From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 01:11:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA07268; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 01:09:23 -0500 From: ptl@sprynet.com Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:06:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199611010606.WAA01713@m2.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ETS Website? To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.10.06.22 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 514 Does anyone know whether the Evangelical Theologocial Society has either a website or email or a mail list like the TC list? If so, could you forward their address(es). *************************************************************************** Paul Lorenzen -- Sparks, Nevada -- Email - ptl@sprynet.com http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/ptl/lorenzen.htm Only one life, 'twill soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last! *************************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 08:29:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08385; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:27:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:23:41 -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: 2391 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Mark Arvid Johnson wrote: > 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. ] Despite various equivocations and material which may have appeared to have differed from the KJV/TR position, Hills was very careful to make such only "possibilities" which it was quite clear he was himself _not_ inclined to accept. Even his defense of the Johannine Comma reflected the same type of "it might not be original, but then again I think it might" etc. I obviously have no use for this type of text-critical sophistry, since it does not defend anything more or less than the KJV/TR. > > 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. Outline is simple, and can be verified by anyone knowing anything about textual criticism: Clark continually gets factual data wrong (my copy was littered with my notes to this effect; I filed it away years ago and never have consulted it since). Further, Clark misinterprets and misapplies both the incorrect data as well as the correct data. He defends some nebulous philosophical concept of the "traditional text" (not even using the term in the same manner as Burgon) and does not defend any concept of Byzantine priority or "majority text". His case is not based on any sound text-critical principles but rather on nose-counting and philosophical speculation. I simply have no use for Gordon Clark's booklet, and neither (to my knowledge) has any mention or use been made of it by any pro-Byzantine advocates, including Van Bruggen, Hodges/Farstad, Pickering as well as myself. Neither has there been any comment regarding Clark's booklet one way or another from the various eclectic scholars. From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 08:41:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08483; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:39:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:35:55 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427 In-Reply-To: <961031093907_1947357730@emout08.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: 1116 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 WFWarren@aol.com wrote: > Wouldn't a logical extension of this logic be to consider B a copy of P75 > based on like percentages? The P75/B connection has been heavily analyzed, particularly by Carlo M. Martini in his monograph in Italian, and the conclusion appears to be that both B and P75 have a common ancestor, but that B is not a direct copy of P75. It is of course possible that 2427 and B might have a (lost) common ancestor, but given the date of 2427 in relation to B, it seems more likely in that case that 2427 is either a copy of B, with corrections being made in the process, or that the exemplar of 2427 was copied from B, with corrections then added in from a non-B type of MS. Does anyone have the percentage of agreement between B and P75, from Martini or other sources? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 08:55:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08624; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:53:57 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:49:57 -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: 2917 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > 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. Which is why I was careful to note that it was corrected by a "non-B" type of MS. However, items in 2427 such as the long ending of Mark are more likely to have been inserted from a more Byzantine type of MS, I suspect, though I would have to see collation data there for 2427 to see if any of the Alexandrian distinctive readings of the long ending might be present. > 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. If virtually all MSS are "mixed" in varying degrees (which I think is a given, even among the Byzantine Textform MSS), then the only matter of "direct descent" would be when one has something like D/D-abschrift in the Epistles. Yet stemmatically, one MS might be copied directly from another, and still be quite distinct, due to errors made while copying, corrections made while copying, inclusion of correction data from the exemplar, use of a second exemplar for verification at certain points, etc. Multiply these factors geometrically by the same possibilities recurring in subsequent copies, and the amount of mixture which can result over even one or two copying generations can become immense. After 10 or more copying generations, the ultimate parent may well no longer be discernable. Even the "family" groups (like f1, f13, etc.) which are closely related and descend from a hypothetical lost uncial exemplar differ widely among themselves (see the various Studies and Documents volumes), and the archetype of the lost uncial from which they derive is generally assumed to be established by taking only those readings where family group members _depart_ from the Byzantine Textform, on the assumption that the correction trend would be away from non-Byzantine to Byzantine readings by that time period (which of course would likely be correct, though I would suggest that following the non-Byzantine reading of but _one_ family member against the remainder of the group will likely result in an aberrant reading being claimed as that of the uncial exemplar rather than the reverse). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 09:14:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA08824; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:12:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:08:16 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427 In-Reply-To: <199610311710.KAA02210@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3122 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Dave Washburn wrote: > 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?" This is most definitely a valid canon when dealing with a stemmatic or genealogical approach to the NT MSS. The amount of identity in error has to be more than might occur by mere coincidence or accident (e.g. the very few Armenian and Spanish Hebrew MS joint readings), and thus requires a sufficient amount of data. "Identity of origin" is relative only to the archetype of the MSS in question which possess the common errors. The problem with Hort's use of this valid principle is that Hort virtually turned the principle on its head and based his "genealogical" method on the false (or "less-true" if one wants to be politically correct) principle that "identity of _reading_ implies identity of origin". From this, Hort moved his entire methodology into grouping MSS based upon shared readings, regardless of whether such were genealogically- significant "errors" or not (in fact, most of them were not). By this shift, Hort was then able to reduce all MSS possessing a close identity of reading into a single archetype, to be played off against other single archetypes (i.e. neutral, Alexandrian, Western, Syrian [= Byzantine]), and thus bypass all need for any _real_ genealogical research from the first. His "evidence of groups" reflects precisely this shift from "identity of error" as a basis for genealogical research into "identity of reading". The excuse of course could be easily rationalized: if the original text only is genuine, then all non-original readings are "errors"; however, this is most certainly _not_ what is intended by the original stemmatic principle. > 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). Since we do have some MSS where direct descent is known to exist, as well as the various family relationships where clear descent from a lost exemplar is known, it should be fairly easy to compare collation data and see what factors played a part in the alteration of texts away from the parent exemplar. Much of my own theory derives from what I have seen in the errors, corrections, and alterations in MSS in general as compared with what appears in the various family collation data. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 10:16:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09459; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:15:16 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961101151058.22f781a0@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: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 10:10:58 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances 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: 912 At 03:36 10/31/96 -0700, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >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. First, a minor nit on terminology. It seems to me that the notations Q1 and Q2 are already used in synoptic source criticism to denote the strata of Q according to Kloppenborg (there is also a Q3). Both the Q1 and Q2 layers have parallels to Thomas. Second, what do you mean by L1 and L2? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 10:32:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09585; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:31:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:28:07 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances 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: 1664 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >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 cousins. Same here. > 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? I probably am most radical on this point, but I would consider that, even if 2427 were copied directly from B, as soon as corrections, alterations or whatever were incorporated into the text from either correction marks in the exemplars, consultation with another exemplar, or independent scribal alteration, the copy automatically becomes a "cousin" (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or greater depending upon the amount of difference from the exemplar). Only if the _only_ differences between the exemplar and the copy were the introduction of nonsense errors or correction of the same from the exemplar would I consider it a parent-child relationship. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 10:37:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09649; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:36:47 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:28:08 GMT Subject: Re: More on 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: 1521 > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:01:37 -0700 > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > From: "Robert B. Waltz" > Subject: More on 2427 > Reply-to: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > > 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. > I do not see how a copy could be inauthentic. A copy is simply a copy. Only if it attempted to appear older than it really was could it be somehow dishonest. The question of percentage agreement in a copy could be very misleading. I have tried to prove that several mss are copies of a known MS, and on each occasion have been struck by the degree of variation in the copy for which there seems to be no obvious reason. But the present theorizing about 2427 is pointless. If someone is willing to look at the MS or a microfilm, then the questions will be answered very quickly. 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 Nov 1 10:42:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09716; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:41:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:37:28 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427 In-Reply-To: <32796F3D.3BB2@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: 650 On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, L. Mark Bruffey wrote: > > 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? Hort did not compromise -- he redefined "error" to equal "reading". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 10:50:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09787; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:49:20 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961101151058.22f781a0@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:43:58 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Synoptic Sources (Was: 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: 4424 On Fri, 01 Nov 1996, "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote: >At 03:36 10/31/96 -0700, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >>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. BTW -- I spelled Ulrich Schmid's name incorrectly. My apologies to him if he's still out there somewhere.... >First, a minor nit on terminology. It seems to me that the notations >Q1 and Q2 are already used in synoptic source criticism to denote the >strata of Q according to Kloppenborg (there is also a Q3). Both the >Q1 and Q2 layers have parallels to Thomas. Hey, it's *my* theory; I'll call it what I want. :-) Seriously, I don't care about the terminology; the point is just that there seem to have been two Q sources -- one used by Matthew and Luke, and probably written; the other known also to the author of Thomas, and probably oral. An example of an item in the latter is the Parable of the Tares. >Second, what do you mean by L1 and L2? Arbitrary; one was written from an early date, the other stayed in oral tradition much longer. I repeat, this is just theorizing based on the folkloric "feeling" of the material involved. I have *not* investigated in detail, and I don't intend to. If anybody wants to see it, though, here is the relevant portion of the discussion with Schmid, which started as a discussion of oral tradition: [Schmid] >>>>To my mind there are more and more disturbing signals to those mostly naive >>>>theories on literary dependency of the synoptics... [Waltz] >>>I can't argue with that, either. I think the "four-source" theory much too >>>simple. My personal guess is that there were *two* "Q" sources (one written, >>>one still in oral tradition). I think that several incidents in Mark were >>>also in oral circulation. I also think that "M" and "L" may have been >>>composite sources, partly written, partly oral. [Schmid] >>Do you feel confident to roughly outline those "composite sources, partly >>written, partly oral" as to which parts might be either written or oral? [Waltz] >I don't think I have time to do a master's thesis right now, but I'll try. :-) > >One thing that makes this harder is that almost all of the sources >*ultimately* >go back to oral tradition; it's just that some came to the evangelists >orally and some in written form. > >Also keep in mind that I am doing this largely from memory; I have never >attempted detailed synoptic analysis (remember that about 80% of my more >scholarly work has been devoted to Paul and the General Epistles). > >Finally, keep in mind that I don't believe that really intricate source >analysis will ever be entirely accurate. But here's an outline: > >The infancy narratives are oral. > >The parts of Q which are *the same* in Matthew and Luke are literary, and >probably form the largest part of "written Q." > >The material common to Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas (e.g. Matt. 13,24-30) >is part of "oral Q." > >Parts of Q where Matthew and Luke show significant differences are usually >oral (my feeling is that "written Q," composed almost entirely of sayings >of Jesus, was copied very precisely by both Matthew and Luke. Anything >that shows large differences comes from something else). An excellent >example is Matt. 25,14-30. I think it almost certain that Matthew's version >was oral -- and that the variants it showed are the result of survivals >of that oral tradition. > >Of Matthew's special material, I think that Matt. 5,17-47 was written >and not in Q. So were some of the parables. The rest, I think, is >mostly oral, or is something that Matthew himself made up based on >OT prophesy. > >The ending of Luke is oral. I suspect that the differences between Luke's >and Mark's passion narratives arrise from an oral source. > >Most of Luke's parables came to him orally, although he rewrote many >of them. > >Luke's story of Jesus's journey from Galilee to Jerusalem started, >I think, as a written source, but one that he supplemented heavily. > >If one believes that the ending of Mark has been lost, I think it more >likely that Matthew preserves it than that Luke does. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 11:42:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA10260; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:42:00 -0500 Message-ID: <327A5177.69F@voicenet.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 11:37:27 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 501 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, L. Mark Bruffey wrote: > > > > 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? > > Hort did not compromise -- he redefined "error" to equal "reading". > That is what I meant to say: He adjusted (compromised) the principle to make the theory workable. Mark From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 11:45:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA10279; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:44:12 -0500 Message-ID: <327A51F9.3D51@voicenet.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 11:39:37 -0800 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Hort's prejudice against the TR 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: 128 Is it true, as Pickering asserts, that Hort at age 23 had studied few if any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR? From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 13:49:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11459; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:48:05 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <327A51F9.3D51@voicenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:40:26 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Hort's prejudice against the TR Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 848 On Fri, 01 Nov 1996, "L. Mark Bruffey" wrote >Is it true, as Pickering asserts, that Hort at age 23 had studied few if >any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR? Of course it's true; how many manuscripts could someone that young have studied? I can't see that it's relevant, though; Hort had, obviously, seen the TR, and I believe the edition of Tregelles, which showed some of the weaknesses of the TR. (I could be wrong about which edition Hort saw; it could have been Lachman or one of the early works of Tischendorf). Take an analogy: Kepler worked out the laws of celestial motion without ever having looked through a telescope, and without spending much time working with Brahe. One need not have all the evidence in hand to be able to start examioning what one has. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 13:49:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11458; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:48:01 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:36:19 -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: 789 On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote, in part: > >I do not see how a copy could be inauthentic. A copy is simply a >copy. Only if it attempted to appear older than it really was could it be >somehow dishonest. Seems to me that this is exactly the point. 2427 has a very strong Alexandrian text, clearly belonging with B. Paleographers guess that it comes from the fourteenth century, but *with a question mark*. So the question becomes, is it authentic, or did somebody decide to produce a fake? After all, a minuscule with a B-like text is *very* interesting. In its defence, I would offer the presence of the Longer Ending of Mark. If it were a fake, the faker would probably have omitted that. But that's not proof. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 13:49:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11457; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:47:59 -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: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:43:46 -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: 1612 On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: >On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: [ ... ] >> 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? > >I probably am most radical on this point, but I would consider that, even >if 2427 were copied directly from B, as soon as corrections, alterations >or whatever were incorporated into the text from either correction marks >in the exemplars, consultation with another exemplar, or independent >scribal alteration, the copy automatically becomes a "cousin" (1st, 2nd, >3rd, or greater depending upon the amount of difference from the >exemplar). Only if the _only_ differences between the exemplar and the >copy were the introduction of nonsense errors or correction of the same >from the exemplar would I consider it a parent-child relationship. For what it's worth, I agree with this statement. Parent/Child means parent/child -- no mixture! I was just trying to bring home this point in connection with the discussion of 2427 in relation to B. By this definition, 2427 is *not* a child of B; some other element has been mixed in. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 1 19:58:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA14673; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 19:56:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 19:56:47 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Fragment of Encyclopedia online 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: 616 Thanks, Bob, for making these articles available online. I have inserted links to them from the TC Links page (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/ TC/TC-links.html), under the section on online articles. I also have a number of links on this page to other articles dealing with textual criticism, as well as various other tc-related links. If readers of tc-list have other links that you think would be of interest to others, please let me know so I can add them, too. 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 Sat Nov 2 00:29:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16152; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:27:20 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:27:12 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances In-Reply-To: <32790A41.3D22@accesscomm.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: 1279 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. I see a parallel, too, between the search for a mitochondrial Eve and the search for the elusive archetypes of the gospels (and other books as well). I have thought for some time about the possibility of using some of the algorithms used to trace the human genome to examine biblical mss. Of course, I realize that the validity of some of those algorithms is disputed. Still, it would be interesting to see what they would generate in terms of an archetype. > I wonder if the 11Q New Jerusalem fragments just might > represent a holotype for Revelation. Could you elaborate some more? 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 Sat Nov 2 00:47:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16208; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:46:25 -0500 Message-ID: <327AE117.5C78@accesscomm.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 23:50:15 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon 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: 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: 1779 James R. Adair wrote: > > 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. > > I see a parallel, too, between the search for a mitochondrial Eve and the > search for the elusive archetypes of the gospels (and other books as > well). I have thought for some time about the possibility of using some > of the algorithms used to trace the human genome to examine biblical > mss. Of course, I realize that the validity of some of those algorithms > is disputed. Still, it would be interesting to see what they would > generate in terms of an archetype. I had the same thought..much like a taxonomic key used to identify species. > > I wonder if the 11Q New Jerusalem fragments just might > > represent a holotype for Revelation. > > Could you elaborate some more? 11Q New Jerusalem fragment 14 speaks of seven crowns (Rev 4:4-5) and fragment 17, seven bowls. Almost certainly the primary hope for the discovery of the DSS was finding "Christian writings" but the very idea is an anachronism. With the exception of 7Q5, which I believe is genuinely a fragment of Mark1 (perhaps the autograph), the most we could expect is "pre/proto-Christian" writings which would hardly be discernible from Jewish writings. In this regard, the Testament literature may be linked to the Yeshuine Jews. Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 2 03:01:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA16721; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 03:00:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 03:00:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199611020800.DAA16716@scholar.cc.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6679 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enugh of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but these difficulties can be overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in the early stages of implementation (our first articles are now ready!), and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 2 10:32:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18019; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:31:25 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:27:00 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Technical questions about your web browsers Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 842 Dear TCers -- For your possible edification and amusement, I am putting together another potential Encyclopedia article. This one, on how various scholars have assessed manuscripts, will necessarily include a lot of tables. (Or, at least, one very large table.) A table can, of course, be implemented in two ways: Using the HTML table command, or by lining up everything laboriously in the monospaced KEYBOARD style (the latter approach will also be uglier). The question therefore becomes, How many of you have table-capable browsers (recent versions of Netscape, Internet Explorer, the AOL browser, others)? How many of you CANNOT read tables (e.g. you use old versions of Mosaic, Lynx, etc.)? If you'll let me know (preferably off-list), I will try to make an intelligent choice of approach. Thanks! Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 2 18:37:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20765; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 18:36:39 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 17:32:49 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: Two new books for TC review Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 887 I have just received the following books for TC review: TIM MCLAY, "The OG and Th Versions of Daniel" CLAUDE E COX, "Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Armenia" Both are published in the Septuagint and Cognate Studies series. If you are interested in reviewing either, please let me know as soon as possible. This is also the time to remind individuals who have not yet completed reviews (myself included!) that we welcome them at any time and publish them as soon as they are ready... thanks, leonard ********************************************** * Leonard Jay Greenspoon, Chairholder * * Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization * * Creighton University * * Admin Bldg #333, Omaha, Nebraska 68178 * * phone (402)-280-2304 fax (402)-280-4731 * * e-mail: LJGRN@creighton.edu * ********************************************** From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 01:02:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA22591; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:59:26 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:55:39 -0500 Message-ID: <961103005538_135329464@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: ENTTC: New Articles Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 813 Dear Bob, and all on the TC list. This is a greatly appreciated venture, and I am glad to allow you to have some thunder! As some of you may know, I have been having to focus 100% of my time on completing my degree in Nursing ( a tent ministry that will pay the bills while I continue on in NTTC and the ENTTC) unfortunatley I have not had any extra time to continue to keep the ball rolling as fast as I would like to. Perhaps this will inspire other to help out. Of course I will still be appointing a board of associate editors to examine all articles, but in the mean time articles such as these will keep the ENTTC alive and also offer a furthrance of NTTC to all those who subscribe to this list. So thak you Bob and too all who have given me their support in this venture. In His Service Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 01:02:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA22602; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 01:00:22 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:56:30 -0500 Message-ID: <961103005629_135329573@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Hort redivivus Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 367 In the post sent Oct. 25 an article by Colwell was mentioned (Hort Redivivus). Can anyone please tell me if this volume of "Studies in Methodology..." is still available anywhere, new or used? I must admit, this is one that I have not read, and would like to add to my library. Thanks for the help, and all of the interesting dialogue! In His Service Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 03:21:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA23188; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:20:02 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:16:07 -0500 Message-ID: <961103031603_344688814@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: The ENTTC, Scrivener et al. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 658 In a message dated 96-10-26 10:03:23 EST, Maurice Robinson writes: << 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. >> Would you not just love to pull a single volume off your shelf called "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism" and look up the article on Scrivener and see exactly when he died? Just a thought ;-} Where our memory fails, the ENTTC will surely fill the void! (If I ever get it finished!) Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 03:22:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA23201; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:21:32 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:17:35 -0500 Message-ID: <961103031734_344689006@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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: 2032 In a message dated 96-10-26 11:55:41 EDT, DC Parker writes: << > 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. First of all, let me state that I agree with Maurice Robinson's reply; "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?" DC also correctly states that the Armenian was derived from the Greek via the Syriac, which brings up an important point; We must look at the Greek MSS 1st, the versional evidence 2nd and then the patrisitic citations 3rd. If the Armenian was derived from the Greek, then are not all versional NT MSS in essence "derived" from the Greek? Therefore we must give precedence to the Greek MSS and if they are very silent concerning a particular passage (such as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek. As much as I would love to have mountains of Greek evidence for the long ending of Mark, I have to follow these rules to be true to the discipline. Is it possible to put the theological presuppositions aside and examine the evidence from a neutral standpoint? Therefore I must disagree with the ending statement that DC made saying that the Greek MSS give a misleading history of the text. What is misleading is attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS. Perhaps there are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows? In His Service Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 08:41:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA24329; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:40:29 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:36:40 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Synoptic Sources (Was: More on 2427, family resemblances) 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: 323 On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > BTW -- I spelled Ulrich Schmid's name incorrectly. My apologies to him > if he's still out there somewhere.... Ulrich had been in the US for about 3 weeks or so, and then returned to Stuttgart for another couple of weeks. I presume he should be back on the list shortly. From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 09:02:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA24395; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 09:01:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:57:49 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Hort's prejudice against the TR In-Reply-To: <327A51F9.3D51@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: 1983 On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, L. Mark Bruffey wrote: > Is it true, as Pickering asserts, that Hort at age 23 had studied few if > any mss when he said he wanted to do away with the TR? At that time Hort was a young college student, and his statement regarding "that vile textus receptus" probably reflected more of his teachers than anything original to himself. This was a time (ca.1840) when textual criticism had already progressed away from the TR into critical editions such as Mill, and slightly revised texts such as that of Bengel or Griesbach, but the influence of Lachmann, whose 1830s edition was based _entirely_ upon early manuscript evidence, was probably the most significant item influencing Hort at that time, since it would have been strongly praised by his professors and fellow students of that era. Quite frankly, taken in context, Hort's quote is quite appropriate. The complaint was primarily in regard to anyone slavishly following "that vile TR" which "rested entirely on the evidence of late MSS" (I paraphrase, since I do not have the exact quote at hand). To that extent, even the pro-Byzantine proponents would agree with Hort -- the TR as an edition may be a fair reflection of a predominantly Byzantine texttype, but not one of us (nor even Burgon) would attempt to maintain any authority or viability for the TR, having been composed as it was from mainly late MSS. Pickering (as well as Colwell on this point) appears to make too much of this early statement of Hort as somehow reflecting a determined attitude to replace the TR with a non-Byzantine text, when his primary criticism was only over the matter of the TR being based on a few late MSS. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 09:08:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA24447; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 09:07:03 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 09:03:14 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Hort's prejudice against the TR 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: 1183 On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I can't see that it's relevant, though; Hort had, obviously, seen the > TR, and I believe the edition of Tregelles, which showed some of the > weaknesses of the TR. (I could be wrong about which edition Hort saw; > it could have been Lachman or one of the early works of Tischendorf). Lachmann and some early Tischendorf were likely, but definitely not Tregelles, which came later, during the 1870s as I recall. I did not mention the point, but certainly I would also concur that Hort had studied few if any MSS by age 23, but then, most seasoned textual critics of that era also had not worked with actual MSS in any great quantity, since there were no MSS and few reliable complete collations. Tischendorf was the first to really begin presentation of diplomatic evidence, followed by the massive labors of Scrivener in the 1850s. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 12:59:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25119; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:58:15 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <961103031734_344689006@emout02.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:36:30 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" 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: 2831 On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, REElliott@aol.com wrote, in part: [ ... ] >DC also correctly states that the Armenian was derived from the Greek via the >Syriac, I should note that there is still not universal consensus on this point. It seems likely enough -- but far from certain. Also, there are many who believe that the Armenian was eventually corrected toward the Greek. [BTW -- since I know neither Syriac nor Armenian, I hereby disavow any opinon on this matter.] One thing that *is* important, though, is that the Armenian has a textual complexion distinctly different from any extant Syriac version. In the Gospels, it may be "Caesarean"; in Paul, if anything, it goes with family 2127 (not too surprisingly, since one of the leading mss. of family 2127 is 256, a Greek/Armenian diglot). >which brings up an important point; We must look at the Greek MSS >1st, the versional evidence 2nd and then the patrisitic citations 3rd. If the >Armenian was derived from the Greek, then are not all versional NT MSS in >essence "derived" from the Greek? Therefore we must give precedence to the >Greek MSS and if they are very silent concerning a particular passage (such >as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary >at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek. As much as I would love to >have mountains of Greek evidence for the long ending of Mark, I have to >follow these rules to be true to the discipline. Is it possible to put the >theological presuppositions aside and examine the evidence from a neutral >standpoint? I think I missed something here. We *do* have "mountains" of evidence for the longer ending (several thousand Greek manuscripts, and probably about seven or eight thousand manuscripts in Latin, Syriac (Peshitta), Armenian, etc. It's just that a handful of manuscripts have a shorter ending -- and those manuscripts are of great antiquity and are generally regarded as being of high quality. >Therefore I must disagree with the ending statement that DC made saying that >the Greek MSS give a misleading history of the text. What is misleading is >attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS. Perhaps there >are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows? I would agree that it is misleading to work *only* from versions and quotations. (Though the only person I can think of who has attempted anything like that is Boismard.) But we *must* not ignore the versions completely. They are, for example, the *key* to the "Western" text, and probably the prop upon which the "Caesarean" will stand or fall. Similarly, the fathers give us the only way to assign dates and locations to readings. A solid approach to variants *must* focus on date and distribution; hence such evidence is vital. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 13:17:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25255; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:16:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:12:19 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances In-Reply-To: <327AE117.5C78@accesscomm.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: 2142 On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote: > 11Q New Jerusalem fragment 14 speaks of seven crowns (Rev 4:4-5) > and fragment 17, seven bowls. Almost certainly the primary hope for > the discovery of the DSS was finding "Christian writings" but the very > idea is an anachronism. With the exception of 7Q5, which I believe > is genuinely a fragment of Mark1 (perhaps the autograph), ... I continue to be amazed at any acceptance of 7Q5 being identified with a NT fragment, when (a) the amount of text is too small for positive identification; (b) one must postulate a delta > tau shift in the middle of a word on the analogy of Coptic (where such shifts are predominately at the beginning of a word); and (c) a hitherto unknown variant reading must also be postulated for the claim to work. Why anyone (O'Callaghan or anyone else) would want to try to build or support a 7Q5 = Markan fragment hypothesis upon such hypothetical and questionable ground when accepted fragments such as p52 brook no doubts whatever as to their identity remains puzzling to me. Is there some hidden need to have an "autograph" or close to autograph fragment of Mark's gospel? If so, I would hardly think the sands of Egypt, especially outside of Alexandria, would be the likely place. And even if it were clearly a Markan fragment, the early data would only prove an early origin for Mark (which I can hold even without the 7Q5 identification), but still would say nothing about the autograph. As I told O'Callaghan years ago, his supposed fragment of 1 Timothy has more to commend itself -- but that would make the pastorals far too early, as even O'Callaghan recognized. I personally accept none of either O'Callaghan's or Thiede's identifications (which probably might be opposite to what some people might think a pro-Byzantine person might hold). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 13:58:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25507; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:57:09 -0500 Message-ID: <327D142A.2806@voicenet.com> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 13:52:42 -0800 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Visual representation of provenances of mss 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: 357 Hi! While reading Aland's extensive catalog of manuscripts yesterday, I thought it would be nice to see a map pinpointing the provenances of all the mss whose place or area of origin is known. I'm sure someone has atempted such a thing, but I need some help from some of you who probably know off the top of your head just who has done it. Thanks, Mark From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 14:01:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25541; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 14:00:55 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:57:07 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Uncials & majuscules et al. In-Reply-To: <961103031734_344689006@emout02.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: 2025 On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 REElliott@aol.com wrote: [re: the Ending of Mark] > as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary > at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek. As much as I would love to > have mountains of Greek evidence for the long ending of Mark, I have to > follow these rules to be true to the discipline. I of course tend to agree with Elliott here, and consider the versional and patristic evidence secondary and tertiary, but still an essential component part of the question regarding the transmissional history of the various endings of Mark. However, I am uncertain as to the intent of the final sentence, since we _do_ have in the Greek MSS, one of the old Syriac versions, and patristic comment the "mountains of evidence" for the Long Ending of Mark. It seems the shortchanging is more in regard to the "shorter ending" of Mark and also in regard to the omission of the passage entirely. I have a theory in regard to the shorter ending, but I will have to write it up in a more extended form before I loose it upon the world. *;-) > Therefore I must disagree with the ending statement that DC made saying that > the Greek MSS give a misleading history of the text. What is misleading is > attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS. Elliott's comment here also reflects my own viewpoint of the matter. I do not deprecate the secondary and tertiary evidence, but recognize it within its proper bounds as evidence primarily concerning transmissional history, and not regarding original authenticity of the text. > Perhaps there > are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows? I would not hold my breath. *;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 19:38:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA27559; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:37:52 -0500 From: ANDERSN@clust1.clemson.edu Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 19:32:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Two new books for TC review To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <01IBF5IMZHM88WZ2CP@clust1.clemson.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 423 I don't consider myself a specialist in the Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible, but I do have a special interest in the versions of Daniel. Thus, I would certainly be willing to review the MCLAY volume unless someone who is a specialist steps forward. Certainly, I would be happy to defer to someone more knowledgeable. Daniel S. Mynatt Anderson College Anderson, SC Andersn@prism.clemson.edu or DSMynatt@aol.com From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 3 21:06:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA28042; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 21:04:33 -0500 Message-ID: <327D500E.2D49@accesscomm.net> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:08:14 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon 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: 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: 3327 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > 11Q New Jerusalem fragment 14 speaks of seven crowns (Rev 4:4-5) > > and fragment 17, seven bowls. Almost certainly the primary hope for > > the discovery of the DSS was finding "Christian writings" but the very > > idea is an anachronism. With the exception of 7Q5, which I believe > > is genuinely a fragment of Mark1 (perhaps the autograph), ... > > I continue to be amazed at any acceptance of 7Q5 being identified with a > NT fragment, when (a) the amount of text is too small for positive > identification; (b) one must postulate a delta > tau shift in the > middle of a word on the analogy of Coptic (where such shifts are > predominately at the beginning of a word); and (c) a hitherto unknown > variant reading must also be postulated for the claim to work. Let me clarify my position on the matter of "New Testament" writings in the DSS corpus. 7Q5 IS intriguing to me as it was to Thiede, Rohrhirsch, Risenfeld, Ruckstuhl and Hunger at the Eichstatt Symposium. Of course it is very problematic with two variants in one small fragment...however... I would no more be surprised at the textual difference between the first autograph Mark and what eventually became Canonical Mark as I would between an Aramaic "proto-John" and the final Canonical GJohn after at least 3 layers of heavy redaction. Having said this, however, the idea of "Christian" writing among the DSS caches is an anachronism. Any writings that came from the post-crucifixion Yeshuine Jews would be very difficult to distinguish from other Jewish writings of the period. If we want to hunt for that possibility among the DSS we would do best to examine the "Testament" literature or perhaps the "wisdom" literature. I would posit, Dr. Robinson, that "Mark1" would look VERY different than the present Canonical Mark. > Why anyone (O'Callaghan or anyone else) would want to try to build or > support a 7Q5 = Markan fragment hypothesis upon such hypothetical and > questionable ground when accepted fragments such as p52 brook no doubts > whatever as to their identity remains puzzling to me. Rohrhirsch really makes a very good argument that 7Q5 and Mark 6:52-53 is the only possible identification. I understand your points, and you may be right..but Thiede and Company may also be right. > Is there some hidden need to have an "autograph" or close to autograph > fragment of Mark's gospel? If so, I would hardly think the sands of > Egypt, especially outside of Alexandria, would be the likely place. It was not found in Alexandria but in cave 7 near Qumran. > And > even if it were clearly a Markan fragment, the early data would only prove > an early origin for Mark (which I can hold even without the 7Q5 > identification), but still would say nothing about the autograph. I admit I WAS being provocative when I said "perhaps the autograph." I believe in a very early date for Mark1, either right before...or right after (yes, AFTER) "proto-John," in the early 40's CE. > I personally accept none of either O'Callaghan's or Thiede's > identifications (which probably might be opposite to what some people > might think a pro-Byzantine person might hold). I agree EXCEPT for 7Q5 which is a possibility. Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 4 05:00:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA00046; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:59:24 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:43:50 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: 1364 Prof. Robinson and Mr Elliott prefer to speak of versions as 'secondary' and patristic citations as 'tertiary'. Such a hierarchy seems to me quite mistaken, since the cases are quite dissimilar. But less us stick to versions. The point which I wish to stress is that, once one has exercised due caution in eliminating readings which might be due to translation technique or corruption within a versional tradition, one is handling a witness to a lost Greek MS, the Vorlage, just as with a Greek MS one is handling a witness to the lost Greek exemplar. That is to say, the versions are as valuable as Greek MSS in reconstructing the history of the text. I took the endings of Mark as a passage where that is clearly illustrated. I will only add that where, for example, two early versions concur in a striking reading that could not be due to similarities in translation technique or to coincidence, then we will have evidence of a widespread early form of the text. The examination of the versions is is such an established part of the way in which I learned to study the transmission of the NT text, that I can hardly imagine conducting research without it. Surely most people are taught like this? 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 Nov 4 08:35:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00853; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:34:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:30:16 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances In-Reply-To: <327D500E.2D49@accesscomm.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: 2063 On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote: > I would posit, Dr. Robinson, that "Mark1" would look VERY different > than the present Canonical Mark. For the record, I obviously would not. > Rohrhirsch really makes a very good argument that 7Q5 and Mark 6:52-53 > is the only possible identification. I understand your points, and you > may be right..but Thiede and Company may also be right. I still suggest that the textual problems involved tend to rule out such an identification, especially in view of p52, also a small fragment, with no doubt whatever as to its identification. > > Is there some hidden need to have an "autograph" or close to autograph > > fragment of Mark's gospel? If so, I would hardly think the sands of > > Egypt, especially outside of Alexandria, would be the likely place. > > It was not found in Alexandria but in cave 7 near Qumran. Apparently my fingers typed faster than my mind was working, and I don't know how this jumble came about -- I was trying to make a suggestion as to where the autograph of Mark might more likely be found, and since Alexandria attempts to claim a special relationship to Mark himself, the Alexandrian Copts or even Orthodox would probably suggest the autograph "must" have been in their region, and not in a cave in Qumran. Following that, then insert my own comment regarding "I would hardly think" that even Egypt would hold a fragment of the autograph of Mark, much less Qumran. Sorry for the confusion. > I admit I WAS being provocative when I said "perhaps the autograph." > I believe in a very early date for Mark1, either right before...or right > after (yes, AFTER) "proto-John," in the early 40's CE. Each to his or her own. *;-) I would hold quite different (and later) dates. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 4 08:50:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00927; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:49:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:46:08 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: versions 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: 3261 On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > But less us stick to versions. The point which I wish to stress is that, > once one has exercised due caution in eliminating readings which > might be due to translation technique or corruption within a versional > tradition, one is handling a witness to a lost Greek MS, the Vorlage, > just as with a Greek MS one is handling a witness to the lost > Greek exemplar. That is to say, the versions are as valuable as > Greek MSS in reconstructing the history of the text. Dr. Parker and I agree on this point. However, I would like to ask precisely _what_ does the Vorlage of a version imply? Certainly not a testimony as diverse as might be found among a number of Greek MSS, but basically only the (usually single) Greek exemplar which might have been the archetype of that particular version. As the comment above notes, in a versional translation, "one is handling _a_ witness to the [single] lost Greek exemplar" of that version. In this light, I am perfectly willing to accept versional testimony (once items endemic to the versional translation are eliminated) as that of the single Greek MS which was the archetype of that version, and from thence to treat such versional evidence as equal to one Greek witness. Versional testimony still remains secondary, in my opinion, precisely because of the need to eliminate translational items and version-specific items. Had it been primary (i.e. Greek), the readings would stand as they were transmitted. So I am not certain whether we are having merely a semantic difference here or whether Dr. Parker intends something more. > I took the endings > of Mark as a passage where that is clearly illustrated. I will only add > that where, for example, two early versions concur in a striking > reading that could not be due to similarities in translation technique > or to coincidence, then we will have evidence of a widespread early > form of the text. I would also concur with this as well, with the caveat that the "similarities in translation technique" or "coincidence" might well explain most of the shared readings between versions _except_ for those which are texttype specific in cases where one or more versions are based primarily on a given texttype. I am not certain whether such agreement is necessarily evidence of a "widespread early form of the text", however; only that a given variant may have been known in more than one region by the time a versional MS was produced in such a locality. > The examination of the versions is is such an established part of the > way in which I learned to study the transmission of the NT text, that I > can hardly imagine conducting research without it. Surely most > people are taught like this? I would hope so, though I also was clearly taught not to put too much weight on versional (or patristic) testimony as opposed to the Greek text; i.e., to regard the versions as secondary.... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 4 10:13:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01624; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:12:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:08:07 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re:Another book for TC review Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 771 In addition to the two volumes mentioned earlier (by Tim McLay and Claude Cox), I have one other book for TC review: E. J. Revell, ed. "Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies." Let me know about this or other books, and in addition please feel free to suggest another book or two for possible TC coverage. Thanks--leonard ********************************************** * Leonard Jay Greenspoon, Chairholder * * Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization * * Creighton University * * Admin Bldg #333, Omaha, Nebraska 68178 * * phone (402)-280-2304 fax (402)-280-4731 * * e-mail: LJGRN@creighton.edu * ********************************************** From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 4 10:15:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01649; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:14:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:14:19 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Uncials & majuscules et al. In-Reply-To: <961103031734_344689006@emout02.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: 2547 On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 REElliott@aol.com wrote: > DC also correctly states that the Armenian was derived from the Greek via the > Syriac, which brings up an important point; We must look at the Greek MSS > 1st, the versional evidence 2nd and then the patrisitic citations 3rd. If the > Armenian was derived from the Greek, then are not all versional NT MSS in > essence "derived" from the Greek? Therefore we must give precedence to the > Greek MSS and if they are very silent concerning a particular passage (such > as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary > at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek. There is a problem with terminology here that can lead to deprecating the testimony of the versions and fathers. As Maurice Robinson and David Parker have already pointed out, the versions are of value to the textual critic, although Robinson and Parker differ in their assessments of the relative value. I think that textual critics who are newer to the field, however, often misunderstand the connotations of the terms "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" in regard to the versions and fathers. To say that a versional witness is secondary to a particular Greek witness (i.e., its Vorlage) is true enough, but to go on to claim that the testimony of the versions _as a whole_ is secondary to the testimony of the Greek mss _as a whole_ is simply not true. To oversimplify the matter, suppose that an Old Syriac ms were translated from the autograph of Mark. It would be a witness much closer to the original than a twelfth century Greek ms with 20 copies separating it from the autograph. Obviously the limitations of the Syriac language in rendering Greek and aspects of the translation technique would have to be taken into account in reconstructing the Greek readings lying behind the versional witness, but its value as a witness to the text would remain great. Versional witnesses are secondary only in the sense that translation technique and similar matters limit to a greater or lesser extent the certainty of the retroversion into Greek. They should not be considered secondary to the entire Greek ms tradition simply because they are not written in Greek. A similar case can be made for the value of patristic testimony, although of course other factors are involved. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 4 10:28:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01714; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:26:57 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:18:23 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: 1509 Professor Robinson wrote > Versional testimony still remains secondary, in my opinion, precisely > because of the need to eliminate translational items and version-specific > items. Had it been primary (i.e. Greek), the readings would stand as they > were transmitted. So I am not certain whether we are having merely a > semantic difference here or whether Dr. Parker intends something more. Yes (or perhaps no), I don't think that it's an unreal difference, so here is something more. I still don't think that there is any _essential_ difference between a version and a Greek MS, for this reason: To recover the Vorlage of a version, one has to eliminate the clutter of translation and subsequent corruption. To recover the text of a Greek MS's exemplar, one has to identify and to eliminate the errors of the scribe. Once that is acknowledged, then the two types of evidence are of equal weight as witnesses in the reconstruction of the history of the text, and thus in the process of observing the introduction of readings. Of course, a version might be taken as witness to a single Greek MS (though here one might have to be careful; the oldest Old Latin MSS would have to count as separate versions on this reckoning); but is not the same true of any one Greek MS (excepting the possibility of corrections to a scribe's work, of course)? 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 Nov 4 14:00:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03756; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:57:09 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:52:34 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Updated Encyclopedia Site Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1691 Dear TCers -- My survey of web browsers last week produced an interesting result: Every one of you who has web access at all can read HTML tables. So I decided to go ahead and use tables in my latest encyclopedia article. This is something which, I hope, you can all use: It is a list of all the manuscripts cited regularly in the critical editions of Paul (NA26, NA27, UBS3, UBS4, Merk/Bover), along with their ratings/ classifications by Soden, Merk, Aland, and (ahem) me. I intend to do another version of this for the Catholics (adding the classifications of Richards, as well as what I know of the work of Duplacy), but I thought I would wait to see what people say about this one first. BTW -- two comments for those of you who do not have a table-compatible browser: First, if you are academics, you can get a copy of Netscape Navigator *free*. If you are not an academic, there's always the AOL browser. You've probably gotten a few dozen copies in the mail. You can use this browser *without* signing up for AOL. Just install it, then use it to read the HTML files. You can download the files via FTP, then open them in AOL's browser. If you do not have FTP access, but are interested in reading the files, let me know and I will e-mail them to you. Again, let me know what you think. And don't hesitate to point out errors. Typing in all those Soden symbols was a pretty complex job; I could easily have made a mistake or sixteen.... Also, I had to resort to various tricks, not all very good, to try to encompass von Soden's crazy notation. Maybe you'll have better suggestions.... Again, the web site is http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 4 23:11:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA08681; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:10:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:06:12 -0500 (EST) 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: 1661 On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > but its value as a witness to the text would remain great. Versional > witnesses are secondary only in the sense that translation technique and > similar matters limit to a greater or lesser extent the certainty of the > retroversion into Greek. They should not be considered secondary to the > entire Greek ms tradition simply because they are not written in Greek. A > similar case can be made for the value of patristic testimony, although of > course other factors are involved. I concur with Jimmy here, but it still must be remembered that the versional testimony, even pruned and reconstructed, still reflects but _one_ Greek witness, which (depending on the version) may well be early and of proportionally significant weight, but also which may equally be later and of less significant weight. Of course, if it were known for certain that a version were translated directly from the autograph of Mark, I would be willing to place far more weight upon such than upon a versional text which might merely reflect a "Caesarean" type mixture, which I consider to be late. Since the versions do not exactly help us in that regard, I would consider the strongest versional testimony to be those versions which strongly reflect Alexandrian or Western texttypes as equivalent to stronger ancient testimony. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 4 23:21:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA08739; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:20:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: versions 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: 2795 On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > I still don't think that there is any _essential_ difference between a > version and a Greek MS, for this reason: To recover the Vorlage of a > version, one has to eliminate the clutter of translation and > subsequent corruption. To recover the text of a Greek MS's > exemplar, one has to identify and to eliminate the errors of the scribe. > Once that is acknowledged, then the two types of evidence are of > equal weight as witnesses in the reconstruction of the history of the > text, and thus in the process of observing the introduction of > readings. I think to this point, Dr. Parker and myself are on the same semantic wavelength and would agree entirely. > Of course, a version might be taken as witness to a single > Greek MS (though here one might have to be careful; the oldest Old > Latin MSS would have to count as separate versions on this > reckoning); but is not the same true of any one Greek MS (excepting > the possibility of corrections to a scribe's work, of course)? Here we may still have semantic differences. I would consider each separate MS of a given version as reflecting a witness to some overarching Vorlage of that version, but not equal to the same thing as separate Greek MSS. I.e., Armenian MSS witness to the Vorlage of the Armenian version, but do not count separately as would independent Greek MS witnesses. Those Armenian MSS each would have to be purged of their own independent errors and scribal alterations, and from the aggregate testimony of various Armenian MSS the Vorlage would be reconstructed, and from that Vorlage (purged of the idiosyncracies occurring from translation into Armenian) the Greek archetype of that version could then be determined. Similarly with the Old Latin: even though these witnesses are somewhat diverse and quite idiosyncratic, they still can in my opinion be successfully broken down into the typical "European" and "African" sub-types, and the OL MSS peculiar to one or the other sub-type can then be utilized in the aggregate to attempt reconstruction of the OL Vorlage for each sub-type (this might in the nature of things be more difficult than with the Armenian tradition). From there, a Greek archetype can be postulated for each OL sub-type, etc. So I am not yet certain whether we are saying the same thing on this latter section, of whether Dr. Parker intends something more than do I. For me, the _de minimis_ approach seems preferable. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 5 01:27:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA09488; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:25:31 -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, 5 Nov 1996 07:24:37 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3029 Hello all greek tc scholars. I have a very concrete question for you all. Very concrete because the answer you will give to it may affect the way I'll be working on a project... Here it is: What do you expect of a critical edition of a version? Put in other words, in order for the edition of a version to be useful/interesting/reliable for your work, what would you like to find in it? Could you for example discuss several of those points. Let's take as a hypothese the edition of an arabic version that hasn't been published yet (15/20 manuscripts + a handful of lectionaries in Sinai only, I still have to trace other mss in other libraries). The first mss appear in the XIth century and reflect a mixture of cesarean text and syriac variants. Then with the time it's submitted to an increasing influence of the byzantine greek text and of the other, later arabic version called the "alexandrian vulgate". As I would like to give NT scholarship access to this text, I need some feedback about those and other points that you might wish to discuss: * Do you need a translation of the text (and, probably of the variants or some of them) to accompany it? If yes, in what language? Latin, French, English? * How can our textual apparatus be helpful to you? * As it is a very first publication, and there's been few (in fact: not any) stemmatic work done, do you feel it's more prudent to give the text of a manuscript with the variants of the others in the apparatus, or try an eclectic text? * Do you feel a second apparatus with comparison with greek mss and other known versions is useful - or do you prefer to do it yourselves? * Should I directly incorporate the lectionary mss, or publish them separately? * What would you like to find in the introduction? * If recensions can be separated, do you prefer seeing them in columns like in Shanidze's georgian editions, or with the variants of the later recension(s) simply in the apparatus like in Lake and Briere's ? What if three or four recensions happen to be found instead of two? * Is it a good thing if there are longuer annotations to try to show the origin of a variant? etc, etc... Just tell me everything you think about, and if you disagree with each other, it's also interesting for me to know why! If you use several versions in your work, please tell me what helps you in those publications, and what may confuse you or make them less accessible to you. In your use of the versions, what are the good and bad features of the publications you use? What makes that the edition of a latin, syriac, armenian, etc... or arabic version ? Also, it's a known fact that some versions need to be re-edited. What would you expect from an edition of the syriac peshitto, for example, as I'm in contact with people who are considering it? Thanx for your suggestions! 