on this very list), he uses internal evidence only where the Byzantine text is so divided that there is no true majority reading (e.g. 2 Cor. 2:17). As you note, he does not use stemmatics. Hodges and Farstad use stemmatics at only two places (the Pericope and the Apocalypse), but their introduction appeals to internal evidence in places where a simple majority may perhaps be found. Of course, in both cases the differences arise only where there is *some* division in the majority text. >>There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not >>claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they >>deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one >>of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis. > >>This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values >>the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least >>of the text-types. > >I'm not sure of how many Byzantine supporters actually accept this view. I >suspect Sturz may be alone on this. Sturz is, as far as I know, alone among moderns. However, his view of text-types is actually quite similar to von Soden's, except that they differ in how positively they view the Byzantine text. Sturz is, in fact, half-way between the Majority Text view and a Westcott-Hort view. It seems to me (and realize that I am getting this second-hand, via Wallace) that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp. I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously Scrivener was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; he just concluded that the Byzantine text was best. Witness the quotation already cited (in a different post): >That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never >ought to have been asserted by any one.... > >If you shew us all, or nearly all, the uncials which you prize so >deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text which is >recommended by >all the best versions and the most ancient Fathers, depend upon it we will not >urge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number of the cursive >copies, >be they ever so numerous on the other side. > >That where there is real agreement between all the documents prior to the >tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be rejected unheard, >is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported by strong >internal >evidence, can hardly be adopted. Again from this post: >>First, the majority of those who prefer the Byzantine text prefer >>it on theological grounds ("God must consider the Byzantine text >>right, of (s)he would not have made so many copies") or on numerical >>grounds ("it's the majority; it must be right"). There are, of >>course, exceptions (so don't say it, Maurice), but this is how >>most Byzantine prioritists feel. > >I think this is a slight confusion here re. Byzantine defenders. The >"theological" argument is _primary_ among TR/KJV onlyism, followed with little >or no text-critical argumentation. Byzantine supporters make their case >_primarily_ from the MSS evidence. Hodges/Farstad and Robinson?pierpont >did NOT >use theological arguments to produce their GNT, but canons of criticism. >Secondly, it is not entirely true that "most Byzantine prioritists" hold to >"it's the majority; it must be right". This is the danger of summarizing; I did not give the full picture. It is true that Hodges & Farstad argue for the Byzantine text on the basis of the majority (and resort to stemmatics in some cases). Robinson prefers the Byzantine text on internal grounds. Pickering, on the other hand, while he tries to argue from the evidence, finally admits in his Appendix A that he believes in divine preservation. One cannot help but feel that this applies to many of the other Byzantine prioritists. Most belong to conservative denominations (Burgon is an exception). I can't help but feel that the belief in verbal inspiration also leads implicitly to a belief in divine preservation. But no matter how one views the above points, one thing is clear: Both Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont resorted to internal evidence (stemmatics, evidence of readings, whatever) only when there is *some* division in the Byzantine text. So, ultimately, in both cases the majority rules. Please note: I do not say this to denigrate their editions. I think both must be regarded as "rough drafts" (Hodges/Farstad openly admit to this). But they are rough drafts of two things we need desperately: HF is a rough draft of the original Byzantine text, and RP is a rough draft of a true edition of the Majority Text. We (at least, I) desperately need both. > [ Burgon ] Burgon, in fact, offered seven "Notes of Truth": 1. Antiquity 2. Consent of witnesses, or number 3. Variety of evidence, or Catholicity (witnesses from many different areas) 4. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition 5. Respectability of witnesses, or weight. 6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context 7. Internal considerations, or reasonableness Most of these would, on their face, be accepted by other textual critics. Note, however, how they are applied. To be "ancient," a reading must occur by the twelfth century! Continuity, therefore, means that a reading attested only in the twelfth through fifteenth centuries is preferable to one found only in the third through fifth. And the only "respectable" witnesses are the Byzantine witnesses (Burgon called Aleph, B, and D "scandalously corrupt" and "liars" -- a charge that surely should not be leveled at any manuscript that is not a forgery). And "internal considerations" applies only to "impossible" readings. In other words, Burgon had good criteria, but he used them in such a way that only a Byzantine reading need apply. I concede, as Arcieri's quotations show, that none of these scholars *claim* that numbers are decisive. But I would challenge you to show me a single instance where their preferred reading does not have the support of at least 25% of the manuscript tradition. It should be noted that I actually agree with this position in part. I believe that, if a reading is not supported by at least one text-type, it cannot be considered original. But I really don't care which text-type it's found in. >>Second, the fact that Byzantine texts are so numerous forces a change >>in approach. Unlike the other text-types, it is possible to do stemmatic >>work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text. > >Stemmatic work on the Byz _text_, or merely on some small _family_ within the >Byz tradition? It is obviously possible to establish families within the Byzantine text. (See Wisse.) From there it should be possible (though I don't think anyone but von Soden has attempted it) to find relationships among these families. Whether this is called "stemmatic" is, of course, a matter of definition. But it *does* allow a historical view of the Byzantine text. And, in theory, this is the approach Hodges & Farstad advocate. This is hardly possible for other text-types. For example, Zuntz's so called "proto-Alexandrian" text-type in Paul has no more than five witnesses (p46, B, 1739, sa, bo). I believe that both 1739 and bo should be excluded, leaving only p46 B sa. It's awfully hard to do historical or stemmatic work with only three witnesses! *********** All right, that's all for today, folks. Next time I think I'll reply to the various postings separately. Maybe we won't wind up feeling so exhausted. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 11:05:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12817; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:59:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:54:46 GMT X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4176 >Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the >original language? Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on >the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, >Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to >offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the >languages? > I agree with this. One of the things I regret most in greek NT editions (specially NA27) is that they hardly use the versions at all. In Belgium, we have some specialists (P. Bogaert, G. Gryson) working on the old latin versions and each of their studies shows the real antiquity of these text-types, as well for OT as for NT. =46or my part, I have learned most of the languages of NT versions, and I'm often seeing how NT scholars should benefit from this study. I am preparing editions of Arabic manuscripts of the Gospels, and some of them show a very old type of text. I think there are some reasons why NT scholars don't study the versions: 1. Prejudice: as versional mss are "late", they can't be interesting. This is also what leads the Aland school to prefer the egyptian papyri above everything. In fact, all that the egyptian papyri show us is the evolution of the text... in Egypt. Speaking about dates, late versions, specially when they are far geographically from the center (Greece and Anatolia) can keep very old textual forms. Just an example: in the Brussels Royal Library, there's a Persian ms of the Gospels of the XVIIth century... and it's full of old syriac variants. The Arabic ms of which I'm prepairing an edition is of the Xth century, but it reflects a text form that is both short and clearly palestinian (by this, I mean it has many common variants with codex Koridethi, the syropalestinian and georgian versions). And let's not speak about diatessaric witnesses: when two of them, at two extremities of the world, share common variants, it seems to me to be of much weight... But NT scholars wouldn't even look at it, because these mss are "late". In fact, I think peripheral traditions are often more _conservative_ than the greek one. This is also true, by the way, in liturgy, a closely related discipline, and this leads me to my second point. 2. Confessional and theological influences. Most NT scholars come from theological circles. Some might have begun learning their greek in seminary, and theological institutions are often not the place to study, say, georgian, middle dutch or arabic. There is already so much to study in the fields of dogmatics and pastoral theology. Thelogical education is not adequate for a discipline like textual criticism as it is a _literary_ discipline. Also, at least in America (which is where most of you live) the religious scene is dominated by protestantism, and often by non-liturgical forms of it. As I work in the two fields of NT textual criticism, I notice that both fields are intimately related, as characteristics of a liturgical tradition will also be seen in the text it uses. On example to illustrate this : the appearance, then dominance of the Byzantine text in the Jerusalem patriarchate coincides with (1) the loss of power of its patriarch, residing then in Constantinople, and (2) the introduction of the St John Chrysostom liturgy (also byzantine) in place of the older, local, St James liturgy). But liturgy, and especially history of the eastern liturgies and churches, doesn't receive much attention in the formation of evangelical ministers - and it's quite normal. Only, when this minister wants to become a scholar, will he have to take some supplementary courses in those disciplines. I notice that what I write might sound harsh to some of you - I don't know, I'm sorry if this is so, it's probably because I write in a language that's not mine (I speak french) and I don't intend to be offensive at all! shlomo w-shayno ! Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est inutilisabl= e. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 11:55:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13498; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:53:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961023114922.24bf413a@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: 1002 At 04:54 PM 10/23/96 +0000, you wrote: > Thelogical education is not >adequate for a discipline like textual criticism as it is a _literary_ >discipline. > And yet many of the best text critics are the product of a "theological" education. If, however, you mean that text criticism does not receive adequate attention in theological seminaries I would have to agree with you. But I think you have painted with a rather broad brush here. Maurice Robinson is an excellent text critic, whether one agrees or not with his conclusions. >I notice that what I write might sound harsh to some of you - Not really harsh- just too broad and general to be true. "Erore latent in generalibus" (sorry if this is wrong- my latin is for reading). > >Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique >What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Rightly said! Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 12:08:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13655; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:07:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:03:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 10949 Allow me to respond to two items at once regarding my views of the Byzantine Text: > On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, KHGrenier@aol.com wrote: > > >2. Byzantine priority - While the Byzantine text is not present significantly > >prior to 500 (?) CE, it does reflect the autographs better than the other > >text types. Maurice Robinson would say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the > >process of copying and cross-checking would generally bring most deviant > >texts back into line with the autographs. Even though this is an over-simplification, I do hold that cross-comparison and correction do tend to move a text to a more "Byzantine" type which then becomes reflected in exemplars later copied from such corrected texts, etc. However, I do not hold that this is the only or even primary means by which the Byzantine Textform was created or perpetuated, nor do I necessarily think that it was primarily "most deviant texts" which were necessarily so corrected as opposed to those texts which already reflected a "standard" Byzantine Textform. Certainly those MSS which _were_ corrected (regardless of the level of "deviancy") will tend to show in their corrections a trend more in the direction of the standard Byzantine Textform than away from such in almost all cases; however, the amount of such correction and the variant readings inserted as corrections will differ widely, depending upon the MS and how much correction may have taken place upon that MS. It remains of far more importance to postulate a stemmatic descent of Byzantine MSS from previous Byzantine exemplars (of which cross-comparison and correction are a reflection but not the substance) in a quantity proportional to that which the extant evidence reflects than to build a case solely upon the observed phenomena of cross-correction. On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups. > > 1. The followers of Dean Burgon. Maurice Robinson is a modern example. > They believe that the majority text is always "original." I do not object to being called a follower of Burgon (indeed Dan Wallace has so characterized me), but I do object to the caricature of that position as merely "the majority text is always original". Apart from the erronoues implication of mere "nose-counting" (Fee et al.) which this implies, it also makes it appear that there is no other criterion by which the text is established in that system, when Burgon himself went into great detail concerning his seven varied "notes of truth", only one of which (and that #4) was "number". Burgon also was careful not to use the term "majority text", but preferred "traditional text"; I of course argue for "Byzantine priority" and not "majority" anything. As I have pointed out previously on this list, there are many places where the Byzantine Textform is numerically divided, and where "number" is irrelevant to the case. In such places other external and internal principles of textual restoration remain applicable, including the examination of versional and patristic data, as well as the evidence of non-Byzantine MSS concerning such variants. I really would consider my own position to be more within the "more complex methods" attributed to Hodges and Farstad and Pickering below (though I am very careful to make distinctions there as will be shown). > 2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that > the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times > smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text. Pickering should be separated from Hodges and Farstad, as well as from myself. Recently Pickering formally disassociated himself from any so-called "majority text" position because no one within the field agreed with some of his more extreme postulates, such as heretics being responsible for virtually all sensible non-Byzantine variants, and a theological bias favoring only readings which support his own theological views, including inerrancy as he sees it. Hodges and Farstad are "Burgonites" like myself for the most part, although I do see more of the theological "preservation" argument in their case than I think fits the evidence. However, the primary difference in approach between myself and H/F is that they claim a "majority text" position when convenient, and then proceed to abandon much of it in places where they apply their own particular stemmatic approach (which I consider flawed, since it is based upon mere agreement in readings rather than agreement in plain and clear error). Since I follow something like John G. Griffiths' "Numerical Taxonomy" approach for grouping MSS, a stemmatic approach such as that of H/F plays no part within my theory, even though I would not be opposed to a proper stemmatic inquiry regarding MS interrelationships. The greatest weakness with H/F's stemmatic approach is that, where they have applied their stemmatics, they end up championing a sub-type family within the Byzantine tradition which no longer reflects their professed "majority" position, e.g., in the Apocalypse, they follow a sub-group which reflects only 19% of the MSS, and which often stands opposed to the 81% remainder. I would not so swiftly depart what appears to be a strong Byzantine tradition in such cases (this being an instance of where the Byzantine tradition is not seriously divided). As Dan Wallace has pointed out, their text should more rightly be called something like "The Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text" rather than the "majority text". > There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not > claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they > deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one > of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis. Sturz, however, reconstructed the text almost mechanically, playing off 2 versus 3 texttypes. Basically if the Alexandrian and Byzantine agreed, so be it. If the Western and Byzantine agreed, so be it. And if the Alexandrian and Western agreed, so be it. One does not have to look long at this purely mechanical approach to see that, except where there might be Alexandrian and Western agreement against the Byzantine (and how often does that occur?!), then the Byzantine text will be followed. Although Sturz' method ends up producing a highly Byzantine text, there is nothing methodologically to commend it, even to those who might favor such a text. > This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values > the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least > of the text-types. I do not think Sturz valued any texttype more highly, though he did elevate the Byzantine text to equal status. Von Soden, had he been consistent with his own principles, would have probably produced a far more Byzantine text than he did, since he would have followed Sturz' methodology. However, Von Soden considered any agreement of the Byzantine text with Tatian or Marcion, or with parallel passages to be a corruption, and would not follow the Byzantine in such cases. This effectively made most of Von Soden's text Alexandrian in character, despite his claim that the Byzantine text was of co-equal authority with the Alexandrian and Western texts in its uncorrupted state. > noted, there are scholars (e.g. Vaganay, Amphoux, also Clark) who consider > the "Western" text the best. Just to clarify: this was A.C. Clark, and not Kenneth W. Clark. > first. So in Paul, for example, if a reading is attested by p46 Aleph > A B C D F G 33 1739, I *must* adopt it no matter what internal > evidence says. Only if the text-types (p46-B-sa, Aleph-A-C-33-bo, > D-F-G-latt, 1739-0243-1881-424**-6) divide am I even *allowed* > to look at internal evidence. This has parallels with my own Byzantine-priority method: if a reading is supported by 70%+ of the MSS, and especially if by 80%+ or 90%+, I am more bound to accept it -- not because of numerical "majority" but because it tends more and more to reflect a united Byzantine tradition. When the support for a reading drops below 70%, and especially as it approaches 50% (or, if more than one reading exists within the variant unit, as it drops below 50%), then internal evidence comes into significance and usually will be the determining factor in selecting a reading. This is _not_ to say, however, that internal evidence is not or should not be invoked in _any_ variant unit, even one where 99% of the MSS agree -- there still should always be a reasonable solution sought for the most strongly attested variant as well as an explanation for the rise of the weaker variant(s). This might not always be possible with certainty, but it should occur nevertheless, and in reality within any text-critical methodology. [quoting Grenier] > >Most agree that the > >majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500 > >(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture > >and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. I would take exception to this categorization, since there is little question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been created). AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as non-scripture. Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from the 3rd and 4th century. > a deliberate correction. See, for example, 1 Cor. 13:3. The original reading > is probably KAUCHSWMAI (p46 Aleph A B 33 1739* pc). An error converted this > to KAUQHSWMAI (K Psi Byz). This is impossible, so scribes "corrected" it > to KAUQHSOMAI (D F G L al). Not that again! *;-) I still would like someone to inform me as to _why_, if KAUQHSWMAI is such an "impossible error", that the vast majority of all Byzantine scribes _never_ corrected it to the more "proper" KAUQHSOMAI etc. We have been through all that before, but no one seems to take the mentality of the scribe into consideration -- do you seriously think that 99% of all scribes were such mere automatons that they could not correct an error of orthography, but only a few skilled scribes of the Western tradition were able so to do? Still illogical to me....but this is a different matter.... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 12:49:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14223; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:48:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:44:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 2258 On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > First, the majority of those who prefer the Byzantine text prefer > it on theological grounds ("God must consider the Byzantine text > right, of (s)he would not have made so many copies") or on numerical > grounds ("it's the majority; it must be right"). There are, of > course, exceptions (so don't say it, Maurice), but this is how > most Byzantine prioritists feel. The proponents of the other text, > by contrast, make their choice based on some perceived "inner > excellence" (obviously a subjective matter). Do what you will with "majority text" people, but please do not claim that Byzantine-prioritists defend the Byzantine text primarily or even at all on theological grounds. Leave that to Pickering and his crowd. Neither myself nor Hodges/Farstad would argue from either statement in quotes above. > in approach. Unlike the other text-types, it is possible to do stemmatic > work, and certainly historical work, on the Byzantine text. This > inevitably will affect the final text (note the differences between > Hodges & Farstad and Robinson on this very point). Again, note that I have no objection to stemmatics as applied to the Byzantine Textform. My objection is to the stemmatic method of Hodges/Farstad, and noted previously. A proper stemmatic approach, focussed on shared error as stemmatically significant is indeed a valid methodology. However, aside from family relationships which have already been established, most MSS of the Byzantine Textform do _not_ show any stemmatic links which would help in genealogical analysis. > preferred the TR was beyond my comprehension. By my standards, Robinson's > text and the TR are almost equally bad -- but Robinson himself is a > knowledgeable and insightful scholar. At least good scholars can prefer bad texts, is that what you are saying? I myself have thought precisely the same about most rigorous or reasoned eclectics. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 13:24:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14672; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:23:07 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:38:15 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4238 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote: >>Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the >>original language? Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on >>the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, >>Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to >>offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the >>languages? >> > >I agree with this. One of the things I regret most in greek NT editions >(specially NA27) is that they hardly use the versions at all. Hear, hear! NA27 ignores the Armenian and Georgian, often fails to cite the Coptic versions, and is inadequate for the Old Latin (for many variations you can't tell which Latins read what). [ ... ] >I think there are some reasons why NT scholars don't study the versions: [ ... ] >2. Confessional and theological influences. Most NT scholars come from >theological circles. Some might have begun learning their greek in >seminary, and theological institutions are often not the place to study, >say, georgian, middle dutch or arabic. There is already so much to study in >the fields of dogmatics and pastoral theology. Thelogical education is not >adequate for a discipline like textual criticism as it is a _literary_ >discipline. Again, a very good point. In fact, I think the "perfect" textual critic will have *four* kinds of training. 1. Linguistic 2. Mathematical (to deal with the statistical study of manuscripts. As a mathematician, I can only state that very many textual studies have been *very* mathematically bad). 3. Literary 4. Folkloric. Folklore and folk music is the only field which allows us to see tradition in action. Admittedly this is oral tradition, and the NT tradition is primarily written -- but we all know that the Biblical tradition also contains oral elements. Notice that I did not list theological training. Obviously those with theological training are usually those most interested in NT textual criticism -- but it may also cause them to develop bias. And I should note that I do not meet my own critera. I am a horrible linguist. I am a decent mathematician, I have a passing knowledge of literary phenomena, and I am a fair folklorist (perhaps the best on this list, but that may not be saying much :-). I wonder if anyone has *ever* met all the criteria? >Also, at least in America (which is where most of you live) the >religious scene is dominated by protestantism, and often by non-liturgical >forms of it. As I work in the two fields of NT textual criticism, I notice >that both fields are intimately related, as characteristics of a liturgical >tradition will also be seen in the text it uses. On example to illustrate >this : the appearance, then dominance of the Byzantine text in the >Jerusalem patriarchate coincides with (1) the loss of power of its >patriarch, residing then in Constantinople, and (2) the introduction of the >St John Chrysostom liturgy (also byzantine) in place of the older, local, >St James liturgy). But liturgy, and especially history of the eastern >liturgies and churches, doesn't receive much attention in the formation of >evangelical ministers - and it's quite normal. Only, when this minister >wants to become a scholar, will he have to take some supplementary courses >in those disciplines. I'll agree that liturgy and text are intimately related. Though I don't see why not growing up with the liturgy would keep us from understanding its influence. >I notice that what I write might sound harsh to some of you - I don't know, >I'm sorry if this is so, it's probably because I write in a language that's >not mine (I speak french) and I don't intend to be offensive at all! I don't think this sounds harsh; I think most of what you said is true. Of course, I am neither a trained textual critic nor a person who subscribes to the usual textual theories. So much for my opinions. :-) Robert B. Waltz - - - - - - - - Ballad Index Editor 2095 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4801 612-454-8994 - - - - - - - - - - e-mail: waltzmn@skypoint.com The Ballad Index Web Site: http://www.csufresno.edu/forlang/folklore/bdindxengl/BalladIndexTOC.html From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 13:44:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14914; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:42:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961023133944.277fd650@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: 534 At 11:38 AM 10/23/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Of course, I am neither a trained textual critic nor a person who >subscribes to the usual textual theories. So much for my opinions. :-) > Which automatically brings to mind the story Luther told of the ape in the shoe shop. Fascinating reading and perhaps even folklore. >Robert B. Waltz - - - - - - - - Ballad Index Editor > Jim (theologically trained and knowledgable in TC) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 13:59:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15192; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:58:31 -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, 23 Oct 1996 12:54:13 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 10643 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote (in two separate posts): [BTW... I'm not going to repeat most of what Maurice said... I assume he knows more about his views than I do. :-) Where I have truly misrepresented him, I am sorry.... At least I learned more about his views as a result.] [ first message, much omitted... ] >> preferred the TR was beyond my comprehension. By my standards, Robinson's >> text and the TR are almost equally bad -- but Robinson himself is a >> knowledgeable and insightful scholar. > >At least good scholars can prefer bad texts, is that what you are saying? >I myself have thought precisely the same about most rigorous or reasoned >eclectics. *;-) Straight out of Newton: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Yes, good scholars can prefer bad texts. My feeling about your text is probably exactly the same as your feeling about mine (or about UBS/GNT, anyway...). [ second message, much omitted... ] >> This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups. >> >> 1. The followers of Dean Burgon. Maurice Robinson is a modern example. >> They believe that the majority text is always "original." > >I do not object to being called a follower of Burgon (indeed Dan Wallace >has so characterized me), but I do object to the caricature of that >position as merely "the majority text is always original". Apart from >the erronoues implication of mere "nose-counting" (Fee et al.) which this >implies, it also makes it appear that there is no other criterion by which >the text is established in that system, when Burgon himself went into >great detail concerning his seven varied "notes of truth", only one of >which (and that #4) was "number". Burgon also was careful not to use the >term "majority text", but preferred "traditional text"; I of course argue >for "Byzantine priority" and not "majority" anything. See my previous post for my reaction to this. > >> 2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that >> the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times >> smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text. > >Pickering should be separated from Hodges and Farstad, as well as from >myself. Recently Pickering formally disassociated himself from any >so-called "majority text" position because no one within the field agreed >with some of his more extreme postulates, such as heretics being >responsible for virtually all sensible non-Byzantine variants, and a >theological bias favoring only readings which support his own >theological views, including inerrancy as he sees it. Interesting. All I've read is his "Identity," which has always struck me as a very strange book... part good sound reasoning, part special pleading (especially against the outdated theories of Westcott & Hort) and part pure balderdash. I'm curious: When did he dissociate himself from the movement? Before or after the two Byzantine/Majority editions appeared? >Hodges and Farstad are "Burgonites" like myself for the most part, >although I do see more of the theological "preservation" argument in their >case than I think fits the evidence. I would note that I offered (perhaps not clearly enough) Maurice Robinson as an *exception* to those who claim "providential preservation." >The greatest weakness with H/F's stemmatic approach is that, where they >have applied their stemmatics, they end up championing a sub-type family >within the Byzantine tradition which no longer reflects their professed >"majority" position, e.g., in the Apocalypse, they follow a sub-group >which reflects only 19% of the MSS, and which often stands opposed to the >81% remainder. I would not so swiftly depart what appears to be a strong >Byzantine tradition in such cases (this being an instance of where the >Byzantine tradition is not seriously divided). As Dan Wallace has pointed >out, their text should more rightly be called something like "The >Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text" rather than the "majority text". This is why I believe that *both* H/F and R/P deserve to be in scholars' "toolboxes." R/P is the best available edition of the Majority Text. H/F gives more of a historical reconstruction. Even if one does not consider the resultant texts original, they are very important for studying influences on other text-types. >> There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not >> claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they >> deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one >> of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis. > >Sturz, however, reconstructed the text almost mechanically, playing off 2 >versus 3 texttypes. Basically if the Alexandrian and Byzantine agreed, so >be it. If the Western and Byzantine agreed, so be it. And if the >Alexandrian and Western agreed, so be it. One does not have to look long >at this purely mechanical approach to see that, except where there might >be Alexandrian and Western agreement against the Byzantine (and how often >does that occur?!), Depends on which definition of the "Western" text we use, and which part of the Bible. It happens often in Paul. >then the Byzantine text will be followed. Although >Sturz' method ends up producing a highly Byzantine text, there is nothing >methodologically to commend it, even to those who might favor such a text. The problem, of course, is that Sturz never did produce a text, so we can't tell what his results would have been. His introduction has been variously interpreted: Wallace reads it as very pro-Byzantine, I read it as *mildly* pro-Byzantine (my feeling is that Sturz would follow the Byzantine text in the event of a three-way split), Robinson reads it as neutral. >> This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values >> the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least >> of the text-types. > >I do not think Sturz valued any texttype more highly, though he did >elevate the Byzantine text to equal status. Von Soden, had he been >consistent with his own principles, would have probably produced a far >more Byzantine text than he did, since he would have followed Sturz' >methodology. However, Von Soden considered any agreement of the Byzantine >text with Tatian or Marcion, or with parallel passages to be a corruption, >and would not follow the Byzantine in such cases. This effectively made >most of Von Soden's text Alexandrian in character, despite his claim that >the Byzantine text was of co-equal authority with the Alexandrian and >Western texts in its uncorrupted state. Agreed on all points. We all know the defects of von Soden's theories of influence. Still, von Soden's text -- at least according to Aland -- is more Byzantine than any "modern critical" edition except Vogels. >> noted, there are scholars (e.g. Vaganay, Amphoux, also Clark) who consider >> the "Western" text the best. > >Just to clarify: this was A.C. Clark, and not Kenneth W. Clark. And to further clarify, A.C. Clark was working primarily on Acts, not the gospels. >> first. So in Paul, for example, if a reading is attested by p46 Aleph >> A B C D F G 33 1739, I *must* adopt it no matter what internal >> evidence says. Only if the text-types (p46-B-sa, Aleph-A-C-33-bo, >> D-F-G-latt, 1739-0243-1881-424**-6) divide am I even *allowed* >> to look at internal evidence. > >This has parallels with my own Byzantine-priority method: if a reading is >supported by 70%+ of the MSS, and especially if by 80%+ or 90%+, I am more >bound to accept it -- not because of numerical "majority" but because it >tends more and more to reflect a united Byzantine tradition. When the >support for a reading drops below 70%, and especially as it approaches 50% >(or, if more than one reading exists within the variant unit, as it drops >below 50%), then internal evidence comes into significance and usually >will be the determining factor in selecting a reading. This is _not_ to >say, however, that internal evidence is not or should not be invoked in >_any_ variant unit, even one where 99% of the MSS agree -- there still >should always be a reasonable solution sought for the most strongly >attested variant as well as an explanation for the rise of the weaker >variant(s). This might not always be possible with certainty, but it >should occur nevertheless, and in reality within any text-critical >methodology. As Robinson notes, in terms of method, he and I have some similarity. We are both, as Michael Holmes would put it, "Historical-documentary" workers -- that is, the evidence of the manuscripts is paramount. Where we differ (here again it is Holmes who made the point) is in our reconstruction of the history of the text. And it is here that the differences are vast. :-) [ ... ] > >> a deliberate correction. See, for example, 1 Cor. 13:3. The original reading >> is probably KAUCHSWMAI (p46 Aleph A B 33 1739* pc). An error converted this >> to KAUQHSWMAI (K Psi Byz). This is impossible, so scribes "corrected" it >> to KAUQHSOMAI (D F G L al). > >Not that again! *;-) Hey, this one will never go away. :-) I still would like someone to inform me as to _why_, >if KAUQHSWMAI is such an "impossible error", that the vast majority of all >Byzantine scribes _never_ corrected it to the more "proper" KAUQHSOMAI >etc. We have been through all that before, but no one seems to take the >mentality of the scribe into consideration -- do you seriously think that >99% of all scribes were such mere automatons that they could not correct >an error of orthography, but only a few skilled scribes of the Western >tradition were able so to do? Still illogical to me....but this is a >different matter.... I would say that, in one sense at least, I was complementing the Byzantine scribes. While I consider KAUQHSWMAI the primary reading, and KAUQHSWMAI secondary, KAUQHSOMAI is *tertiary.* It's completely worthless. It *cannot* have been original. Yet it's the text most scholars print, even today. The Byzantine scribes copied a secondary reading, but at least they were careful enough to preserve the secondary reading, rather than make the obvious correction to the tertiary reading. I wouldn't call the "Western" scribes "skilled"; I'd call them careless. Frankly, I am surprised the "rigorous eclectics" don't favour KAUQHSWMAI. It is so *obviously* the harder reading. If it had any support at all (by my standards), I would adopt it. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 14:27:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15707; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:26:01 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961023133944.277fd650@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:21:11 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 780 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, you wrote: >>Of course, I am neither a trained textual critic nor a person who >>subscribes to the usual textual theories. So much for my opinions. :-) >> > >Which automatically brings to mind the story Luther told of the ape in the >shoe shop. Fascinating reading and perhaps even folklore. Being the untrained (and un-Lutheran) person I am, I'm afraid I don't know that one. Oh well. Maybe my wild-eyed anarchism will spark ideas in somebody who is in a position to do something about them. And I hope you won't interpret what I said as implying that theological education is a detriment. I just am not sure what additional tools it brings to the critic's arsenal (perhaps the ability to detect heretical readings? :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 14:44:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15919; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:42:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:42:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961023102632.22ff55ee@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: 612 I am working on the brief entry for "uncial" in the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, and I have discovered the same thing that Michael Holmes noted, that "uncial" is sometimes used as a technical term for a curved form of Greek or Latin majuscules. The use of the term to refer to Greek majuscule continuous text parchment mss, though idiosyncratic, does seem to be entrenched among NT textual critics. 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 Wed Oct 23 14:50:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15971; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:49:33 -0400 From: KHGrenier@aol.com Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:45:27 -0400 Message-ID: <961023144527_339471873@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1372 In a message dated 96-10-23 12:06:37 EDT, Maurice Robinson writes: > [quoting Grenier] > > >Most agree that the > >majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500 > >(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture > >and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. > > I would take exception to this categorization, since there is little > question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well > as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell > considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been > created). AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as > non-scripture. Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for > comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of > cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from > the 3rd and 4th century. Thank you for your comments, Maurice. I'm wondering if you could give a short paragraph of your understanding of the time period I was trying to write about. I am happy to have my paragraph's weaknesses pointed out, but what I need is someone replace my paragraph with a better one. That way, I have something true to put in my head and not just know that what I have written is incorrect. Thanks, Kevin Grenier From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 15:44:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16868; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:43:15 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.16.19961023133944.277fd650@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:39:01 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oops! Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 182 Sorry, folks, for my last post. I was replying to what I though was a personal post to me, and it wound up on the list. I'll try harder next time. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 20:54:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA19508; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:53:05 -0400 Message-Id: <326EBB6F.6A82@dhinternet.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 19:42:23 -0500 From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories--Versional evidence 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: 3769 James R. Adair wrote: > The question of how (or even whether!) to use the versions in textual > criticism illustrates a significant difference in approaches among OT and > NT textual critics. While most NT people would probably agree in theory > with Metzger that the versions are important for determining the "original > text" (Aland disputes this, however--and the whole question of "original > text" deserves another thread), the fact is that there is probably not a > single reading in NA27 based primarily, let alone exclusively, on > versional evidence. Although Bill Petersen and a few others have issued a > call for more attention to be paid to the early versions (and fathers), it > seems that few are heeding it. The reason for setting aside the versions > is easy to see: there are so many early Greek witnesses that many people > find it hard to believe that the versions can really add anything of > substance to the conversation. Of course, the difficulty in dealing with > other languages (especially languages like Slavonic!) also comes into > play. > > OT textual critics, on the other hand, are forced to look more closely at > the versions, because most Hebrew witnesses (i.e., the MT) are medieval in > date, and so many readings throughout the OT are obviously corrupt in > Hebrew. Of course, some OT text-critics make every effort to support the > MT whenever possible (by resorting to linguistic criticism, for example), > but few, if any, would say that the LXX especially never provides a > superior reading. Of course, many OT scholars frequently prefer readings > of the LXX (or occasionally one of the other versions) to that of the MT > or of other Hebrew witnesses. > > OT textual critics' need to deal with the versions has led them to begin > to develop methodologies for using the versions. The best-known example > is Tov's book _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint_, but there are > several other studies dealing with one version or another. The practice > of pulling a reading from a Syriac witness more or less haphazardly is > surely unjustifiable from a methodological perspective, and I think that > text-critics of the OT, and especially of the NT, need to focus more on > the question of methodology. Here are some questions that must be > addressed. > > (1) Which text of a version should I use (i.e., is there a critical > text?)? Could you put together a "bibliography of critical texts" page on the TC website? I have a hard time getting books, but is next to impossible when I don't know what to ask the bookseller for. > > (2) What are the characteristics of the target language that reflect > aspects of the source language? > > (3) What grammatical or stylistic features of the target language make it > difficult or impossible to represent the source language? > > (4) What grammatical or stylistic features of the _version_ make it > unlikely that the _Vorlage_ can be reconstructed at a given point in the > text? > > (5) What procedures should be followed to retrovert a versional text into > the source language? > > (6) Where does a particular version fit within the textual stemma that > includes all the witnesses (as nearly as can be determined)? > > These, it seems to me, are some of the questions that ought to be > addressed by anyone who wants to use versional evidence in textual > criticism. No wonder the versions are so neglected! > > 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 <----------------- It looks like a huge job. What has been done to this point? And where could I go to prepare for such an undertaking? From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 22:09:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20000; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:08:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:03:51 GMT X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1209 Hello all! Just a remark in passing, I don't know how you will react about it, but I would find it interesting to have your comments... Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text / Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this difference? Here in Europe, most of the discussion goes between the german school (Aland and his text) and the French school (arguing for the Western text, even more specially, as with C. Amphoux, for Codex Bezae). For Europeans, the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century. Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is theological background the only reason? As I see that some of you argue in favor of the Byzantine text, I would specially appreciate to have their comments. Also all your comments about European NT textual criticism will be appreciated. shlomo w-shayno ! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 22:10:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20001; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:08:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:03:48 GMT X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1368 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >Hear, hear! NA27 ignores the Armenian and Georgian, often fails to >cite the Coptic versions, and is inadequate for the Old Latin (for >many variations you can't tell which Latins read what). > And let's not speak about Arabic, Ethiopian, medieval Dutch, English, Catalan, Soghdian, Persian, medieval Hebrew, etc... Though I work directly on the versions (and maybe not enough on the Greek, as my master C. Amphoux told me), I like the edition of Merk, who gives more versional and diatessaric evidence. Also, for the latin side, it gives the vulgate text with old latin variants. Though my exemplar dates from 1944, I do not feel that it has been superseeded. >I wonder if anyone has *ever* met all the criteria? I don't! >I'll agree that liturgy and text are intimately related. Though I don't >see why not growing up with the liturgy would keep us from understanding >its influence. Sure, only is it such an immense field that it's very difficult to master when coming from an un-liturgical background (which, by the way, is my case) - but we should all try... shlomo w-shayno ! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 23:17:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA20354; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:16:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:12:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 1203 Jean Valentin wrote: > Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often > passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text / > Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this > difference? > [...] > Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is > theological background the only reason? Jean I don't think a theologicial (or perhaps more correctly a faith) stance is the _only_ reason behind the MT position, but I think it is safe to say that it is the primary reason motivating the overwhelming majority of its advocates. Now it is certainly true that there are a few scholars who argue for the MT/TR on genuinely scholarly grounds. But it is also true that you can count those scholars on one hand (with plenty of fingers left over). Your point is well taken that there is lots of noise on this topic. But viewed more appropriately --i.e. in terms of a scholarly debate-- given that there are only (at most) two or three scholars supporting the minority position, the sound and fury tends to overwhelm the substance of the debate. And certainly makes it sound bigger/more important than would otherwise appear. N From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 00:57:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA20826; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:52:01 -0400 Date: 24 Oct 96 00:46:13 EDT From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Message-ID: <961024044612_102147.2045_EHT106-2@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1538 >Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium >As I see that some of you argue in favor of the Byzantine text, I would >specially appreciate to have their comments. Also all your comments about >European NT textual criticism will be appreciated. Cher Monsieur Valentin, Re. European Textual Criticism. First, let me say that I am glad you are on the TC-LIST! Within the last year I have acquired a copy of the following books (among others): La Palaeographie Greque et Byzantine Colloques Internationaux Prolegomenes a la Codicologie Leon Gilissen Paleographie du Moyen Age Jacques Stiennon Introduction a la Codicologie Jacques Lemaire Le Premier Humanisme Byzantin Paul Lemerle Introduction a l'Etude des Manuscrits R. Devreese La Reliure Medieval Baras/Irigoin/Vezin Les Types de Reglure des Manuscrits Grecs Julien Leroy Le Livre et Les Arts Qui s'y Rattachent (1894) M. P. Louisy L'Epopee du Livre A.-G. Hamman I think the Palaeographical data presented in all of these works to be extraordinary. I especially enjoy reading Gilissen and Lemaire, whose work is of the highest calibre. I have seen the work by C. Bozzolo and E. Ornato "Pour une Histoire du Livre Manuscrit" but do not have a copy (yet); I have several articles by Jean Irigoin; Tell me, have you ever read "La Terminologie Du Livre-Manuscrit a l'Epoque Byzantine" by Basile Atsalos? Isin't there a center in Bruxelles for the study of Palaeography? If there is, and they have a WWW address, can you please forward this to me? Merci bien! Mike Arcieri From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 00:57:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA20825; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:51:59 -0400 Date: 24 Oct 96 00:46:03 EDT From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories) Message-ID: <961024044602_102147.2045_EHT106-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2386 >I suppose I should have been clearer: There is a legitimate textual scholar >(Hills) who supports the TR -- but his defense of the TR does not make use of >any sort of textual methodology. Exactly. >Hills defends the TR in much the same way that I would defend the belief that >humans have free will: I can't offer any proof, but I just *know* it. :-) Which simply translates into no proof whatsoever.. ;-) ;-) >Sturz is, as far as I know, alone among moderns. However, his view of >text-types is actually quite similar to von Soden's, except that they differ in how >positively they view the Byzantine text. Sturz is, in fact, half-way between >the Majority Text view and a Westcott-Hort view. >It seems to me (and realize that I am getting this second-hand, via Wallace) >that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp. If this is what Wallace said, he's wrong (again! What paper from Wallace are you reading?? ;-)) ). Van Bruggen wrote a little book entitled "The Ancient Text of the New Testament" where he presents his case in favour of the Byz text. As for Wisselink, his thesis re. Assimilation gives good support for the Byz text. I don't remember if he comes out and says that he considers this text-type to be _the_ best, but he certainly presents a case against Fee et al as to the alleged inferiority of the Byz tradition >I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously Scrivener >was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener >conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; he just >concluded that the Byzantine text was best. Actually, here is a good quote from Scrivener's letter (dated Nov. 18, 1889) re. his own position.: "I think Burgon's wholesale disparagement of Codex Vaticanus as 'the most corrupt of all copies' quite unreasonable. On this head we have held many a conflict, without either of us yeilding an inch. You will see that I stand midway between the two schools, inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort." This quote is from Burgon's biography by Edward M. Goulburn (which I may add was _not_ quoted by Wallace in his paper "Historical Revisionism and the Majority Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995). I see now that Robinson has himself posted on the TC-LIST, so I will let him answer for his GNT. MIke A. From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 07:26:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA22012; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 07:25:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 07:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961024072259.1ac725de@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: 1355 At 04:03 AM 10/24/96 +0000, you wrote: >And let's not speak about Arabic, Ethiopian, medieval Dutch, English, >Catalan, Soghdian, Persian, medieval Hebrew, etc... Though I work directly >on the versions (and maybe not enough on the Greek, as my master C. Amphoux >told me), I like the edition of Merk, who gives more versional and >diatessaric evidence. Also, for the latin side, it gives the vulgate text >with old latin variants. Though my exemplar dates from 1944, I do not feel >that it has been superseeded. The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no influence on TC is simply because they are minor. They do not, in reality, help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT (unless someone is going to argue that the NT was originally written in KJ english!). The only use versions like these have is to compare with one another- being translations of translations, etc., they do not take us any closer to the Greek text. When a version does seem to have an "older" reading it is, somewhere, based on a Greek manuscript. Thus it does not behhove us to waste years of study on "medieval dutch" and its contribution to NT TC when we ought to spend our time with the greek mss. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 08:29:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA22314; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:28:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:24:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961024072259.1ac725de@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: 1422 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote: > At 04:03 AM 10/24/96 +0000, you wrote: > >And let's not speak about Arabic, Ethiopian, medieval Dutch, English, > >Catalan, Soghdian, Persian, medieval Hebrew, etc... > The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no > influence on TC is simply because they are minor. They do not, in reality, > help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT > [...] > The only use versions like these have is to compare with one another- being > translations of translations, etc., they do not take us any closer to the > Greek text. [...] Indeed, the standard argument for not considering most of the versional data is, is it not, that many of these later versions were themselves based on versional or later Greek textual traditions. (For example many of the versions mentioned were in fact translations from the Vulgate!) As such, as "children" of already well attested earlier versions and text types, these later version provide no new or rather _independent_ witnesses to the original underlying Greek text. Clearly there are some versions that provide useful information (in a text critical sense); one obvious example is the Syriac. But the inclusion of many/most of the later versional data would seem to be indistinguishable from the traditional Majority Text argument of simply "counting the available manuscripts". N From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 08:59:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA22528; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:58:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:54:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "A. Young" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules 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: 4117 Here is more than you ever wanted to know about the uses of the term "uncial" in the wider world of palaeography and diplomatics. It's from LE Boyle, OP, "Palaeography and Codicology: An Elementary Vocabulary" (1963, rev. 1969 [hence the use of BM where we'd now say BL]); Fr Boyle (now prefect of the Vatican Libaray) prepared this glossary of terms for his palaeography seminars. =======BEGIN QUOTE================ UNCIAL: A term first used by Mabillon, _De re diplomatica libri sex_ (Paris, 1681; ed. Paris 1709, p 48), to describe large CAPITAL ROMAN (QUADRATA) writing, as distinct from Roman writing in "minuta" or minuscule hand, As a source of the term he cited St Jerome's prologue to his version of the Book of Job (PL 28, 1142A): Habeant qui volunt veteres libros vel in membraneis purpureis auro argentoque descriptos vel _uncialibus_ (ut vulgo aiunt) libris - onera magis exarata quam codices - dummodo mihi meisque permittunt pauperes habere schedulas, et non tam pulchros codices quam emendatos. For Mabillon, the various Vergil codices (Vaticanus, etc), the Codex Amiatinus, the Vatican St Hilary _De Trinitate_ (the so-called _Basilicanus_ codex), were all in this majuscule UNCIAL or QUADRATA hand, and belong to the "scriptura romana secundae aetatis". For Mabillon, therefore, as probably for St Jerome, UNCIAL seems to have meant any type of large Roman writing, especially the QUADRATA type. Mabillon's terminology was refined by Scipione Maffei, _Istoria diplomatica_ (Mantua, 1727). Maffei, indeed, is the first to draw a distinction between the majuscule writing of the Vergil codices (calling it CAPITAL) and the equally majuscule but distinctive writing of e.g., the Vatican Hilary (Basilicanus), to which he preferred to reserve the term UNCIAL. However, the majuscule script in the Vatican Hilary (Basilicanus) was, in fact, of two different sizes, the smaller looking like a cut-down version of the larger. So Maffei decided that the large majuscule writing should be called UNCIAL writing, and that the smaller majuscule writing should be termed SEMI-UNCIAL. Thereafter, the Basilicanus codex of Hilary became the yardstick of UNCIAL and SEMI-UNICIAL SCRIPTS (See Lowe, _Codices Latini Antiquiores_, for variations of the "Semi-unical" theme: "Unical verging on semi-uncial"; "semi-uncial verging on uncial"; "b-d uncial", etc, etc). In fact, as J. Mallon, _Paleographie romaine_ (Madrid, 1952) has shown so forcefully, there is no direct relationship whatever between "Uncial" and "semi-unical"; Maffei's terminology is as spurious as the use of Unical itself (Mabillon probably was quite correct in thinking that Jerome meant something like large, expensive, expansive, ponderous, etc writing). As Mallon and others have well shown, the two scripts in the Basilicanus codex are independent developments out of the classic ROman literary script known as RUSTIC: "uncial" being based on an outmoded form which we may term "Transitional Rustic" (best seen in the _De Bellis Macedonicis_ fragment in the British Museum: BM Papyrus 745, writtn c. 100 AD and found at Oxyrhynchos); "Semi-uncial" on the "Reformed Rustic" script which has its earliest witness in the parchemnt roll fragment known as the _Epitome Livii_ (C. 200 AD; found in 1903 at Oxyrhynchos, now BM Pap. 1532). Semi-uncial is thus in fact a more authentic script than Uncial. However, since the terms are to be found in every book on palaeography worth its salt, they may continue to be used PROVIDED one remembers that there is no question whatever of a "full" - "semi" relationship between the two; and that the descriptions given of them in most manuals of palaeography (Steffens, Ullman, Battelli, etc) are very, very, inaccutate - as are their methodes of identification. =========END QUOTE============================= Dr Abigail Ann Young, Records of Early English Drama| young@chass.| Victoria College, University of Toronto | utoronto.ca | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html | REED's Home Page | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html|Our New Theatre Resource Page | From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 09:34:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22929; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:33:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961024093040.278fede8@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: 1305 At 08:24 AM 10/24/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Indeed, the standard argument for not considering most of the versional >data is, is it not, that many of these later versions were themselves >based on versional or later Greek textual traditions. (For example many >of the versions mentioned were in fact translations from the Vulgate!) > This is how I understand it. >As such, as "children" of already well attested earlier versions and text >types, these later version provide no new or rather _independent_ >witnesses to the original underlying Greek text. > Again, this is what seems correct to me. >Clearly there are some versions that provide useful information (in a >text critical sense); one obvious example is the Syriac. Absolutely- but Syriac is a semitic language which is very close to Aramaic and therefore very useful in helping us determine possible semitic substructures to the Greek text. But as evidence of the Greek text.... > But the >inclusion of many/most of the later versional data would seem to be >indistinguishable from the traditional Majority Text argument of simply >"counting the available manuscripts". > Indeed- a procedure most hazardous. >N Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 09:41:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23051; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:40:06 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:25:47 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1712 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote, in part: >>Hear, hear! NA27 ignores the Armenian and Georgian, often fails to >>cite the Coptic versions, and is inadequate for the Old Latin (for >>many variations you can't tell which Latins read what). >> >And let's not speak about Arabic, Ethiopian, medieval Dutch, English, >Catalan, Soghdian, Persian, medieval Hebrew, etc... Most of those are so obscure that I can't even guess whether they are useful or not... >Though I work directly >on the versions (and maybe not enough on the Greek, as my master C. Amphoux >told me), I like the edition of Merk, who gives more versional and >diatessaric evidence. I agree that Merk's is in many ways the best of the hand editions... it gives so many more variants than NA27! On the other hand, the apparatus comes from von Soden, with mistakes of its own, and should be used with caution. I think a wise student will have both Merk (for access to the wide range of variants) and NA27 (for accuracy). >Also, for the latin side, it gives the vulgate text >with old latin variants. Though my exemplar dates from 1944, I do not feel >that it has been superseeded. Same comments as above. Merk is the best hand edition of the vulgate available (far better than, e.g., the smaller Wordsworth-White, which often cites only the variants of the Sixtine and Clementine editions, and at its best cites fewer than a dozen Latin manuscripts). But again there is a caution: Merk seems to be slightly inaccurate. Comparing the collations of am and ful in Merk, WW, the Latin Nestle, and the shorter Tischendorf, I found Merk collations most often disagreed with the others. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 09:41:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23050; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:40:05 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:36:04 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1691 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote: >Hello all! Just a remark in passing, I don't know how you will react about >it, but I would find it interesting to have your comments... > >Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often >passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text / >Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this >difference? > >Here in Europe, most of the discussion goes between the german school >(Aland and his text) and the French school (arguing for the Western text, >even more specially, as with C. Amphoux, for Codex Bezae). For Europeans, >the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century. > >Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is >theological background the only reason? [ ... ] Being theologically liberal, I am perhaps not the one to answer this, but I'm going to try anyway. :-) I don't think it is exclusively a matter of theology, but it has an influence. The U.S. has a very large "fundamentalist" (extremely conservative) theological movement. Since this movement believes in "verbal inerrancy," many of its members (not all!) are committed to a particular text -- frequently the King James translation, and hence the Textus Receptus. Those who argue for Byzantine priority but not for the TR are more diverse. They correctly observe that some of Hort's arguments about the Byzantine text (e.g. the "conflations"). Then they go off on their own. This group, while still conservative, is much less rigid than the TR-only group. >From there I'll let Maurice Robinson or someone else explain things. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 10:15:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23565; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:14:07 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <961024044602_102147.2045_EHT106-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:07:40 -0700 To: tc-list@SCHOLAR.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2909 On 24 Oct 96, Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@compuserve.com> wrote: [ ... ] >>Sturz is, as far as I know, alone among moderns. However, his view of >>text-types is actually quite similar to von Soden's, except that they >>differ in >how >>positively they view the Byzantine text. Sturz is, in fact, half-way between >>the Majority Text view and a Westcott-Hort view. > >>It seems to me (and realize that I am getting this second-hand, via Wallace) >>that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp. > >If this is what Wallace said, he's wrong (again! What paper from Wallace >are you >reading?? ;-)) ). Van Bruggen wrote a little book entitled "The Ancient >Text of >the New Testament" where he presents his case in favour of the Byz text. >As for >Wisselink, his thesis re. Assimilation gives good support for the Byz text. I >don't remember if he comes out and says that he considers this text-type to be >_the_ best, but he certainly presents a case against Fee et al as to the >alleged >inferiority of the Byz tradition The article I read was in Ehrman and Holmes, and I will admit that I did not re-read it when I wrote my reply. The relevant statement (p. 307) is Third, the Dutch schollars, van Bruggen and Wisselink, would hold to Majority text priority but not Majority text exclusivity. Theirs is the most nuanced Majority text position. Although they do not explicitly argue against particular majority readings, they allow, at least in theory, for Byzantine harmonizations and corruptions. This sounds like Sturz's position to me, at least in outline. This also shows that there are continental scholars who have not entirely written off the Majority text. >>I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously >>Scrivener >>was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener >>conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; >>he just >>concluded that the Byzantine text was best. > >Actually, here is a good quote from Scrivener's letter (dated Nov. 18, >1889) re. >his own position.: > >"I think Burgon's wholesale disparagement of Codex Vaticanus as 'the most >corrupt of all copies' quite unreasonable. On this head we have held many a >conflict, without either of us yeilding an inch. You will see that I stand >midway between the two schools, inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort." > >This quote is from Burgon's biography by Edward M. Goulburn (which I may >add was >_not_ quoted by Wallace in his paper "Historical Revisionism and the Majority >Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995). I read somewhere -- and this time I really can't recall where -- that Scrivener at the end of his life inclined somewhat more toward W&H than he had earlier. But, since I can't recall the source, I can't say how reliable it was. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 11:01:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24138; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:59:05 -0400 From: "John Brogan" Organization: Calvin College To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:53:34 EST5EDT Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <236AF97437A@legacy.calvin.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5875 Colleagues, I have been a "silent observer" on the tc-list since its inception. But two posts today have forced me to come out of my seclusion. On Thursday, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote... > The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no > influence on TC is simply because they are minor. They do not, in reality, > help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT > (unless someone is going to argue that the NT was originally written in KJ > english!). > The only use versions like these have is to compare with one another- being > translations of translations, etc., they do not take us any closer to the > Greek text. Who says that the only goal of textual criticism is to "reconstruct the Greek/Hebrew text" or to get "closer to the Greek text?" As I understand it, the reconstruction of the "original text" is only one of the goals of TC. As I will discuss below, cross-comparison is not the "only use" of the later versional evidence. > When a version does seem to have an "older" reading it is, somewhere, based > on a Greek manuscript. But the question remains whether the Greek examplar is still extant. William Peterson and Tjitze Baarda have shown some very possible "original readings" that do not exist in the Greek mss tradition. Thus, if the versions were not studied, this information would not be available to us. > Thus it does not behhove us to waste years of study on "medieval > dutch" and its contribution to NT TC when we ought to spend our > time with the greek mss. Leave me out of your "us" in the above statement. I do not think that the scholars who have devoted the time, discipline, and effort necessary to study versional (or lectionary or patristic) evidence have "wasted years of study." The rest of us should be thankful for their contributions. We should also try to incorporate their discoveries into our own textual theories. This leads me to a larger criticism of our guild. The preoccupation that some NT "text critics" display for the Greek mss alone is a prime example of what I consider to be the "naval-gazing" attitude of our field. As we stare into our cloistered little greek belly-buttons to analyze the naval lint we find there, scholars in other disciplines roll their eyes and wonder what textual criticism has to offer to the broader scholarly world. I suppose that it "behooves us" more to "spend our time" rehashing ad nauseum textual variants that occur in the greek mss tradition!!?? Please do not misunderstand me. I realize the immense amount of work that still needs to be done on the Greek mss evidence. But in order to develop a satisfactory theory of the transmission of the NT text, more work needs to be done than merely comparing Greek mss. In order to develop a theory of the text, we need to understand how that text was viewed and used by the early church. For this, versional and patristic evidence is not only helpful, but absolutely necessary. Thus, to disparage the study of versions because they represent "translations of translations" is not only imprudent, but also myopic and arrogant. Also on Thursday, 24 Oct 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote... > Indeed, the standard argument for not considering most of the > versional data is, is it not, that many of these later versions were > themselves based on versional or later Greek textual traditions. (For > example many of the versions mentioned were in fact translations from > the Vulgate!) > As such, as "children" of already well attested earlier versions and > text types, these later version provide no new or rather _independent_ > witnesses to the original underlying Greek text. At least Nichael's comments display a modicum of respect for scholars who study later versional evidence. In many cases, however, it still remains to be proved whether the later versions are based on the Vulgate or later Greek textual traditions. Even a close correspondence between a version and the Vulgate or later Greek tradition does not necessarily prove that that version was derived from them. Perhaps it has a long and independent line of transmission. > Clearly there are some versions that provide useful information (in a > text critical sense); one obvious example is the Syriac. But the > inclusion of many/most of the later versional data would seem to be > indistinguishable from the traditional Majority Text argument of > simply "counting the available manuscripts". Again, I would ask what is the definition of "useful information?" Who decides what is "useful?" Is it only information that pertains to the original text? Are we to judge scholarly work on the basis of its utility to our own interests alone? I think this once again betrays many people's preoccupation with the "original text." Versional, lectionary, and patristic evidence do provide information concerning the original text (despite the disclaimers otherwise), but just as importantly, they provide wonderful evidence of how the early church regarded and used scripture. For example, might not the Arabic versions display anti- or pro-Islamic polemic (depending on who produced the text) in its textual variants? Might not the lectionary material reveal internal church disputes about the interpretation of scripture or the litrugy of the church? Might not the "haphazard" citation techniques of church fathers display a wider approach to biblical texts that also existed among the anonymous scribes who copied the texts? Is not this "useful information?" Why are such questions considered to be lying outside of the field of TC? Most of my comments reflect question concerning NT TC, but it seems to me that the same questions could be raised in the field of Hebrew Bible TC. John Brogan Dept. of Religion and Theology Calvin College Grand Rapids, MI From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 11:31:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24490; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:30:07 -0400 X-SnapMAIL: 2.0.2 Message-ID: <0000354F.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 08:55:14 CST From: Mark_OBrien@dts.edu (Mark OBrien) To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu, jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-HoloGate: 1.1.8 Lines: 142 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1151 Original message sent on Wed, Oct 23 10:03 PM by jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) : [...] > Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often > passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text / > Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this > difference? > > Here in Europe, most of the discussion goes between the german school > (Aland and his text) and the French school (arguing for the Western text, > even more specially, as with C. Amphoux, for Codex Bezae). For Europeans, > the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century. Jean, I appreciated your comments regarding the state of TC in Europe... very interesting, and certainly not something you hear about a lot. I wonder (and I'm just wondering!), but could the recurrent focus on the "MT/TR/Byzantine" (and all the variations thereof) issue have anything to do with the fortunes of the KJV within the Church in the English-speaking world? Just curious... Regards, Mark O'Brien Grad. student, Dallas Theological Seminary ----- "Never look at the trombones ... It only encourages them" -- Richard Strauss From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 11:36:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24549; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:35:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961024113331.19d71822@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: 3722 At 10:53 AM 10/24/96 +0000, you wrote: >Colleagues, > >I have been a "silent observer" on the tc-list since its inception. >But two posts today have forced me to come out of my seclusion. > >Who says that the only goal of textual criticism is to "reconstruct >the Greek/Hebrew text" or to get "closer to the Greek text?" Those of us who try to comprehend the preservation and transmission of the writings produced by the Biblical authors. Though other fields are "interesting"- they are not quite as significant. .> I do not think >that the scholars who have devoted the time, discipline, and effort >necessary to study versional (or lectionary or patristic) evidence >have "wasted years of study." The rest of us should be thankful for >their contributions. We should also try to incorporate their >discoveries into our own textual theories. > Why? What can the versions add to a knowledge of the Greek text? The versions spring from the Greek text and not the other way around. And using versional evidence to reconstruct a hypothetical greek text is pointless. It is a pure scholarly construction and of no value in determining an original reading. (or were there no originals? Did multiple copies of Romans spring simultaneously from Pauls hands and thus no one of them is "the" original? >This leads me to a larger criticism of our guild. The preoccupation >that some NT "text critics" display for the Greek mss alone is a >prime example of what I consider to be the "naval-gazing" attitude of >our field. Yet when one is a "navel-ologist" one studies navels. If one desires to be a scholar of coptic, cool. But that does not mean that the scholar of coptic can intrude into TC and tell its practitioneres that the coptic text represents a more faithful rendering of the words of Paul than the Greek text does. > As we stare into our cloistered little greek >belly-buttons to analyze the naval lint we find there, scholars in >other disciplines roll their eyes and wonder what textual criticism >has to offer to the broader scholarly world. Pray tell why should we care what we offer this great and broad world of scholarship? Our task is to reconstruct the Biblical text- not seek the acclaim of the podiatrists of the world. > I suppose that it >"behooves us" more to "spend our time" rehashing ad nauseum textual >variants that occur in the greek mss tradition!!?? > Until the issue is settled- yes. It is only nauseating to those who have no nose for it. >Please do not misunderstand me. I realize the immense amount of work >that still needs to be done on the Greek mss evidence. But in order >to develop a satisfactory theory of the transmission of the NT >text, more work needs to be done than merely comparing Greek mss. True- but the versions offer so very little. Its like one who wishes to study the sun but only looks at the light reflected off the moon; one sees light, but only derived light. >In order to develop a theory of the text, we need to understand how >that text was viewed and used by the early church. Now this is the field of church history, not TC > For this, >versional and patristic evidence is not only helpful, but absolutely >necessary. Yes, for church history alone. >Thus, to disparage the study of versions because they >represent "translations of translations" is not only imprudent, but >also myopic and arrogant. > Guilty as charged. Mea culpa. But as Don Giovanni said when asked to repent by the Commendatore or suffer the fate of being dragged into hell- Commendatore- Pentite! Don- NO!!!! > >John Brogan Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 11:48:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24634; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:44:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:41:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories In-Reply-To: <236AF97437A@legacy.calvin.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: 1419 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, John Brogan wrote: > Also on Thursday, 24 Oct 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote... > > Indeed, the standard argument for not considering most of the > > versional data is, is it not, that many of these later versions were > > themselves based on versional or later Greek textual traditions. (For > > example many of the versions mentioned were in fact translations from > > the Vulgate!) > > As such, as "children" of already well attested earlier versions and > > text types, these later version provide no new or rather _independent_ > > witnesses to the original underlying Greek text. > At least Nichael's comments display a modicum of respect for scholars > who study later versional evidence. [...] In view of John's response it is clear that I should make clear certain assumptions implicit in my earlier response. First and foremost that the topic under discussion was the use of the versions in the reconstruction of the original text of the NT (for which I admittedly --perhaps clumsily-- used the shorthand "Text Criticism"). Equally clear is the John's point that the versions have great usefulness in many areas (as one obvious example, the history of the early Church). However my (intended) point was simply that as _independent_ sources of evidence --and all that that entails for the reconstruction of the Greek originals-- they are presumably less useful in that domain. Nichael From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 12:51:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25270; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:49:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199610241645.QAA61328@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:46:20 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4635 (1) Many of the points (the value of the versions; the danger of theorizing before collecting all the relevant data; etc.) were discussed earlier this year on this site, in July, as my memory serves me. I do not know if those posts are archived (Jimmy Adair can perhaps answer that), but those who are interested in this discussion may wish to go back and download that discussion. (2) The value of some of the languages discussed (e.g. Middle Dutch, etc.) is that these languages contain readings which agree with the Old Syriac (Sinaiticus, Curetonianus), with the Vetus Latina, with early Patristic testimony (e.g., Justin Martyr, who died c. 165 CE), and with Diatessaronic witnesses (the Arabic Diatessaron, Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron, etc.--and the Diatessaron was composed, probably in Syriac, about 172 CE). It is indisputable on chronological grounds, therefore, that this text--whatever its original language (Syriac, Greek, Latin)--is older than any preserved Greek witness. Indeed, at many points, Justin's text is the oldest preserved text of the gospels. Therefore, there is every reason for the alert textual scholar to examine the Medieval Dutch gospel harmonies, the Venetian and Tuscan gospel harmonies, etc.--as Burkitt, Plooij, Vogels, Baumstark, etc., did, and as Quispel, Baarda, Metzger, and others still do. (3) When speaking of Westcott and Hort, as several participants have, I must point out once again that Westcott (Hort was dead by then), in the second edition of the "Introduction to the NT in the original Greek" (1896), in some cases REPUDIATED the use of the "primary Greek texts" to reconstruct the earliest text of the NT. The quotation (p. 328) is as follows: "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which Syr.sin and *k* [Vetus Latina, codex Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would point to the conclusion" Therefore, when we hear people talking about "Westcott and Hort," one must be careful to distinguish between the "early" Westcott of the alaph-B edition of 1881, and the "late" Westcott, who--in what I consider a mark of true scholarship--reversed himself. (There is a full discussion of this whole problem in my "Tatian's Diatessaron" [Brill, 1994], pp. 9-26, including examples and original quotations.) Incidentally, Westcott was not the victim of Alzheimers or senility: Burkitt, Souter, Vogels, Turner and others subscribed to the same precedence of the combination of the oldest Syriac + oldest Latin as being the best text against the oldest Greek (the papyri, alaph, B, etc.). I would suggest that one reason this has been better undersood on the Continent is the better language training there, and the proximity to these regions. The odd (from a European perspective) American fixation on the Byzantine Text or TR is a product of our very conservative and generally "unlettered" theological history. (4) In closing, I would observe that while the list has been quite quiet for some time, as soon as textual theories come up, it comes alive. This is an interesting phenomenon, for there is little (if any) discussion of concrete readings or textual evidence in all of this. Rather, it is the defense of this or that position, largely on rhetorical grounds, or by citing scholars who agree with your position. In July we looked at some examples; I'd recommend that again, for then one is dealing with THE TEXT, and hard EVIDENCE, rather than rhetoric. At that time, one list correspondent pronounced himself as "astounded" (if I recall correctly) by some of the agreements adduced between the Old Latin, Old Syriac, Diatessaronic witnesses, and Justin. Indeed, indeed...and that leads to a very important point: Building theories is easiest if one has minimal information. The more information one possess, the more difficult it becomes to construct a valid theory. I know of only one NT textual critic who reads all the requisite (at least what I consider requisite!) languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, Middle Dutch, Georgian, and Middle Italian), and that is Tjitze Baarda. But he belongs to no theoretical "school," for, as he often puts it, "It is so difficult to know..." As I said in a post in July, quoting Arthur Conan Doyle (in the voice of Sherlock Holmes): "It is a capital mistake to theorize before possessing all the evidence." --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 13:37:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25808; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:34:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:29:39 GMT X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3837 Jim West, you wrote: > >The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no >influence on TC is simply because they are minor. They do not, in reality, >help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT Wrong. They document us on very old types of texts. Read Voobus' Early versions of the NT for the eastern versions. Our knowledge of the vetus syra is so fragmentary, that old eastern versions help us a lot, also for the reconstruction of Tatian's harmony. See the introduction of Petersen's book on the Diatessaron to remind you that such text types are earlier than any Greek recension (except Codex Bezae, but it's also fragmentary). In the west, many versions preserve an old latin type of text. I think many versions preserve types of texts that are older than the one of the greek manuscripts, whether alexandrine, byzantine or palestinian. >(unless someone is going to argue that the NT was originally written in KJ >english!). Please don't be offensive. There are caveats for the use of the versions (see Metzger's book on the versions) but they really help in reconstructing pre-IIId century forms of text. > >The only use versions like these have is to compare with one another- being >translations of translations, etc., they do not take us any closer to the >Greek text. Not always. Some are indeed translations of a well-known type of text (vulgate or byzantine text, sometimes the peshitto). But most preserve ancient types. I use to compare the history of the text to this: when you throw a stone in the water, you get concentric circles. The older ones are the most remote from the center, right? Well, this is what happens in the history of the NT text (as in the history of liturgy): some peripheral traditions are much more conservative than the greek tradition. How do you interpret it when Persian and Dutch manuscripts preserve many common variants? > >When a version does seem to have an "older" reading it is, somewhere, based >on a Greek manuscript. Yes, but as you know, many haven't survived. All we have is scores of mss of the byzantine recension, a few mss of the alexandrian texts, and then some mss that carry remnants of other text-types, mostly contaminated by the byzantine recension. When you look at the versions, the picture is "somewhat" modified. Versions give us important documentation about the palestinian and western text-types, to mention only these two. Seen from a greek-only perspective, codex Koridethi is quite an isolated phenomenon, but when you look at the versions, the agreement of it with georgian (the "pre-vulgate" type), armenian (the second version), syropalestinian, and several arabic versions is impressing: this text has been predominant in the East for centuries - in fact, I suspect that, as it was so many times translated, it was the official text of the Jerusalem patriarchate before its byzantinization. > >Thus it does not behhove us to waste years of study on "medieval dutch" and >its contribution to NT TC when we ought to spend our time with the greek mss. It's everything except wasting time! To take the dutch example, this language is crucial for the study of the old latin and diatessaric texts. Though the mss begin to appear in the XIIIth century, the text they contain brings us directly to the IInd century. If you want to study greek mss, that's surely an important discipline - an essential one indeed. But please don't despise what other disciplines can bring to your research. Scholarship needs interdisciplinary exchange. shlomo w-shayno ! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 14:29:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26498; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:26:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:22:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion In-Reply-To: <199610241645.QAA61328@r02n05.cac.psu.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: 200 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > > [....] (in the voice of > Sherlock Holmes): "It is a capital mistake to theorize before possessing A relative of Michael's perhaps? N From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 24 14:55:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26816; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:53:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:53:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories--Versional evidence In-Reply-To: <326EBB6F.6A82@dhinternet.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: 846 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III wrote: > Could you put together a "bibliography of critical texts" page on the > TC website? I have a hard time getting books, but is next to impossible > when I don't know what to ask the bookseller for. I'll be glad to start such a page. I'll just get some bibliography from books I have at home, and I will welcome any input. > It looks like a huge job. What has been done to this point? And where > could I go to prepare for such an undertaking? I'll try to put together another short bibliography of works that deal with translation technique, retroversion, and similar topics. 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 Oct 24 15:47:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA27316; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:45:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:45:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Goal of Textual Criticism In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961024072259.1ac725de@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: 1644 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote: > The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no > influence on TC is simply because they are minor. They do not, in reality, > help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT > (unless someone is going to argue that the NT was originally written in KJ > english!). > > ..... > > Thus it does not behhove us to waste years of study on "medieval dutch" and > its contribution to NT TC when we ought to spend our time with the greek mss. Paul Maas (and many others) argued that the goal of textual criticism was to reconstruct the original text. However, it seems to me that reconstructing the original text (a problematic concept in many cases) is only one of several goals that textual critics can have. Tracing the history of the development of the text is another possible goal, one in which the "minor" versions can take on major importance. Another possible goal would be to document the text used in a particular region or by a particular group of people. Yet another goal would study the interplay between theological disputes and the biblical text. It would even be interesting to study one particular manuscript to see if it could shed any light on the practices or beliefs of the community that used it. I'm sure there are other possibilities as well. Maybe it's time to broaden the scope of the text-critical task. 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 Oct 25 02:08:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA01027; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 01:51:38 -0400 Message-Id: From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" To: Subject: Tenacity of the GNT Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:46:44 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 957 The debate between Jim West and John Brogan seems to center on what Kurt Aland has termed the tenacity of the Greek New Testament: the idea that all variants that have entered the New Testament textual tradition have been perpetuated. Jim West seems to be implicitly making this assumption. Further, he seems to presuppose that the known MSS evidence is comprehensively representative, so that a reading in a translation can always be traced back to a extant Greek MSS of the same area and period. John Brogan seems prepared to grant neither of these assumptions. The question is, are these two presuppositions warranted? Perhaps an example will be illustrative. Historically, apologists for the Latin Vulgate argued that it was based on earlier, more accurate, but no longer extant Greek MSS than the then current Greek MSS used by the Protestants Reformers. Many would see the discovery of the Alexandrian texts confirming this view. Mark Arvid Johnson From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 04:36:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA01580; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 04:35:37 -0400 From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 08:56 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <6897737203800534@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: RE: Goal of Textual Criticism 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: 3324 > Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Thu, 24 Oct > 96 21:52:33 +0200 > Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP; > Thu, 24 Oct 1996 21:51:23 GMT > 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 PAA17388; > Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:42:18 -0400 (EDT) > Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id PAA27316; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:45:34 -0400 > Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:45:10 -0400 (EDT) > From: "James R. Adair" > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: Goal of Textual Criticism > In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961024072259.1ac725de@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 > > On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote: > > > The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no > > influence on TC is simply because they are minor. They do not, in reality, > > help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the > OT > > (unless someone is going to argue that the NT was originally written in KJ > > english!). > > > > ..... > > > > Thus it does not behhove us to waste years of study on "medieval dutch" and > > its contribution to NT TC when we ought to spend our time with the greek > mss. > > Paul Maas (and many others) argued that the goal of textual criticism was > to reconstruct the original text. However, it seems to me that > reconstructing the original text (a problematic concept in many cases) is > only one of several goals that textual critics can have. Tracing the > history of the development of the text is another possible goal, one in > which the "minor" versions can take on major importance. Another > possible goal would be to document the text used in a particular region > or by a particular group of people. Yet another goal would study the > interplay between theological disputes and the biblical text. It would > even be interesting to study one particular manuscript to see if it could > shed any light on the practices or beliefs of the community that used it. > I'm sure there are other possibilities as well. Maybe it's time to > broaden the scope of the text-critical task. > > 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 <----------------- I am in agreement with Jimmy as far as the goals (sic!!) of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible is concerned. In the process of reconstructing original texts (sic!!) one becomes aware of many of the issues Jimmy refers to. The beliefs of communities, the "theology" of a translator, etc. can in the process be reconstructed. We have to move beyond the Vorlage of the versions and do some hermeneutical work. The texts are progressively becoming available. The Septuagint is only one appropriate example. Johann Cook Dept. of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA > From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 09:10:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03061; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:09:13 -0400 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:00:19 GMT Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules et al. 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: 1577 I was grateful to Dr Young for her account of the use of the word 'uncial' in Latin palaeography. It is that which has led me to abandon the term completely in the field of Greek MSS. It should be left to its technical use - in _Latin_. It is not even as though the Greek NT 'uncial' MSS were all in one hand. They are written in a variety of scripts which include biblical majuscule, upright pointed majuscule, etc. But at least they are all majuscule, and my aim (as documented by Mike Holmes) is simply a greater measure of scientific accuracy. The quotation from Kummel is not relevant, since he is just summing up what he believed to be the facts. On another matter, I am amazed at the scorn for the value of the versions expressed in some quarters. I would take it as read that the versions shed great light always on the history of the text and of its interpretation. Bill Petersen suggests an example, so here is some fuel for the fire: I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the text of Mark. Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text. 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 Fri Oct 25 10:01:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03455; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:59:27 -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, 25 Oct 1996 08:55:30 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Versions (was: Re: uncials & majuscules et al.) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1877 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, DC PARKER wrote: [ ... ] >On another matter, I am amazed at the scorn for the value of the >versions expressed in some quarters. I would take it as read that the >versions shed great light always on the history of the text and of its >interpretation. Bill Petersen suggests an example, so here is some >fuel for the fire: > >I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing >the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and >Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant >witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from >the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the >text of Mark. Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS >provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text. I think this hints at an important rule: "The more important the variant, the more important the versions." The versions probably don't help us much in deciding between DE and KAI, or between verb tenses; even if the particular version can distinguish the two variants, it may have been translated loosely. But on important variants (the ending of Mark, the ending of Romans, John 7:53f., etc.), where the crucial matter is not the exact form but the very *presence* of the variants, the versions come to the fore, since for variants such as this they are weighty and ancient witnesses. I think it's true that the translations from late vulgate manuscripts (e.g. Wycliffe's English bible) aren't much use. But we could assuredly use good, critical evaluation of the Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Syriac witnesses (that's the order in which *I'd* like to see them done; others will probably disagree). Also, the Gothic is interesting in Paul, although it's mostly Byzantine in Mark. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 10:38:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03994; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:37:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:33:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories) 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: 16929 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: [quoting Bahr] > >Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the > >original language? Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on > >the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, > >Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to > >offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the > >languages? Speaking from my perspective only, the versional testimony is certainly important, and tends to confirm the weight of existing Greek readings. When a number of versions read in concert, their testimony obviously has more weight than when a single version stands alone. However, I would be extremely suspicious of any versional testimony which does not possess any Greek support whatsoever, and would not claim such to possibly reflect the original text (much the same as my strong opposition to conjectural readings which was discussed previously). [Waltz] > As I understand what Robinson has said (on this very list), he uses internal > evidence only where the Byzantine text is so divided that there is no true > majority reading (e.g. 2 Cor. 2:17). This is not precisely correct. I believe in my previous post I spoke to the matter of internal evidence and its use, and in fact advocate using internal criteria in regard to _every_ variant unit studied, even if 99% of the manuscripts read in a single direction. Internal evidence alone will not be decisive in cases where (basically) 70% or more of the MSS (= the Byzantine Textform) are in agreement, but still must be employed to show that there _is_ an internal evidence support for the Byzantine reading, and that mere number alone is not the only point of consideration. In places where the Byzantine MS support drops below 70%, then internal evidence plays a more decisive role; but in no case should internal evidence be altogether dismissed. > As you note, he does not use stemmatics. Another clarification: I do not use stemmatics in the manner of Hodges and Farstad, which means the assumption that identity of reading implies a stemmatic/genealogical relationship. I strongly support a stemmatic approach which is based upon agreement in plain and clear error among MSS; however, I suggest that there is little evidence among our minuscules to support close genealogical connections beyond the family groups hitherto identified (this also was the position of Lake, Blake, and New mentioned some time ago [HTR 1928]). Where legitimate stemmatic connections can be shown to exist, I have no problem in utilizing such. > It seems to me (and realize that I am getting this second-hand, via Wallace) > that van Bruggen and Wisselink also fall into this camp. Van Bruggen and Wisselink, from my own contact with them, appear to be more on the Byzantine-priority side than on the Hodges/Farstad side, since neither appeal to the H/F brand of stemmatics in regard to the NT text. > I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously Scrivener > was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener > conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; he just > concluded that the Byzantine text was best. I would not consider Scrivener an advocate of the Byzantine Textform. His own stated preferences make it clear that he was more or less eclectic, with a lean somewhat toward the Byzantine, but hardly in an overwhelming manner. Wallace has pointed this out in his brief article on revisionist history as applied for the most part by the KJV-Only advocates in regard to both Scrivener and Hoskier. While I think that Wallace did overkill in the opposite direction and tried to hard to make these two both anti-Byzantine, his point is still valid that neither Scrivener nor Hoskier really favored the Byzantine Textform en bloc. The portions quoted from Scrivener amply demonstrate this fact: > >That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never > >ought to have been asserted by any one.... With which I would agree. However, the following quote would not reflect my methodology, and likely not Burgon's, since Scrivener seemingly elevates the principle of "variety of evidence" above all else: > >If you shew us all, or nearly all, the uncials which you prize so > >deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text which is > >recommended by all the best versions and the most ancient Fathers, > >depend upon it we will not urge against such overwhelming testimony the > >mere number of the cursive copies, be they ever so numerous on the > >other side. I would not so swiftly dismiss the mass of the minuscules without carefully considering the internal evidence of the passage and seeking to establish clearly which reading was more likely to give rise to all the others, etc. Patristic testimony can be highly corrupt (e.g. Jn.1:13), and versional testimony can only go back to the MS or MSS which were utilized in the formation of that version. I do not consider each by themselves or in combination to be automatically as overwhelming as did Scrivener, and certainly Burgon held an opinion similar to my own on this point. > >That where there is real agreement between all the documents prior to the > >tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be rejected unheard, > >is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported by strong > >internal evidence, can hardly be adopted. I would concur more with Scrivener on this point, though I still would be extremely cautious in its application. I find only two places in the entire NT where this principle really has justification (1Jn.2.23 and 3.1), but even there the question remains as to (especially) the 9th and 10th century minuscules which differ from the earlier data and which therefore seems to exclude such variant units from Scrivener's principle, assuming it was strictly to be applied. The other remaining question is whether the earliest minuscules can be assumed to reflect independent testimony from lost uncials from which they presumably were copied, or whether there is some demonstrable genealogical connection which obviates their testimony here. > One cannot help but feel that this applies to many of the other Byzantine > prioritists. Most belong to conservative denominations (Burgon is an > exception). I can't help but feel that the belief in verbal inspiration > also leads implicitly to a belief in divine preservation. Burgon is no exception, since he was an ultra-conservative within the Anglican church who also held to verbal plenary inspiration and consequent inerrancy. I do note that those who favor the Byzantine Textform or "majority text" position do tend to be within the more conservative camp, including myself. However, I would argue for divine preservation of ALL NT manuscripts of ALL texttypes, in all versions, as manifested by their sheer quantity as opposed to all other secular or theological works. Such an affirmation does _not_ limit or restrict my search for the original text one iota. As mentioned, I previously held to a reasoned eclectic position, and had no theological difficulties there; in fact almost all verbal plenary inerrantist conservatives hold that the modern eclectic text is closest to the originals -- and these certainly are not compartmentalizing their inerrantist views in order to accept a text which they believe not to be "preserved." The error lies with those who claim that divine preservation _must_ of necessity lead to a specific single text as equal to the autograph, and these tend to be of the KJV-Only variety rather than among those who actually deal with NT textual criticism. > But no matter how one views the above points, one thing is clear: Both > Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont resorted to internal evidence (stemmatics, > evidence of readings, whatever) only when there is *some* division in the > Byzantine text. So, ultimately, in both cases the majority rules. Still an oversimplification: internal evidence was _regularly_ utilized; however, the case of a strong Byzantine majority forced the question as to whether internal evidence principles tend to _support_ such a strongly-supported reading, and not the reverse process of first determining the best reading on internal principles and then opposing such to the external evidence when they differ, and automatically assuming the internal criteria to be superior in virtually all cases of such disagreement. Were such to be done, there obviously would be _no_ "Byzantine priority" case or position. > Please note: I do not say this to denigrate their editions. I think both > must be regarded as "rough drafts" (Hodges/Farstad openly admit to > this). But they are rough drafts of two things we need desperately: HF > is a rough draft of the original Byzantine text, and RP is a rough draft > of a true edition of the Majority Text. We (at least, I) desperately > need both. I would suggest you have the items reversed: R/P is the "rough draft" of the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine text"), while H/F is the "rough draft" of the "majority text". While it is true that both editions are "tentative" to some degree, I believe that H/F claims to be far more tentative than it is, since they have made _no_ changes to their text since it was originally published, save for correction of typo errors. The R/P text on the other hand, has made at least six (minor) alterations to its base text since it first appeared in electronic form, and probably 30 or so changes since it originally appeared as typescript notes in the 1970s. Three alterations were made just within the past few months as a result of considering evidence found in the _Text und Textwert_ volumes. I would suggest, however, that "rough draft" is really an inappropriate term. Basically (as stated in the Introduction to my edition) the main items of the Byzantine Textform are known and are secure. The only items which remain tentative are some minutiae, which will be corrected from time to time, as evidence becomes available. I do not expect to see any changes whatsoever in the H/F edition, so far as I can perceive from my correspondence and contact with the editors tends to show. > Most of these would, on their face, be accepted by other textual critics. > Note, however, how they are applied. To be "ancient," a reading must occur by > the twelfth century! Are we certainly quoting Burgon here, or is he being misread? Burgon is VERY strong on the point of "antiquity" being within the first 6 centuries of the Christian era. He might not consider readings which appear later than the 12th century, but any reading attested only from the 12th century onward he would certainly _not_ consider to be "ancient". > Continuity, therefore, means that a reading attested > only in the twelfth through fifteenth centuries is preferable to one found > only in the third through fifth. This too is a gross distortion. Burgon made it absolutely clear that "continuity" indicated that a reading _had_ to show some line stretching back to at least the period of antiquity. Burgon would _never_ consider that a reading transmitted _only_ from century XII-XV would be more original than one found in earlier centuries. He _would_, however, consider that a reading found _only_ in centuries III-V with no _further_ continuity would be suspect as non-original. > And the only "respectable" witnesses are > the Byzantine witnesses (Burgon called Aleph, B, and D "scandalously > corrupt" and "liars" -- a charge that surely should not be leveled at any > manuscript that is not a forgery). Agreed that Burgon was greatly in error in calling MSS by such names, but anyone who has read Burgon knows his abrasive style and should be able to go beyond that to the main point. "Respectability of witnesses" remains a valid point, which is itself exemplified by the MSS cited when compared against each other. At any given point of difference (which are many) all three MSS cannot be correct as reflecting the autograph, so one or two of them at any variant unit must present a false reading. As the number of such false readings increases, certainly the character of those witnesses can be increasingly called into question, though in a more civil atmosphere we would do much as did Colwell when describing the three early papyri in his "Scribal Habits" article: i.e., do not trust a certain MS in regard to additions; do not trust another in regard to omissions; do not trust another in regard to transpositions, etc. The scribal character of ALL manuscripts should be ascertained (which is a very slow process), and those peculiarities noted and applied in any given variant unit to include or exclude witnesses based upon their know proclivities. My own study of scribal habits in MSS of the Apocalypse showed a wide variety of skill and care in the copying habits of scribes, whether uncial or minuscule-based. Even in the Apocalypse, Sinaiticus ended up as one of the most "editorial" and scribally corrupt MSS, followed closely by MS C, and some other MSS, some also early. There certainly is no question in my mind as to the proper application of the "respectability" canon as Burgon intended it (though without his invective). > And "internal considerations" applies > only to "impossible" readings. This point was not intended to reflect what we today term "internal evidence", but rather what Burgon would term "internal consistency and reasonableness" of readings, on the assumption that a scribe would not knowingly create an illogical or contradictory reading which would be perpetuated in great quantity without further correction. Any reading which seems "unreasonable" (e.g. "Jeremiah" in Mt.27.9) yet which _was_ perpetuated in great quantity would more likely be original than the creation of a scribe at a point subsequent to the autograph. It should be noted also that Burgon never ruled out internal evidence -- indeed, his (posthumous) "Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text" volume is a virtual catalog of scribal corruptions and their causes as well as their resolution based upon internal criteria. > In other words, Burgon had good criteria, but he used them in such a way > that only a Byzantine reading need apply. Once more I think this is an oversimplification. There are places where Burgon himself did _not_ favor a numerically superior reading (where I might identify such as "Byzantine") due to his other criteria. I probably am more tied to the Byzantine Textform based upon an integrated theory of transmission than was Burgon. All readings can apply; however only Byzantine readings will be hired (noting of course that numerical majority does _not_ always equal "Byzantine"). > I concede, as Arcieri's quotations show, that none of these scholars *claim* > that numbers are decisive. But I would challenge you to show me a single > instance where their preferred reading does not have the support of at > least 25% of the manuscript tradition. Scrivener did not accept the Pericope Adultera. The omission certainly does _not_ have at least 25% of the MS tradition. There probably are more, but this is one case I know of for certain. Yet what would you expect from scholars like Burgon or Scrivener or even myself? That we can "prove" we are somehow independent and not pro-Byzantine automatons merely by selecting 10 readings with 5% support or the like? This would be tantamount to asking Metzger to prove he is an open minded scholar by preferring Byzantine readings at least 50% of the time. One cannot be expected to abandon the leading principles of his or her theory merely to prove some nebulous point. Rather, we should be pleased to find these various scholars acting in accordance with and not contrary to the principles of their respective theories. > It should be noted that I actually agree with this position in part. I believe > that, if a reading is not supported by at least one text-type, it cannot be > considered original. But I really don't care which text-type it's found in. My Byzantine preference and A.C.Clark's unilateral preference for the Western text are also so _easy_ also for a textual critic to follow. You almost don't even have to _think_! Why get bogged down in eclectic decision making all the time, and frustrate the brain. *;-) (I _am_ being sarcastic, but if one doesn't really care _which_ texttype a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 11:29:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04404; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:28:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:25:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 4124 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Straight out of Newton: "For every action there is an equal and > opposite reaction." Yes, good scholars can prefer bad texts. My > feeling about your text is probably exactly the same as your > feeling about mine (or about UBS/GNT, anyway...). At least we agree on one point. *;-) [regarding Pickering] > I'm curious: When did he dissociate himself from the movement? Before > or after the two Byzantine/Majority editions appeared? Shortly after his book appeared in the early 1980s, Pickering started on a course toward believing in "continual purification" of the text as the centuries wore on, and, therefore in his view, the Kr type of text (the most recent form within the Byzantine tradition) was to be assumed as closest to the autograph. Naturally, no other "majority" or Byzantine text partisan agreed with Pickering on this point (nor did Burgon or Scrivener). Pickering this year took it further, and now has opted for a sub-family reflecting only about 3% of the MSS to have preserved this "final purification" of the text, and has formally repudiated connection with the name "majority text" and has substituted his own term "original text theory" for his current position. Some of us within the Byzantine-priority position are not too sorry to see Pickering depart from the "majority text" perspective. *;-) > I would note that I offered (perhaps not clearly enough) Maurice > Robinson as an *exception* to those who claim "providential > preservation." I am probably an exception to about everything within the "majority text" movement since I am one of the few advocating a similar position with a major in NT textual criticism. > This is why I believe that *both* H/F and R/P deserve to be in scholars' > "toolboxes." R/P is the best available edition of the Majority Text. > H/F gives more of a historical reconstruction. Even if one does not > consider the resultant texts original, they are very important for > studying influences on other text-types. Wallace has argued for using H/F as a collation base, which I opposed for non-majority reasons (the TR is simply more of a convenient standard, and would not require reworking of older collation data); but in fact, my own text is more "Byzantine" than the H/F text, if one is actually seeking the closest approximation to that Textform. > The problem, of course, is that Sturz never did produce a text, so we > can't tell what his results would have been. Actually Sturz _did_ produce a text, albeit only of Matthew, which he called "The Second-Century Greek NT". I have a copy, and can assure you it is clearly Byzantine (Alex/Byz or West/Byz) in most portions, though departing in the very few cases where Alex/West agreement occurs). > it as *mildly* pro-Byzantine (my feeling is that Sturz would follow > the Byzantine text in the event of a three-way split) I don't think Sturz would make a decision in such cases, but merely choose one reading and place the others in footnotes. Of course, triple division would be infrequent in any case. > Agreed on all points. We all know the defects of von Soden's theories > of influence. Still, von Soden's text -- at least according to Aland -- > is more Byzantine than any "modern critical" edition except Vogels. True enough, but then Aland's 26/27th edition is "more Byzantine" than the 25th or any of its predecessors. The difference is minimal, but still significant, just as with Von Soden. > And to further clarify, A.C. Clark was working primarily on Acts, > not the gospels. Though he would hold his principle as valid even in the Gospels. > Where we differ (here again it is Holmes who made the point) is in our > reconstruction of the history of the text. And it is here that the > differences are vast. :-) Agreed. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 13:37:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05754; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:32:00 -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: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:27:45 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: The debate continues (sorry, folks) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 14307 On Date: Fri, 25 Oct 199, Maurice Robinson wrote: [I'll omit much of this, as I either concede Robinson's expertise or think our differences more a matter of terminology than of substance. BTW -- I should concede that some of my statements, e.g. concerning Burgon, may be in error; I have not seen most of his works, and own none of them. Perforce I looked up his "Notes of Truth" from Pickering; obviously Pickering commentary on the notes was more Pickering than Burgon -- but that was not evident from the book....] [ ... ] >> I would also argue that Scrivener came close to this view. Obviously >>Scrivener >> was not a follower of Hort. But neither did he agree with Burgon. Scrivener >> conceded the value of all text-types, and the various critical methods; >>he just >> concluded that the Byzantine text was best. > >I would not consider Scrivener an advocate of the Byzantine Textform. His >own stated preferences make it clear that he was more or less eclectic, >with a lean somewhat toward the Byzantine, but hardly in an overwhelming >manner. I thought that was what I said. :-) [ ... ] >> One cannot help but feel that this applies to many of the other Byzantine >> prioritists. Most belong to conservative denominations (Burgon is an >> exception). I can't help but feel that the belief in verbal inspiration >> also leads implicitly to a belief in divine preservation. > >Burgon is no exception, since he was an ultra-conservative within the >Anglican church who also held to verbal plenary inspiration and consequent >inerrancy. I meant simply that Burgon belonged to a denomination not inherently fundamentalist. I suppose it could be argued that Anglican was as conservative as you could get in nineteenth century Britain. :-) [ ... ] >Such an affirmation does _not_ limit or restrict my search for the >original text one iota. Nor did I intend to imply such. [ ... ] >The error lies with those who claim that divine preservation _must_ of >necessity lead to a specific single text as equal to the autograph, and >these tend to be of the KJV-Only variety rather than among those who >actually deal with NT textual criticism. Agreed. >> But no matter how one views the above points, one thing is clear: Both >> Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont resorted to internal evidence >>(stemmatics, >> evidence of readings, whatever) only when there is *some* division in the >> Byzantine text. So, ultimately, in both cases the majority rules. > >Still an oversimplification: internal evidence was _regularly_ utilized; >however, the case of a strong Byzantine majority forced the question as to >whether internal evidence principles tend to _support_ such a >strongly-supported reading, and not the reverse process of first >determining the best reading on internal principles and then opposing such >to the external evidence when they differ, and automatically assuming the >internal criteria to be superior in virtually all cases of such >disagreement. Were such to be done, there obviously would be _no_ >"Byzantine priority" case or position. Perhaps I should clarify what I said: Hort's approach, and mine -- and, I believe, Maurice Robinson's -- *starts* by finding text-types, then uses internal evidence to evaluate them, then is based primarily on the text-types. Of course internal evidence is used -- but it is used more at the early stage, and less at the late stage, than is usually the case with the "reasoned eclectic" school. >> Please note: I do not say this to denigrate their editions. I think both >> must be regarded as "rough drafts" (Hodges/Farstad openly admit to >> this). But they are rough drafts of two things we need desperately: HF >> is a rough draft of the original Byzantine text, and RP is a rough draft >> of a true edition of the Majority Text. We (at least, I) desperately >> need both. > >I would suggest you have the items reversed: R/P is the "rough draft" of >the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine text"), while H/F is the >"rough draft" of the "majority text". While it is true that both editions >are "tentative" to some degree, I believe that H/F claims to be far more >tentative than it is, since they have made _no_ changes to their text >since it was originally published, save for correction of typo errors. >The R/P text on the other hand, has made at least six (minor) alterations >to its base text since it first appeared in electronic form, and probably >30 or so changes since it originally appeared as typescript notes in the >1970s. Three alterations were made just within the past few months as a >result of considering evidence found in the _Text und Textwert_ volumes. > >I would suggest, however, that "rough draft" is really an inappropriate >term. Basically (as stated in the Introduction to my edition) the main >items of the Byzantine Textform are known and are secure. The only items >which remain tentative are some minutiae, which will be corrected from >time to time, as evidence becomes available. I do not expect to see any >changes whatsoever in the H/F edition, so far as I can perceive from my >correspondence and contact with the editors tends to show. By "rough draft" I did not mean that there is a "final draft" impending; I meant that our knowledge is inadequate to produce a final draft. H/F admit that their volume is constructed based largely on von Soden. Ultimately a majority text edition should be constructed from the manuscripts. I would agree that we generally know the readings of the Majority text form. But -- as our friend 2 Cor. 2:17 shows -- there are cases where we need to make an adjustment. Certainly we *cannot* treat the TR as "the Byzantine text." This is disasterous -- no matter *which* textual school you belong to. >> Most of these would, on their face, be accepted by other textual critics. >> Note, however, how they are applied. To be "ancient," a reading must >>occur by >> the twelfth century! > >Are we certainly quoting Burgon here, or is he being misread? Burgon is >VERY strong on the point of "antiquity" being within the first 6 centuries >of the Christian era. He might not consider readings which appear later >than the 12th century, but any reading attested only from the 12th century >onward he would certainly _not_ consider to be "ancient". My fault. This is Pickering's version of The Gospel According to Burgon. >> Continuity, therefore, means that a reading attested >> only in the twelfth through fifteenth centuries is preferable to one found >> only in the third through fifth. > >This too is a gross distortion. Burgon made it absolutely clear that >"continuity" indicated that a reading _had_ to show some line stretching >back to at least the period of antiquity. Burgon would _never_ consider >that a reading transmitted _only_ from century XII-XV would be more >original than one found in earlier centuries. He _would_, however, >consider that a reading found _only_ in centuries III-V with no _further_ >continuity would be suspect as non-original. Believe it or not, I'm open to this point, too. At least in Paul and the Catholics, where there is so little early material, and so much good late material. :-) Again, I was following Pickering's version of Burgon. Having read this and Robinson's following post, I promise never again to use Pickering as an example of a Majority Text advocate. >> And the only "respectable" witnesses are >> the Byzantine witnesses (Burgon called Aleph, B, and D "scandalously >> corrupt" and "liars" -- a charge that surely should not be leveled at any >> manuscript that is not a forgery). > >Agreed that Burgon was greatly in error in calling MSS by such names, but >anyone who has read Burgon knows his abrasive style and should be able to >go beyond that to the main point. > >"Respectability of witnesses" remains a valid point, which is itself >exemplified by the MSS cited when compared against each other. At any >given point of difference (which are many) all three MSS cannot be correct >as reflecting the autograph, so one or two of them at any variant unit >must present a false reading. > >As the number of such false readings increases, certainly the character of >those witnesses can be increasingly called into question, though in a more >civil atmosphere we would do much as did Colwell when describing the three >early papyri in his "Scribal Habits" article: i.e., do not trust a certain >MS in regard to additions; do not trust another in regard to omissions; >do not trust another in regard to transpositions, etc. The scribal >character of ALL manuscripts should be ascertained (which is a very slow >process), and those peculiarities noted and applied in any given variant >unit to include or exclude witnesses based upon their know proclivities. > >My own study of scribal habits in MSS of the Apocalypse showed a wide >variety of skill and care in the copying habits of scribes, whether uncial >or minuscule-based. Even in the Apocalypse, Sinaiticus ended up as one of >the most "editorial" and scribally corrupt MSS, followed closely by MS C, >and some other MSS, some also early. There certainly is no question in my >mind as to the proper application of the "respectability" canon as Burgon >intended it (though without his invective). Again, I agree. I think it very important to *know* the witnesses.Most manuscripts have some sort of peculiar errors, which make them more or less "respectable" for different variants -- e.g. the article by Colwell (which is a masterpiece of its type) shows that p45 is very susceptible to add/omit. Aleph is particularly subject to loss (note that I agree with Robinson on this). My own oft-quoted 1739 seems to have a certain habit of changing (often deleting) particles at the beginning of a sentence. (Though I beg you, folks, *do not* consider that an assured result. Since I don't have complete collations for most of the other members of family 1739, I can't tell if this is characteristic of 1739 itself or of its text-type.) >> And "internal considerations" applies >> only to "impossible" readings. > >This point was not intended to reflect what we today term "internal >evidence", but rather what Burgon would term "internal consistency and >reasonableness" of readings, on the assumption that a scribe would not >knowingly create an illogical or contradictory reading which would be >perpetuated in great quantity without further correction. Any reading >which seems "unreasonable" (e.g. "Jeremiah" in Mt.27.9) yet which _was_ >perpetuated in great quantity would more likely be original than the >creation of a scribe at a point subsequent to the autograph. To add point to this (note that I again agree with Robinson), note that Pickering [p. 137] offered five examples of this phenomenon -- and in only one of them could I feel really certain as to what variant he was arguing for! [ ... ] >> I concede, as Arcieri's quotations show, that none of these scholars *claim* >> that numbers are decisive. But I would challenge you to show me a single >> instance where their preferred reading does not have the support of at >> least 25% of the manuscript tradition. > >Scrivener did not accept the Pericope Adultera. The omission certainly >does _not_ have at least 25% of the MS tradition. There probably are >more, but this is one case I know of for certain. But Scrivener, as noted, is not a Burgonian. >Yet what would you expect from scholars like Burgon or Scrivener or even >myself? That we can "prove" we are somehow independent and not >pro-Byzantine automatons merely by selecting 10 readings with 5% support >or the like? This would be tantamount to asking Metzger to prove he is an >open minded scholar by preferring Byzantine readings at least 50% of the >time. One cannot be expected to abandon the leading principles of his or >her theory merely to prove some nebulous point. Rather, we should be >pleased to find these various scholars acting in accordance with and not >contrary to the principles of their respective theories. I am not trying to argue. I have the strange feeling that Maurice thinks I am "out to get him." Even if I were out to get somebody (and I hope that I am not), I would be going after Hills or Pickering or one of the real nuts. (As, in fact, it turned out I was doing. :-) I *don't* believe in Byzantine priority -- but the position needs to be examined and ably debated. Nor do I expect you to depart from your criteria. As they say of generals in wartime, better to be wrong and decisive than to be right and indecisive. My point was not an attack on your method; it was a description of the general thrust of your method. If that is *not* the general thrust, then you can hardly be a Byzantine prioritist. :-) >> It should be noted that I actually agree with this position in part. I >>believe >> that, if a reading is not supported by at least one text-type, it cannot be >> considered original. But I really don't care which text-type it's found in. > >My Byzantine preference and A.C.Clark's unilateral preference for the >Western text are also so _easy_ also for a textual critic to follow. You >almost don't even have to _think_! Why get bogged down in eclectic >decision making all the time, and frustrate the brain. *;-) I'm not sure how to react to that one, except to say that, yes, a preference for one text-type *does* make things easier. I've been stewing all morning over Mark 1:28, for instance. I could make a good case for any of the four readings there. Let's look at it another way. In the text of 1 Thessalonians, my methods gave me 16 readings (1:4, 5b, 5c, 2:16, 3:1, 13b, 13c, 4:1a, 8a, 14, 5:9a, 9b, 10, 13b, 13c, 21) where I really am not sure of the text, and another 32 (1:5a, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2:4, 5, 7, 12, 13a, 13b, 3:2, 4, 5, 13a, 4:1b, 2, 8b, 9, 10, 11, 13a, 13b, 5:3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 13a, 15a, 15b, 25, 27) where I have some doubts. Frustrating? Assuredly. But is it better to deny my uncertainty? >(I _am_ being sarcastic, but if one doesn't really care _which_ texttype >a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant). Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point. Why does a willingness to follow multiple text-types make the task irrelevant? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 14:45:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06525; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:43:53 -0400 Message-ID: <32713388.1CF4@voicenet.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:39:20 -0700 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Textual Criticism at Emory (Discussion)" Subject: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? 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: 648 Hello Scholars! I am reading a collection of essays by E.C. Colwell. In many ways he seems to have been a maverick; for instance he sharply critized Aland and the UBS text (>>Studies in methodology . . .<<, Brill, 1969, p. 153): "The egregious example of the misleading nature of . . . narrowly restricted editions is the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. Yet this is the edition that Aland refers to as a 'model'!" I would like your comments on the strengths and weaknesses of his propositions, and I would also like your ideas as to what factors may have influenced his thinking. Thank you, Mark Bruffey mbruffey@voicenet.com From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 14:58:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06681; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:57:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:52:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories In-Reply-To: <961023144527_339471873@emout07.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: 2050 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 KHGrenier@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 96-10-23 12:06:37 EDT, Maurice Robinson writes: [quoting Grenier] >>Most agree that the majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 >>CE., certainly before 500 (?) CE. During this time, people did not >>understand the writings as scripture and there was little opportunity >>for comparison of MSS. [quoting Robinson] > > I would take exception to this categorization, since there is little > > question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well > > as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell > > considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been > > created). AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as > > non-scripture. Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for > > comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of > > cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from > > the 3rd and 4th century. > I'm wondering if you could give a short paragraph of your understanding of > the time period I was trying to write about. I am happy to have my > paragraph's weaknesses pointed out, but what I need is someone replace my > paragraph with a better one. That way, I have something true to put in my > head and not just know that what I have written is incorrect. I suspect this ovIerlaps into the matter of the history of the canon, which could become quite complicated. I will basically stick with what was stated above, assuming canonicity or some authoritative status for the fourfold gospel certainly before the mid-2nd century. Ulrich Schmid (who has just spent a wonderful week visting with me) maintains for the Pauline corpus a ten-letter canon selected by Paul himself for the Pauline Epistles, which thus elevates those ten into canonical status within the first century, etc. (your mileage may vary). I simply would agree with Colwell that most sensible variants appeared before AD 200, and also thTdkat From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 15:02:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06757; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:00:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:56:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 2748 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 KHGrenier@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 96-10-23 12:06:37 EDT, Maurice Robinson writes: [quoting Grenier] >>Most agree that the majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 >>CE., certainly before 500 (?) CE. During this time, people did not >>understand the writings as scripture and there was little opportunity >>for comparison of MSS. [quoting Robinson] > > I would take exception to this categorization, since there is little > > question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well > > as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell > > considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been > > created). AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as > > non-scripture. Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for > > comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of > > cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from > > the 3rd and 4th century. > I'm wondering if you could give a short paragraph of your understanding of > the time period I was trying to write about. I am happy to have my > paragraph's weaknesses pointed out, but what I need is someone replace my > paragraph with a better one. That way, I have something true to put in my > head and not just know that what I have written is incorrect. I suspect this ovIerlaps into the matter of the history of the canon, which could become quite complicated. I will basically stick with what was stated above, assuming canonicity or some authoritative status for the fourfold gospel certainly before the mid-2nd century. Ulrich Schmid (who has just spent a wonderful week visting with me) maintains for the Pauline corpus a ten-letter canon selected by Paul himself for the Pauline Epistles, which thus elevates those ten into canonical status within the first century, etc. (your mileage may vary). I simply would agree with Colwell that most sensible variants appeared before AD 200, and also that many if not most of the books of the NT were regarded (at least in some localities) as "scripture" by that time. Considering what occurred in regard to variant readings _after_ canonicity was recognized, I am not swayed much by any claim that variation in the pre-canonical period was that much more severe, save for the creation of new variants as opposed to the perpetuation of existing variants. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 15:26:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA07080; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:24:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:20:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories--Versional evidence In-Reply-To: <326EBB6F.6A82@dhinternet.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: 1991 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III wrote: [quoting Jimmy Adair] > > (1) Which text of a version should I use (i.e., is there a critical > > text?)? > > > > (2) What are the characteristics of the target language that reflect > > aspects of the source language? > > > > (3) What grammatical or stylistic features of the target language make it > > difficult or impossible to represent the source language? > > > > (4) What grammatical or stylistic features of the _version_ make it > > unlikely that the _Vorlage_ can be reconstructed at a given point in the > > text? > > > > (5) What procedures should be followed to retrovert a versional text into > > the source language? > > > > (6) Where does a particular version fit within the textual stemma that > > includes all the witnesses (as nearly as can be determined)? > > > > These, it seems to me, are some of the questions that ought to be > > addressed by anyone who wants to use versional evidence in textual > > criticism. No wonder the versions are so neglected! I think Jimmy has well summarized the situation with versional evidence, and these questions are all of great significance when working with versional testimony. Thank you Jimmy for this summary! > It looks like a huge job. What has been done to this point? And where > could I go to prepare for such an undertaking? There what been much work done on individual versions, but I think the beginning point for anyone should be Metzger's "Early Versions of the NT" book, with special attention given to the "Limitations" section regarding the use of each version when attempting to determine its significance for the restoration of the original text. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 15:41:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA07255; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:40:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:36:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 3595 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote: > Seen from here (Europe) it's quite strange to see all these (often > passionnate) discussions about the Byzantine text / Received text / > Majority text that are going on in the US. How do you explain this > difference? Kurt Aland asked me precisely that question in 1989 when I visited Muenster. Probably the primary reason is simply that there are in the US those who advocate each of those positions (though they certainly are quite different in comparison with each other), while in Europe the discussion does not exist due to lack of advocates (I will be perfectly happy to present such in a European setting during my sabbatical, should I end up there next year). The TR position even in the US is held by only a very few, and usually those with a KJV-Only agenda to push. I would not group this category along with the others, and would agree with the European view that a defense of the TR is not a priority nor even possible on a scholarly basis (though it does have historical significance, to be sure). The majority text and Byzantine-priority positions stem from other considerations, sometimes theological, as has been mentioned with Pickering, other times methodological, as with myself and Hodges/Farstad. The only reason such positions are advocated is because the advocates sense certain weaknesses in the modern eclectic methodology (reasoned or rigorous), and also have a concern with a comprehensive integrated theory of textual transmission. The European solutions, whether from the Aland quarter or from Amphoux, are seen to suffer from similar weaknesses. > Here in Europe, most of the discussion goes between the german school > (Aland and his text) and the French school (arguing for the Western text, > even more specially, as with C. Amphoux, for Codex Bezae). For Europeans, > the question of the Byzantine text is settled for a century. The Aland solution, whether from the Byzantine Imperial Text standpoint or the "genealogy of readings" standpoint appears to be seriously flawed in many of its particulars; and this is not only the view from the pro-Byzantine quarter, but also from the perspective of many eclectic scholars in the US and Britain. The French school probably stands quite alone in defending a primarily Western text as original, and I do not know any US scholars who would follow Amphoux in this regard. > Why is it so, why are our approaches so exotic to one another? Is > theological background the only reason? Certainly not theological background, since most US scholars regardless of denominational background or conservative/liberal/neo-orthodox theology would still probably hold to a reasoned eclectic methodology. Here it is the pro-Byzantine side and Bob Waltz' MS 1739 positions which are primarily documentary. > As I see that some of you argue in favor of the Byzantine text, I would > specially appreciate to have their comments. Also all your comments about > European NT textual criticism will be appreciated. I would suggest that you obtain back segments of the tc-list wherein many of these items regarding the pro-Byzantine position were previously discussed in great detail. European textual criticism has not played a large part in those discussions, however. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 16:23:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07817; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:19:39 -0400 Message-ID: <01BBC2B8.40CF0260@reb2_p12.telepac.pt> From: francisco Caramelo To: "tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu" Subject: e-mail Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:21:25 +-100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 200 Could anyone tell me the e-mail address of =C9cole Biblique de = J=E9rusalem? I'm sorry the list for asking this.=20 Thanks Francisco Caramelo Instituto Oriental Universidade Nova de Lisboa Portugal From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 16:53:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08237; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:50:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 3263 On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote: > I don't think a theologicial (or perhaps more correctly a faith) stance is > the _only_ reason behind the MT position, but I think it is safe to say > that it is the primary reason motivating the overwhelming majority of its > advocates. Since there are so few advocates, I'm not sure how broad a brush is painting this picture. I would not include myself, Hodges, or Van Bruggen within that group, though Pickering and Farstad might qualify. There still remains the problem that, even with nearly the same theological views I previously (pre-1972) advocated the Nestle25/UBS3 type of text as superior, and never once felt theological concern about the matter, nor do I feel any compulsion in this direction currently. I know Hodges himself has mentioned that he sees no reason why a functional atheist could not hold to either theory of textual criticism, since the matter is a question of evidence and its interpretation rather than a matter of theological perspective. > Now it is certainly true that there are a few scholars who argue for the > MT/TR on genuinely scholarly grounds. But it is also true that you can > count those scholars on one hand (with plenty of fingers left over). Please place the TR defenders in a separate category. They are clearly not within the loop of the MT/Byz defenders (and we would not want them in the loop merely so we could use the remaining fingers of our hand to count). > Your point is well taken that there is lots of noise on this topic. But > viewed more appropriately --i.e. in terms of a scholarly debate-- given > that there are only (at most) two or three scholars supporting the > minority position. On the tc-list I suspect there is only one (myself) who really defends that position. Other advocates of the theory do exist, but most of them are apparently not on the list or even on the internet. The only noise created therefore stems from myself, and I will be pleased if anyone can argue convincingly to the contrary position. > the sound and fury tends to overwhelm the substance of > the debate. And certainly makes it sound bigger/more important than would > otherwise appear. Actually, I am not certain that the real substance of the debate has ever been considered on this list. By this I mean the failure of the eclectic method convincingly to establish or maintain a text of the NT which can be supported in any form on secure historical grounds within an integrated theory of transmission. It is much easier to take pot shots at the Byzantine advocates for holding to what is supposedly a "secondary" form of the text than it is to supply a comprehensive theory of eclecticism which will provide some hope of correctness in establishing a dominant text of the NT which can reasonably be considered to be equivalent to the autograph. (And don't blame me on this point: Epp, Colwell and Clark started the critique in this area). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 17:33:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08574; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:32:28 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32713388.1CF4@voicenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:28:54 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2085 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, "L. Mark Bruffey" wrote: >Hello Scholars! > >I am reading a collection of essays by E.C. Colwell. In many ways he >seems to have been a maverick; for instance he sharply critized Aland >and the UBS text (>>Studies in methodology . . .<<, Brill, 1969, p. >153): > > "The egregious example of the misleading nature of . . . narrowly > restricted editions is the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. > Yet this is the edition that Aland refers to as a 'model'!" > >I would like your comments on the strengths and weaknesses of his >propositions, and I would also like your ideas as to what factors may >have influenced his thinking. IMHO, E.C. Colwell was the greatest textual scholar of the mid-Twentieth century. His essays on methodology should be the basis for all subsequent work. He did leave several important legacies, e.g. he finally demolished the practice of comparing manuscripts based on divergences from the TR. He also was one of the driving forces behind the Claremont Profile Method (though in fact his methods were much more capable than the CPM). It's a sad fact that the one major error he made -- his 70% definition of a text-type -- is his most-quoted statement. As for his criticism of the UBS text -- I would have to agree with it. UBS doesn't list enough variants, and does not offer the tools to analyse them. It collates many manuscripts, but not all of them are important (and the changes from UBS3 to UBS4 were not all of the best). It cites the Byzantine text under the symbol "Byz," but most of the time it accepts the TR as "Byz," making no effort to check this (and not citing enough Byzantine manuscripts to let us decide for ourselves). And, last but not least, the scholars who edited the text did not -- at least as a group -- have a theory of the text to justify their decisions. The above is, of course, my opinion. But I would say that, even today, textual criticism still has a lot to do to catch up with Colwell. So I guess that makes him a maverick. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 17:47:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08687; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:46:22 -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: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:42:15 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1986 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [ most of message omitted ] [ ... regarding eclecticism... ] > >Actually, I am not certain that the real substance of the debate has ever >been considered on this list. By this I mean the failure of the eclectic >method convincingly to establish or maintain a text of the NT which can be >supported in any form on secure historical grounds within an integrated >theory of transmission. It is much easier to take pot shots at the >Byzantine advocates for holding to what is supposedly a "secondary" form >of the text than it is to supply a comprehensive theory of eclecticism >which will provide some hope of correctness in establishing a dominant >text of the NT which can reasonably be considered to be equivalent to the >autograph. (And don't blame me on this point: Epp, Colwell and Clark >started the critique in this area). I want to second Maurice on this. Epp and Colwell are often viewed as "modern" and as "eclectics," but in fact both argue against eclecticism. In Epp's case, see especially "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism," "A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism?," and "The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Symptom or Solution?" (all reprinted in Epp & Fee, "Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism"). For Colwell, perhaps the best essay is "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program" (in "Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament"). Both authors attempt to show that, at this time, we do not have an established theory of the text, and so engage in rather mixed methods. BTW -- For once I get to correct Maurice Robinson on another point (although I'll admit I left myself open to this). I don't *really* consider 1739 the most important manuscript. I consider it *one of the most.* It's right up there with p46, B, Aleph, and D. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 17:49:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08718; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:48:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961025174442.1f379a92@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: 1649 At 04:28 PM 10/25/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >>I am reading a collection of essays by E.C. Colwell. In many ways he >>seems to have been a maverick; for instance he sharply critized Aland >>and the UBS text (>>Studies in methodology . . .<<, Brill, 1969, p. >>153): >> >> "The egregious example of the misleading nature of . . . narrowly >> restricted editions is the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. >> Yet this is the edition that Aland refers to as a 'model'!" >> >>I would like your comments on the strengths and weaknesses of his >>propositions, and I would also like your ideas as to what factors may >>have influenced his thinking. Since no one has so far come to the side of Aland I feel it incumbent upon myself to do so. When all is said and done, and the fad theories of textual transmission have passed into the dust of antiquity, it is Aland's work that will remain. What Aland and his very learned colleagues did in their versions of the NT was to offer "significant" variants based on their many years of research. It is therefore highly suspect when a scholar comes along and simply makes a reputation for himself by denigrating the work of his predecessors. One is welcome to make a name- but one should do so with a positive contribution to the field and not hypotheses which have yet to be verified (e.g. Colwell). To call the work of Kurt Aland egregious is horribly unfair and quite untrue. Thus, in spite of comments to the contrary, Aland's work will in the long run prove to be far more valuable than Colwell's. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 19:19:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09324; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:18:01 -0400 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:17:00 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: a presentation of Amphoux's work Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5083 For those of you interested in European textual criticism, here's a little summary of the work of the Frech textual critic, Mr Christian-bernard Amphoux. First a little summary, then I give you some bibliography. Amphoux's work rests on a careful investigation of the ecclesiastical history of the early centuries, and on all the oldest citations available. Amphoux (born in 1943) is a searcher of the great french institution, the "centre national de la recherche scientifique" (CNRS). He teaches in several faculties (mainly in Letters at Aix-en-Provence) and directs his own center for the study of NT manuscripts in Lunel, near Montpellier (France). Amphoux sees Codex Bezae as the oldest edition of the NT. He calls it the edition of Smyrna and is associated with Ignatius and Polycarp. This first text of the NT needs to be read like wisdom, initiatic literature. It needs a careful study, attentive to the smallest grammatical details, also to the structure (number plays, rhetoric structure). Even the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk is significant. The "rhetorical center" is the pericope "de adultera", and the "long ending" of Mk serves as a conclusion of the whole tetraevangelion. The structure of the material is very elaborated. In 135, with the events around Bar Kokhba, came a "cultural break", and such a text was not understood any more. So there was a need for adaptation and the D-text was revised by the masters of the roman schools in the IInd century: Marcion, Tatian, Valentine and others. These revisions are known from quotations from the Church fathers. You will notice that for Amphoux, there is no "western text" as he sharply differenciates between D which is older, and old-latin and old-syriac, younger. The D-text was no longer understood, and the roman revisions were seen as too extreme, as their authors ended their lives in break with the Church. So at the end of the IInd century, a mixed recension was produced: the B-text, which had an immense influence on the subsequent history. Latin and syriac versions, palestinian greek text all represent a compromise between the B-text and the earlier texts. The B-text survived in Egypt, and, slightly revised in the IVth century, became the text of codex vaticanus, the Alexandrian text. In the Antiochian patriarchate, another recension was created form the B-text and several paelstinian texts. This became the Byzantine text, that became the official text of the Constantinopolitan church. Etc.. etc... here we get back to the history of the text as it is known. The point by Amphoux is that he (1) has put together and interpreted all the ancient evidence about the history of the text, (2) has a global literary and theological explanation for the shift from D to B, (3) approaches each text-type with respect for its inner coherence and tries to interpret it as the result of a definite project (in place of being the fruit of the hazard of the scribes' mistakes). A few things to read from the pen of this outstanding scholar and hellenist (yes, he doesn't come from the theological faculties): First, his revision of the Vagany manual has been translated into english (and updated when compared to the french edition, you english-speaking guys are lucky): Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An introduction to New Testament textual criticism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991). Chapter 3, "The history of the written text", is especially important as it incorporates the latest of Mr Amphoux's dicoveries. The following is in french: C.-B. Amphoux, La parole qui devint Evangile (Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1993). This is a popular exposition of his theories. Part 1 of the book describes the history of the text in a way that Mr Amphoux recognizes to be quite "romanced", but which rests for the essential on his discoveries. Part 2 gives the scholarly foundation of the hypothese. C.-B. Amphoux, L'Evangile de Matthieu, Codex de Beze (84800 L'Isle-sur-la-Sorgue, L'oree de l'Isle, 1996). A very important book. The Gospel of Matthew from the Bezae codex (accented and normalized orthography), with a french translation. A long introduction presents the views of the author about the history of the text, and an interpretation of the D-text is presented in the footnotes. This book shows that Amphoux's theories have come to maturity, as he is able to show the global interpretation of a whole Gospel in his theory. Two important articles about the Parable of the two sons must be mentioned: C.-B. Amphoux, La parabole matthenne du Fils prodigue, la version du Codex Bezae (D05 du NT) in LOAPL 1 (1988), 167-171 C.-B. Amphoux, Les contextes de la parabole des deux fils (Matthieu 21.28-32) in LOAPL 3 (1991), 215-248 LOAPL = Langues orientales anciennes, patrologie et linguistique. An annual of the CNRS. I hope this all can be useful for your work in the discipline, shlomo w-shayno! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 21:20:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA09805; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:19:12 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961025174442.1f379a92@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:10:43 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2301 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote: [ ... ] >Since no one has so far come to the side of Aland I feel it incumbent upon >myself to do so. When all is said and done, and the fad theories of textual >transmission have passed into the dust of antiquity, it is Aland's work that >will remain. > >What Aland and his very learned colleagues did in their versions of the NT >was to offer "significant" variants based on their many years of research. >It is therefore highly suspect when a scholar comes along and simply makes a >reputation for himself by denigrating the work of his predecessors. One is >welcome to make a name- but one should do so with a positive contribution to >the field and not hypotheses which have yet to be verified (e.g. Colwell). > >To call the work of Kurt Aland egregious is horribly unfair and quite >untrue. Thus, in spite of comments to the contrary, Aland's work will in >the long run prove to be far more valuable than Colwell's. I would distinguish two things here: Aland's work as a collector and cataloger of manuscripts, and his work as a textual theorist. As a cataloger, Aland is surely the greatest since Gregory (possibly since Tischendorf). He also founded the only college in the *world* devoted to textual studies. He is also responsible for the only complete (or nearly complete) file of manuscript reproductions. There is no doubt that he will have an enduring legacy. As for NA27, I do not deny that it is the best hand edition available. Merk has more variants, but is inaccurate. It's also harder to use. I wish NA27 were fuller. But I certainly wouldn't want to do without it. But as a textual critic, he is weak. His proposed method of local genealogy is good -- but he doesn't apply it. His classification of manuscripts has value -- but only if one realized that it is not systematic, and that "Categories I, II, III, and V" do not represent the "quality" of the manuscripts, but only their approximate degrees of Byzantine influence. This is not to denigrate Aland. Who was greater, Tischendorf or Hort? I don't think that can be answered. Aland is our new Tischendorf. Now we need a new Hort. Colwell isn't that great, but he's the closest thing we have. (Other than me, of course. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 21:20:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA09804; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:19:11 -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, 25 Oct 1996 20:14:55 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1726 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote: >For those of you interested in European textual criticism, here's a little >summary of the work of the Frech textual critic, Mr Christian-bernard >Amphoux. [ ... ] >Amphoux sees Codex Bezae as the oldest edition of the NT. He calls it the >edition of Smyrna and is associated with Ignatius and Polycarp. This first >text of the NT needs to be read like wisdom, initiatic literature. It needs >a careful study, attentive to the smallest grammatical details, also to the >structure (number plays, rhetoric structure). Even the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk is >significant. The "rhetorical center" is the pericope "de adultera", and the >"long ending" of Mk serves as a conclusion of the whole tetraevangelion. >The structure of the material is very elaborated. > >In 135, with the events around Bar Kokhba, came a "cultural break", and >such a text was not understood any more. So there was a need for adaptation >and the D-text was revised by the masters of the roman schools in the IInd >century: Marcion, Tatian, Valentine and others. These revisions are known >from quotations from the Church fathers. > >You will notice that for Amphoux, there is no "western text" as he sharply >differenciates between D which is older, and old-latin and old-syriac, >younger. [ ... ] Having read Vaganay/Amphoux, and seen its preference for the "Western" text, I would ask here a question. To me, D/05 shows clear signs of editing. The obvious example is Luke's genealogy of Jesus, where Bezae gives Matthew's genealogy in reverse. I have never seen any advocate of the "Western" text address this oddity. Do you know how Amphoux views it? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 21:47:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA09945; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:46:11 -0400 Posted-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:42:18 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:41:01 -0600 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dddj@smartnet.net ((Dennis De Jarnette)) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 401 <> Anything in English on this? I tend toward this myself, especially in Acts. But frankly I probably know only enough about Textual criticism to be dangerous. Positive Dennis I now return control of your computer to you. From owner-tc-list Fri Oct 25 23:03:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA10201; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:02:00 -0400 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 05:00:59 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2522 > >Having read Vaganay/Amphoux, and seen its preference for the "Western" >text, I would ask here a question. > >To me, D/05 shows clear signs of editing. The obvious example is >Luke's genealogy of Jesus, where Bezae gives Matthew's genealogy >in reverse. I have never seen any advocate of the "Western" text >address this oddity. Do you know how Amphoux views it? > Hmmm... I don't remember having seen anything of him about this passage in particular, or having spoken with him about it (I studied under him for a while). But I think this is one of the case where he would consider the text of Codex bezae to be harmonized, and he would emend it following the later witnesses. I have been searching in his manual (as you have it, may be you will remember the place) for this passage where he speaks about harmonization in D. To put it shortly, he _usually_ considers Codex Bezae to represent the oldest edition of the text, but, it's true, in a corrupted way (there are some centuries between 135, the supposed date of this first edition and D), especially in terms of harmonization. The sentence I was searching is something like "except for its harmonizations, Codex Bezae...". Or maybe it's in one of his articles? I'll check. In fact, we shouldn't call it a champion of codex Bezae but of its archetype! He uses D like many editors of greek classical texts when they prepare their editions (and, remember, classical, not theological, studies are his background - I noticed that the Greek of the classical authors is just a living language for him!): usually they follow what they consider the best ms, but not hesitating to make an emendation when it's required. In his edition of Mt-D, I notice a few examples of this method. If you can find it (unfortunately, it's a quite confidential publishing house) see for an example his note on 24.31. I have noticed that his trust in the superiority of codex Bezae as a representant of the oldest text is all but blind or uncritical. Yes, D is harmonized, D is corrupted, it has lacunae and was carelessly transcribed, but nevertheless it gives quite a good picture of what the "Smyrna edition" must have been. I think he would answer you something like the above (and with a better argumentation based on the mss!) - but in order to make it sure I should ask him! shlomo w-shayno! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 10:18:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12187; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:16:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:12:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories) In-Reply-To: <961024044602_102147.2045_EHT106-1@CompuServe.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: 1557 On 24 Oct 1996, Mike Arcieri wrote: > Actually, here is a good quote from Scrivener's letter (dated Nov. 18, 1889) re. > his own position.: > > "I think Burgon's wholesale disparagement of Codex Vaticanus as 'the most > corrupt of all copies' quite unreasonable. On this head we have held many a > conflict, without either of us yeilding an inch. You will see that I stand > midway between the two schools, inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort." > > This quote is from Burgon's biography by Edward M. Goulburn (which I may add was > _not_ quoted by Wallace in his paper "Historical Revisionism and the Majority > Text Theory: The Cases of F.H.A. Scrivener and H. C. Hoskier" in NTS 1995). Mike, thank you for this quote from Scrivener; I had not seen it previously, since I do not have access to a copy of Goulburn's Life of Burgon. In view of this letter as contrasted with what Scrivener does in praxis, even in the posthumous 4th edition of his "Plain Introduction", it seems Scrivener felt in theory far more connected with Burgon's position than his actual text-critical praxis tended to indicate. In any case, this does serve as a significant corrective to Wallace's "Revisionism" article on this point. Thank you for your research. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 10:34:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12323; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:33:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:29:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories 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: 2214 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Being theologically liberal, I am perhaps not the one to answer this, Perhaps not, but why should it matter in trying to explain the situation? > I don't think it is exclusively a matter of theology, but it has an > influence. The U.S. has a very large "fundamentalist" (extremely > conservative) theological movement. Since this movement believes > in "verbal inerrancy," many of its members (not all!) are > committed to a particular text -- frequently the King James translation, > and hence the Textus Receptus. Excluding the ultra-fundamentalist KJV-Only position, this still fails to account for the 95% of all other "conservative" NT scholars who also hold to verbal plenary inspiration and the consequent inerrancy of scripture yet who are in no way tied to any particular English translation and who also fully accept an Alexandrian-based eclectic text. Certainly the current pro-Byzantine or pro-majority text advocates happen to be from within the conservative wing (I would not necessarily say "fundamentalist", since I am certain that Europeans such as Jakob Van Bruggen or Peter Johnston would strenuously object), but this does not seem to stem from any cause/effect principle; indeed, as I have mentioned previously, the only reason I moved in this direction was due to the strong suggestions of Kenneth W. Clark, who himself would be categorized as theologically liberal. I would also mention the Roman Catholic scholar, Hugh Pope, who similarly took a pro-Byzantine position in the late 1940s; whether he is from a more conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church, I do not know. I do know that Jose O'Callaghan mentioned to me in personal correspondence that in the last years of his life Bover himself was moving toward a pro-Byzantine position, so I think that the theological inclination of the advocates is generally irrelevant. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 10:53:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12449; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:51:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Multiple Replies (Was: Re: Textual Criticism Theories) 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: 3278 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > The article I read was in Ehrman and Holmes, and I will admit that I did not > re-read it when I wrote my reply. The relevant statement (p. 307) is > > Third, the Dutch schollars, van Bruggen and Wisselink, would hold to > Majority text priority but not Majority text exclusivity. Theirs is the most > nuanced Majority text position. Although they do not explicitly argue > against particular majority readings, they allow, at least in theory, > for Byzantine harmonizations and corruptions. > > This sounds like Sturz's position to me, at least in outline. No, this is definitely a very far cry from Sturz. Sturz clearly did not hold to any Byzantine priority, let alone exclusivity, but only held the Byzantine texttype to be co-equal with the Alexandrian or Western types. Certainly in practice (as I have pointed out), most of the time Sturz' "second-century" resultant text ends up Byzantine, but this is by strict application of his 2 out of 3 theory and not by intent of Byzantine- priority any more than the Textus Receptus ends up 98% Byzantine because of any supposed text-critical theory underlying its construction. As for the Dutch scholars, I know Van Bruggen personally and have corresponded and talked on the phone with Wisselink, and I find them both very much in close accord with my own position; closer in fact than Hodges and Farstad. I suspect that the quoted statement above about their "at least in theory" allowing for non-Byzantine readings possibly to be correct must be taken in the same light as the matter of conjectural emendation, where some want it in theory to remain a "possibility", but in practice never really applying conjecture to the NT text. I believe these Dutch scholars simply state matters in a typical scholarly manner; in practice, from what I have seen, they depart from the Byzantine Textform about as much do I. Contrary to the Ehrman and Holmes volume, Scrivener has a far more "nuanced" majority text position than either Van Bruggen or Wisselink. > This also shows that there are continental scholars who have not entirely > written off the Majority text. Though they are probably written off by most other European scholars. *;-) [re: the Scrivener quote,] > >"...inclining much more to Burgon than to Hort." > I read somewhere -- and this time I really can't recall where -- that Scrivener > at the end of his life inclined somewhat more toward W&H than he had earlier. > But, since I can't recall the source, I can't say how reliable it was. :-) Seems that such would be wrong, if this letter were in fact written in 1889, as Arcieri stated, since Scrivener was clearly deceased before the 4th edition of his "Plain Introduction" came out in 1894. I think Scrivener died in 1892, but memory fails me here. In any case, Scrivener in 1889 was near the end of his life, and from this quote seemed to tend far more closely to Burgon than to WH. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 11:14:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12633; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:13:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:09:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Versional testimony In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961024113331.19d71822@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: 3232 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote: > Why? What can the versions add to a knowledge of the Greek text? The > versions spring from the Greek text and not the other way around. And using > versional evidence to reconstruct a hypothetical greek text is pointless. I will differ sharply from Jim West on the point of the versional testimony. Indeed, I consider the versions an essential part and an important step toward establishing the original text (though I do not permit their evidence to supersede that of the Greek MSS, just as I do not permit patristic testimony to overrride the Greek MS evidence). Contrary to West ("it is a pure scholarly construction and of no value in determining an original reading"), the underlying Greek text of a version often _can_ be reconstructed with virtual certainty, and to that extent the versional testimony ranks equal with that of a given MS within the Greek tradition. Certainly where linguistic peculiarities may exist, versional testimony may be of little or no help in reconstructing the original text, but this does not negate the use of the versions in other particulars. Further, there does remain a valid use of versional testimony in the attempt to understand the use and meaning of the scriptural text in the history of the early and medieval church, and I would not deprecate those whose particular field of interest lies in that direction, even though such does not bear directly upon the establishment of the original text itself. > >This leads me to a larger criticism of our guild. The preoccupation > >that some NT "text critics" display for the Greek mss alone is a > >prime example of what I consider to be the "navel-gazing" attitude of > >our field. > Yet when one is a "navel-ologist" one studies navels. If one desires to be > a scholar of coptic, cool. But that does not mean that the scholar of > coptic can intrude into TC and tell its practitioneres that the coptic text > represents a more faithful rendering of the words of Paul than the Greek > text does. Here, on the other hand, I would agree more with West, since the establishment of the original Greek vorlage would be primarily dependent upon Greek witnesses (MSS and patristic citations) rather than versions. On the other hand, were there little or no Greek data available (cf. the Diatessaron), then certainly the versional testimony would assume a much higher rank; but in the case of the Greek NT and the establishment of the original text of that corpus, the abundance of Greek evidence seems to force most textual critics to contemplate that particular navel rather than to seek elsewhere. > Our task is to reconstruct the Biblical text- not seek the > acclaim of the podiatrists of the world. I fear that scribal confusion has occurred which has switched the metaphor from belly to foot. Should this be considered a substitution of a synonym or harmonization to a parallel? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 11:44:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12746; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:43:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:39:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion In-Reply-To: <199610241645.QAA61328@r02n05.cac.psu.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: 4531 On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > (3) When speaking of Westcott and Hort, as several participants have, I must > point out once again that Westcott (Hort was dead by then), in the second > edition of the "Introduction to the NT in the original Greek" (1896), in > some cases REPUDIATED the use of the "primary Greek texts" to reconstruct > the earliest text of the NT. The quotation (p. 328) is as follows: > > "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question > whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts > can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful > examination of the passages in which Syr.sin and *k* [Vetus Latina, codex > Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would > point to the conclusion" Correct me if I am wrong, but is that comment not in the additional appendix by Burkitt, rather than coming from Westcott himself? As regards the main (1881) theory, Hort was clearly the master there rather than Westcott in any case. But even if Westcott and not Burkitt wrote the above quote, I hardly would see it as a "reversal" of his position, since the quotation only "raises the question" but does not necessarily override the matter of favoring the "primary Greek texts." > The odd > (from a European perspective) American fixation on the Byzantine Text or TR > is a product of our very conservative and generally "unlettered" theological > history. Granted that in the US we probably have a weaker training in the versional languages. However, I still fail to see the point in statements to the effect of blaming the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on some "conservative" theological viewpoints when it remains the fact that the vast majority of "conservative" and even "fundamentalist" NT scholars continue to favor the modern eclectic text over against the Byzantine Textform. In general, there really is very little "fixation" in the US on the Byzantine Textform (though there is far more "fixation" from within ultra- fundamentalist circles on the KJV and TR). It seems to me that this type of statement becomes more of an _ad hominem_ argument intended to discredit the Byzantine-priority position rather than a serious consideration of the theory and/or explanation of its merits or demerits. > (4) In closing, I would observe that while the list has been quite quiet for > some time, as soon as textual theories come up, it comes alive. And interestingly, this usually only occurs when the issue of the Byzantine text is raised and I happen to post. *;-) > This is an > interesting phenomenon, for there is little (if any) discussion of concrete > readings or textual evidence in all of this. Theory does precede praxis, regardless of one's textual position, and one of my contentions has been that the modern eclectic position is strong on praxis but weak on theory, and I choose to call that matter to account. However, I think that a good number of concrete instances have been previously discussed on this list and certainly more will occur. > Building theories is easiest if one has minimal information. The > more information one possess, the more difficult it becomes to construct a > valid theory. This is true, and comprises the heart of my critique of modern eclecticism -- it is a very simplistic theory which sets up hypothetical canons of criticism and then proceeds to apply them haphazardly without any real guidelines for their application and with no concept of transmissional history. No wonder Metzger tries to excuse the current situation by claiming the task is an "art" rather than a "science"! However, it is _not_ essential to "read all the requisite languages", nor to be an expert in virtually every theological or historical field before one can postulate theories of textual criticism or reconstruct the original text. Otherwise, virtually all textual critics of the past and present would be excluded. Considering and incorporating the specialized work of scholars in the related disciplines is certainly of much value, and textual criticism can proceed on the basis of shared knowledge, even if none of us will ever become a Baarda. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 11:49:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12777; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:48:23 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:44:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules et al. 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: 1039 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing > the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and > Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant > witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from > the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the > text of Mark. Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS > provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text. I consider it significant that among the two Old Syriac traditions one contains the long ending of Mark and the other omits such. What conclusion then should be drawn regarding that ending within the Syriac church? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 12:26:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13028; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:24:10 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:20:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: No apology necessary.... 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: 7151 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > BTW -- I should concede that some of my statements, e.g. concerning > Burgon, may be in error; I have not seen most of his works, and own > none of them. Perforce I looked up his "Notes of Truth" from > Pickering; obviously Pickering commentary on the notes was more > Pickering than Burgon -- but that was not evident from the book....] I can assure you that Pickering's summary of Burgon does not do justice to what Burgon originally wrote, since Burgon devoted a separate chapter to each of his "notes of truth" and Pickering was overly-brief and not entirely accurate in his handling of Burgon. > I meant simply that Burgon belonged to a denomination not inherently > fundamentalist. I suppose it could be argued that Anglican was as > conservative as you could get in nineteenth century Britain. :-) Not in light of the Oxford Movement, the Newman situation, and other occurrences during the 19th century. Burgon reflected the older, more conservative Anglicanism which was by then departing. > Perhaps I should clarify what I said: Hort's approach, and mine -- and, > I believe, Maurice Robinson's -- *starts* by finding text-types, then > uses internal evidence to evaluate them, then is based primarily on > the text-types. Of course internal evidence is used -- but it is used > more at the early stage, and less at the late stage, than is usually > the case with the "reasoned eclectic" school. With Hort the process was first to use internal criteria to select the "best" readings, then to determine which MSS were the "best MSS" by possession of the greater quantity of those "best" readings. Once the "best MSS" were established, then the readings were once more examined to revise the previous opinions as to "best" in light of the testimony of the "best" MSS. (Complicated process, that). With my process the primary issue is determining what reading reflects or best reflects the Byzantine Textform, based upon a number of external criteria. Once a clear Byzantine reading is determined, it is then examined from an internal evidence perspective. If the Byzantine reading has less than 70% external support among MSS of its texttype, then the internal evidence becomes extremely significant for the determination of the text; otherwise, the question is raised as to which reading appears to be most strongly supported by the internal evidence, but such is not in itself decisive should such conflict with the larger quantity of external evidence (and yes, there have been a very few places where it appears to me that the internal evidence supports the quantitatively-superior non-Byzantine reading -- but these are in a small minority. In most cases I find the internal criteria do tend to support the Byzantine reading. > By "rough draft" I did not mean that there is a "final draft" impending; > I meant that our knowledge is inadequate to produce a final draft. H/F > admit that their volume is constructed based largely on von Soden. Ultimately > a majority text edition should be constructed from the manuscripts. This is correct. However, it would not take more than a significant representative sample (say 10% or about 500 MSS) in order to establish a highly accurate Byzantine Textform edition. For the most part, Von Soden's K-groups are substantiated and hold up well as shown in the "M" readings of Nestle-Aland and also in the _Text und Textwert_ variant units, so the text as currently published is considered quite secure as a reflection of the Byzantine Textform. There still is the terminology matter which needs correction, to avoid confusion: As I noted, <> > I would agree that we generally know the readings of the Majority text form. > But -- as our friend 2 Cor. 2:17 shows -- there are cases where we need to > make an adjustment. Certainly we *cannot* treat the TR as "the Byzantine > text." This is disasterous -- no matter *which* textual school you belong to. Certainly not. But of course none of the "majority text" or pro-Byzantine supporters would identify the TR with the Byzantine text, although it is clearly more Byzantine than anything else. > My fault. This is Pickering's version of The Gospel According to Burgon. Obviously a corruption made by heretics. *;-) > Having read this and Robinson's following post, I promise never again > to use Pickering as an example of a Majority Text advocate. But not to throw out the entire baby with the bathwater: when Pickering wrote his book, he was considered to be within the "majority text" camp, even though there were even at that time serious disagreements with Pickering from the remainder of us who fall into that category. From the beginning, for example, Pickering's view of transmissional history was called into question by the rest of us. > >> I concede, as Arcieri's quotations show, that none of these scholars *claim* > >> that numbers are decisive. But I would challenge you to show me a single > >> instance where their preferred reading does not have the support of at > >> least 25% of the manuscript tradition. > > > >Scrivener did not accept the Pericope Adultera. The omission certainly > >does _not_ have at least 25% of the MS tradition. There probably are > >more, but this is one case I know of for certain. > > But Scrivener, as noted, is not a Burgonian. Fully agreed, but he was lumped into the discussion by Arcieri. For the remaining "Burgonian" types, I suspect few readings favored by them (or myself) would ever have less than 25% support, though in theory there is no cutoff line of demarcation. I know that I myself have argued at least once for the possible authenticity of a reading as Byzantine which had around 40% support (though there the evidence was divided in three or more ways). > I am not trying to argue. I have the strange feeling that Maurice thinks > I am "out to get him." No, not at all. I merely am reacting to what seems to be an impossible challenge within the integrity of a consistently applied theory. > >(I _am_ being sarcastic, but if one doesn't really care _which_ texttype > >a reading comes from, the task seems irrelevant). > > Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point. Why does a willingness to > follow multiple text-types make the task irrelevant? The point was to be taken only if it _really_ did not matter, and if textual criticism were merely to be performed on a whim or by flipping a coin. An eclectic methodology certainly can construct a text on what it sincerely believes to be solid grounds; I merely call that method into question, suggesting that the ground is somewhat less solid than presumed. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 12:35:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13076; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:33:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:29:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? In-Reply-To: <32713388.1CF4@voicenet.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: 1408 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, L. Mark Bruffey wrote: > I am reading a collection of essays by E.C. Colwell. In many ways he > seems to have been a maverick; Colwell definitely was a maverick, usually correct in his views, and in very good company with Kenneth W. Clark and Eldon J. Epp. My own views and positions owe a great deal to Colwell, Clark, and Epp. > I would also like your ideas as to what factors may > have influenced his thinking. Speaking from what I know, Colwell and Clark worked together for many years, first as students at the University of Chicago, then separately with Colwell remaining at Chicago and Clark moving to Duke. Both were very much evidentialists, and preferred to theorize solely upon the extant evidence. Neither one of them had much use for a purely eclectic approach to NT textual criticism, believing that it led to no useful results, and in fact tended merely to maintain the Westcott-Hort type of text by default. Calvin Porter (who worked under Clark) has been on this list previously; if he is watching, perhaps he can shed some more light on what I have stated. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 12:56:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13220; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:54:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:50:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson 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: 1372 Re: the topic of this message: "Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson" It seems that textual criticism probably has degenerated beyond recovery if topics such as these continue....*;-) On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > For Colwell, perhaps the best essay is "Hort Redivivus: > A Plea and a Program" (in "Studies in Methodology in Textual > Criticism of the New Testament"). I would add to this Colwell's article on "Genealogical Method: It's Achievements and Limitations" as particularly significant. > Both authors attempt to show > that, at this time, we do not have an established theory of the > text, and so engage in rather mixed methods. ...with equally mixed results. > BTW -- For once I get to correct Maurice Robinson on another point > (although I'll admit I left myself open to this). I don't *really* > consider 1739 the most important manuscript. I consider it *one of > the most.* It's right up there with p46, B, Aleph, and D. All of which are among my favorite MSS which I do _not_ primarily use to establish the original text. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 12:57:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13228; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:55:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3272516B.1B33@accesscomm.net> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:59:07 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon Organization: Home Computer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules et al. 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: 1962 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > > > I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing > > the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and > > Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant > > witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from > > the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the > > text of Mark. Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS > > provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text. > > I consider it significant that among the two Old Syriac traditions one > contains the long ending of Mark and the other omits such. What > conclusion then should be drawn regarding that ending within the Syriac > church? > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament > Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina The many theories regarding the ending of Mark has always been intriguing to me. They include: 1. Mark died before completing the Gospel. This conflicts with my opinion of an early date (in the 40's). 2. The last page of the autograph was lost. This, however supposes a codex form very early in the 1st century. 3. There were two books by the same name between the times of Papias and Irenaeus. Possible since this would resove 1 & 2. 4. Among other theories is the recent one by Powell that the ending of Mark was appended to GJohn (Jn 21). My understanding in that the Sinaitic version is earlier than the Curatonian but both are from earlier sources..which muddles the opinion about priority. Again, one from the Diatessaron and the other from Byzantine could be pertinent to "Mark plus" in one. I would be interested in opinions regarding the Syriac texts in this puzzle. Jack Kilmon Houston, Texas JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 13:05:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13280; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:03:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:59:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961025174442.1f379a92@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: 1736 On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote: > Since no one has so far come to the side of Aland I feel it incumbent upon > myself to do so. I do not think that it was Aland's massive research which was being criticized, but the limitations of the UBS apparatus. Other criticisms of Aland similarly have not deprecated his massive labor in assembling the microfilm collection at Muenster, nor the publication of useful statistical data in the _Text und Textwert_ series, as well as in other publications (mostly from Water deGruyter in Berlin). These will indeed stand the test of time. Rather, the only other criticism of Aland has been in regard to his theories of textual transmission and reconstruction ("hypotheses which still remain to be verified"), which likely will undergo significant revision by his successors over the coming years. In this respect -- theory only -- I would postulate that Colwell will remain more highly regarded than Aland by future generations. > To call the work of Kurt Aland egregious is horribly unfair and quite > untrue. Thus, in spite of comments to the contrary, Aland's work will in > the long run prove to be far more valuable than Colwell's. Keeping it in the context of the near-universal critique of the UBS edition (and even I still ask why it continues to be published), the complaint is valid, and I do not think reflects on Aland's other work, for which we all should be thankful. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 13:26:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13334; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:23:20 -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: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:17:46 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Colwell, etc. (Was: Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2898 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >Re: the topic of this message: "Oh no... I agree with Maurice Robinson" >It seems that textual criticism probably has degenerated beyond recovery >if topics such as these continue....*;-) Would it have helped if I had put a smiley on the topic? :-) Seriously, I think that Maurice and I see many of the same problems with conventional eclecticism. We just come to totally different conclusions about how to address the problem. >On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> For Colwell, perhaps the best essay is "Hort Redivivus: >> A Plea and a Program" (in "Studies in Methodology in Textual >> Criticism of the New Testament"). > >I would add to this Colwell's article on "Genealogical Method: It's >Achievements and Limitations" as particularly significant. Colwell's book, in fact, breaks up into four parts: "Genetic Group Relationships" (pp. 1-95), "Elementary Procedures" (pp. 96- 124, including the infamous essay on the 70% rule), "Methods in the Dating of New Testament Manuscripts" (pp. 125-147), and "The Contemporary situation." The essays in Part I, which include "Genealogical Method" as well as my favorite "Method in Grouping New Testament Manuscripts," add up to a startling indictment of the procedures of the early twentieth century. "Hort Redivivus," the only essay in part IV, is Colwell's proposals for remedying the situation. I probably agree with this article more than Maurice Robinson, since my results are closer to Colwell's. >> Both authors attempt to show >> that, at this time, we do not have an established theory of the >> text, and so engage in rather mixed methods. > >...with equally mixed results. Here again we agree, though my resultant text is obviously closer to the eclectics' text than is R/P. >> BTW -- For once I get to correct Maurice Robinson on another point >> (although I'll admit I left myself open to this). I don't *really* >> consider 1739 the most important manuscript. I consider it *one of >> the most.* It's right up there with p46, B, Aleph, and D. > >All of which are among my favorite MSS which I do _not_ primarily use to >establish the original text. *;-) Why am I not surprised? :-) BTW -- speaking of controversial manuscripts.... I've recently been wondering about 2427. It's a manuscript of Mark (Aland dates it as XIV century) that has the peculiar property of standing closer to B than any other manuscript (including Aleph, according to my statistics). I saw a reference in a commentary once claiming that this manuscript was of questionable authenticity. I can imagine a reason for the question: What is a near-copy of B doing being made in the fourteenth century? But this doesn't seem to me to be reason enough to really doubt it. Does anyone know anything about why this ms. is controversial? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 14:07:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13520; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 14:01:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work 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: 3024 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote: [summary of Amphoux' theories omitted] > The point by Amphoux is that he (1) has put together and interpreted all > the ancient evidence about the history of the text, (2) has a global > literary and theological explanation for the shift from D to B, (3) > approaches each text-type with respect for its inner coherence and tries to > interpret it as the result of a definite project (in place of being the > fruit of the hazard of the scribes' mistakes). While I will agree that Amphoux has constructed a significantly detailed theory of transmission of the text, I see the basic problem as being one of Occam's Razor: the theory is far more complex than I think most scholars (of any position) would consider historically feasible; and, when there are simpler options which remain valid and practicable, why would anyone want to opt for a highly complicated theory? Assuming all events occurred precisely as Amphoux wishes to claim, the question then must be asked as to why there is not a shred of historical or MS evidence to support his contentions, even granting (as I do) that recensions may have occurred in localized regions. For such to have occurred on the grand scale so as to virtually obliterate almost all traces of the Bezae type of text among the Greek MSS and even among the "Western" witnesses is little different than Westcott and Hort's theory that a massive "Syrian [= Byzantine] recension" so totally eliminated the Neutral [Alexandrian] text from subsequent transmissional history. Given that scribes are supposedly more prone to include and insert than to remove, it would seem that significantly shorter texts than that found in the Bezae format (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) would have been strongly resisted by the bulk of the church, and that the Bezae type of text should have continued to be perpetuated in quantity, if not in majority, among the Greek MS witnesses. In light of these considerations I personally do not find much that is convincing in Amphoux's theory, any more than I did with A.C.Clark's view concerning the Western text (though I do agree with Clark's assertion that the canon of the shorter reading is faulty). > First, his revision of the Vagany manual has been translated into english > (and updated when compared to the french edition, you english-speaking guys > are lucky): > Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An introduction to New > Testament textual criticism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991). We have this volume in our library. I personally did not recommend it to students because it does not seem to provide a reasonably balanced view of the evidence in the manner of Metzger. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 16:53:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14432; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:49:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199610262046.UAA935176@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:47:03 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Some comments on the "textual theories" discussion Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 10730 In answer to Dr. Robinson's post of 26 Oct (the 11:39 AM one...), in which he raised the following points: (1) Q: Isn't the statement I attribute to Wextcott actually from Burkitt's appendix to the second edition? A: No. Look at the volume. Burkitt's section is clearly identified. (Metzger proffered the same suggestion when I drew his attention to the statement; I checked then to see if he was correct; he was not). (2) Q: >But even if Westcott and not Burkitt wrote the >>above quote, I hardly would see it as a "reversal" of his position, since >>the quotation only "raises the question" but does not necessarily override >>the matter of favoring the "primary Greek texts." A: Go and reread the quote, and my presentation of it. I said: >>> that Westcott (Hort was dead by then), in the second >>> edition of the "Introduction to the NT in the original Greek" (1896), in >>> some cases REPUDIATED the use of the "primary Greek texts" to reconstruct >>> the earliest text of the NT. The quotation (p. 328) is as follows: >>> >>> "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question >>> whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts >>> can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful >>> examination of the passages in which Syr.sin and *k* [Vetus Latina, codex >>> Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would >>> point to the conclusion" First, I don't see what is so difficult about it. Westcott poses a rhetorical question ("Can the combination of the Vetus Syra and the Vetus Latina outweight the Greeks?"), and then answers it in the affirmative ("the careful examination of passages does indeed point to that conclusion"). What Robinson means by "not necessarily override" is unclear. I leave it to the list members to read Westcott's statement for themselves and discern Westcott's meaning. Second, let me distance myself from Westcott's assertion, and say that *I* would not apply a mechanical rule like this here--or anywhere else--in textual criticism. Note that in my introduction, I said "in some cases," for, indeed, *in some cases* there seems to be good reason to follow the conjunction of the oldest of the Vetus Latina and the Vetus Syra (esp. the older Syr.sin) against alaph + B; in other cases, not. (3) Dr. Robinson goes on: >Granted that in the US we probably have a weaker training in the versional >languages. However, I still fail to see the point in statements to the >effect of blaming the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on some "conservative" >theological viewpoints when it remains the fact that the vast majority of >"conservative" and even "fundamentalist" NT scholars continue to favor the >modern eclectic text over against the Byzantine Textform. He avoids my point (as he did on a different issue last summer) by changing it. I am *not* concerned with what theory the "majority" of conservative/fundamentalist (his words) NT scholars favour. I am concerned with the theological "home" of those (few?) who favor Byzantine priority. It appears to be limited--exclusively, in my (admittedly, limited) experience--to those who are members of/associated with/studied at/adhear to churches/schools/theologies which would be characterized as fundamentalist/charismatic/conservative/"right"/"traditionalist". Our European members have commented on the oddity of the attention given TR and Byzantine priority here in N. America, and that is correct, for Europe is much more liberal theologically and, in fact, is undergoing a process often referred to as "de-Christianization." One can verify that by looking at the reverse: I do not know--again, in my limited experience--of any textual scholars who advocate Byz priority and are associated with any "liberal"/humanist/secularist/"left wing"/"progressive"/"main-stream" schools/churches/theologies: it is not taught as the "default" theory in main-line seminaries (Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.), nor at the leading "secular" theological centers: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Muenster, Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden, Trondheim, Upsala, or even at the dual religious/secular centers such as Rome, Louvain, Georgetown, etc., etc. I rest my case. Dr. Robinson continues: > It seems to me that this type >of statement becomes more of an _ad hominem_ argument intended to >discredit the Byzantine-priority position rather than a serious >consideration of the theory and/or explanation of its merits or demerits. It was Dr. Robinson who characterized one of my posts last summer as "nearly interminable," if I recall correctly (it was long, but certainly no longer than some of his, and the reason for its length was that it was filled with texts). I leave it to the list to decide who is making "ad hominem" arguments--or even who has deposited more bytes on the list. I must also observe that I find it odd that no one--even those defending the Byz Text--have introduced the most significant work on the subject in recent years into the discussion. That work is by a Muenster student of the Alands, Klaus Wachtel. The title is *Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe*, ANTT 24 (De Gruyter, 1995). He presented a paper on the subject in the Textual Criticism seminar of the SNTS in Strasbourg, last summer, which I summarize (he has occasionally be on the list, and is invited to present his work himself). His findings--based on extensive analysis of the TEXT--are that the disparagement traditionally accorded the Byzantine text is unwarranted. It often can and does preserve very old readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses. Muenster has found it useful to use the Byzantine text as one of their tools when deciding between conflicting ancient readings (e.g., where alaph divides from B, or a few minuscules offer a reading against the uncials). Wachtel feels it should be valued more highly than it is--but, of couse, he stops far short of saying it is the "best" text. Why is this study ignored? Another point for the Byzantine text people: I have an article for the Baarda Festschrift (Brill 1997) which will adduce textual evidence for the existence and use of the *pericope adulterae* in the first half of the second century. This evidence increases the likelihood that the *pericope* MAY have been part of John at that date (the earliest evidence listed in all the commentaries is the Didascalia Apostolorum [early thrid cent.]). Since it is in the Byzantine text, and many Byz people feel it was part of the earliest version of John, this is ammunition for their position, and again I give it to them. But of course, finding such bits of hard, textual evidence takes time and effort--and note that I am NOT concerned with finding only evidence which supports MY position. Let's hear some instances where the Byzantine text people feel that text doesn't preserve the best reading! (4) Robinson concludes by saying that: >Theory does precede praxis, regardless of one's textual position, and one >of my contentions has been that the modern eclectic position is strong on >praxis but weak on theory, and I choose to call that matter to account. >...The heart of my critique of modern eclecticism >-- it is a very simplistic theory which sets up hypothetical canons of >criticism and then proceeds to apply them haphazardly without any real >guidelines for their application and with no concept of transmissional >history. If one is trying to reconstruct the text of the NT "in toto," then Dr. Robinson is correct. But I--and most textual critics who are NOT enthusiastic adherents of Bezaean or Alexandrian or Byzantine priority--are not trying to do that. I work with one variant, one verse, one pericope at a time, for I know that the theological pressures upon and the transmission history of each pericope (indeed, the evidence for each pericope) have been different. IMHO, Robinson's complaint is that we are all not as he is: zealous defenders of a particular text-type or manuscript. But that is precisely what many find so absurd. It is rather like adhering to one church, and having to defend all of its doctrines and practices as "the best" in all cases. Few would do that; life and the history of any religion are too complex--if you know it. It is precisely that analogy which leads some to make the connection between such "absolutist" positions theologically and such absolutist positions in terms of the text (we are back to July, folks: look up the posts). >No wonder Metzger tries to excuse the current situation by >claiming the task is an "art" rather than a "science"! Metzger is merely paraphrasing A.E. Housman, who called textual criticsm BOTH an "art" and a "science". I reproduce Housman's statement (from a lecture given to the Classical Association in 1921) in *Tatian's Diatessaron*, p. 373, n. 31. It is interesting that Housman (like most, if not all Classicists), went where the evidence led him, and did not argue that a single MS or family always preserved the "best" reading. (The entire lecture, "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," Proceedings of the Class. Assoc. 18 [1921], pp. 67-84, is, IMHO, one of the most profound utterances on the praxis of textual criticism. For this list, Housman's comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights useful.) >However, it is _not_ essential to "read all the requisite languages", nor >to be an expert in virtually every theological or historical field before >one can postulate theories of textual criticism or reconstruct the >original text. No it is not. But it sure helps! We live in a free land, and anyone can do anything they want. But we also know the consequences of that: a Harvard diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U. In other words, anyone can produce or hold to a theory, but not all theories are of equal worth or validity. Example: I have many English-only pious undergrads who enter my classes certain that the "theory" they received is correct (KJV priority is the norm)--without even knowing in what language the NT was originally written. They are "unhappy campers" when they learn that there is a bit more to the game than just the KJV... They learn, painfully, that old lesson that humanity constantly has to relearn: believing something does not make it true. They also learn that the more one knows, the more complex the pattern discerned, and the more difficult it is to create a comprehensive theory. My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post. --Petersen, Penn State University. PS: I'll be away for the next week. From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 18:44:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15054; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:42:26 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:38:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: An Interminably Long Post. In-Reply-To: <199610262046.UAA935176@r02n05.cac.psu.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: 18480 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: > (1) Q: Isn't the statement I attribute to Wextcott actually from Burkitt's > appendix to the second edition? > > A: No. Look at the volume. Burkitt's section is clearly identified. > (Metzger proffered the same suggestion when I drew his attention to the > statement; I checked then to see if he was correct; he was not). I will defer to Dr. Petersen here, since I only have access to the 1881 W-H volume (though I do have a copy of Burkitt's 1896 appendix). I had not noticed any specific change in the main text on cursory examination, so this probably explains why Metzger also asked the same question. > A: Go and reread the quote, and my presentation of it. I said: > > >>> "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question > >>> whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts > >>> can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful > >>> examination of the passages in which Syr.sin and *k* [Vetus Latina, codex > >>> Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would > >>> point to the conclusion" I still read "raises the question" as equivalent to "not decisively answers it". The final sentence does appear to "point to the conclusion" which the question raises, but I am not fully convinced as to whether Westcott here is suggesting to abandon Aleph/B in such places. It may be that Westcott was overwhelmed by recent discovery in this area much as was Tischendorf upon examination of Aleph, and in fact was ready to abandon the principles he and Hort had worked on for over 30 years, though this still seems unlikely to me. > First, I don't see what is so difficult about it. Westcott poses a > rhetorical question ("Can the combination of the Vetus Syra and the Vetus > Latina outweight the Greeks?"), and then answers it in the affirmative ("the > careful examination of passages does indeed point to that conclusion"). Which is the correct quote? That the combination "would point to the conclusion" or "does indeed point to that conclusion"? The first form seems more tentative, so I think the precise words are needed here. >I leave it > to the list members to read Westcott's statement for themselves and discern > Westcott's meaning. As do I. > (3) Dr. Robinson goes on: > >... I still fail to see the point in statements to the > >effect of blaming the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on some "conservative" > >theological viewpoints when it remains the fact that the vast majority of > >"conservative" and even "fundamentalist" NT scholars continue to favor the > >modern eclectic text over against the Byzantine Textform. > > He avoids my point (as he did on a different issue last summer) by changing > it. I am *not* concerned with what theory the "majority" of > conservative/fundamentalist (his words) NT scholars favour. I am concerned > with the theological "home" of those (few?) who favor Byzantine priority. Please allow my continued objection to what remains to me an _ad hominem_ argument on this point (which point I am _not_ avoiding). The problem here _still_ remains that, if conservative/fundamentalist or charismatic theology were somehow inclined to support what might be perceived as a more conservative texttype, why then have not a large number of those conservative scholars in the US favored such? Certainly, unless we have a martyr complex, every one of us who knowingly have accepted this "despised" minority position are not exactly in it for either fame or fortune. We have, however, basically arrived at certain conclusions based upon a thorough examination of the evidence. I know of not one of the other pro-Byzantine or majority text advocates around today who had not previously been (like myself) supportive of the standard reasoned eclectic methodology before independently changing our position. As I have repeatedly mentioned regarding my own situation, blame Kenneth W. Clark for setting me on the pro-Byzantine route; he most certainly was not a theological conservative to any degree. Were I still convinced of the superiority of the reasoned eclectic position, I certainly would not be standing outside of the mainstream of even conservative scholarly opinion. Therefore I continue to object to _ad hominem_ associations which seem to imply that I hold my position somehow because of my other conservative theological views, just as I would not suggest that the remainder of American conservatives hold to the modern eclectic position because they must be closet liberals. It is the _theory_ which must be dealt with, and not the theological views of its advocates, unless such can be shown to drive the theory in some compelling fashion. I had already mentioned Van Bruggen and Wisselink as well as the Roman Catholic Hugh Pope and even Bover (according to O'Callaghan) as either leaning or holding the same views, and these are not American and may or may not be "conservative" in various senses (I really do not know), but certainly nowhere near the fundamentalist or charismatic wings of American Christianity. If the discussion is limited only to American advocates of the Byzantine or majority text position, Petersen's assessment may be correct, but it then is quite incorrect to ignore the European contingent which also advocates some form of pro-Byzantine originality. > Our > European members have commented on the oddity of the attention given TR and > Byzantine priority here in N. America Actually, aside from this list, the Greek NT's of Hodges/Farstad and myself, and a few papers presented to the ETS in this country by me, what attention is really being given to anything dealing with majority text theory or Byzantine priority. The negative attention given by Holmes, Fee, and Wallace is hardly of significance for most scholars, and I am certain that pro-Byzantine theory rarely comes up in the SBL, if at all. Yet the European community appears to think that the US is almost dominated by the pro-Byzantine faction. Who knows? Maybe we have more impact overseas than here, but I doubt it. *;-) > I do not know--again, in my limited experience--of any textual > scholars who advocate Byz priority and are associated with any > "liberal"/humanist/secularist/"left wing"/"progressive"/"main-stream" > schools/churches/theologies And should it ever be so taught, would this suddenly commend the theory? I think not. Still an _ad hominem_ critique. > it is not taught as the "default" theory in > main-line seminaries (Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.), nor at the leading > "secular" theological centers: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Muenster, > Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden, Trondheim, Upsala, or even at the dual > religious/secular centers such as Rome, Louvain, Georgetown, etc., etc. I > rest my case. Nor is it taught as the "default" theory in any conservative school that I know (though I do present it as one theory among equals at my own seminary), and I am certain that Dan Wallace (who is not an advocate) presents it equally and fairly at his own seminary. I certainly am not opposed to balance in teaching, but I would question the wisdom of not even mentioning opposing hypotheses at all, and presenting all as a single "default" hypothesis. > Dr. Robinson continues: > > > It seems to me that this type > >of statement becomes more of an _ad hominem_ argument intended to > >discredit the Byzantine-priority position rather than a serious > >consideration of the theory and/or explanation of its merits or demerits. > > It was Dr. Robinson who characterized one of my posts last summer as "nearly > interminable," if I recall correctly (it was long, but certainly no longer > than some of his, and the reason for its length was that it was filled with > texts). I leave it to the list to decide who is making "ad hominem" > arguments--or even who has deposited more bytes on the list. I will cheerfully admit to making my ten fingers function more frequently on the list than Dr. Petersen......but what does length of posting have to do with the question of _ad hominem_ argumentation? > I must also observe that I find it odd that no one--even those defending the > Byz Text--have introduced the most significant work on the subject in recent > years into the discussion. That work is by a Muenster student of the > Alands, Klaus Wachtel. The title is *Der Byzantinische Text der > Katholischen Briefe*, ANTT 24 (De Gruyter, 1995). Wachtel has apparently made a significant contribution to the study of the Byzantine Textform, and I find some of his arguments very helpful for framing elements of my own case, especially in regard to stemmatic considerations. I too would like Dr. Wachtel to elaborate regarding his theories on the tc-list. [from summary of Wachtel regarding the Byzantine text:] > It often can and does preserve very old > readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses. This precisely has been one of my primary claims, though my definition of "often" probably differs from that of Wachtel. The point I have tried to make previously has been in regard to the combined Alexandrian-Byzantine or combined Western-Byzantine readings, which from the modern eclectic perspective are merely "ancient" readings of either the Alexandrian or Western texts which later were adopted into the Byzantine Textform, but which from a Byzantine-priority position are actually original readings from which the Alexandrian or Western texttypes happened not to depart. As Wachtel points out, in almost all cases, a Byzantine reading has support from earlier witnesses. It is only in the very few "distinctive Byzantine readings" (Hort's term) where the Alexandrian and Western texts _both_ depart from the Byzantine. > Wachtel > feels it should be valued more highly than it is--but, of couse, he stops > far short of saying it is the "best" text. Why is this study ignored? Wachtel of course will not claim that the Byzantine is the best text, but that it must be regarded far more highly than most modern eclectics are willing to do. However, the real question is not the preference for individual Byzantine variant readings, with or without support from the Alexandrian or Western witnesses, but with the overall _pattern_ of readings which characterize the Byzantine Textform -- but this delves into the history of transmission where most modern eclectics do not venture. It is to Wachtel's credit that he does look at the transmission issue and at the pattern of Byzantine readings question, even though he does not come to the same conclusion as do I. > Another point for the Byzantine text people: I have an article for the > Baarda Festschrift (Brill 1997) which will adduce textual evidence for the > existence and use of the *pericope adulterae* in the first half of the > second century. This evidence increases the likelihood that the *pericope* > MAY have been part of John at that date (the earliest evidence listed in all > the commentaries is the Didascalia Apostolorum [early thrid cent.]). Since > it is in the Byzantine text, and many Byz people feel it was part of the > earliest version of John, this is ammunition for their position, and again I > give it to them. Thank you for the help. Of course the slim 2nd century evidence of the "woman accused of many sins" being a possible allusion to the pericope may have merit, but anything more substantial will naturally be welcome. My position would not rise or fall, however, on the presence of such evidence, but if substantial, it will be of help. > But of course, finding such bits of hard, textual evidence > takes time and effort--and note that I am NOT concerned with finding only > evidence which supports MY position. Let's hear some instances where the > Byzantine text people feel that text doesn't preserve the best reading! The Byzantine people might willingly help sift for evidence that will not directly support their position, but I do think it a bit much to require that the abandonment of their principles is requisite to prove their scholarly neutrality. That probably will happen as soon as an eclectic scholar will admit that all the internal principles he relies on cannot supersede the external evidence of the Byzantine Textform. *;-) > not trying to do that. I work with one variant, one verse, one pericope at > a time, for I know that the theological pressures upon and the transmission > history of each pericope (indeed, the evidence for each pericope) have been > different. Which reflects the heart of my critique against the modern eclectic method as currently practiced: working on one variant unit at a time, within one verse at at time, and one pericope at at time is well and good, but without some sort of integrated theory of transmission, all the eclectic decisions put together do not create the original text in any form which can maintain historical validity. The critique of Colwell and Clark remains valid: the text is treated as if it was dispersed to the four winds shortly after completion, and critics try to fit all kinds of variants back into the puzzle in the hope that some of them _might_ reflect the original; yet any normal view of transmissional history would not and could not argue in such a manner when attempting to determine the original text. The best transmissional explanation still remains that _some_ MS, _some_ version, _some_ family, _some_ texttype _must_ reflect the original text better than anything an eclectic method might put together. In this, Westcott and Hort were correct: they certainly began working from an eclectic model, but once they had determined what to them were the "best MSS", the readings chosen eclectically were then all revised to concur with the hard data of those "best MSS" and not the reverse. In the end, _some_ form of external evidence must dominate; otherwise everything remains shifting sand (this all is Colwell, Clark and Epp -- no need to blame Robinson for such comments). > IMHO, Robinson's complaint is that we are all not as he is: > zealous defenders of a particular text-type or manuscript. But that is > precisely what many find so absurd. As noted, I do think that the rigorous eclectic procedure is wanting, but such also is the view of the reasoned eclectics. I merely take the situation one step further, and maintain that there has to be some solid external mooring for even a reasoned eclectic approach (and I care not whether that be in the "best MS", group of MSS, family, or texttype). Without such, there can be no evidence that any reasoned eclectic decision is correct in any given case, and certainly not when the text of any given book or even pericope is taken as a whole. > Metzger is merely paraphrasing A.E. Housman, who called textual criticsm > BOTH an "art" and a "science". I reproduce Housman's statement (from a > lecture given to the Classical Association in 1921) in *Tatian's > Diatessaron*, p. 373, n. 31. It is interesting that Housman (like most, if > not all Classicists), went where the evidence led him, and did not argue > that a single MS or family always preserved the "best" reading. (The entire > lecture, "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," Proceedings of > the Class. Assoc. 18 [1921], pp. 67-84, is, IMHO, one of the most profound > utterances on the praxis of textual criticism. For this list, Housman's > comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights useful.) I will concur regarding the value of Housman's comments (often quite satirical and biting). However, as a Classicist and not a New Testament scholar, Housman must be taken within the proper context of dealing with an extremely limited number of MSS of any classical work (Juvenal and M.Manilius are among his best known editions), and having to deal with a world in which conjectural emendation prevailed and undue favoritism existed for "best" MSS where genealogical stemmas had been constructed for the entire MS tradition. Housman protested within that world to the effect that (I paraphrase) "no MS is more important than common sense" and that the stemmaticians were themselves for the most part corrupt. Were Housman thrust into the NT text-critical realm, I suspect some very different views might arise from his pen than anything yet seen within the present discussion. > No it is not. But it sure helps! We live in a free land, and anyone can do > anything they want. But we also know the consequences of that: a Harvard > diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U. More _ad hominem_, as many Harvard graduates I am sure will attest regarding some of their classmates. *;-) Yet I understand the implication: in terms of outward reputation, the Harvard degree might commend more respect, but this should not disparage the scholar who may have studied under a specialist at Podunk. I need only remind this list that the KJV-Only defender Edward F. Hills had his Th.D. from Harvard in hand, while D.A.Waite (another KJV-Only defender still living) has his Ph.D. from Purdue. > In other words, anyone > can produce or hold to a theory, but not all theories are of equal worth or > validity. Precisely. And this is my main complaint against modern eclectic theory in contrast to a theory based more on external evidence. But different theories will be held by different persons, and there is precious little one can do to alter perceptions (I should know). > Example: I have many English-only pious undergrads who enter my > classes certain that the "theory" they received is correct (KJV priority is > the norm)--without even knowing in what language the NT was originally > written. You seriously have KJV-Only students entering your classes up there? Thankfully by the time they show up at our seminary most of them have either abandoned that view or stopped with their B.A. degree. *;-) > My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post. My apologies to the entire list for the same. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 19:10:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15363; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:08:35 -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: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:54:51 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3502 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [ concerning Vaganay-Amphoux: ] >We have this volume in our library. I personally did not recommend it to >students because it does not seem to provide a reasonably balanced view of >the evidence in the manner of Metzger. I own it, and in some ways I think it valuable (e.g. it gives occasional information about the work of Duplacy, which appears to be very solid). I don't think its pro-"Western" bias is all that much stronger than Metzger's pro-Alexandrian bias. But I agree that it is not a good manual of textual criticism. There is too little background information (about manuscripts and editions). There is little discussion of how to engage in textual criticism (e.g. no real list of criteria, and not enough examples). And it is not well organized. I think there really is an urgent need for a better manual of textual criticism. Relatively speaking, Metzger is well-written (i.e. it's readable), but it really does not give enough information, and -- again -- the organization is lacking. I have, I believe, *eight* introductions to textual criticism (Aland&Aland, Black, Greenlee, Hammond, Lake, Metzger, Vaganay&Amphoux, Westcott&Hort), plus books which deal with this in part but not in whole (Comfort, Finegan, Pickering, and the Text/Canon volumes of Gregory and Souter), and I don't think any of them present the whole picture. Indeed, all of them combined leave something to be desired. On another topic, in another post: >There still is the terminology matter which needs correction, to avoid >confusion: As I noted, <is the "rough draft" of the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine >text"), while H/F is the "rough draft" of the "majority text".>> Let me give my logic, and then see what comes in response. :-) This is, honestly, a hard problem for me, because it comes back to this whole question of stemmatics. And, of course, the only place H&F really use stemmatics is the Apocalypse. But I cannot judge their work there, because I have *never* worked in the Apocalypse. (To date, I've done about 45% of my work in Paul, 35% in the Catholics, about 18% in the Gospels, and 2% in Acts.) Still, I think that stemmatics have a place in constructing the *original* form of the Byzantine text. On the other hand, I see Maurice's point. Let's take a hypothetical example in the Gospels. (It has to be hypothetical, because I can't point to such a reading.) Suppose that the Byzantine text splits, with A, family Pi, the purple uncials, and the Lambda and M groups supporting one reading (call it "X"), while Kx and Kr have another (call it "Y"). The support for Y is greater -- probably over 60% of the total. "X," however, has the support of most of the earliest Byzantine witnesses, and of a large number of groups. Assume that both are equal on all other grounds (if such is possible). Pickering would say that " was the original Byzantine reading. Hodges & Farstad probably would say the same. Robinson would say ? I would say that X is the original Byzantine reading. So, by my standards, the edition that prints X will be the "Byzantine" reading; the other will be the "Majority" edition. And, I repeat, both are useful (a ms. like C will have been influenced by the *earliest* form of the Byzantine text; a late minuscule like 614 more probably by the majority text). But they may be different. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 19:49:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15515; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:47:31 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199610262046.UAA935176@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:42:48 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: In Defense of Robinson (Was: An Interminably Long Post.) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 9163 I won't quote most of this message, but I want to defend Maurice Robinson. We don't often agree, but I think his perspective is valuable and useful. So I'll add my two cents in his support at various points. >On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, William L. Petersen wrote: [ ... ] >> >> >>> "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question >> >>> whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin >>texts >> >>> can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful >> >>> examination of the passages in which Syr.sin and *k* [Vetus Latina, >>codex >> >>> Bobiensis] are arrayed against alaph [= Greek codex Sinaiticus] B would >> >>> point to the conclusion" > >I still read "raises the question" as equivalent to "not decisively >answers it". I agree with Robinson. Westcott was allowing the possibility that OL+OS *might* be stronger than B plus Aleph -- but it need not be so, and certainly not in all instances. Even if the possibility be conceded, we must look at the actual readings involved, not just some theoretical comparison of groups. [ ... ] >As do I. > >> (3) Dr. Robinson goes on: > >> >... I still fail to see the point in statements to the >> >effect of blaming the Byzantine-priority hypothesis on some "conservative" >> >theological viewpoints when it remains the fact that the vast majority of >> >"conservative" and even "fundamentalist" NT scholars continue to favor the >> >modern eclectic text over against the Byzantine Textform. >> >> He avoids my point (as he did on a different issue last summer) by changing >> it. Even allowing that Robinson is not responding to the point being raised (and that can certainly happen; he's failed to respond to what I meant and I have failed to respond to what he meant), that does not mean he is dodging the argument. He just views the argument in a different light. [ ... ] > >> Our >> European members have commented on the oddity of the attention given TR and >> Byzantine priority here in N. America > >Actually, aside from this list, the Greek NT's of Hodges/Farstad and >myself, and a few papers presented to the ETS in this country by me, what >attention is really being given to anything dealing with majority text >theory or Byzantine priority. I have to agree with this. It's hard to hear the arguments of the Byzantine prioritists. The only works of the school that I own are Hodges & Farstad and Pickering -- and Pickering I found at a used bookstore. The local seminary, as best I could tell, has only H&F. That's not much exposure.... [ ... ] > >> it is not taught as the "default" theory in >> main-line seminaries (Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.), nor at the leading >> "secular" theological centers: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Muenster, >> Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden, Trondheim, Upsala, or even at the dual >> religious/secular centers such as Rome, Louvain, Georgetown, etc., etc. I >> rest my case. > >Nor is it taught as the "default" theory in any conservative school that I >know (though I do present it as one theory among equals at my own >seminary), and I am certain that Dan Wallace (who is not an advocate) >presents it equally and fairly at his own seminary. I certainly am not >opposed to balance in teaching, but I would question the wisdom of not >even mentioning opposing hypotheses at all, and presenting all as a single >"default" hypothesis. Just an observation: The fact that a theory is widely accepted does *not* make it right. It doesn't make it wrong, but Robinson is right to say that such opinions do not constitute evidence. >> Dr. Robinson continues: >> >> > It seems to me that this type >> >of statement becomes more of an _ad hominem_ argument intended to >> >discredit the Byzantine-priority position rather than a serious >> >consideration of the theory and/or explanation of its merits or demerits. >> >> It was Dr. Robinson who characterized one of my posts last summer as "nearly >> interminable," if I recall correctly (it was long, but certainly no longer >> than some of his, and the reason for its length was that it was filled with >> texts). I leave it to the list to decide who is making "ad hominem" >> arguments--or even who has deposited more bytes on the list. > >I will cheerfully admit to making my ten fingers function more frequently >on the list than Dr. Petersen......but what does length of posting have to >do with the question of _ad hominem_ argumentation? I think it only reasonable that Robinson post more to this list than others. After all, he stands *alone*. (Believe me, Maurice, I sympathise. :-) If he is to defend his position -- as he so ably does -- of *course* he must spend more time and effort at it. It certainly doesn't mean that he dominates the list. [ ... ] > >> It often can and does preserve very old >> readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses. > >This precisely has been one of my primary claims, though my definition of >"often" probably differs from that of Wachtel. The point I have tried to >make previously has been in regard to the combined Alexandrian-Byzantine >or combined Western-Byzantine readings, which from the modern eclectic >perspective are merely "ancient" readings of either the Alexandrian or >Western texts which later were adopted into the Byzantine Textform, but >which from a Byzantine-priority position are actually original readings >from which the Alexandrian or Western texttypes happened not to depart. >As Wachtel points out, in almost all cases, a Byzantine reading has >support from earlier witnesses. It is only in the very few "distinctive >Byzantine readings" (Hort's term) where the Alexandrian and Western texts >_both_ depart from the Byzantine. I think this point worth remembering by all of us: The Byzantine text very rarely creates readings. Almost all of its readings are found in some other text-type (what I would call an earlier text-type). In that sense, at least, it is the most conservative of text-types. [ ... ] >> But of course, finding such bits of hard, textual evidence >> takes time and effort--and note that I am NOT concerned with finding only >> evidence which supports MY position. Let's hear some instances where the >> Byzantine text people feel that text doesn't preserve the best reading! > >The Byzantine people might willingly help sift for evidence that will not >directly support their position, but I do think it a bit much to require >that the abandonment of their principles is requisite to prove their >scholarly neutrality. That probably will happen as soon as an eclectic >scholar will admit that all the internal principles he relies on cannot >supersede the external evidence of the Byzantine Textform. *;-) It is one thing to ask Byzantine people to admit exceptions to their theory. But Robinson is right -- why should *he* have to look for them? Isn't that *our* job? [ ... ] >In this, Westcott and Hort were correct: they certainly began working from >an eclectic model, but once they had determined what to them were the >"best MSS", the readings chosen eclectically were then all revised to >concur with the hard data of those "best MSS" and not the reverse. In the >end, _some_ form of external evidence must dominate; otherwise everything >remains shifting sand (this all is Colwell, Clark and Epp -- no need to >blame Robinson for such comments). To prove the point, see the articles Robinson and I posted earlier. [ ... ] >> Metzger is merely paraphrasing A.E. Housman, who called textual criticsm >> BOTH an "art" and a "science". I reproduce Housman's statement (from a >> lecture given to the Classical Association in 1921) in *Tatian's >> Diatessaron*, p. 373, n. 31. It is interesting that Housman (like most, if >> not all Classicists), went where the evidence led him, and did not argue >> that a single MS or family always preserved the "best" reading. (The entire >> lecture, "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," Proceedings of >> the Class. Assoc. 