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 Tue Nov 5 06:31:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA10607; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:29:19 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:14:17 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: 1978 Maurice Robinson wrote > > Here we may still have semantic differences. I would consider each > separate MS of a given version as reflecting a witness to some overarching Vorlage of that version, but not equal to the same thing as separate Greek MSS. > > Yes, it had not occurred to me that anybody would count 25 Armenian MSS as 'equal to the same thing as separate Greek MSS'. But here one cannot generalise. To take all the MSS of a version as witnesses to the Vorlage is to assume that a version is 'watertight', with no influence upon it from the Greek tradition after the production of the Vorlage. But there are of course examples of readings where the knowledge of a different Greek text has affected a MS or MSS of a version (the sort of place where an apparatus might read sah (mss) or suchlike). It is thus not possible to insist on Professor Robinson's very rigid schema. Yes, one sets out in versional research with the main task of reconstructing the Greek Vorlage. But one has to be open to the possibility that any variant from that which is not inner-versional corruption may be due to further Greek influence. An example which I dig out at random is Luke 22.3. The Greek v.l. is (teste NA 27) epikaloumenon / kaloumenon. Vulgate MSS (teste WW) have the v.ll. cognominabatur / cognominatur / uocabatur / uocabitur / uocatur. Weeding out the inner-Latin, one then has the question which Jerome might have read, and then of accounting for the other. I grant the difficulty of the fact that Old Latin d has uocatur, so that the variation might be due to Old Latin influence. But if you will grant that special problem, we have the possibility of continuing Greek influence. I don't think that this is semantic. It's a part of how one views and uses and interprets the materials. 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 Tue Nov 5 09:33:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11390; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 09:31:24 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 09:27:13 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3314 On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) wrote: >Hello all greek tc scholars. > >I have a very concrete question for you all. Very concrete because the >answer you will give to it may affect the way I'll be working on a >project... > >Here it is: What do you expect of a critical edition of a version? [ ... ] > >* Do you need a translation of the text (and, probably of the variants or >some of them) to accompany it? If yes, in what language? Latin, French, >English? I could argue for Greek. But I would say that, in general, it should be in the language of the vorlage of the version. (I will admit that I don't even know what the Arabic vorlage is, but that would argue, e.g. for translating Georgian into Armenian. This might, in turn, be rendered into Greek. >* How can our textual apparatus be helpful to you? The only comment I would make is that it should give primary attention to variants which imply differences in the vorlage. >* As it is a very first publication, and there's been few (in fact: not >any) stemmatic work done, do you feel it's more prudent to give the text of >a manuscript with the variants of the others in the apparatus, or try an >eclectic text? On this we should probably defer to you. Is there an "old Arabic" version? If so, try to reconstruct that. Otherwise, print the best (or, perhaps, the most typical) manuscript, and then take variations from that. >* Do you feel a second apparatus with comparison with greek mss and other >known versions is useful - or do you prefer to do it yourselves? Even if we redo it, a preliminary analysis is helpful. >* Should I directly incorporate the lectionary mss, or publish them >separately? Incorporate them. >* What would you like to find in the introduction? Descriptions of the mss, your analysis of their interrelations, a history of the version, and anything it can tell us about the Greek text. Also, possibly, a list of special readings of the Arabic (readings unattested elsewhere, or found only in select groups on manuscripts). >* If recensions can be separated, do you prefer seeing them in columns like >in Shanidze's georgian editions, or with the variants of the later >recension(s) simply in the apparatus like in Lake and Briere's ? What if >three or four recensions happen to be found instead of two? I would print all recension separately if they can be clearly distinguished. Otherwise, I might just print them in groups in the apparatus. >* Is it a good thing if there are longuer annotations to try to show the >origin of a variant? Yes! >etc, etc... Just tell me everything you think about, and if you disagree >with each other, it's also interesting for me to know why! > >If you use several versions in your work, please tell me what helps you in >those publications, and what may confuse you or make them less accessible >to you. In your use of the versions, what are the good and bad features of >the publications you use? What makes that the edition of a latin, syriac, >armenian, etc... or arabic version ? I don't know how much work it is, but I much prefer the Nestle system of marking variants in the text to the Merk system of simply quoting lemmata. If I'm reading the text, I want to know when I need to look at the apparatus. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 5 09:45:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11471; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 09:44:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199611051439.PAA53618@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 05 Nov 96 16:48:25 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Versional variants To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3400 On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin presented some variant readings which seem to be supported by more than one version while lacking Greek MSS support. He wrote (inter alia): >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). To these witnesses add Greek MSS D (05) 1071. >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). To these witnesses add Protevangelium Jacobi (James); compare D (05). The main difficulties with "anecdotal lists" of this type was perfectly well set out by Larry W. Hurtado. On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Larry wrote: >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. For even more perplexing examples of misguided scholarly work by means of "anecdotal lists" I may draw your attention to Bill Petersens magnificent monograph on *Tatian's Diatessaron* (Brill: 1994). In reviewing the history of Diatessaronic scholarship we find, for example in the work of H.J. Vogels and A. Baumstark, extremely biased and demonstrably flawed lists of agreements between various versions. Both underwent severe critique (cf. A.S. Lewis and J. Rathofer, presented in Petersen, pp. 301-306.360) for _producing_ Diatessaronic readings out of textual trivia, and partly out of printing errors in modern editions (Baumstark). It is precisely this type of scholarship, presenting anecdotal lists without carefully *weighing* the evidence, that discredited Diatessaronic research. Personally, I am willing to give versional evidence a prominent role in examining the textual transmission of the Greek NT text. However, in order to *establish* secure connections between versions and versions, and between versions and Greek texts we have to exclude all other possible explanations for an alleged variant reading. The more restrictive we procede, the more we can impress (not to say convert) sceptics. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 5 10:40:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12047; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:39:11 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611051439.PAA53618@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:35:17 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Versional variants Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2526 On Tue, 05 Nov 96, schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) wrote, in part: [ ... ] >For even more perplexing examples of misguided scholarly work by means of >"anecdotal lists" I may draw your attention to Bill Petersens magnificent >monograph on *Tatian's Diatessaron* (Brill: 1994). In reviewing the >history of >Diatessaronic scholarship we find, for example in the work of H.J. Vogels >and A. >Baumstark, extremely biased and demonstrably flawed lists of agreements >between >various versions. Both underwent severe critique (cf. A.S. Lewis and J. >Rathofer, presented in Petersen, pp. 301-306.360) for _producing_ >Diatessaronic >readings out of textual trivia, and partly out of printing errors in modern >editions (Baumstark). It is precisely this type of scholarship, presenting >anecdotal lists without carefully *weighing* the evidence, that discredited >Diatessaronic research. >Personally, I am willing to give versional evidence a prominent role in >examining the textual transmission of the Greek NT text. However, in order to >*establish* secure connections between versions and versions, and between >versions and Greek texts we have to exclude all other possible >explanations for >an alleged variant reading. The more restrictive we procede, the more we can >impress (not to say convert) sceptics. I'm just going to add one comment on Diatessaronic readings. That is that we must always be alert to the influence of oral tradition in creating such readings. Many (admittedly not all) of the readings of the Diatessaron are the sorts of readings that would automatically arise when one harmonizes the gospels. But gospel harmonization is what preachers, scribes, scholars would automatically do. What's more, it is the *harmonized* accounts that tend to go into oral tradition. So, in assessing such variants, one *must* try to assess the source. The diatessaron? Oral tradition? Translational style? Coincidence? BTW -- if anyone wants to examine the effects of oral tradition, it's one of the encyclopedia items I wrote. Arguably the closest thing to an authoritative one I was able to compile, since it's easier to be a freelance folklorist than a freelance textual critic. :-) Again, the URL is http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn 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 Tue Nov 5 12:34:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13193; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:33:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199611051729.SAA43074@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 05 Nov 96 19:38:33 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1068 I totally agree with Bob Waltz's reply to Jean Valentin's questions regarding projected editions of versions (both on Tue, 5 Nov 1996). I simply wish to emphasize the question of the Vorlage. Although not knowing Arabic, I, personally, would feel very uncomfortable with lists of alleged Greek variant readings stemming from arabic MSS without thoroughgoing examination of how they happened to get there. For example, if the Syriac descendence of (some?) Arabic Gospel MSS could be substantiated as the Syriac descendence of (some?) Armenian Gospel MSS, the Arabic MSS would give no independent testimony to the Greek text, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary (e.g., later revisions of the Arabic text with the assistance of other Syriac -presumably the first candidate to test- or Greek texts). An edition of any version that *bores* me with pros and cons of that sort on the bases of evidence will be appreciated. All too easy access to Greek texts without all the other evidence will not convert a single sceptic. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 5 14:09:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14495; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:07:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:01:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611051901.LAA28154@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: (jgvalentin@arcadis.be) Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2448 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- jgvalentin@arcadis.be asked: > * Do you need a translation of the text (and, probably of the variants or > some of them) to accompany it? If yes, in what language? Latin, French, > English? If you want the work to be usable by scholars without a good command of Arabic (i.e. almost all biblical scholars) some translation would be needed. A greek retroversion would be of much greater theoretical interest than a fresh translation into English or French, because the Greek Vorlage (or Vorlage of the Vorlage) will always be referred to when the relationship of the Arabic texts to the rest of the NT tradition is investigated. Minor variants may not be translatable into Greek or English or French, so that some annotations or sigla would also be desired. As an example, the Gothic edition of Streitberg (and from Metzger's comments I suppose the other Gothic editions are similar) displays the Gothic and Greek Vorlage on facing pages, the Gothic page supplied with linguistic notes, the Greek page with text-critical notes. The few pages with more than one Gothic MS extant (in Paul) displayed the texts in double columns (but of course an Arabic text with many MSS would need to appear in apparatus form). One problem of Streitberg's that you would want to avoid is that his Greek Vorlage is not a direct retroversion of the Gothic MSS, but a reconstruction of the Greek text Ulfilas is supposed to have translated from, prior to the contaminating influence of the Latin Vulgate intruding into the Gothic tradition. He does this by identifying Vulgate readings and replacing them with Koine readings. While his theory of contamination is plausible, printing a hypothetical reconstruction instead of a straight retroversion makes it harder to untangle what is the basic evidence and what is just his theory. 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 iQCVAwUBMn+OxWCU4mTNq7IdAQEpRwQAslH3iQ7iyzrmv4+bAmDhmM2Na0WzB+MK Rs9iMttHDnA+vxolwpZu1n6FbdSYJ4kc6WZmztqyNxunHwLIrIbAVjD+6B9we8DY CawB3/ERD4dTjRlw2dMLjoPk3GZhCfA2/B6sqvjPPSsypY/zwFCXtO9wO7n8VrMW GDmO2gq6Rrw= =JUzh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 5 15:43:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15930; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 15:40:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 14:13:47 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961105141327.2597a836@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: 690 At 11:01 AM 11/5/96 -0800, you wrote: >If you want the work to be usable by scholars without a good command >of Arabic (i.e. almost all biblical scholars) some translation would >be needed. A greek retroversion would be of much greater theoretical >interest than a fresh translation into English or French, because >the Greek Vorlage (or Vorlage of the Vorlage) will always be referred to >when the relationship of the Arabic texts to the rest of the NT tradition >is investigated. I am simply curious, in this connection, how such a retroversion accomplishes more than simply being a "targum" on a putative text? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 5 17:08:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17086; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:07:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:03:31 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: versions 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: 2703 On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > Yes, it had not occurred to me that anybody would count 25 Armenian > MSS as 'equal to the same thing as separate Greek MSS'. But here > one cannot generalise. To take all the MSS of a version as witnesses > to the Vorlage is to assume that a version is 'watertight', with no > influence upon it from the Greek tradition after the production of the > Vorlage. Again Parker and I are agreed. I certainly do not mean to imply that there cannot be various recensions and texttypes within a versional tradition -- in fact I pointed this out specifically in regard to the European and African Old Latin traditions. The Georgian 1 and 2 are another clear example, and there are sub-types among all versional traditions, so far as I recall. > But there are of course examples of readings where the > knowledge of a different Greek text has affected a MS or MSS of a > version (the sort of place where an apparatus might read sah (mss) or > suchlike). This also is agreed. Certainly those MSS which are in such places atypical of the versional Vorlage will have either created a reading by accident or chance, or will thereby indicate by such a variant a knowledge of other circulating readings, either in the versional tradition or from Greek or patristic sources. > main task of reconstructing the Greek Vorlage. But one has to be > open to the possibility that any variant from that which is not > inner-versional corruption may be due to further Greek influence. Agreed, so long as "may not" also remains a possibility, in which case intra-versional variants (not "corruption" per se) may simply be thus reflected. > might be due to Old Latin influence. But if you will grant that special > problem, we have the possibility of continuing Greek influence. In the case mentioned, there certainly seems to be evidence to that point. I would not suggest in the absence of conflicting Greek testimony, however, that two variant readings in the same unit among OL MSS would imply a "lost" Greek variant no longer extant among the Greek MS tradition, but that such likely reflects intra-OL variation instead. > I don't think that this is semantic. It's a part of how one views and > uses and interprets the materials. I also would concur on this point, even though it is certain that we might not use the same materials in the same manner. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 6 08:32:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21689; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:31:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:27:20 +0100 (MET) From: "M. Bakker" X-Sender: mbakker@cclsun01 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? In-Reply-To: <199611051901.LAA28154@Np.nosc.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1989 On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > As an example, the Gothic edition of Streitberg (and from Metzger's > comments I suppose the other Gothic editions are similar) displays the > Gothic and Greek Vorlage on facing pages, the Gothic page supplied > with linguistic notes, the Greek page with text-critical notes. The > few pages with more than one Gothic MS extant (in Paul) displayed the texts > in double columns (but of course an Arabic text with many MSS would > need to appear in apparatus form). > > One problem of Streitberg's that you would want to avoid is that > his Greek Vorlage is not a direct retroversion of the Gothic MSS, > but a reconstruction of the Greek text Ulfilas is supposed > to have translated from, prior to the contaminating influence of > the Latin Vulgate intruding into the Gothic tradition. He does > this by identifying Vulgate readings and replacing them with Koine readings. > While his theory of contamination is plausible, printing a hypothetical > reconstruction instead of a straight retroversion makes it harder to > untangle what is the basic evidence and what is just his theory. > Something similar is the case with the reconstructions of the Old Slavic Gospels published by Vajs in 1935 and 1936. Reconstructing the Greek Vorlage from which St Cyril translated was simply one bridge too far. Vajs' reconstruction of the Old Slavic Tetraevangelion needs to be reviewed in many places. It is therefore strange that it was used to represent the Slavic evidence in UBSGNT4. When I asked Bruce Metzger about it he said he was surprised it was decided to include Slavic evidence in the apparatus but not the Gothic version. Perhaps it was thought that its inclusion would please traditionalists in Slavic countries. One has to be careful with barely examined evidence, inclusion of all these exotic sigla may turn an apparatus into a veritable Variantenfriedhof. Dr. Michael Bakker Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 6 09:00:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA22006; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:59:34 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:42:18 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: 1016 Maurice Robinson wrote > In the case mentioned, there certainly seems to be evidence to that point.> I would not suggest in the absence of conflicting Greek testimony,> however, that two variant readings in the same unit among OL MSS would> imply a "lost" Greek variant no longer extant among the Greek MS> tradition, but that such likely reflects intra-OL variation instead. > Here I seek clarification. Are you saying that you would only consider the versional evidence as testimony to an already attested variation among Greek MSS, or just that you would not consider it _here_ as evidence of a Greek variant, were there not already a variation among Greek MSS? That is, would you reject on principle the possibility that a variant cognomino/voco attested a lost Greek variant epikaleo/kaleo? Or do you just think that it could not be established here? 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 Nov 6 11:29:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23600; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:28:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:22:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611061622.IAA12155@Np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19961105141327.2597a836@mail.sunbelt.net> (message from Jim West on Tue, 05 Nov 1996 14:13:47 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1216 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- jwest@SunBelt.Net asked about Arabic-Greek retroversion: > I am simply curious, in this connection, how such a retroversion > accomplishes more than simply being a "targum" on a putative text? Besides serving as a Targum on the Arabic texts, a Greek retroversion made with an eye on the MS/versional/patristic traditions could serve as a bridge in connecting the Arabic texts back to the sources from which they came. Even a reader innocent of Arabic could get useful information from such a retroversion, even though he would be seriously handicapped in evaluating the information. 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 iQCVAwUBMoC7VmCU4mTNq7IdAQESaQQAwQ42Wx0zsjKJV+7hPtXBHeUOFoSM6ljV Wz/PMAGE4HqPflubBfMSBv+ZsVDhCMH+UITisdKAaMthJJ8yFKJtGj0u0YxGpulT xaq+Dz3tXKNFwZ5yDuWK5i2u9m/F+KkpuOGucDhcmBPffANGljpkf1pO7vrjek8j kEl3OdHCHu8= =W/jL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 6 12:21:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24204; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:19:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:19:27 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List cc: Stephen Cooper Subject: Vetus Latina project 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: 1034 I'm forwarding this message from Elenchus, since some on this list might want to respond. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:30:29 -0500 From: Stephen Cooper To: Multiple recipients of list ELENCHUS Subject: Re: Late Antiquity Newsletter ... This is a request for assistance: Who is working on collating the various Vetus Latina texts of Galatians? What is the status of the Beuron project for publishing additional volumes of the "Vetus Latina" series? Any answer to these, or notifications of a recent bibliographical nature, can respond to me on e-mail. thanks, Stephen Cooper Department of Religious Studies Franklin and Marshall College Box 3003 Lancaster, PA 17604-3003 Ph. 717-399-4417 E-mail: s_cooper@acad.fandm.edu From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 6 13:15:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24886; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:14:45 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Henry T. Carmichael" To: Vincent Broman , tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:11:41 +0000 Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-Id: <96Nov6.142054-0000_.22050-1+140@ctc-fw.ctronsoft.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1065 Vincent Broman wrote: > jwest@SunBelt.Net asked about Arabic-Greek retroversion: > > I am simply curious, in this connection, how such a retroversion > > accomplishes more than simply being a "targum" on a putative text? > > Besides serving as a Targum on the Arabic texts, a Greek retroversion > made with an eye on the MS/versional/patristic traditions could > serve as a bridge in connecting the Arabic texts back to the sources > from which they came. Even a reader innocent of Arabic could get useful > information from such a retroversion, even though he would be seriously > handicapped in evaluating the information. An interested lurker, I have an additional question, which will probably display my ignorance: What grounds are there for supposing the Arabic to have come directly from the Greek (which appears to be the reason for a Greek retroversion)? If there were an intermediate version (Syriac?, something else?), and the Arabic were a rendition of *that*, would there be any way of detecting such a translational history? Henry Carmichael From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 6 23:55:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA00720; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:54:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:50:24 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: versions 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: 1981 On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > > In the case mentioned, there certainly seems to be evidence to that > point.