18 [1921], pp. 67-84, is, IMHO, one of the most profound >> utterances on the praxis of textual criticism. For this list, Housman's >> comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights >>useful.) Snide comment from one whose training is in physics and math: If textual critics want their discipline treated as a science, why don't they use a more scientific approach? Internal criticism, after all, is about 80% subjective -- i.e. completely unscientific. [ ... ] >> No it is not. But it sure helps! We live in a free land, and anyone can do >> anything they want. But we also know the consequences of that: a Harvard >> diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U. But less worthwhile than an open and intelligent mind. :-) [ ... ] >> My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post. > >My apologies to the entire list for the same. *;-) And mine for adding fuel to the fire. :-) Once again let me stress: I don't agree with Robinson (obviously). But his work should be examined on its merits, or lack thereof. How about some examples, folks? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 20:12:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15624; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 20:10:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199610270006.AAA935216@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 20:07:16 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: A *short* post Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 845 Thanks for the reply: the issues are, I think, clear. One note: the matter of the *pericope adulterae* in the forthcoming article does NOT turn on the well-known Papias report (preserved in Eusebius' h.e.), to which I assume you are alluding, but other evidence. Our discipline is still in its infancy, and needs new evidence. IMHO, it is on the basis of studies such as Wachtel's that the advances will be made. To close, a quote from old Housman: "Of course you can have hard-and-fast rules if you like, but then you will have false rules, and they will lead you wrong; because their simplicity will render them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but complicated by the play of personality" (p. 68). And that was in Classics. In religion, we must add "..play of personality *and theology*." --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 21:18:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15905; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:17:04 -0400 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:15:50 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7225 > >Assuming all events occurred precisely as Amphoux wishes to claim, the >question then must be asked as to why there is not a shred of historical >or MS evidence to support his contentions, even granting (as I do) that Not a shred? You're quite affirmative here! Amphoux's declarations rest not only on variants, but also on (1) patristical texts about the history of the NT text (you know, all these texts at the end of the Aland synopsis (2) comparison with other very early texts parallel to the Gospel traditions (Didache, Gospel of Thomas, writings of early fathers like Justin, Ignatius...) (3) a deep literary analysis of the text as it is in Codex Bezae. Of course, all this is open to discussion and analysis, and that's where we all have to intervene... I don't pretend to be sufficiently expert to pronounce a judgment on this work, simply I find it very interesting. Specially, and that's people used to "classical" textual criticism may find it exotic, litterary analysis plays a _very_ important role in his views about Codex Bezae. To put it like he told it to me and like he puts it in his latest books (La Parole qui devint Evangile and L'Evangile de Matthieu), codex Bezae is the only NT text-type where the text can be seen as a global literary project. The proof will be done when Amphoux will have given us a global interpretation of codex Bezae - say, something like a commentary showing us the structure and intertextuality of its text. Do you see what I mean? What is interesting by Amphoux is that he opens our discipline new avenues by showing an important interaction with literary analysis. By the way. If you have B. Aland and J. Delobel's (editors) book (New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History - a Discussion of Methods, Kampen, Pharos, 1994), Jacobus A. Petzer gives on pages 24-25 two paragraphs where he summarizes Amphoux's works. I would also like to add that the vaganay-Amphoux manual is not enough to have a complete representation of Amphoux's theories. His later works have a much more developed argumentation, and I think it's worth making the effort reading them (but maybe you have already?). >recensions may have occurred in localized regions. For such to have >occurred on the grand scale so as to virtually obliterate almost all >traces of the Bezae type of text among the Greek MSS and even among the >"Western" witnesses is little different than Westcott and Hort's theory >that a massive "Syrian [= Byzantine] recension" so totally eliminated the >Neutral [Alexandrian] text from subsequent transmissional history. Yes and no. There is quite a difference. I know the question is quite commonplace, but when is a book considered "in the making" and when is it considered to be "transmitted"? Amphoux's theories are based on a long "making" process, in which there have been many interventions, among which he puts the Smyrna edition and also what happened later. Our division between redaction and transmission is simply too clear-cut to understand Amphoux's points. He sees the "history of the text" (an important notion in his vocabulary) as a long process, involving both redaction and transmission, without such a clear distinction between both. I do not think Westcott and Hort would have presented things in such a nuanced manner. > >Given that scribes are supposedly more prone to include and insert than to >remove, it would seem that significantly shorter texts than that found in >the Bezae format (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) would have been >strongly resisted by the bulk of the church, and that the Bezae type of >text should have continued to be perpetuated in quantity, if not in >majority, among the Greek MS witnesses. In light of these considerations >I personally do not find much that is convincing in Amphoux's theory, any >more than I did with A.C.Clark's view concerning the Western text (though >I do agree with Clark's assertion that the canon of the shorter reading is >faulty). I understand. For this matter you need to read another article. What caused the almost total loss of this text was its role in the priscillian controversy. Here's the reference of that important article: C.-B. Amphoux, Les premieres versions latines de Luc 5 et leur contribution a l'histoire du texte (this is catastrophic: I notice I have a photocopy of the article, without its source being mentioned - a friend gave me a copy. If I remember, it's taken from a collective work about the latin Bible, dedicated to H.J. Frede and W. Thiele as the beginning of the article shows; article is on pages 193-211 - give me references if you find!). To summarize, Amphoux says the D-text was probably eliminated in the time of St Jerome due to its exploitation by and association with priscillianist circles. Another earlier article that is illustrative of Amphoux's literary methods, applied to the Lord's prayer in Luke is: C.-B. Amphoux, La revision marcionite du "Notre Pere" de Luc (11.2-4) et sa place dans l'histoire du texte in R. Gryson - P. Bogaert, Recherches sur l'histoire de la Bible latine (Louvain-la-Neuve, Cahiers RTL 19, 1987) Here he shows how the numeric structure (my vocabulary?) of a text in codex Bezae gives evidence for its originality, as compared to other textual witnesses where, due to revision, this structure is broken. Here, you're at the heart of his method. > >> First, his revision of the Vagany manual has been translated into english >> (and updated when compared to the french edition, you english-speaking guys >> are lucky): >> Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An introduction to New >> Testament textual criticism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991). > >We have this volume in our library. I personally did not recommend it to >students because it does not seem to provide a reasonably balanced view of >the evidence in the manner of Metzger. I understand, as it is sometimes a plea for Amphoux's theories. I begun also with Metzger's little manual, and am very indebted to it. I'm even more to his excellent book about the versions. To come back to Amphoux, my point is that his revision of Vaganay doesn't give a complete picture of his work. For this, you need to read his other works and articles, especially the more recent ones. By the way, whan Amphoux speaks of the manual, he still calls it "le Vaganay", which shows that he refrains from considering it his own, and from incorporating too much of his own material in it. But, in fact: who's balanced? Probably every manual of textual criticism in the world reflects the views of the person who wrote it. Metzger's stance, though definitely balanced and moderated as you say (and, which french politeness appreciates, kind towards people who think differently - which is not always the case in the discipline) is definitely alexandrian. And, speaking of another manual, Aland's is quite aggressive towards proponents of other theories and other editors. May his soul rest in peace, though. Respectfully yours, shlomo w-shayno! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Sat Oct 26 21:18:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15898; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:16:54 -0400 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:15:47 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules et al. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2147 >> >> > I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing >> > the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and > The many theories regarding the ending of Mark has always >been intriguing to me. They include: > > 1. Mark died before completing the Gospel. This conflicts >with my opinion of an early date (in the 40's). > > 2. The last page of the autograph was lost. This, however >supposes a codex form very early in the 1st century. > > 3. There were two books by the same name between the times >of Papias and Irenaeus. Possible since this would resove 1 & 2. > > 4. Among other theories is the recent one by Powell that >the ending of Mark was appended to GJohn (Jn 21). > For Amphoux, the Long Ending is appended by the editor of the IInd century edition that underlies Codex Bezae. In the order of this edition (Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk) this text serves as a conclusion, not to Mark, but to the whole Tetraevangelion, and also as a transition to the Acts that immediately followed. Together, these five books are a new Christian Pentateuch. There are more considerations which you will find in several passages of "La Parole qui devint Evangile" and in the introduction to "L'Evangile selon Matthieu - Codex de Beze". To summarize, this ending binds the four gospels together in a literary, intertextual and symbolical way. Just look at Amphoux's works for details. > My understanding in that the Sinaitic version is earlier than the >Curatonian but both are from earlier sources..which muddles the >opinion about priority. Again, one from the Diatessaron and the other >from Byzantine could be pertinent to "Mark plus" in one. I would be >interested in opinions regarding the Syriac texts in this puzzle. > Hmmm... There are also readings that are definitely tatianic in syc. The picture is indeed complicated, both texts being probably the fruits of revisions. shlomo w-shayno! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 27 08:41:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA17803; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 08:39:27 -0500 From: John Wevers Message-Id: <199610271335.IAA28267@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 08:35:56 -0500 (EST) Cc: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca (John Wevers) In-Reply-To: from "Jean Valentin" at Oct 27, 96 02:15:50 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: 503 -The full reference for the Amphoux is PHILOLOGIA SACRA Biblische und -patristische Studien fuer Hermann J. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag, herausg. von Roger Gryson. Band I:ALTES UND NEUES TESTAMENT, pp.193-211. It appears in VETUS LATINA: DIE RESTE DER ALTLATEINISCHEN BIBEL ....AUS DER GESCHICHTE DER LATEINISCHEN BIBEL. 24/1. Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1993. John Wm Wevers Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto INTERNET: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 27 09:28:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17924; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:26:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:22:47 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work 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: 4603 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > [ concerning Vaganay-Amphoux: ] > I think there really is an urgent need for a better manual of textual > criticism. > I don't think any of them present the whole picture. Indeed, all > of them combined leave something to be desired. Fully agreed. What is needed is a single volume which will contain the best elements of what appears in Metzger, Greenlee, Souter, Gregory, Aland, Vaganay, etc. So far such still has not appeared. > On another topic, in another post: > >There still is the terminology matter which needs correction, to avoid > >confusion: As I noted, < >is the "rough draft" of the Byzantine Textform ("original Byzantine > >text"), while H/F is the "rough draft" of the "majority text".>> > Let me give my logic, and then see what comes in response. :-) [stemmatics brought up in re: Hodges/Farstad's edition] > Still, I think that stemmatics have a place in constructing the > *original* form of the Byzantine text. The question is not one of stemmatics, but of stated goals and purposes. H/F nowhere claim to be restoring the Byzantine Textform, and indeed even with their stemmatic applications, the term "majority text" (even if by then a misnomer) continues to be used. In my case, the restoration of the Byzantine Textform is primary, stemmatics or not. Therefore, by each of our own definitions, H/F are concerned only with the "majority text" while I am concerned with the Byzantine Textform. Recall also that I am not opposed to a proper use of stemmatics in research. My objection to H/F's use of stemmatics is that their entire system is based upon shared agreement in readings of any type as opposed to shared agreements in plain and clear error, which is a principle of traditional stemmatics. > Let's take a hypothetical example in the Gospels. (It has to be > hypothetical, because I can't point to such a reading.) Suppose > that the Byzantine text splits, with A, family Pi, the purple > uncials, and the Lambda and M groups supporting one reading (call > it "X"), while Kx and Kr have another (call it "Y"). The support > for Y is greater -- probably over 60% of the total. "X," however, > has the support of most of the earliest Byzantine witnesses, and > of a large number of groups. Assume that both are equal on all > other grounds (if such is possible). > > Pickering would say that " was the original Byzantine reading. Something got left out after the " ... so I don't know what you think Pickering or H/F would say. I think (assuming they had to work solely from Von Soden here) that H/F and Pickering would support the "Y" reading with little question. Robinson would suggest that the Kx group would remain that from which the other Byzantine sub-groups most likely derived (i.e. the "Y" group). It still would have to be determined whether the reading of the other Byzantine sub-groups might have arisen from outside the Byzantine Textform and might thus reflect corruption within those earlier Byzantine witnesses (certainly in an era where non-Byzantine texttypes have greater strength the likelihood of corruption from them would be increased over the era in which the Kx Byzantine group might clearly dominate). I would not automatically rule out the possibility of the Ka and Family Pi groups being original, but I would be cautious in my approach due to the possibility of outside contamination. > I would say that X is the original Byzantine reading. On the grounds that the earlier testimony is more likely original, or on stemmatic grounds of some sort? > So, by my standards, the edition that prints X will be the > "Byzantine" reading; the other will be the "Majority" edition. These definition I think are reversed from those of H/F and myself, so I would still suggest following our own terminology on this point. The assumption that the Ka or K1 groups might be earlier was already made by Von Soden. So far as I know H/F did not accept that assessment, and neither do I; though I do not think H/F attempt to classify the Ka or K1 groups within any stemmatic line of tradition, whereas I consider them to be derivatives from Kx. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 27 10:06:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18045; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:04:33 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:47:56 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oops! Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 414 A small error correction (I probably shouldn't be writing this on a Sunday morning, but I want to say before somebody else points it out): I said yesterday (Friday?) that Colwell and Tune's essay on the 70% rule is in part II of Colwell's book on methodology. I was wrong. The essay on the 70% rule is in part I. The item in part II is another piece by Colwell and Tune. Oops! Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 27 11:20:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18447; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:17:58 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 16:13:20 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <34718389A@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1474 Colwell was certainly no maverick. He was one of the foremost text-critics produced in N. American this century, and his sense of clear method puts us all in is debt. In the passage cited, Colwell is not attacking the work of the Alands in toto, but quite specifically criticizing the UBS edition as to its severely limited textual apparatus, criticisms echoed by many others also. That the UBS edition tends to mislead is evident from the widespread use of it by NT students & even scholars, who often seem to have no real idea of its limitations and intention--as a translation base for translators, and never as a scholarly text for textual analysis. As for comparing the work of Aland & Colwell, to do such is rather pointless and rather like children on a playground ("my old man is better than your old man"). To be sure, the Alands have put us all in their debt with the many contributions from their Muenster Institute. But, to be fair, a large part of the reason for the Alands' success is the financial backing behind the Institute. If such resources were more readily available elsewhere, who knows what might be done in other places! Contra Jim West, I rather doubt that Colwell's cogent analyses will slip beneath the waves of history quite as readily as he thinks. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Sun Oct 27 12:43:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18729; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 12:40:22 -0500 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, 27 Oct 1996 10:25:29 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Original Byzantine Text (Was: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4300 On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: [ ... ] >> Let's take a hypothetical example in the Gospels. (It has to be >> hypothetical, because I can't point to such a reading.) Suppose >> that the Byzantine text splits, with A, family Pi, the purple >> uncials, and the Lambda and M groups supporting one reading (call >> it "X"), while Kx and Kr have another (call it "Y"). The support >> for Y is greater -- probably over 60% of the total. "X," however, >> has the support of most of the earliest Byzantine witnesses, and >> of a large number of groups. Assume that both are equal on all >> other grounds (if such is possible). >> >> Pickering would say that " was the original Byzantine reading. > >Something got left out after the " ... so I don't know what you think >Pickering or H/F would say. I think (assuming they had to work >solely from Von Soden here) that H/F and Pickering would support >the "Y" reading with little question. I don't know what happened there; it was in my original draft. (I wonder if I can blame this on my popmail server? It's been acting strange lately.) Anyway, Pickering and H/F would call "Y" the original reading of the Byzantine text. >Robinson would suggest that the Kx group would remain that from which the >other Byzantine sub-groups most likely derived (i.e. the "Y" group). It >still would have to be determined whether the reading of the other >Byzantine sub-groups might have arisen from outside the Byzantine Textform >and might thus reflect corruption within those earlier Byzantine witnesses >(certainly in an era where non-Byzantine texttypes have greater strength >the likelihood of corruption from them would be increased over the era in >which the Kx Byzantine group might clearly dominate). I would not >automatically rule out the possibility of the Ka and Family Pi groups >being original, but I would be cautious in my approach due to the >possibility of outside contamination. > >> I would say that X is the original Byzantine reading. > >On the grounds that the earlier testimony is more likely original, or on >stemmatic grounds of some sort? In this case, early testimony. The support for X begins in the fifth century and continues through the ninth (and perhaps beyond); Y does not appear until the eighth. But I would also argue that it is the reading of the majority of Byzantine *groups*, and the testimony of groups -- to me -- is stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses. I will admit that I do not know enough to engage in firm stemmatic work on the Byzantine tradition; my feeling based on my own incomplete work is that Family Pi is generally better and earlier than Kx (and obviously better and earlier than Kr), and should be followed when it has support from other Byzantine groups -- but I do not claim certainty for this, and am willing to listen to counterarguments. >> So, by my standards, the edition that prints X will be the >> "Byzantine" reading; the other will be the "Majority" edition. > >These definition I think are reversed from those of H/F and myself, so I >would still suggest following our own terminology on this point. The >assumption that the Ka or K1 groups might be earlier was already made by >Von Soden. So far as I know H/F did not accept that assessment, and >neither do I; though I do not think H/F attempt to classify the Ka or K1 >groups within any stemmatic line of tradition, whereas I consider them to >be derivatives from Kx. I'm basing my titles on what *I* would use the editions for. You give your names on what *you* use the editions for. (And ne'er the twain shall meet :-) Under the circumstances, I may have to give up and say, "I'm not sure which is which. Where they agree, that's the majority text. Where they disagree, I need to form my own conclusions." Which is why a critical apparatus would be nice. I agree with an earlier post that not all manuscripts need to be consulted to produce a Byzantine edition; we couly get by, e.g., with the data in the IGNTP. But it will be a *long* time before that will be complete (and even longer, I fear, before I am in a position to afford either a copy for home use or the time needed to commute to check the seminary's copy regularly. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 04:37:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23098; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 04:36:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 11:31:02 CET Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: Cc: , , , From: "johan lust" Subject: LXX-lexicon 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: 561 A Greek - English Lexicon of the Septuagint (LEH) part II is available ! For years after the publication of LEH I, the second and last volume of LEH is ready. It will be presented at the SBL Meeting in New Orleans, LA, U.S.A. (from 23 till 26 November 1996). The price of LEH II is 42 German Marks. It can be ordered by your local Bible Society. Full reference: J.Lust, E.Eynikel, K.Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Part II, Kappa-Omega, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1996; lxvi + 311 pages. ISBN 3-438-05126-7. Johan Lust. From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 04:43:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23156; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 04:42:38 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:35:52 GMT Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work 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: 851 Amphoux has presented his own summary of his position in _New Testament Textual Research Update_ Vol. 3 (1995), 41-46. I have offered a reply in the same journal, Vol. 4 (1996), 41-45, and hope to continue the exchange with him. His views may also be found in the collection which he and I have jointly edited, _Codex Bezae. Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994_ (NTTS 22), Brill, 1996, 337-54. I also feel that the handbook is too persuasive of a particular school to be fair. In addition, the section on palaeography is unchanged from Vaganay, and therefore very out of date. Nevertheless, the distinctive character of French work is important, and Duplacy is a giant in our discipline. 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 Mon Oct 28 04:52:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23201; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 04:51:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:43:48 GMT Subject: Re: Versions 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: 726 Bob Waltz wrote 'The more important the variant, the more important the versions'. I think that this puts the situation in the wrong terms. There is after all a vast gradation of v.ll. between de/kai and Mk 16.9ff. And a very slavish translation might even help with de/kai. The real rule is the wll-known and simple dictum, that what may be due to the necessities of translation, or to the habits of a translator, or may have arisen as a variant within the transmission of a version, should not be taken as representing the Greek Vorlage. One has to be careful and patient. 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 Mon Oct 28 04:59:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23237; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 04:58:52 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:51:16 GMT Subject: Re: Versions 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: 555 Maurice Robinson wrote > I consider it significant that among the two Old Syriac traditions one > contains the long ending of Mark and the other omits such. What > conclusion then should be drawn regarding that ending within the Syriac church? I conclude that both endings were known in Syriac Christianity. And that this is because the same variation between Greek manuscripts had made itself felt in Syriac Christianity. 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 Mon Oct 28 06:50:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA23515; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:49:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:35:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: In Defense of Robinson (Was: An Interminably Long Post.) 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: 6931 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: }j> [ ... ] > > > >> it is not taught as the "default" theory in > >> main-line seminaries (Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.), nor at the leading > >> "secular" theological centers: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Muenster, > >> Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden, Trondheim, Upsala, or even at the dual > >> religious/secular centers such as Rome, Louvain, Georgetown, etc., etc. I > >> rest my case. > > > >Nor is it taught as the "default" theory in any conservative school that I > >know (though I do present it as one theory among equals at my own > >seminary), and I am certain that Dan Wallace (who is not an advocate) > >presents it equally and fairly at his own seminary. I certainly am not > >opposed to balance in teaching, but I would question the wisdom of not > >even mentioning opposing hypotheses at all, and presenting all as a single > >"default" hypothesis. > > Just an observation: The fact that a theory is widely accepted does > *not* make it right. It doesn't make it wrong, but Robinson is right > to say that such opinions do not constitute evidence. > > >> Dr. Robinson continues: > >> > >> > It seems to me that this type > >> >of statement becomes more of an _ad hominem_ argument intended to > >> >discredit the Byzantine-priority position rather than a serious > >> >consideration of the theory and/or explanation of its merits or demerits. > >> > >> It was Dr. Robinson who characterized one of my posts last summer as "nearly > >> interminable," if I recall correctly (it was long, but certainly no longer > >> than some of his, and the reason for its length was that it was filled with > >> texts). I leave it to the list to decide who is making "ad hominem" > >> arguments--or even who has deposited more bytes on the list. > > > >I will cheerfully admit to making my ten fingers function more frequently > >on the list than Dr. Petersen......but what does length of posting have to > >do with the question of _ad hominem_ argumentation? > > I think it only reasonable that Robinson post more to this list than others. > After all, he stands *alone*. (Believe me, Maurice, I sympathise. :-) If > he is to defend his position -- as he so ably does -- of *course* he must > spend more time and effort at it. It certainly doesn't mean that he > dominates the list. > > [ ... ] > > > >> It often can and does preserve very old > >> readings--but usually in concord with other earlier witnesses. > > > >This precisely has been one of my primary claims, though my definition of > >"often" probably differs from that of Wachtel. The point I have tried to > >make previously has been in regard to the combined Alexandrian-Byzantine > >or combined Western-Byzantine readings, which from the modern eclectic > >perspective are merely "ancient" readings of either the Alexandrian or > >Western texts which later were adopted into the Byzantine Textform, but > >which from a Byzantine-priority position are actually original readings > >from which the Alexandrian or Western texttypes happened not to depart. > >As Wachtel points out, in almost all cases, a Byzantine reading has > >support from earlier witnesses. It is only in the very few "distinctive > >Byzantine readings" (Hort's term) where the Alexandrian and Western texts > >_both_ depart from the Byzantine. > > I think this point worth remembering by all of us: The Byzantine text > very rarely creates readings. Almost all of its readings are found in > some other text-type (what I would call an earlier text-type). In > that sense, at least, it is the most conservative of text-types. > > [ ... ] > > >> But of course, finding such bits of hard, textual evidence > >> takes time and effort--and note that I am NOT concerned with finding only > >> evidence which supports MY position. Let's hear some instances where the > >> Byzantine text people feel that text doesn't preserve the best reading! > > > >The Byzantine people might willingly help sift for evidence that will not > >directly support their position, but I do think it a bit much to require > >that the abandonment of their principles is requisite to prove their > >scholarly neutrality. That probably will happen as soon as an eclectic > >scholar will admit that all the internal principles he relies on cannot > >supersede the external evidence of the Byzantine Textform. *;-) > > It is one thing to ask Byzantine people to admit exceptions to their > theory. But Robinson is right -- why should *he* have to look for them? > Isn't that *our* job? > > [ ... ] > > >In this, Westcott and Hort were correct: they certainly began working from > >an eclectic model, but once they had determined what to them were the > >"best MSS", the readings chosen eclectically were then all revised to > >concur with the hard data of those "best MSS" and not the reverse. In the > >end, _some_ form of external evidence must dominate; otherwise everything > >remains shifting sand (this all is Colwell, Clark and Epp -- no need to > >blame Robinson for such comments). > > To prove the point, see the articles Robinson and I posted earlier. > > [ ... ] > > >> Metzger is merely paraphrasing A.E. Housman, who called textual criticsm > >> BOTH an "art" and a "science". I reproduce Housman's statement (from a > >> lecture given to the Classical Association in 1921) in *Tatian's > >> Diatessaron*, p. 373, n. 31. It is interesting that Housman (like most, if > >> not all Classicists), went where the evidence led him, and did not argue > >> that a single MS or family always preserved the "best" reading. (The entire > >> lecture, "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism," Proceedings of > >> the Class. Assoc. 18 [1921], pp. 67-84, is, IMHO, one of the most profound > >> utterances on the praxis of textual criticism. For this list, Housman's > >> comments on "hard and fast rules" are quite pertinent, and his insights > >>useful.) > > Snide comment from one whose training is in physics and math: If textual > critics want their discipline treated as a science, why don't they use a > more scientific approach? > > Internal criticism, after all, is about 80% subjective -- i.e. completely > unscientific. > > [ ... ] > > >> No it is not. But it sure helps! We live in a free land, and anyone can do > >> anything they want. But we also know the consequences of that: a Harvard > >> diploma is worth more than a diploma from Podunk U. > > But less worthwhile than an open and intelligent mind. :-) > > [ ... ] > > >> My apoligies in advance to Dr. Robinson for the "interminably long" post. > > > >My apologies to the entire list for the same. *;-) > > And mine for adding fuel to the fire. :-) Once again let me stress: I don't > agree with Robinson (obviously). But his work should be examined on its > merits, or lack thereof. How about some examples, folks? > > Bob Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > > From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 06:52:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA23524; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:51:22 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:47:35 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: In Defense of Robinson (Was: An Interminably Long Post.) 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: 2676 On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: [Lengthy Defense of Robinson omitted] > I think this point worth remembering by all of us: The Byzantine text > very rarely creates readings. Almost all of its readings are found in > some other text-type (what I would call an earlier text-type). In > that sense, at least, it is the most conservative of text-types. Viewed from the other perspective, this is indeed what I have been saying. W-H assumed that the Byzantine simply "adopted" probably about 98% of the readings of either the Alexandrian or Western texttypes, with the other 2% or so actually conflating the readings of the opposed texttypes. A Byzantine-priority perspective views the same phenomenon as merely places where the Alexandrian or Western texttypes did not happen to depart from the Byzantine original (remember, for 90% of the Greek NT _no_ texttype departed from the "majority" testimony). Therefore an Alexandrian/Byzantine or Western/Byzantine combination is seen merely to reflect the original text, and not a subsequent development of it as regards the Byzantine. > Snide comment from one whose training is in physics and math: If textual > critics want their discipline treated as a science, why don't they use a > more scientific approach? > > Internal criticism, after all, is about 80% subjective -- i.e. completely > unscientific. Since I continue to use and maintain the validity of internal evidence, I need to respond on this point in particular. I do not think all internal criticism is unscientific, but I do think that a haphazard application of internal principles, selecting whatever principle best happens to support the reading found in the favored MSS, and generally using those principles in that fashion merely to discredit the Byzantine reading is invalid. Yet Metzger applies internal principles in this manner throughout his "Textual Commentary." My own use of internal principles is followed far more strictly, and does not include some of the principles adduced by most eclectic scholars, as well as adds in some other principles which most eclectics do not choose to apply. Even so, there remains a good deal of overlap, and I do not think anyone who has seen my previous comments on this list would conclude that I do not make use of internal principles in a scientific manner rather than that of the "artiste". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 07:07:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA23593; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:05:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:01:48 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work 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: 3145 On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote: > >Assuming all events occurred precisely as Amphoux wishes to claim, the > >question then must be asked as to why there is not a shred of historical > >or MS evidence to support his contentions, even granting (as I do) that > > Not a shred? You're quite affirmative here! Readers of this list will not be surprised at that. *;-) Certainly I do not mean that Codex Bezae does not exist, but the archetype of such as Amphoux would reconstruct it is purely hypothetical, and even if supposed readings of that archetype are gleaned from patristic quotations or readings in other Western sources such as the Old Latin, any reconstruction of a Bezan archetype is purely hypothetical and based on guesswork; scholarly guesswork, but still with no hard evidence. I do appreciate that Amphoux ends up by default in much the same boat as myself, tilting against the majority of eclectic windmills. For this he is to be commended, even though I consider his thesis incorrect. > codex Bezae is the only NT text-type where the text can be seen > as a global literary project. The proof will be done when Amphoux will have > given us a global interpretation of codex Bezae - say, something like a > commentary showing us the structure and intertextuality of its text. Do you > see what I mean? I see and understand the point, but I still do not accept it, nor do I see any historical validity for viewing the remainder of the history of the text, including the development of the remaining texttypes, as necessarily following from such a hypothesis. > understand Amphoux's points. He sees the "history of the text" (an > important notion in his vocabulary) as a long process, involving both > redaction and transmission, without such a clear distinction between both. > I do not think Westcott and Hort would have presented things in such a > nuanced manner. Westcott and Hort were quite nuanced in their own theory. However, for Amphoux' theory to possess validity, one almost has to assume a far longer time for these events to occur transmissionally, as well as a Pax Christiana for the first three centuries which parallels the situation later occurring under Constantine. Without sufficient protection and freedom to engage in calm revision processes, I cannot see how the Bezan archetype could possibly undergo so much as Amphoux claims for it. > I understand. For this matter you need to read another article. What caused > the almost total loss of this text was its role in the priscillian > controversy. Quite seriously, you will have to pardon me if I cannot accept this any more than I can the KJV defenders who maintain that the Comma Johannaeum was deliberately omitted from Greek MSS during the Trinitarian controversy, lest the heretics somehow misuse it for their own purposes. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 07:38:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA23677; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:36:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:33:09 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Byzantine Text (Was: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work) 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: 1830 On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > But I would also argue that it is the reading of the majority of > Byzantine *groups*, and the testimony of groups -- to me -- is > stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses. I would conclude this to fall under the same fallacy as that of Sturz with his "majority of texttypes" view. The Byzantine archetype (whatever it might be) should not be established merely by finding all possible sub-groups and taking their "majority" testimony. This again avoids the question of historically explaining the transmission of the various components which are part of the Byzantine Textform. Certainly if one wants to hold Ka or K1 as original solely because of age of witnesses, that is a possibility, and a better one than merely counting up the subgroups; however, my objection to that method is that I consider it a fallacy to presume earlier date of witnesses necessarily means an earlier text, when in fact such might reflect an early Byzantine text with intrusions from non-Byzantine texttypes, from which the later Byzantine MSS are free. Otherwise, one also will be compelled to explain transmissionally how the readings found in the Ka or K1 types were rejected and/or otherwise altered so as to produce the "standard" reading found in the Kx mass of Byzantine MSS. I continually find it far simpler to view minority texttypes as well as minority sub-types as localized deviations from the primary Textform rather than earlier forms of the text which is dominant. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 09:46:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA24512; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:44:08 -0500 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:42:58 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 281 >-The full reference for the Amphoux is PHILOLOGIA SACRA Biblische und THANK YOU! shlomo w-shayno! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 10:07:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24780; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:05:58 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:59:23 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Byzantine Text (Was: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2347 On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> But I would also argue that it is the reading of the majority of >> Byzantine *groups*, and the testimony of groups -- to me -- is >> stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses. > >I would conclude this to fall under the same fallacy as that of Sturz with >his "majority of texttypes" view. The Byzantine archetype (whatever it >might be) should not be established merely by finding all possible >sub-groups and taking their "majority" testimony. This again avoids the >question of historically explaining the transmission of the various >components which are part of the Byzantine Textform. > >Certainly if one wants to hold Ka or K1 as original solely because of age >of witnesses, that is a possibility, and a better one than merely counting >up the subgroups; however, my objection to that method is that I consider >it a fallacy to presume earlier date of witnesses necessarily means an >earlier text, when in fact such might reflect an early Byzantine text with >intrusions from non-Byzantine texttypes, from which the later Byzantine >MSS are free. Otherwise, one also will be compelled to explain >transmissionally how the readings found in the Ka or K1 types were >rejected and/or otherwise altered so as to produce the "standard" reading >found in the Kx mass of Byzantine MSS. I continually find it far simpler >to view minority texttypes as well as minority sub-types as localized >deviations from the primary Textform rather than earlier forms of the text >which is dominant. I think I missed something here.... I offered as a hypothesis that Family Pi approximates the original Byzantine text (while wanting one or two other subgroups to support it, so as to ensure that the particular reading is not just an error in that group). Apart from numbers of witnesses involved, how does this differ from assuming that Kx, or one of its subgroups, is the original Byzantine text? If changes in the Byzantine text cannot occur, how does one explain the existence of the three great groups, Kx, Kr, and family Pi? (Incidentally, I tentatively am accepting Wisse's groupings here, rather than von Soden's, so I call Ki part of Kx, and refer to Ka as "family Pi.") Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 10:06:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24772; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:05:52 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:36:59 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: In Defense of Robinson (Was: An Interminably Long Post.) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3082 On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: [ ... ] > >> Snide comment from one whose training is in physics and math: If textual >> critics want their discipline treated as a science, why don't they use a >> more scientific approach? >> >> Internal criticism, after all, is about 80% subjective -- i.e. completely >> unscientific. > >Since I continue to use and maintain the validity of internal evidence, I >need to respond on this point in particular. I do not think all internal >criticism is unscientific, but I do think that a haphazard application of >internal principles, selecting whatever principle best happens to support >the reading found in the favored MSS, and generally using those principles >in that fashion merely to discredit the Byzantine reading is invalid. Yet >Metzger applies internal principles in this manner throughout his "Textual >Commentary." My own use of internal principles is followed far more >strictly, and does not include some of the principles adduced by most >eclectic scholars, as well as adds in some other principles which most >eclectics do not choose to apply. Even so, there remains a good deal of >overlap, and I do not think anyone who has seen my previous comments on >this list would conclude that I do not make use of internal principles in >a scientific manner rather than that of the "artiste". Let me stress that I do not think we can do away with internal evidence entirely. There will always be places where the manuscripts *cannot* settle things for us. But I observe -- and we all know this to be true -- that different critics can take *the same* manuscript evidence, and almost the same list of critical criteria -- and produce editions which differ in hundreds or thousands of places. In other words, textual criticism is *not repeatable.* Therefore it is not, and cannot claim to be, a science. What is more, even the parts which are generally most susceptible to mathematical treatment (e.g. the relationships between manuscripts) are rarely treated in that way. Yes, Colwell did it; yes, Aland has now done it (in a rather foolish way) -- but neither had any method to apply their results. All I am saying, in this particular context, is that textual criticism -- *if* it wishes to view itself as a science -- must come up with repeatable rules, must formulate and test hypotheses (including mathematical measures for goodness-of-fit), and must place itself on the soundest possible mathematical basis. This does not mean the elimination of internal criticism; it means applying it *only where it needs to be applied*, and *only in a rigorous manner*. Note that TC need not regard itself as a science; I'm sure most people who are aware of it think of it as one of the fuzzy subjects. It's your choice, folks. (Consider the consequences: My scientific habits have made me a "historical documentary eclectic," almost unique in my emphasis on text-types.) Just don't claim the name "science" unless you're ready to back it up. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 12:46:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA26661; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 12:45:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:41:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199610281741.LAA22452@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu 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: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: E. C. Colwell--A Maverick? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1531 Re bibliography for those wishing to make their own assessment of Colwell: the place to begin may be Colwell's 1968 essay, "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program," pp. 63-83 in his volume of collected essays (_Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ [NTTS 9; Leiden and Grand Rapids: Brill and Eerdmans, 1969]). In this essay he *retracts* some of his earlier criticism of Hort--thus one might start here rather than the earlier essays. Also, an essay not in his collected essays that will interest some on this list is "External Evidence and New Testament Criticism," in _Studies in the History and Text of the NT_, ed. Daniels and Suggs (SD 29; U. of Utah press, 1967) 1-12. For a sympathetic critical assessment of Colwell--as well as Aland and Zuntz--see J. N. Birdsall's essay on "The Recent History of New Testament Textual Criticism (from Westcott and Hort, 1881, to the present)," in ANRW 2.26.1, pp. 99-197, esp. pp. 166-175 for the three scholars just mentioned. Birdsall treats them as "Colwell - a practical scholar theorizing," "Zuntz - classical philology and New Testament text," and "Aland - entrepreneurial pragmatism." (full bibliographic details, if needed, may be found in the bibliography to my essay--which offers its own assessment of Colwell [I suggest that his method is patterned after Hort, while his views of the history of the text are influenced by Zuntz and Schmidt]--in the vol. Ehrman and I edited, The Text of the New Testament in Comtemporary Research.) Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 16:49:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28821; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:48:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:48:14 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: New Electronic Journal 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: 1253 Although this new journal doesn't address textual criticism specifically, I think that many on the list might be interested anyway. The new electronic _Journal of Hebrew Scriptures_ has just announced the availability of its first article. The URL for the journal is http://www.ualberta.ca/ARTS/JHS/jhs.html. I have had some people tell me, usually very politely and somewhat condescendingly, that electronic journals like TC will never command the kind of respect that the more traditional print journals do. I believe, on the contrary, that electronic journals, particularly peer-reviewed journals like TC and JHS, will only grow in their usefulness to scholars. Certainly they do not now have the prestige of many print journals, but in a few years, who knows? It is usefulness to scholarship more than prestige that is important in any case. As always, I will remind readers of this list that TC solicits high quality, original work in the area of biblical textual criticism, and we are also interested in reviewing books on the subject and in receiving information about ongoing projects in the field. 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 Oct 28 18:48:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00092; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:46:31 -0500 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:45:26 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2771 Maurice Robinson wrote: >Readers of this list will not be surprised at that. *;-) Certainly I do >not mean that Codex Bezae does not exist, but the archetype of such as >Amphoux would reconstruct it is purely hypothetical, and even if supposed >readings of that archetype are gleaned from patristic quotations or >readings in other Western sources such as the Old Latin, any >reconstruction of a Bezan archetype is purely hypothetical and based on >guesswork; scholarly guesswork, but still with no hard evidence. > Yes of course, but this is in the nature of our discipline. We are _all_ postulating an archetype that we try to reconstruct. If what you say is true, then ANY textual criticism is impossible. Hypothese always plays a role in our discipline, and any printed text (except for the diplomatic edition of a manuscript) is in fact a reconstructed text... a text that probably never existed. The same can be said of the NA27 text, the Tischendorf text, even the Majority text or the TR. ANY archetype is hypothetical, and specially those who assign to TC the task to reconstruct an hypothetic "original" text, an archetype of all our manuscripts would, if you're right, be building hypotheses with no hard evidence. Even texts so widely diffused as the byzantine text (by the way, why not call it antiochene?) or the latin vulgate. >Westcott and Hort were quite nuanced in their own theory. However, for >Amphoux' theory to possess validity, one almost has to assume a far longer >time for these events to occur transmissionally, as well as a Pax >Christiana for the first three centuries which parallels the situation >later occurring under Constantine. Without sufficient protection and >freedom to engage in calm revision processes, I cannot see how the Bezan >archetype could possibly undergo so much as Amphoux claims for it. > Not sure. There's been much scholarly work done by christians before Constantine. persecution didn't prevent Tatian, Origen, and many others from producing biblical editions and commentaries. This argument seems to me quite overstated... and "hypothetical" :-) >Quite seriously, you will have to pardon me if I cannot accept this any >more than I can the KJV defenders who maintain that the Comma Johannaeum >was deliberately omitted from Greek MSS during the Trinitarian >controversy, lest the heretics somehow misuse it for their own purposes. >*;-) Ne melangeons pas les torchons et les serviettes (juicy french expression meaning, according to my dictionary: "you have to know what's what". See what I mean? :-))). shlomo w-shayno! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 19:57:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00668; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:56:15 -0500 X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 29-Oct-1996 11:21:54 -0500; at TP.BAEA To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: Subject: TC and conservatives From: AKULIKOV@baea.com.au (KULIKOVSKY, Andrew) Date: 29 Oct 96 11:21:46 CDT References: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5366 Greetings to all. I am just a lurker on this list and am by no means any sort of expert altough I am very much interested in TC and have read widely on the matter. When's that TC Encyclopedia coming out? I 'd like to make a comment on the accusations made about conservatives sticking by the majority text or the TR. Now I am a not an ultra-conservative or fundamentalist and I am definitely not a liberal. I am an evangelical Christian and would describe myself as a "liberal conservative" ..... if that isn't an oxymoron...... Now I do not accept the TR or majority text as the best. However, I do admit that there are many conservatives that do. I am constantly trying to convince ultra-conservative friends that still hold to the KJV and NKJV that these are 1) not the best translations available and 2) based on inferior Gk MSS. The accusation is that there is some theological drive behind this but I don't think this is the case at all - at least not directly. The tendency of conservatives to reject the modern critical texts and modern versions is due to groups that write little pamphlets and booklets that are pro-KJV/NKJV/TR and that hurl all sorts of (unwarranted) abuse at MSS that stand outside of the TR/Byzantine/Majority traditions and all sorts of (unwarranted) abuse and (untrue) accusations at TC and its practicianers. The Trinitarian Bible Society is a prime example. The arguments emanating from their pamphlets are nothing short of utter tripe not to mention falacious, ignorant and historically inaccurate and nieve. The way these people work is by preying on the conservatives' high view of scripture - and give the impression that TC and its practicianers are deliberately trying to destroy the truths of inspiration and authority. So they talk about how modern TC has denied the diety of Jesus in some of its textual choices (of course they fail to mention other choices that actually reinforce Jesus's deity). This of course is utter tripe, but it evokes great responses from many (unfortunately ignorant) conservatives. There have been some scholars (like Maurice Robinson on this list) and Hills and Pickering who have at least put up some intelligent, sensible reasoning in favour of the Majority tradition although I don't agree with them. D A Carson has answered Hills and Pickering and most others as well in his book, "The KJV debate: a plea for realism" (I think that's the correct title.) Basically the problem is ignorance - not just from the pews but from many critics of TC. I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called "Logical criticisms of TC". In Clarke's analysis of TC he showed that He really didn't fully understand the method. For example, he noted that a variant contained in Aleph and B is GENERALLY taken as a certainty for originality - but in many places (like in the gospels) this combination was rejected and other readings were prefered. He then concluded that TC was illogical and inconsistent. What Clarke failed to realize was that Aleph is generally taken to be Alexandrian in Paul and Catholics and Western in the Gospels. Therefore an Aleph and B combination in the Gospels is really an Alexandrian/Western combination and so a editorial board like the UBS's who prefer the Alexandrian text type and consider the Western to be heavily edited may reject such a combination. Another misunderstnading among conservatives is the idea that TR = Majority = Byzantine. This of course is not true. In fact I believe that the TR contains readings that are found in no Gk MSS at all. It is interesting to note that pro-TR/KJV people will say that because the majority of scholars accept ecclectic texts over the TR doesn't mean that the ecclectic text is best - a billion scholars CAN be wrong. This is surely true. However, this same group go on to contradict themselves by stating their big argument: the majority of Greek manuscripts agree with the TR therefore it must be the best. This is not only untrue but also logically fallacious. Also, even among the majority text there is still are reasonable amount of variation. My main point, though is that the main problem is ignorance. The average lay person/pastor etc is not informed about TC and its methods and in fact is often mis-informed about such. The challenge then my friends is to communicate TC to the church in a positive way that reinforces commitment to Biblical inspiration and authority. Education is the key to understanding. cheers, Andrew ps. sorry about the long post. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer | British Aerospace Australia | Technology Park, Adelaide | ph: +618 8290 8268 | fax: +618 8290 8800 | email: akulikov@baea.com.au | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IESOUS KURIOS! +------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 20:44:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA00948; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:43:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:39:13 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Byzantine Text (Was: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work) 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: 2480 On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > >On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: [Waltz] > >> But I would also argue that it is the reading of the majority of > >> Byzantine *groups*, and the testimony of groups -- to me -- is > >> stronger than the testimony of number of witnesses. [Robinson] > >I would conclude this to fall under the same fallacy as that of Sturz with > >his "majority of texttypes" view. The Byzantine archetype (whatever it > >might be) should not be established merely by finding all possible > >sub-groups and taking their "majority" testimony. > I think I missed something here.... I offered as a hypothesis that > Family Pi approximates the original Byzantine text (while wanting > one or two other subgroups to support it, so as to ensure that the > particular reading is not just an error in that group). Apart from > numbers of witnesses involved, how does this differ from assuming that > Kx, or one of its subgroups, is the original Byzantine text? I am not sure what you or I missed -- my comments were specifically directed to the above statement of "finding all possible [Byzantine] sub-groups and taking their 'majority' testimony." > If changes > in the Byzantine text cannot occur, how does one explain the existence > of the three great groups, Kx, Kr, and family Pi? Not sure if we are talking past each other here or not. Certainly the Byzantine Textform is not rigid or monolithic, else there would be no sub-groups. The difference is in how the history of development of those sub-groups is viewed. You view a sub-group (Family Pi) for example as the source from which the later Kx group developed; I view Kx as reflecting the primary Byzantine Textform, from which the sub-groups Ka K1 Kc Kr etc.) developed during the course of time, but with none of the sub-groups being the parent of Kx let alone any other sub-group. > (Incidentally, I tentatively am accepting Wisse's groupings here, > rather than von Soden's, so I call Ki part of Kx, and refer to Ka > as "family Pi.") Which is reasonable, though I still prefer Ka. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 20:54:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA01057; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:53:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:49:33 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: In Defense of Robinson (Was: An Interminably Long Post.) 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: 2390 On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > But I observe -- and we all know this to be true -- that different > critics can take *the same* manuscript evidence, and almost the same > list of critical criteria -- and produce editions which differ in > hundreds or thousands of places. What is interesting here is that Bob's comment applies equally to the _external_ evidence of manuscripts, versions, and patristic quotations, as well as to internal criteria. The result is demonstrable that such criteria, even taken as a whole and applied "normally" by eclectic critics still will produce texts which have significant differences (though I would be swift to point out as did Colwell, Clark, and Epp, that the resultant texts, though differing, still reflect more of a Westcott-Hort text than anything else). However, the larger question is this: why should textual criticism from a given school of thought produce widely differing resultant texts? Certainly within my own perspective, my Byzantine Textform is constructed on different principles than the Hodges/Farstad edition, yet our total number of differences in the entire NT probably amount to only 300 of so, 220 of which are in Revelation, where H/F specifically applied their stemmatic approach. I am not sure that the different eclectic approaches will come so close even within their predominantly Alexandrian final text. > All I am saying, in this particular context, is that textual criticism -- > *if* it wishes to view itself as a science -- must come up with repeatable > rules, must formulate and test hypotheses (including mathematical > measures for goodness-of-fit), and must place itself on the soundest > possible mathematical basis. I would concur to an extent with Bob here, though probably not in regard to the specific mathematical precision demanded. I do maintain that rules for handling external evidence as well as internal evidence should be such that a "normal" application of such will in any given situation lead to the same result. This I find greatly wanting in modern eclectic praxis. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 21:17:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA01315; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:16:03 -0500 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 03:14:55 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Versional variants Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7713 Hello tc-listers! As some of you have said, it is better to work on examples than to embark in long discussions about principles. So here are a few examples. If you like the exercise, more will follow. I didn't put Arabic this time, as my favorite ms has a lacuna here :-( Next time maybe... I propose to your reflexion a few variants which I haven't met in greek texts. Which doesn't mean they don't exist in greek mss, simply after having consulted the most important greek (NA27, Tischendorf, WH, Soden, Merk, TR, Hodges-Farstad, Legg, Scrivener's codex Bezae, Loch's Vaticanus - but is this last one reliable? etc...) editions, I haven't found them to be known in greek. What's striking for some of them is that we find them in parts of the world that are very remote, for example Spain and Caucasus, or the Low Countries and Persia. This excludes most probably a late origin, especially as two or three geographical areas with no contact whatsoever cannot have "conspirated" to produce these variants. I do not pretend these variants to be "original", but this is more to show you what can happen if you look at the versions. Examples are taken from Mt 1.18-2.12 Mt 1.18 omission of "Marias". Represented in ms B of the armenian version of Ephrem's commentary, and in a hebrew version from Spain (XV century) Mt 1.19 Joseph isn't called "her husband". This variant is well known as diatessaric. We find it in: Ephrem, syc, the Liege diatessaron (middle dutch), the persian harmony published by Messina, the same hebrew version from Spain and an inedit persian tetraevangelion that I noticed in the brussels Royal Library (I don't know enough persian to launch its publication, so if one of you feels like beginning it, I can give the references). Mt 1.20 "As he was thinking about this": add "in his heart": the same hebrew version from Spain and one of the oldest Georgian mss (D= the Jruch ms). These are really two extremities of the world! How do you explain such a coincidence except by the image of the stone thrown into water (see one of my earlier posts). Of course, only one case doesn't prove anything, but the recurrence of such phenomena begins to attract attention. Mt 1.20 omit. "idou". The same georgian ms, this time with another hebrew version coming from Italy (Paris hebrew 132, XV/XVIth century) and several armenian citations (for armenian citations my reference is Leloir's Citations du NT dans l'ancienne tradition armenienne). Mt 1.20 omit "kyriou": the spanish hebrew version, the italian hebrew version, and again armenian citations. Mt 1.22 As is well known, the name of the prophet is added by codex Bezae, many old latin witnesses and the early father Ireneus. To these we should add the italian hebrew version and the Armenian vulgate (ed. Zohrab). This example is a bit different because of the presence of a greek ms: D.05 Mt 1.24 apo tou hypnou: add a possessive and say: "from _his_ sleep": sys.c.p, the georgian Jruch ms (geoD), the arabic Diatessaron and the persian harmony of Messina. To these we must add again, the two hebrew versions from Italy and Spain. This is a case where we have several remote geographical areas representing the same text. Mt 2.2 om "gar": the spanish hebrew version, the arabic diatessaron, two old dutch mss of the diatessaron: the Liege and Haaren mss. Mt 2.2 kai elthomen: two versions add "with gifts" (spanish hebrew) and "with importan gifts" (dutch Haaren diatessaron). Mt 2.3 "herod the king": om. "the king": the spanish hebrew version and several armenian citations. Again, these are two extremities. Mt 2.3 Hierosolyma: replaced by "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" in the spanish hebrew version and in armenian citations. Mt 2.5 "it is written" is replaced by "it is said" in some old latin mss (b c q), the dutch Haaren diatessaron, the Italian hebrew version and... the syropalestinian version! This lesson is represented both east and west. Mt 2.7 "ton chronon tou phainomenou asteros": add "to them" (the time when the star appeared _to_them_): most of the old latin mss, vg, sys.c.p, sypalA, hebrew-spain and hebrew-italy. Quite a broad attestation, I'm puzzled at not finding a greek manuscript. Do you have one? Mt 2.8 "eipen": add "to them": Liege diatessaron (dutch), arabic diatessaron, Pepys harmony (old english, but quite paraphrastic, i wouldn't make too much of it for such a detail), hebrew-spain and again the georgian jruch ms (geoD). Mt 2.9 This is puzzling. greek "epano" means "above". Now, some versions have not "above": sys has "at the place where", as also (again) the georgian Jruch ms (geoD). Hebrew-spain has "in front of the place where", and Hebrew-italy has (difficult to translate - is it a conflation?) "above in front of" (mimma`al minneged). Mt 2.10 This has nothing to do with our subject, as the syropalestinian is here alone. But it's worth reading. "They rejoiced of a very great joy" reads: w-HaDu HeDwa raba laHDa - thrice the consonants heth and dalath. Nice assonance! Would sypal re-translate correctly into aramaic (for those who are seeking semitic originals to the gospels :-) Mt 2.11 The "treasures" become "bags" in: hebrew-spain, arabic diatessaron, persian harmony. Epiphanes and the James Protevangelium (how damn is it called in english?) are also mentioned. What would you make of something like this? Mt 2.12 Some versions reintroduce the angel in this verse, though not all at the same place. Hebrew-spain, hebrew italy and georgian-Jruch (geoD) Mt 2.12 anechoresan: one verb. Hebrew-italy and geoD use two: they went and returned. _____________________________ That's all. I don't mean to prove with this that versions are "superior" to the greek mss! My only intention is to awake your attention to several facts: (1) It happen sometimes, as you can see it from the above examples, that a same reading is preserved in areas that are very remote geographically. This gives to that reading a chance to be very ancient. In such cases, we should ask ourselves whether this is not a case of an old text surviving only in the periphery because they were eliminated in the center by later greek (and versional) recensions. (2) Some of the mss and versions I quoted are definitely late: the Brussels persian tetraevangelion is from the XVII century, but has old syriac readings (though I quoted it here only once, it's not the only case). The hebrew version from Spain begins to be transmitted in complete mss in the XV century (there would be, according to its publisher, earlier traces in several citations). The Jruch georgian ms is from the IX century. The dutch mss begin appearing with the Liege diatessaron in the XIII century. Etc, etc... "Classical" textual criticism would not even open these mss and classify them as irrelevant. One just needs to read a few lines from them to be surprised by phenomena as those above. Of course, some coincidential scribal clarifications, interpretations and the like must never be excluded at first sight. But the _recurrence_ of such agreements is quite impressive, whatever be our general textual theory. Comments? And, of course, if you have met some of these variants in greek witnesses, I'm very interested to know it! Also, I would like to get your impressions as to why hardly anything of this all appears in textbooks and editions of the NT. Versions make the whole thing much more complicated and subtle than the alexandrian-western-byzantine debate :-) What's too simple... Peace to all, Jean V. shlomo w-shayno! Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 21:39:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA01464; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:38:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199610290238.VAA01459@scholar.cc.emory.edu> From: "Jim Mendelson" To: Subject: Fw: Hebrew wording of Day 4 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:34:52 -0800 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 890 TCers--I just recieved this from a Genesis listserv, and would like to get your help on the wording in Genesis 1. Any help? Thanks and God bless, Jim > I just listened to a tape called "Genesis Unbound" by a Dr. John Sailhamer, > who is a Hebrew scholar who claims that the Hebrew wording of Day 4 of the > Genesis account seems to indicate that the sun, moon, and stars were > appointed to be lights to govern the seasons, and that the English > translation skews it to mean that these bodies were created on that day. > Does anyone know Hebrew well enough to verify or refute this claim? He also > holds to a modified gap, where Genesis 1:1 refers to an ancient creation. > This interpretation would make the age of the universe irrelevant to belief > in the inerrancy of scriptures. From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 22:20:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA01752; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:19:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:15:49 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: a presentation of Amphoux's work 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: 3231 On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote: [Robinson] > >reconstruction of a Bezan archetype is purely hypothetical and based on > >guesswork; scholarly guesswork, but still with no hard evidence. > Yes of course, but this is in the nature of our discipline. We are _all_ > postulating an archetype that we try to reconstruct. If what you say is > true, then ANY textual criticism is impossible. This is not really what I am saying. I appealed to the principle of Occam's razor previously, and restate it here: that theory is preferable which requires the least number of steps and intermediate hypotheses to be true in its promulgation. I consider Amphoux' theory to require an inordinate number of such steps and intermediate hypotheses; therefore I consider it less valid than, e.g., even the reasoned eclectic method, even though I am more in support of a theory which would point to a single texttype (even the Western or Bezan exemplar), should such a theory commend itself by its simplicity rather than its complexity. > Hypothese always plays a > role in our discipline, and any printed text (except for the diplomatic > edition of a manuscript) is in fact a reconstructed text... a text that > probably never existed. Most will agree that the Byzantine Textform in its aggregate is almost totally reconstructable and did have a valid existence for a definite period of time. Differences over when such occurred are another matter, however. The fact that no two MSS agree 100% on all particulars does not negate the reconstruction of the archetype of the Byzantine Textform. > so widely diffused as the byzantine text (by the way, why not call it > antiochene?) I personally prefer Byzantine, since I see no evidence that such a text was peculiar to Antioch as opposed to extending over the entire geographical scope of the Byzantine Empire. I do realize that the term Byzantine might appear to make the Textform time-bound, but this is not my intention. I could be happy with Kenyon's a-text designation, but few seem inclined to follow that model. > Not sure. There's been much scholarly work done by christians before > Constantine. persecution didn't prevent Tatian, Origen, and many others > from producing biblical editions and commentaries. This argument seems to > me quite overstated... and "hypothetical" :-) Origen's work on the Hexapla is certainly well know. Also that early fathers did from time to time comment regarding variant readings known to them. However it is a far leap from these incontrovertible facts into the multiple-revision hypothesis which Amphoux must postulate in order to both eliminate the Bezan archetype from further distribution and also to establish the Alexandrian, Caesarean and Byzantine texts as official or semi-official replacements which were swiftly adopted to the exclusion of the Bezan archetype. I fail to see anything being "overstated" in this regard. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 22:39:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA01836; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:38:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:34:26 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TC and conservatives 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: 4591 On 29 Oct 1996, KULIKOVSKY, Andrew wrote: > Now I am a not an ultra-conservative or fundamentalist > and I am definitely not a liberal. I am an evangelical > Christian and would describe myself as a "liberal > conservative" ..... if that isn't an oxymoron...... Peculiar, however, to say the least *;-) > conservatives that do. I am constantly trying to > convince ultra-conservative friends that still hold > to the KJV and NKJV that these are 1) not the best > translations available and 2) based on inferior Gk > MSS. The first matter is one regarding translational quality, and I would clearly separate the KJV from the NKJV in that regard. On point (2) I obviously am trying to convince non-ultra-conservatives regarding a superiority of the Byzantine Textform. > The tendency of conservatives to reject the > modern critical texts and modern versions is due > to groups that write little pamphlets and booklets > that are pro-KJV/NKJV/TR I think you will find that that group will _not_ defend the NKJV in any manner. Their only goal is a misguided defense of the KJV, sometimes with the TR thrown in. > and that hurl all sorts of > (unwarranted) abuse at MSS that stand outside of the > TR/Byzantine/Majority traditions These groups also oppose the Byzantine and "majority text" positions almost as vociferously as they do the eclectic positions. > and all sorts > of (unwarranted) abuse and (untrue) accusations > at TC and its practicianers. The Trinitarian Bible > Society is a prime example. The arguments > emanating from their pamphlets are nothing short > of utter tripe not to mention falacious, ignorant and > historically inaccurate and nieve. Absolutely. Anyone who has not read some of this material should venture into their area at least once. *;-) > There have been some scholars (like Maurice > Robinson on this list) and Hills and Pickering > who have at least put up some intelligent, > sensible reasoning in favour of the Majority > tradition although I don't agree with them. I prefer not to be included in the same list with Hills, since he is a KJV-Only defender. As for Pickering, I already have pointed out various reasons for my position not to be associated with him. (And for the record, I have never used the KJV for preaching, teaching, or study purposes, except rarely for comparison of renderings; I first used the old RSV, and continue to use that and other modern translations in all matters). > D A Carson has answered Hills and Pickering > and most others as well in his book, "The KJV > debate: a plea for realism" (I think that's the > correct title.) I do concur with many of Carson's comments regarding Pickering (though that portion of his book is a separate section from the main thrust, which is to refute the KJV-Only practitioners such as Hills). I do not consider Carson's critique of the Byzantine text, however, to be adequate. > I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called > "Logical criticisms of TC". A terrible booklet in my opinion, which shows the author to fully misunderstand the subject about which he presumes to pontificate. > Another misunderstnading among conservatives is > the idea that TR = Majority = Byzantine. This of course > is not true. In fact I believe that the TR contains readings > that are found in no Gk MSS at all. This is indeed true, especially in the closing portion of Revelation where at least 6 words were newly created as Erasmus translated the Latin back into the Greek. There are other places as well. > stating their big argument: the majority of Greek > manuscripts agree with the TR therefore it must be > the best. This is not only untrue but also logically > fallacious. Also, even among the majority text there is > still are reasonable amount of variation. I found it humorous that in the mid-1970s, before the TR/KJV folk knew precisely that the Byzantine or majority text would not contain certain verses or phrases found in the KJV or TR, they were all in favor of the "majority text" term. I have a pamphlet from one of them entitled "Why we support the majority text" -- which text now is pamphleteered against by the same person. For the record, the Byzantine Textform or majority text differs from the TR in about 1800 places, many of them significant. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 23:04:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA01936; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 23:03:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:59:22 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Versional variants 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: 6509 On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote: > Mt 1.18 omission of "Marias". Represented in ms B of the armenian version > of Ephrem's commentary, and in a hebrew version from Spain (XV century) Recognizing that you do not claim these variants to be original, as well as that there was no "conspiracy" to place variants such as these in such widely-separated sources, do you nevertheless consider that there supposedly is _some_ genealogical connection in a case like the above rather than mere coincidence in accidental (or even deliberate) error? If there really were connections in the cases cited, one would expect to find some "variant trail" which would point to the connection and thereby establish both antiquity and genealogy. As it stands, I see little more than mere coincidence in reading. > Mt 1.19 Joseph isn't called "her husband". This variant is well known as > diatessaric. We find it in: Ephrem, syc, the Liege diatessaron (middle > dutch), the persian harmony published by Messina, the same hebrew version > from Spain and an inedit persian tetraevangelion that I noticed in the > brussels Royal Library (I don't know enough persian to launch its > publication, so if one of you feels like beginning it, I can give the > references). This one I will concede has sufficient evidence to be claimed as a reflection of the original Diatessaron. William Petersen can comment more authoritatively on that point than myself, however. > Mt 1.20 "As he was thinking about this": add "in his heart": the same > hebrew version from Spain and one of the oldest Georgian mss (D= the Jruch > ms). These are really two extremities of the world! How do you explain such > a coincidence except by the image of the stone thrown into water (see one > of my earlier posts). I would explain this as harmonizartional coincidence, probably brought about by the Lukan comment about Mary keeping all these things and pondering them in her heart. I certainly see _no_ valid connection between a 15th century Hebrew version (even if one other of its readings may have Diatessaric connections) and the Georgian version, any more than I see a connection between that Hebrew MS and the Armenian version of Ephraem's commentary. Widely separated individual scribes and translators -- even among the Greek MSS -- may end up with identical readings, but no genealogical connection is postulated in most of those cases by any textual critics. I see no need to do anything more here. > Mt 1.20 omit. "idou". The same georgian ms, this time with another hebrew > version coming from Italy (Paris hebrew 132, XV/XVIth century) and several > armenian citations (for armenian citations my reference is Leloir's > Citations du NT dans l'ancienne tradition armenienne). It would have certainly helped the case if the same _Hebrew_ MS were repeatedly agreeing with the Georgian or the Armenian of Ephraem's commentary; but here the same Georgian now has a different coincidental agreement with a _different_ Hebrew MS......I fail to see how this helps your contention. > Mt 1.20 omit "kyriou": the spanish hebrew version, the italian hebrew > version, and again armenian citations. This again is more likely to be attributed to mere coincidence than anything genealogically substantial; however, it may be the case that the two Hebrew versions in question may have further genealogical ties, but this says nothing about the supposed Armenian connection. > Mt 1.22 As is well known, the name of the prophet is added by codex Bezae, > many old latin witnesses and the early father Ireneus. To these we should > add the italian hebrew version and the Armenian vulgate (ed. Zohrab). > This example is a bit different because of the presence of a greek ms: D.05 This reflects a clear Western variant, with or without Codex Bezae. Both the Armenian and the Hebrew version in question here reflect the more ancient Western reading, and this seems unquestioned. There still may be a Diatessaric connection here, but I am uncertain. The difference in this case lies in the multiplicity of evidence in favor of this reading. Had it merely possessed the Armenian and Italian Hebrew version, I would not attempt to make the connection. > Mt 1.24 apo tou hypnou: add a possessive and say: "from _his_ sleep": > sys.c.p, the georgian Jruch ms (geoD), the arabic Diatessaron and the > persian harmony of Messina. To these we must add again, the two hebrew > versions from Italy and Spain. This is a case where we have several remote > geographical areas representing the same text. This may be coincidence or Diatessaric. However, the addition of the possessive in such a case is what any scribe might think to be "normal", and thus add consciously or unconsciously. I would not make much of the connection in this instance. > Mt 2.2 om "gar": the spanish hebrew version, the arabic diatessaron, two > old dutch mss of the diatessaron: the Liege and Haaren mss. Diatessaric connection appears likely, though unless that Spanish Hebrew version can be shown to have more Diatessaric readings which could _not_ have occurred by mere coincidence, I would be wary of making much out of such an agreement. > Mt 2.2 kai elthomen: two versions add "with gifts" (spanish hebrew) and > "with importan gifts" (dutch Haaren diatessaron). Since they did present gifts, this may be harmonization to the following context. I am not even certain that Petersen would claim the Dutch Diatessaron here standing virtually alone as genuinely Diatessaric. > Mt 2.3 "herod the king": om. "the king": the spanish hebrew version and > several armenian citations. Again, these are two extremities. Again I suspect likely coincidental. > Mt 2.3 Hierosolyma: replaced by "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" in the > spanish hebrew version and in armenian citations. If so, is this reading the term as Ierosolymiths or as something else? I suspect the Armenian version altered the text here for clarity of expression in their own language. The Hebrew version may have done similarly, but independently. I will leave the remainder of the citations for others to deal with, since this post probably has run its course from my side far too much. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 29 00:48:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA02425; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:47:16 -0500 Message-Id: <199610290545.WAA13043@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:41:29 -7 Subject: Re: Fw: Hebrew wording of Day 4 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1990 Hmm...well, let's compare the wording with another day, like the second. The fourth day, v.14, begins "And God said, let there be..." "Let there be" is YHY, the same term used in v.3 "Let there be light" and in v.6, "Let there be an expanse." The expanse is "to divide," LeHABDIL; this same term is used for the "lights" on the fourth day. The creation of the expanse continues with WAYA(A$, "and He made"; the same term continues the creation of the sun and moon in v.16. V.7 adds "And it was so," a phrase missing in the 4th day but essentially meaningless wrt Sailhamer's suggestion. Both descriptions end with "And God saw that it was good." Conclusion: if the 4th day means, not that these items were created that day but that they already existed and were appointed for specific purposes, then we have to conclude the same about the expanse on the second day. IOW, Sailhamer is wrong. > TCers--I just recieved this from a Genesis listserv, and would like to get > your > help on the wording in Genesis 1. Any help? Thanks and God bless, > > Jim > > > I just listened to a tape called "Genesis Unbound" by a Dr. John > Sailhamer, > > who is a Hebrew scholar who claims that the Hebrew wording of Day 4 of > the > > Genesis account seems to indicate that the sun, moon, and stars were > > appointed to be lights to govern the seasons, and that the English > > translation skews it to mean that these bodies were created on that day. > > Does anyone know Hebrew well enough to verify or refute this claim? He > also > > holds to a modified gap, where Genesis 1:1 refers to an ancient creation. > > This interpretation would make the age of the universe irrelevant to > belief > > in the inerrancy of scriptures. > > Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html I've never had an original thought in my life, so this opinion must be someone else's fault. From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 29 00:48:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA02429; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:47:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199610290545.WAA13043@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:41:29 -7 Subject: Re: Fw: Hebrew wording of Day 4 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1990 Hmm...well, let's compare the wording with another day, like the second. The fourth day, v.14, begins "And God said, let there be..." "Let there be" is YHY, the same term used in v.3 "Let there be light" and in v.6, "Let there be an expanse." The expanse is "to divide," LeHABDIL; this same term is used for the "lights" on the fourth day. The creation of the expanse continues with WAYA(A$, "and He made"; the same term continues the creation of the sun and moon in v.16. V.7 adds "And it was so," a phrase missing in the 4th day but essentially meaningless wrt Sailhamer's suggestion. Both descriptions end with "And God saw that it was good." Conclusion: if the 4th day means, not that these items were created that day but that they already existed and were appointed for specific purposes, then we have to conclude the same about the expanse on the second day. IOW, Sailhamer is wrong. > TCers--I just recieved this from a Genesis listserv, and would like to get > your > help on the wording in Genesis 1. Any help? Thanks and God bless, > > Jim > > > I just listened to a tape called "Genesis Unbound" by a Dr. John > Sailhamer, > > who is a Hebrew scholar who claims that the Hebrew wording of Day 4 of > the > > Genesis account seems to indicate that the sun, moon, and stars were > > appointed to be lights to govern the seasons, and that the English > > translation skews it to mean that these bodies were created on that day. > > Does anyone know Hebrew well enough to verify or refute this claim? He > also > > holds to a modified gap, where Genesis 1:1 refers to an ancient creation. > > This interpretation would make the age of the universe irrelevant to > belief > > in the inerrancy of scriptures. > > Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html I've never had an original thought in my life, so this opinion must be someone else's fault. From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 29 05:15:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA03467; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:13:39 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:09:24 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Versional variants Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <2D373D1AF1@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1297 Thanks to Jean Valentin for his list of variants which seem to be supported by two or more versional traditions. As he notes, however, at least a number from his list could be considered coincidental "agreements", which scribes or translators independently producing the same/similar variation either deliberately or by accident. We must, therefore, *weigh* the variants, as to whether they can more easily be accounted for as coincidental or may require some "genetic" connection to explain them. Agreements in individual variants are not very meaningful *unless the variants are significant [i.e., suggest a historical/genetic connection] or are so plentiful as to suggest a common textual history*. We must, thus, ask for a complete list of the places where these same versional traditions *agree and disagree*, and not merely an anecdotal list of variants such as Valentin provided us. The history of textual criticism in this century has been plagued with such anecdotal lists, perhaps esp. in connection with the so-called "Caesarean" text-type, as I hope to have shown in my 1981 study of Codex W. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 29 09:51:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04917; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:49:58 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:45:53 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Mathematics and science (Was: In Defense of Robinson, etc.) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4853 On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> But I observe -- and we all know this to be true -- that different >> critics can take *the same* manuscript evidence, and almost the same >> list of critical criteria -- and produce editions which differ in >> hundreds or thousands of places. > >What is interesting here is that Bob's comment applies equally to the >_external_ evidence of manuscripts, versions, and patristic quotations, as >well as to internal criteria. The result is demonstrable that such >criteria, even taken as a whole and applied "normally" by eclectic critics >still will produce texts which have significant differences (though I >would be swift to point out as did Colwell, Clark, and Epp, that the >resultant texts, though differing, still reflect more of a Westcott-Hort >text than anything else). I obviously can't argue with Maurice's statements. Although I might argue that none of the important editors since W&H have worked on a primarily external basis. Even if they did, it should be noted that the results will be controlled by the theory of the text. The fair test would be to compare the results produced by two people who shared the *same* textual theory. To the best of my knowledge, that has only happened once (in the collaboration of Westcott & Hort). The two *did* disagree -- as their obelized readings show -- but they agree more often than any editors since. >However, the larger question is this: why should textual criticism from a >given school of thought produce widely differing resultant texts? The obvious reason being that both "rigorous" and "reasoned" eclecticism contain a large subjective element. Colwell observed that a sufficiently ingenious critic can find a reason to support almost *any* reading. >Certainly within my own perspective, my Byzantine Textform is constructed >on different principles than the Hodges/Farstad edition, yet our total >number of differences in the entire NT probably amount to only 300 of so, >220 of which are in Revelation, where H/F specifically applied their >stemmatic approach. I am not sure that the different eclectic approaches >will come so close even within their predominantly Alexandrian final text. They obviously don't (see Aland and Aland, pp. 25-28, which shows the rates of differences among the various readings). I might incidentally note that some of these editions are closer to the Byzantine editions than we might think. Based on Wallace, H/F disagrees with UBS about 6000 times. Presumably R/P and UBS disagree at about the same rate. But von Soden differs from NA25 (perhaps the most Alexandrian edition of all) over 2000 times, and Vogels departs from NA25 almost as often. Since the majority of these changes are in the direction of the Byzantine text, these editions are about a third of the way from Alexandrian to Byzantine. I would have to call these "mixed," not "Alexandrian" (though the Alexandrian predominates). >> All I am saying, in this particular context, is that textual criticism -- >> *if* it wishes to view itself as a science -- must come up with repeatable >> rules, must formulate and test hypotheses (including mathematical >> measures for goodness-of-fit), and must place itself on the soundest >> possible mathematical basis. > >I would concur to an extent with Bob here, though probably not in >regard to the specific mathematical precision demanded. I do maintain >that rules for handling external evidence as well as internal evidence >should be such that a "normal" application of such will in any given >situation lead to the same result. This I find greatly wanting in modern >eclectic praxis. Allow me to clarify: Not all sciences are equally mathematical. Physics is more mathematical than chemistry, which is more mathematical than biology, etc. Textual criticism will always be closer to biology, not physics; it will never be possible to reduce it entirely to formulae. The point is not that a science must be entirely mathematical; in many cases (e.g. geology) it is primarily descriptive. The point is just that a science must be *as mathematical as possible.* In the case of TC, this probably means making the greatest possible use of statistics in assessing the relationships between manuscripts. It might mean giving mathematical weight to criteria -- but I would oppose this. The goal is not to apply criteria according to some formula, but to apply them consistently. It's not the same thing. I would also repeat that it does not automatically follow that textual criticism *must* be treated as a science. You can treat it as art, or as one of the other fuzzy subjects. If so, you'll be doing it without me -- but then, I doubt if many of you would miss me. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 29 13:08:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07727; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:07:15 -0500 From: PGardella@aol.com Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:03:30 -0500 Message-ID: <961029130329_1582577912@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Fw: Hebrew wording of Day 4 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4249 Greetings all! I am a student at Asbury Theological Seminary and have been reading the list for a while to see where Textual Criticism is and where it is headed. Having recently completed a study of the Pentateuch, and having read Sailhamer, I thought I would respond to Jim and Dave's posts. Please note, I am not a Hebrew scholar, and I do not know Hebrew, so the opinions I express are not original (to an even greater extent than Dave's disclaimer!). I intend to provide background information on Sailhamer's arguement. Much is left out here for the sake of space. I found the book to be thought provoking and challenging. I to am interested in what other's have to say about his hypothesis. Sailhamer is arguing that the Genesis 1 account of creation is a preparation of the (Promised) Land for the people of Israel. Since the Pentateuch is the story of the nation of Israel, these creation naratives are dealing with the creation of the nation, and not of the world in general. The "heavens and the earth" in Gen 1:1 is a merism refering to the "universe" or "cosmos", which includes the sun, moon and stars. Day 2 was a division of the waters into the waters on the earth and clouds. He bases this on his translation of RAIQA in Genesis 1 as refering to clouds (as does Prov 8:28, Ps 104:3). To quote, " On the second day God prepared the sky with clouds to provide rain for the land. The rain would prepare the land for producing vegetation on the next day." Again, he is focusing on the preparation of the Land for the his people. Comparing the syntax of verse 6, he argues they are similar but "don't have the same meaning", as Dave has done. He translates WAYA to "to set aright", "to fix", "to set in order". The emphasis he is showing is "to separate the night from the day". He assumes the lights to be already in place (noting the lack of the article with 'or here in 14) and the action on this day is to organize them (my words). He notes the difference between the syntax of verse 6 (HYH alone) and of verse 14 (HYH and infinitive) So to answer Dave's conclusion, Sailhamer does assume the expanse in the second day does exist, and that it was separated for a specific purpose (to prepare the land). Patrick Gardella PGardella@aol.com FYI, "Genesis Unbound" is published by Multnomah Books (Sisters, Oregon: 1996) ISBN 0-88070-868-9 >Hmm...well, let's compare the wording with another day, like the >second. The fourth day, v.14, begins "And God said, let there be..." >"Let there be" is YHY, the same term used in v.3 "Let there be light" >and in v.6, "Let there be an expanse." The expanse is "to divide," >LeHABDIL; this same term is used for the "lights" on the fourth day. >The creation of the expanse continues with WAYA(A$, "and He made"; >the same term continues the creation of the sun and moon in v.16. >V.7 adds "And it was so," a phrase missing in the 4th day but >essentially meaningless wrt Sailhamer's suggestion. Both >descriptions end with "And God saw that it was good." > >Conclusion: if the 4th day means, not that these items were created >that day but that they already existed and were appointed for >specific purposes, then we have to conclude the same about the >expanse on the second day. IOW, Sailhamer is wrong. >> TCers--I just recieved this from a Genesis listserv, and would like to get >> your >> help on the wording in Genesis 1. Any help? Thanks and God bless, >> Jim >> > I just listened to a tape called "Genesis Unbound" by a Dr. John >> Sailhamer, >> > who is a Hebrew scholar who claims that the Hebrew wording of Day 4 of >> the >> > Genesis account seems to indicate that the sun, moon, and stars were >> > appointed to be lights to govern the seasons, and that the English >> > translation skews it to mean that these bodies were created on that day. >> > Does anyone know Hebrew well enough to verify or refute this claim? He >> also >> > holds to a modified gap, where Genesis 1:1 refers to an ancient creation. >> > This interpretation would make the age of the universe irrelevant to >> belief >> > in the inerrancy of scriptures. From owner-tc-list Tue Oct 29 14:19:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA08565; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:18:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199610291917.MAA01677@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:13:30 -7 Subject: Re: Fw: Hebrew wording of Day 4 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 494 > So to answer Dave's conclusion, Sailhamer does assume the expanse in the > second day does exist, and that it was separated for a specific purpose > (to prepare the land). > > Patrick Gardella > PGardella@aol.com That makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm still not convinced, but this does make his view more consistent. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html I've never had an original thought in my life, so this opinion must be someone else's fault. From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 30 02:15:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA14451; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 02:14:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 02:14:28 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Versions bibliography 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: 459 I have put up a brief bibliography of the critical editions of some of the versions at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-versions-bib.html. Other versions need to be added, and corrections and/or editions are welcome. This page may also be accessed from the TC Links page (see the bottom of the TC home page). 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 Oct 30 08:40:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16607; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:39:18 -0500 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 14:38:18 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Versions bibliography Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 542 >I have put up a brief bibliography of the critical editions of some of the >versions at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-versions-bib.html. >Other versions need to be added, and corrections and/or editions are >welcome. This page may also be accessed from the TC Links page (see the >bottom of the TC home page). > >Jimmy Adair >General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism >------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- I will send you some more titles in a few days. Greetings, Jean Valentin From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 30 11:00:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18264; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:59:08 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:54:45 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: MS 2427? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 711 I asked this question earlier, but I guess it got lost in the assorted recent controversies.... I've recently been wondering about 2427. It's a manuscript of Mark (Aland dates it as XIV century) that has the peculiar property of standing closer to B than any other manuscript (including Aleph, according to my statistics). I saw a reference in a commentary once claiming that this manuscript was of questionable authenticity. I can imagine a reason for the question: What is a near-copy of B doing being made in the fourteenth century? But this doesn't seem to me to be reason enough to really cast doubt on it. Does anyone know anything about why this ms. is controversial? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 30 11:32:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18695; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:31:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:26:52 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: 2427 X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961030112658.262738a2@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: 347 Aland lists this ms as a "category 1" type from the 14th cent. He does not say anything about the possibility that it is fraudulent. It seems to me that it is simply a very good copy of a very old ms of the "Alexandrian" text type. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 30 11:40:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18915; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:38:41 -0500 X-SnapMAIL: 2.0.2 Message-ID: <000036E9.sm@dts.edu> Subject: Re: 2427 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 96 10:34:27 CST From: Mark_OBrien@dts.edu (Mark OBrien) To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary X-HoloGate: 1.1.8 Lines: 225 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 468 Original message sent on Wed, Oct 30 5:26 AM by jwest@SunBelt.Net (Jim West) : > Aland lists this ms as a "category 1" type from the 14th cent. He does not > say anything about the possibility that it is fraudulent. > It seems to me that it is simply a very good copy of a very old ms of the > "Alexandrian" text type. Incidentally, there is also a plate in the Alands' text (51, I think) of the ending of Mark. Regards, Mark O'Brien Dallas Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 30 11:49:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA19029; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:47:59 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 16:27:07 GMT Subject: Re: MS 2427? 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: 1168 Robert Waltz writes about 2427. Colwell wrote on this MS ('Some Unusual Abbreviations in ms. 2427', Studia Evangelica, TU 73 (1959), 778-9. I can't check Clark's USA MSS for further information, and the only other immediate source of info is Alands, Introduction, who place it as Category 1, and give a plate. Evidence that it was a _copy_ of B would be quite different from evidence that its text is very similar. It would need to include repetition or false restoration of casual error, difficulty where B was hard to read, and maybe repetition of abbreviations such as nomina sacra. But this might be harder to establish between a majuscule and a minuscule. Also, itacisms might be patterned in the copying. Have you found any such evidence? The Alands have Cat. 1 MSS from the 13th cent., so there is nothing absolutely abnormal about a 14th cent. MS being in this category. Fun to note that Nestle-Aland cites 2427 as a first order witness, on the strength of its Category 1 status, in Mark 16.9ff... 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 Oct 30 13:07:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19834; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:06:13 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:01:37 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: More on 2427 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1877 To save time and repetition, let's give more details about 2427. 1. It contains Mark only. 2. It contains the longer ending of Mark. 3. Aland lists it as Category I -- the *only* Category I minuscule of the gospels, and the most recent Category I manuscript known. (For the record, I *strongly* disapprove of the Aland scheme. But in this instance it *is* an indication of how free of Byzantine influence the manuscript is.) 4. It is not a copy of B, and probably not a direct descendent. It is, however, the closest surviving relative of B in Mark -- at least among substantial manuscripts. For comparison, in a sample of 202 readings in Mark, 2427 has the following rates of agreement: B 89% L 72% Aleph 68% C 60% family 1 48% E 45% K 44% A 42% Theta 38% family 13 38% a 34% D 27% Other than 2427, the closest relative of B in Mark (based on this sample, which is all I can offer) is Psi (!) at 78%, followed by Aleph and L, both at 72%. 5. 2427 has been cited in all the recent "Aland editions" (NA27, UBS4, SQE13), with no sigf hesitation. I also looked up the quotation casting doubts on it. It's from Sherman E. Johnston's commentary on Mark (in the Harper's series) and runs as follows: In recent years a unique MS., Cod. 2427, containing only the gospel of Mark, has come to the attention of textual scholars. Since it obviously belongs to the Alexandrian text, and even appears to represent it more purely than do Vatican and Sinaiticus, as well as containing a few unique readings, it is of great interest. Its authenticity, however, has not been established. The footnote cites three articles from the years 1945-1947, none of them in journals that I have access to. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 30 21:14:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA24968; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:12:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:08:54 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MS 2427? 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: 1319 On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I've recently been wondering about 2427. It's a manuscript of Mark > (Aland dates it as XIV century) that has the peculiar property of > standing closer to B than any other manuscript (including Aleph, > according to my statistics). > > I saw a reference in a commentary once claiming that this manuscript > was of questionable authenticity. I can imagine a reason for the > question: What is a near-copy of B doing being made in the fourteenth > century? But this doesn't seem to me to be reason enough to really > cast doubt on it. Does anyone know anything about why this ms. is > controversial? I cannot provide any first-hand data, but I have heard that it probably is a fairly servile copy of B itself, probably made in the Vatican library (where B likely was before its earliest cataloging at a slightly later date). What might be more significant is that no other copies of B seem to have been made from the time of its composition until the point of MS 2427. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 30 21:24:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA25022; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:23:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:19:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427 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: 1751 On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > 4. It is not a copy of B, and probably not a direct descendent. It is, > however, the closest surviving relative of B in Mark -- at least > among substantial manuscripts. > For comparison, in a sample of 202 readings in Mark, 2427 has the > following rates of agreement: > B 89% > L 72% > Aleph 68% > Other than 2427, the closest relative of B in Mark (based on this > sample, which is all I can offer) is Psi (!) at 78%, followed by > Aleph and L, both at 72%. The percentage of agreement here seems to indicate that 2427 is more likely a copy of B, with some alterations made to correct error and also to include some non-B readings (the long ending of Mark being a case in point). I am not certain that one can strongly claim that this MS was not itself actually copied from B as a primary exemplar, though utilizing readings from other exemplars in the process -- or at least the non-existent parent of 2427 might have been copied from B, then corrected from a non-B type of MS and then used as the exemplar of 2427. However, I tend to reject the latter possibility because it forces an extra step into the process which is unsupported by extant evidence. I would not consider it a forgery or an unauthentic MS, since after all, the Kurzgefasste List even includes at least one MS as legitimate which was hand copied in the 19th century! _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 01:23:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA26354; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:20:02 -0500 Message-Id: From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" To: Subject: TC and conservatives Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:15:40 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 899 >>I prefer not to be included in the same list with Hills, since he is a KJV-Only defender. How do you define KJV-Only? I have usually seen it refer to those that hold that the KJV is correct in all readings, infallible, and perhaps directly inspired as well. Edward F. Hills, though he did defend most minority readings in the TR and KJV, DID acknowledge textual errors in the KJV. [ Believing Bible Study, pp.81-88, 214-228; The King James Version Defended, p. 229-30. ] > I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called > "Logical criticisms of TC". >>A terrible booklet in my opinion, which shows the author to fully misunderstand the subject about which he presumes to pontificate. Would you give an outline of your criticisms of this work? Superficially, at least, Gordon Clark's position and yours are similar; both are Byzantine Priority, specifically distanced from a KJVO or TR position. From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 01:37:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA26460; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:34:38 -0500 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199610310628.OAA29493@ms1.hinet.net> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 14:33:04 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TC and conservatives In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.14 (Unregistered) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1988 In , on 10/31/96 at 12:15 AM, "Mark Arvid Johnson" said: Well time once again for that lurker to come out of hiding and let Maurice know that I am still here!!!! Before this thread goes any further I think it would behoove many people to take some advice from B-Greek Some threads just go on and on and on..... due to their nature..... I am very happy and satisfied with the threads that are coming in and do not wish to be involved or have to wade thru this stuff once again..... I will continue to declare that I am a Maurice Robinson supporter for the simple reason ---- that I have not found anything else that is more reasonable than his opinion..... With all due respect to the other heavyweights on this newsgroup..... Unfortunately I have neither the time or the material to keep up with the flow...... KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK GUYS AND GALS !!!!! >>>I prefer not to be included in the same list with Hills, since he is a >KJV-Only defender. >How do you define KJV-Only? I have usually seen it refer to those that >hold that the KJV is correct in all readings, infallible, and perhaps >directly inspired as well. Edward F. Hills, though he did defend most >minority readings in the TR and KJV, DID acknowledge textual errors in >the KJV. [ Believing Bible Study, pp.81-88, 214-228; The King James >Version Defended, p. 229-30. ] >> I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called >> "Logical criticisms of TC". >>>A terrible booklet in my opinion, which shows the author to fully >misunderstand the subject about which he presumes to pontificate. >Would you give an outline of your criticisms of this work? Superficially, >at least, Gordon Clark's position and yours are similar; both are >Byzantine Priority, specifically distanced from a KJVO or TR position. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 08:43:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA28191; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:41:49 -0500 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199610311334.VAA00030@ms1.hinet.net> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 14:33:04 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TC and conservatives In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.14 (Unregistered) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1988 In , on 10/31/96 at 12:15 AM, "Mark Arvid Johnson" said: Well time once again for that lurker to come out of hiding and let Maurice know that I am still here!!!! Before this thread goes any further I think it would behoove many people to take some advice from B-Greek Some threads just go on and on and on..... due to their nature..... I am very happy and satisfied with the threads that are coming in and do not wish to be involved or have to wade thru this stuff once again..... I will continue to declare that I am a Maurice Robinson supporter for the simple reason ---- that I have not found anything else that is more reasonable than his opinion..... With all due respect to the other heavyweights on this newsgroup..... Unfortunately I have neither the time or the material to keep up with the flow...... KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK GUYS AND GALS !!!!! >>>I prefer not to be included in the same list with Hills, since he is a >KJV-Only defender. >How do you define KJV-Only? I have usually seen it refer to those that >hold that the KJV is correct in all readings, infallible, and perhaps >directly inspired as well. Edward F. Hills, though he did defend most >minority readings in the TR and KJV, DID acknowledge textual errors in >the KJV. [ Believing Bible Study, pp.81-88, 214-228; The King James >Version Defended, p. 229-30. ] >> I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called >> "Logical criticisms of TC". >>>A terrible booklet in my opinion, which shows the author to fully >misunderstand the subject about which he presumes to pontificate. >Would you give an outline of your criticisms of this work? Superficially, >at least, Gordon Clark's position and yours are similar; both are >Byzantine Priority, specifically distanced from a KJVO or TR position. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 09:44:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28683; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:42:58 -0500 From: WFWarren@aol.com Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:39:09 -0500 Message-ID: <961031093907_1947357730@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1635 Maurice Robinson wrote: "The percentage of agreement here seems to indicate that 2427 is more likely a copy of B, with some alterations made to correct error and also to include some non-B readings (the long ending of Mark being a case in point)." "I am not certain that one can strongly claim that this MS was not itself actually copied from B as a primary exemplar, though utilizing readings from other exemplars in the process -- or at least the nonexistent parent of 2427 might have been copied from B, then corrected from a non-B type of MS and then used as the exemplar of 2427. However, I tend to reject the latter possibility because it forces an extra step into the process which is unsupported by extant evidence." Wouldn't a logical extension of this logic be to consider B a copy of P75 based on like percentages? Granted, the location of both B and 2427 probably lends itself to a stronger possibility in this case, but the percentages alone would seem insufficient for such a conclusion without closer scrutiny of the nature of the differences. Could a list member inform us about the history of the Vatican's manuscript copying practices: how Greek mss. were being copied at the Vatican, during which time periods, for what purpose, etc. Not having studied much (if any) about the Vatican's manuscript copying practices (nor noticed publications related to this), any help on this matter would be appreciated and might aid in understanding the history of 2427 (as well as that of B during its time at the Vatican library). Bill Warren Professor of NT and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 10:37:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29418; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:35:36 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:27:02 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Fragment of Encyclopedia online Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1578 TCers -- I should probably let Rich Elliot tell this. In fact, I should probably have told him first. :-) But I'm just too proud of having managed the to interpret the oracular instructions of my service provider to wait. To the point -- Since people are still asking about the Encyclopedia of NT TC, I've decided to start posting some potential articles. I've now completed rough drafts of three of them, on "Canons of Criticism," "Oral Transmission," and "Text-Types." You can find them at http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn Suggestions, if not too sarcastic, are welcome. You can also take a look at my idea of a format. I have done my best to make the pages compatible with all browsers. This means that, with regret, I put the Greek in English characters, and spelled out the names of certain manuscripts (Aleph, Delta, Psi, etc.). Other than that, the only things that aren't compatible with all web browsers are a handful of tables (not supported by old versions of Mosaic, etc.) and the superscript command (not supported, e.g., by the AOL browser). Also, I have several hundred K of web space still available. If anyone else wants to post an article, send it to me and I'll convert it to HTML and post it. Let me emphasize, however, that this is Rich Elliot's project, and you should contact *him* (REElliot@aol.com) to volunteer. I'm just a guy who is viciously stealing his thunder. :-) BTW -- yes, I have a couple of other articles in progress. But I'll reveal them only after I see the reaction to what's already there.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 10:37:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29420; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:35:37 -0500 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, 31 Oct 1996 10:31:26 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: More on 2427 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1987 On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> 4. It is not a copy of B, and probably not a direct descendent. It is, >> however, the closest surviving relative of B in Mark -- at least >> among substantial manuscripts. >> For comparison, in a sample of 202 readings in Mark, 2427 has the >> following rates of agreement: >> B 89% >> L 72% >> Aleph 68% > >> Other than 2427, the closest relative of B in Mark (based on this >> sample, which is all I can offer) is Psi (!) at 78%, followed by >> Aleph and L, both at 72%. > >The percentage of agreement here seems to indicate that 2427 is more >likely a copy of B, with some alterations made to correct error and also >to include some non-B readings (the long ending of Mark being a case in >point). > >I am not certain that one can strongly claim that this MS was not itself >actually copied from B as a primary exemplar, though utilizing readings >from other exemplars in the process -- or at least the non-existent parent >of 2427 might have been copied from B, then corrected from a non-B type of >MS and then used as the exemplar of 2427. However, I tend to reject the >latter possibility because it forces an extra step into the process which >is unsupported by extant evidence. This brings up an interesting philosophical point. I said that 2427 was *not* a copy of B, because it differs in dozens of places from Vaticanus -- and relatively few of these differences are in the direction of the Byzantine text-type. They look more like they came from another Alexandrian witness. This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? For example, I've seen people who consider F G of Paul to be direct descendents of D -- which is simply ludicrous. I'd just like to know how others feel. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 10:49:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29695; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:48:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:44:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Fragment of Encyclopedia online X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961031104426.1b7f6fe8@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: 585 At 10:27 AM 10/31/96 -0700, you wrote: >Since people are still asking about the Encyclopedia of NT TC, I've >decided to start posting some potential articles. I've now completed >rough drafts of three of them, on "Canons of Criticism," "Oral >Transmission," and "Text-Types." > >You can find them at > >http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > Thanks for taking the lead and making this information available. This can be a great tool for beginning students and I hope that it grows so that I can recommend it to my students. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 12:01:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00376; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:57:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3278DB64.7345@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:01:24 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon Organization: Home Computer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Fragment of Encyclopedia online 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: 1085 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > TCers -- > > I should probably let Rich Elliot tell this. In fact, I should probably > have told him first. :-) But I'm just too proud of having managed the > to interpret the oracular instructions of my service provider to wait. > > To the point -- > > Since people are still asking about the Encyclopedia of NT TC, I've > decided to start posting some potential articles. I've now completed > rough drafts of three of them, on "Canons of Criticism," "Oral > Transmission," and "Text-Types." > > You can find them at > > http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > Having downloaded and printed out these excellent articles, I consider them a wonderful "gift" to the readership of TC. To those "lay scholars," like myself, they represent the beginnings of what will be an extremely informative "mini-course" in textual criticism. In a clear and succinct way, they distill the often cumbersone scholarly discourse in TC in a well written and easily manageable format. Thank you Robert!!! Shelama amkhon Jack Kilmon Houston, Texas jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 12:13:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00555; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:11:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199610311710.KAA02210@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:06:24 -7 Subject: Re: More on 2427 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1349 Bob Waltz wrote: > This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript > tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? For example, > I've seen people who consider F G of Paul to be direct descendents of > D -- which is simply ludicrous. I'd just like to know how others feel. It seems to me that this is one of those questions that has never been adequately answered, could be critical for several aspects of TC, but has sort of gotten lost in the shuffle of other methodological questions. Hort developed his whole text-type system based on the principle "identity of error implies identity of origin," but I'm not sure that's a valid canon. How much "identity of error"? What is meant by "identity of origin?" It seems to me that what we need most in order to answer this question are some clear examples of direct descent and/or copying so that we can - at least for one period of the stream of transmission - examine the forces that were in action, i.e. how much change, correction by other mss., and all the rest. Without such clear examples, I'm not totally convinced that we can answer this question (though I remain hopeful that somehow we can). Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html I've never had an original thought in my life, so this opinion must be someone else's fault. From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 14:04:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01921; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:02:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:57:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199610311857.KAA01710@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: <199610311710.KAA02210@wave.sheridan.wy.us> (dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us) Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3094 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bob Waltz wrote: > This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript > tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? Dave Washburn wrote: > It seems to me that what we need most in order to answer this > question are some clear examples of direct descent.... There are precious few known examples of extant MSS being directly descended from each other, even after searches of monastic libraries where family relations of MSS ought to be close, even inbred. Bezae and D-Abschrift are one pair, with a few (couple of?) other pairs known. In the Ferrar family, the general topology of the family tree is known, but a substantial number of hypothetical intermediaries are hypothesized to make the connections work. I'm not sure about the smaller Lake family (f1) but the same might be true there. In Silva Lake's reconstruction of the stemma of Family Pi in Mark, all of the extant MSS, excepting possibly Pi, were leaves of the tree, and all of the ancestors of MSS were hypotheticals. She didn't even commit to the idea that Pi itself was the granddaddy of the family, because the reconstructed text of the archetype, obtained from the oldest miniscules by voting, differed from Pi in 14 (+-?) places in Mark. She did allow that if the archetype was not Pi, it was quite a good copy of Pi. By taking advantage of the uncertainty of late medieval paleographical dates, she was able to argue that the nominally 9th century MS K (Cyprius) was a grandson of Pi, but Geerlings thought K was just a sibling or cousin of Pi. Geerling's and Champlin's not-quite-as-thorough analysis of family Pi in the other three Gospels was much less certain about the exact family relations of the MSS, basically saying that the later MSS in the family probably descended from the earlier ones, with progressive degrees of Kx mixture as the generations pass. One of the two, G. or C., I forget which, used a rule of thumb that agreement in 93% of the variants from the TR would indicate a one-generation-of-copying distance between father and son. Similarly, 86% for two-generations, 79% for three generations. Really. Wisse found a bunch of close pairs among the Kx and Kmix heaps, but I suspect that inside such a homogeneous tribe, random coincidental resemblances are no big surprise. More detailed study than a simple profile comparison would be needed to be confident that a closely related pair had been found among the Kx and Kmix MSS. Vincent Broman, code D783 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div. San Diego, CA 92152-6222, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641 === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMnj1eGCU4mTNq7IdAQHNAgQAu6fhkhGKHFdLg+hJ6t9bcKNW87COSEpy Xv5FuBbEBzD8olCTzl9GaxlpdUm7zXqOTlErnRGY1QIQHH3ooyYwHYJB8FKZf/1S cYHsLLebZ7ul/6iGWKFsYza3OwqBXKsVU2xNZPXW5op06l7M+1nW8iJDbqGLm9i6 e0RMAjlAWJg= =q87S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 14:13:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02137; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:12:30 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3278DB64.7345@accesscomm.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:53:53 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Fragment of Encyclopedia online Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1852 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Jack Kilmon >Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> Since people are still asking about the Encyclopedia of NT TC, I've >> decided to start posting some potential articles. I've now completed >> rough drafts of three of them, on "Canons of Criticism," "Oral >> Transmission," and "Text-Types." >> >> You can find them at >> >> http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn >> > > > Having downloaded and printed out these excellent articles, I >consider them a wonderful "gift" to the readership of TC. To those "lay >scholars," like myself, they represent the beginnings of what will be >an extremely informative "mini-course" in textual criticism. In a clear >and succinct way, they distill the often cumbersone scholarly discourse >in TC in a well written and easily manageable format. Be still my swelled head! :-) I should remind people that I am, at least officially, a textual layman myself. Yes, I've spent hours at least equivalent to a Master's degree -- but I haven't had a professor to crack the whip over me and force all originality out of my work. :-) As for "well-written," remember that I work as a magazine editor; I'd better have *some* skills at English. On a more serious note, I would point out that these articles were written with hypertext in mind; there are cross-references that simply won't work on the printed page. If you want to store them on your computer, just save the HTML files in your browser, then re-open them at your leisure. Also, a note on footnotes: I create both "informative" and "bibliographic" footnotes. Following a lead I've seen in some history texts, I put an asterisk in front of informative footnotes. So a footnote [*10] means that footnote 10 contains useful information; a footnote [11] would just be a citation. I hope this helps.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 14:34:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02599; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:33:03 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199610311857.KAA01710@Np.nosc.mil> References: <199610311710.KAA02210@wave.sheridan.wy.us> (dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:29:27 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4333 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Bob Waltz wrote: >> This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript >> tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? > >Dave Washburn wrote: >> It seems to me that what we need most in order to answer this >> question are some clear examples of direct descent.... > >There are precious few known examples of extant MSS being directly >descended from each other, even after searches of monastic libraries >where family relations of MSS ought to be close, even inbred. >Bezae and D-Abschrift are one pair, with a few (couple of?) other pairs known. Just a minor correction: Dabs is a copy of Claromontanus, not Bezae. And, by strange coincidence, there's a second, fragmentary copy of Claromontanus. There is also a copy of 205 known, and Lake thought that 205 itself might be a copy of 209. (Personally, I doubt it. 205 is very possibly descended from 209 -- certainly they are very close -- but 205 has just slightly more Byzantine readings; enough that I have to suspect that there were a couple of intervening generations.) >In the Ferrar family, the general topology of the family tree is known, >but a substantial number of hypothetical intermediaries are hypothesized >to make the connections work. I'm not sure about the smaller Lake family (f1) >but the same might be true there. Colwell claims that family 1 is a "true family," with a precisely reconstructable stemma. I've always doubted that, personally. He also states that several of the subgroups of the Ferrar group have reconstructable stemma. >In Silva Lake's reconstruction of the stemma of Family Pi in Mark, all of >the extant MSS, excepting possibly Pi, were leaves of the tree, and all of >the ancestors of MSS were hypotheticals. She didn't even commit to the >idea that Pi itself was the granddaddy of the family, because the >reconstructed >text of the archetype, obtained from the oldest miniscules by voting, >differed from Pi in 14 (+-?) places in Mark. She did allow that if the >archetype was not Pi, it was quite a good copy of Pi. By taking advantage >of the uncertainty of late medieval paleographical dates, she was able to >argue that the nominally 9th century MS K (Cyprius) was a grandson of Pi, >but Geerlings thought K was just a sibling or cousin of Pi. My inclination -- which I freely admit is based on inadequate research -- is to consider them cousinns. >Geerling's and Champlin's not-quite-as-thorough analysis of family Pi >in the other three Gospels was much less certain about the exact family >relations of the MSS, basically saying that the later MSS in the family >probably descended from the earlier ones, with progressive degrees of >Kx mixture as the generations pass. One of the two, G. or C., I forget which, >used a rule of thumb that agreement in 93% of the variants from the TR >would indicate a one-generation-of-copying distance between father and son. >Similarly, 86% for two-generations, 79% for three generations. Really. Yet another reason why Colwell argued against basing *anything* on variants from the TR! >Wisse found a bunch of close pairs among the Kx and Kmix heaps, but >I suspect that inside such a homogeneous tribe, random coincidental >resemblances are no big surprise. More detailed study than a simple >profile comparison would be needed to be confident that a closely related >pair had been found among the Kx and Kmix MSS. This still, it seems to me, leaves us with the original question. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that 2427 had been copied from a manuscript (call it X) that was copied from B. But suppose that X had been deliberately but sporadically corrected from another manuscript along the lines of, say, C (e.g. it's largely Alexandrian, but from a subtype that differs from B and that has a large Byzantine infusion). Is 2427 then a copy of B? A descendent of B? A relative of B? Or suppose the distance were slightly greater. Then what? Put it this way: 2427 is not an exact copy of B; either there are intermediate steps, or changes were made as it was copied. A true copy will differ from the original only in accidental errors. How far, then, are we justified in extending the term "copy"? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 15:20:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03551; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:18:22 -0500 Message-ID: <32790A41.3D22@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:21:21 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon Organization: Home Computer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances References: <199610311857.KAA01710@Np.nosc.mil> 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: 3704 Vincent Broman wrote: > > Bob Waltz wrote: > > This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript > > tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? > > Dave Washburn wrote: > > It seems to me that what we need most in order to answer this > > question are some clear examples of direct descent.... > > There are precious few known examples of extant MSS being directly > descended from each other, even after searches of monastic libraries > where family relations of MSS ought to be close, even inbred. > Bezae and D-Abschrift are one pair, with a few (couple of?) other pairs known. > In the Ferrar family, the general topology of the family tree is known, > but a substantial number of hypothetical intermediaries are hypothesized > to make the connections work. I'm not sure about the smaller Lake family (f1) > but the same might be true there. > > In Silva Lake's reconstruction of the stemma of Family Pi in Mark, all of > the extant MSS, excepting possibly Pi, were leaves of the tree, and all of > the ancestors of MSS were hypotheticals. She didn't even commit to the > idea that Pi itself was the granddaddy of the family, because the reconstructed > text of the archetype, obtained from the oldest miniscules by voting, > differed from Pi in 14 (+-?) places in Mark. She did allow that if the > archetype was not Pi, it was quite a good copy of Pi. By taking advantage > of the uncertainty of late medieval paleographical dates, she was able to > argue that the nominally 9th century MS K (Cyprius) was a grandson of Pi, > but Geerlings thought K was just a sibling or cousin of Pi. > Geerling's and Champlin's not-quite-as-thorough analysis of family Pi > in the other three Gospels was much less certain about the exact family > relations of the MSS, basically saying that the later MSS in the family > probably descended from the earlier ones, with progressive degrees of > Kx mixture as the generations pass. One of the two, G. or C., I forget which, > used a rule of thumb that agreement in 93% of the variants from the TR > would indicate a one-generation-of-copying distance between father and son. > Similarly, 86% for two-generations, 79% for three generations. Really. > > Wisse found a bunch of close pairs among the Kx and Kmix heaps, but > I suspect that inside such a homogeneous tribe, random coincidental > resemblances are no big surprise. More detailed study than a simple > profile comparison would be needed to be confident that a closely related > pair had been found among the Kx and Kmix MSS. There seems to be a great parallel between textual criticism and palaeoanthropology. We are examining small fossil fragments and speculating on a common ancestor...looking for the "Lucy" of manuscripts. Everytime a new fossil is discovered, we re-examine the family (hominidae/Byzantine/Alexandrian) and it's genera, species and sub-species as well as "tribes and clans." Textual variants are like genetic codes. I, for one, am not convinced that the common ancestor of the Gospels lie strictly in oral tradition. This seems to infer the redaction layer propaganda that the disciples and immediate post-passion Yeshuine Movement Jews were either illiterate, or wrote nothing. In this respect, Aramaisms are much like mitochondrial DNA with direct lineage to "Lucy" documents. The Antiochene and Ephesian "genetic engineers" in Hellenic Christianity seem to have performed some extensive gene-splicing. I wonder if the 11Q New Jerusalem fragments just might represent a holotype for Revelation. Just a thought in passing on these interesting discussions that arouse the biologist in me. Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 15:41:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03870; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:39:37 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32790A41.3D22@accesscomm.net> References: <199610311857.KAA01710@Np.nosc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:36:07 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2250 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote: [ ... ] > There seems to be a great parallel between textual criticism >and palaeoanthropology. We are examining small fossil fragments and >speculating on a common ancestor...looking for the "Lucy" of >manuscripts. Everytime a new fossil is discovered, we re-examine >the family (hominidae/Byzantine/Alexandrian) and it's genera, species >and sub-species as well as "tribes and clans." Textual variants are >like genetic codes. A biologist friend of mine commented on this: That the history of the text is much evolution or genetic exchange. It is also like the dissemination of folklore and folk culture. For that matter, you can even find parallels to thermodynamic processes. This should not be surprising: Entropy is a universal phenomenon, and there is no such thing as perfect order. > I, for one, am not convinced that the common ancestor of the >Gospels lie strictly in oral tradition. I doubt that there are many who would say this. All information in the gospels ultimately goes back to oral tradition (or memory), but that is *not* the same thing. There seem to have been at least two written sources -- Mark and Q. In addition, Matthew and Luke probably had their own written sources. In fact, I once proposed to Ulrich Schmidt (based on the "folkloric" styles of some of the material in Matthew and Luke) that the two gospels had at least *six* sources -- Mark, Q1 (parallel to the Gospel of Thomas), Q2 (Q material not in Thomas), M1, L1, and L2. Some were written (Mark), some oral (Q1, L2), and some I'm not sure about. Am I sure of this theory? No. Can I separate the sources? Not always. But that's what the style says -- at least to a person who has been steeping himself in folklore for most of the last twenty years. >This seems to infer the >redaction layer propaganda that the disciples and immediate post-passion >Yeshuine Movement Jews were either illiterate, or wrote >nothing. In this respect, Aramaisms are much like mitochondrial >DNA with direct lineage to "Lucy" documents. The Antiochene and >Ephesian "genetic engineers" in Hellenic Christianity seem to have >performed some extensive gene-splicing. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 16:00:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04209; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:59:02 -0500 Message-ID: <327913D9.5A2@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:02:17 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon Organization: Home Computer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances References: <199610311857.KAA01710@Np.nosc.mil> 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: 1479 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > I, for one, am not convinced that the common ancestor of the > >Gospels lie strictly in oral tradition. > > I doubt that there are many who would say this. All information in > the gospels ultimately goes back to oral tradition (or memory), but > that is *not* the same thing. There seem to have been at least > two written sources -- Mark and Q. In addition, Matthew and Luke > probably had their own written sources. > > In fact, I once proposed to Ulrich Schmidt (based on the "folkloric" > styles of some of the material in Matthew and Luke) that the two > gospels had at least *six* sources -- Mark, Q1 (parallel to the > Gospel of Thomas), Q2 (Q material not in Thomas), M1, L1, and L2. > Some were written (Mark), some oral (Q1, L2), and some I'm not > sure about. I have arrived at the same conclusions with reservations that "proto-Mark" was the text that resulted in Canonical Mark. I think that GThom1 and Q1 arose from the "Oracles" that may have been written by the disciple Matthew DURING the ministry of Jesus and its use by the Syrian author of the Gospel is responsible for the adoption of the disciple's name for the work. I am inclined to hold open the possibility that an Aramaic "proto-John" may have preceded or been contemporaneous with these earliest sources.... perhaps as early as the 40's CE. Shelama amkhon Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Thu Oct 31 19:37:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA05641; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:36:41 -0500 Message-ID: <32796F3D.3BB2@voicenet.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:32:13 -0800 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427 References: <199610311710.KAA02210@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: 601 Dave Washburn wrote: > > Bob Waltz wrote: > > This brings up a serious question: How much change can a manuscript > > tradition undergo and still be considered direct descent? For example, > > I've seen people who consider F G of Paul to be direct descendents of > > D -- which is simply ludicrous. I'd just like to know how others feel. > > methodological questions. Hort developed his whole text-type system > based on the principle "identity of error implies identity of > origin," but I'm not sure that's a valid canon. Didn't Hort have to compromise on this axiom in practice anyway? Mark