> I would not suggest in the absence of conflicting Greek > testimony,> however, that two variant readings in the same unit > among OL MSS would> imply a "lost" Greek variant no longer extant > among the Greek MS> tradition, but that such likely reflects intra-OL > variation instead. > > > Here I seek clarification. > > Are you saying that you would only consider the versional evidence > as testimony to an already attested variation among Greek MSS, or > just that you would not consider it _here_ as evidence of a Greek > variant, were there not already a variation among Greek MSS? The latter. Certainly in the former instance there are cases where the versional testimony may be traceable to a lost variant not found among the Greek MSS (which can sometimes be deduced from the nature of the versional variants when the only cause for such seems to be Greek variation, even if none is any longer extant). However, I would be quite suspicious of conflicting versional testimony in the absence of a known Greek variant _if_ there were no indications of such from reconstruction of the presumed Greek archetype of each variant in the version at the given unit. > That is, would you reject on principle the possibility that a variant > cognomino/voco attested a lost Greek variant epikaleo/kaleo? Or do > you just think that it could not be established here? In that particular case, the difference seems more likely to reflect a Greek variant, even if no Greek testimony exists. Other cases, however, might not be as strong 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 Thu Nov 7 00:53:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA01048; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:52:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:48:33 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: versions 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: 1272 On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: Correction to one point in my previous post: > On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote: > > Here I seek clarification. > > > > Are you saying that you would only consider the versional evidence > > as testimony to an already attested variation among Greek MSS, or > > just that you would not consider it _here_ as evidence of a Greek > > variant, were there not already a variation among Greek MSS? [Robinson] > The latter. Sorry about that -- I too quickly misread the latter statement, disregarding the "not" words and commented on that basis. Parablepsis by the scribe. *;-) The variation existing among Greek MSS in the example cited gives strong support to the Greek basis for the OL readings in this case, but even were such _not_ found among Greek MSS, the most likely explanation of the OL variants would still be a postulated Greek variation which caused the different readings. I hope this is now clear. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 7 01:36:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA01171; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 01:35:19 -0500 Message-Id: From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" To: "TC List" Subject: Patristic statistics Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:31:47 -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: 2000 Digging through the TC List archives, I found Maurice Robinson on June 21, 1996, asking for statistics of patristic citations: >From within a Byzantine-priority perspective, readings which are dually-shared by both the Byzantine and any other texttype are simply Byzantine readings from which the other texttype(s) happened not to depart. Once this point is granted, and once patristic idiosyncracies are discounted, I have little doubt that one will find the non-Egyptian fathers preceding the fourth century to be far more "Byzantine" in overall character than otherwise has traditionally been claimed. >Bring on the statistics, gentlemen..... I did some more digging and found some interesting statistics of patristic citations. The source is Wilbur Pickering, adapted from Kurt Aland. They are taken from Pickering's review of Kurt Aland's article "The Text of the Church": Egyp Both Maj Other # Pass Marcion (160?) 23% 10% 18% 49% 94 Irenaeus (d. 202) 16% 16.5% 16.5% 51% 181 Clement Alex. (d. 215) 13.5% 29% 15% 42.5% 161 Origen (d. 254) 16.5% 28% 17% 38.5% 459 Hippolytus (d.235) 14.5% 18% 21% 46.5% Methodius (280?) 12.5% 31% 19% 37.5% 32 Adamantius (d.300) 11.5% 21% 31% 36.5% 29 Asterius (d.341) 0% 40% 50% 10% 30 Apst. Const. (380?) 3% 33% 41% 23% 46 Epiphanius (d.403) 11% 30% 22% 37% 114 Chrysostom (d. 407) 2% 38% 40.5% 19.5% 915 Severian (d.408) 3% 37% 30% 30% 91 Theod. Mops. (d. 428) 4.5% 29% 39% 27.5% 28 Marcus Erem. (d. 430) 5.5% 35% 35% 24.5% 37 Hesychius (d. 450) 3.5% 37.5% 33% 26.5% 84 Theodotus (d. 445) 3% 37.5% 37.5% 22% 16 Theodoret (d. 466) 1% 41% 42% 16% 481 John Damascus (d. 749) 2% 40% 40% 18% 63 Obviously, something happenned in the fourth century; the question is what was it. Several explanations have been advanced, from an official Byzantine recension, to the textual effects of the Arian controversy, to wider collation of MSS after the Edict of Milan. From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 7 10:10:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03995; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:07:27 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:02:40 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2955 On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, "Mark Arvid Johnson" wrote: >Digging through the TC List archives, I found Maurice Robinson on June 21, >1996, asking for statistics of patristic citations: > >>From within a Byzantine-priority perspective, readings which are >dually-shared by both the Byzantine and any other texttype are simply >Byzantine readings from which the other texttype(s) happened not to >depart. Once this point is granted, and once patristic idiosyncracies are >discounted, I have little doubt that one will find the non-Egyptian >fathers preceding the fourth century to be far more "Byzantine" in overall >character than otherwise has traditionally been claimed. > >>Bring on the statistics, gentlemen..... > >I did some more digging and found some interesting statistics of patristic >citations. The source is Wilbur Pickering, adapted from Kurt Aland. They >are taken from Pickering's review of Kurt Aland's article "The Text of the >Church": Can you give a reference for this article? I'm a bit concerned about Aland's sources (given the weakness of the patristic citations in NA27) -- and more concerned with how Pickering interpreted them. Also, how did Pickering or Aland decide what was *the* Egyptian text? His definition of text-types is not mine. And how did one determine the reading of Origen? There are many, *many* readings where the various manuscripts and commentaries of Origen attest to different readings.... For that matter, it would be nice to see some Latin fathers. > Egyp Both Maj Other # Pass > >Marcion (160?) 23% 10% 18% 49% 94 >Irenaeus (d. 202) 16% 16.5% 16.5% 51% 181 >Clement Alex. (d. 215) 13.5% 29% 15% 42.5% 161 >Origen (d. 254) 16.5% 28% 17% 38.5% 459 >Hippolytus (d.235) 14.5% 18% 21% 46.5% >Methodius (280?) 12.5% 31% 19% 37.5% 32 >Adamantius (d.300) 11.5% 21% 31% 36.5% 29 >Asterius (d.341) 0% 40% 50% 10% 30 >Apst. Const. (380?) 3% 33% 41% 23% 46 >Epiphanius (d.403) 11% 30% 22% 37% 114 >Chrysostom (d. 407) 2% 38% 40.5% 19.5% 915 >Severian (d.408) 3% 37% 30% 30% 91 >Theod. Mops. (d. 428) 4.5% 29% 39% 27.5% 28 >Marcus Erem. (d. 430) 5.5% 35% 35% 24.5% 37 >Hesychius (d. 450) 3.5% 37.5% 33% 26.5% 84 >Theodotus (d. 445) 3% 37.5% 37.5% 22% 16 >Theodoret (d. 466) 1% 41% 42% 16% 481 >John Damascus (d. 749) 2% 40% 40% 18% 63 > >Obviously, something happenned in the fourth century; the question is what >was it. Several explanations have been advanced, from an official Byzantine >recension, to the textual effects of the Arian controversy, to wider >collation of MSS after the Edict of Milan. In reading this, I am not particularly impressed by the change in the rate of Egyptian and Byzantine readings. If accurate, what strikes *me* is the gradual elimination of "other" readings. What are these "other" readings? "Western"? Idiosyncratic? Other text-types? Any thoughts? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 7 13:33:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06860; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:32:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:28:29 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC List Subject: Re: Patristic statistics 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: 1240 On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Mark Arvid Johnson wrote: > Digging through the TC List archives, I found Maurice Robinson on June 21, > 1996, asking for statistics of patristic citations: > > I did some more digging and found some interesting statistics of patristic > citations. The source is Wilbur Pickering, adapted from Kurt Aland. They > are taken from Pickering's review of Kurt Aland's article "The Text of the > Church": I will note that the article mentioned happens to be one of Pickering's best (which says a lot considering the weak, biased, or "theological" nature of much of his other material). It should be read in conjunction with Aland's original "Text of the Church" article, however. If you have the article in electronic form, it might be good to post it on the tc-list ftp site, if Jimmy permits. The article is unpublished, but freely distributable, according to the Majority Text Society headed by Hodges and Farstad. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 7 13:48:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07098; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:47:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:43:14 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Patristic statistics 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: 1891 On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, "Mark Arvid Johnson" wrote: [re: "The Text of the Church" by Aland and "The Text of the Church?" by Pickering]. > Can you give a reference for this article? I'm a bit concerned about > Aland's sources (given the weakness of the patristic citations in > NA27) -- and more concerned with how Pickering interpreted them. Don't have the reference at hand for Aland (some issue of Trinity Journal, which, I don't know). Pickering's article was distributed in photocopy typescript by the Majority Text Society about 2 years ago or so. > Also, how did Pickering or Aland decide what was *the* Egyptian > text? His definition of text-types is not mine. Not sure this is a primary factor in the thrust of the articles either way. Pickering merely takes Aland's statistics and shows the same data can readily point to diametrically opposite conclusions, so the question of how a given text is defined is less pertinent than the matter of ways to view the data. > In reading this, I am not particularly impressed by the change in the > rate of Egyptian and Byzantine readings. If accurate, what strikes *me* > is the gradual elimination of "other" readings. What are these "other" > readings? "Western"? Idiosyncratic? Other text-types? Be aware that the same fathers and percentages differ dramatically in Aland and Pickering's presentation of the same table, showing primarily that the "trends" which seem to be visible may well be in a different direction, depending on how the data is interpreted. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 8 05:50:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA13738; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 05:48:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199611081044.LAA45512@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 08 Nov 96 12:53:24 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Patristic statistics To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 661 The reference for Aland's article _The Text of the Church?_ is: Trinity Journal 8,2 (1987) 131-144. The Patristic statistics performed in this article refer to the apparatus of the revised fourth ed. of GNT with its some 1200 units of variation. Besides, the statistics brought forth by Mark Arvid Johnson (Thu, 7 Oct 1996) are not reliable as far as Aland's statistics are concerned. Either Pickering or Johnson have either misrepresented Aland's statistics or rely on different data. Without consulting Pickering's article reviewing Aland's article we should not continue to extrapolate from the statistics in Johnson's post. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 8 10:29:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15333; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:27:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:23:54 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Patristic statistics In-Reply-To: <199611081044.LAA45512@mail.uni-muenster.de> 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: 1167 On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > Besides, the statistics brought forth by Mark Arvid Johnson (Thu, 7 Oct 1996) > are not reliable as far as Aland's statistics are concerned. Either Pickering or > Johnson have either misrepresented Aland's statistics or rely on different data. > Without consulting Pickering's article reviewing Aland's article we should not > continue to extrapolate from the statistics in Johnson's post. Pickering's point in his article was to show how the same data could be used to demonstrate the opposite point by looking at the data from a different angle. Aland's original statistical data need to be posted in direct comparison with Pickering's reworking of them, but as Ulrich has said, without the full text of Pickering's article before you in comparison with Aland's original article, the data are probably meaningless. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 8 11:18:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15768; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:16:49 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961108161340.00678de0@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 08:13:40 -0800 To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3883 >Mark Arvid Johnson wrote: >I did some more digging and found some interesting statistics of patristic >citations. The source is Wilbur Pickering, adapted from Kurt Aland. They >are taken from Pickering's review of Kurt Aland's article "The Text of the >Church": > > Egyp Both Maj Other # Pass > >Marcion (160?) 23% 10% 18% 49% 94 >Irenaeus (d. 202) 16% 16.5% 16.5% 51% 181 >Clement Alex. (d. 215) 13.5% 29% 15% 42.5% 161 >Origen (d. 254) 16.5% 28% 17% 38.5% 459 >Hippolytus (d.235) 14.5% 18% 21% 46.5% >Methodius (280?) 12.5% 31% 19% 37.5% 32 >Adamantius (d.300) 11.5% 21% 31% 36.5% 29 >Asterius (d.341) 0% 40% 50% 10% 30 >Apst. Const. (380?) 3% 33% 41% 23% 46 >Epiphanius (d.403) 11% 30% 22% 37% 114 >Chrysostom (d. 407) 2% 38% 40.5% 19.5% 915 >Severian (d.408) 3% 37% 30% 30% 91 >Theod. Mops. (d. 428) 4.5% 29% 39% 27.5% 28 >Marcus Erem. (d. 430) 5.5% 35% 35% 24.5% 37 >Hesychius (d. 450) 3.5% 37.5% 33% 26.5% 84 >Theodotus (d. 445) 3% 37.5% 37.5% 22% 16 >Theodoret (d. 466) 1% 41% 42% 16% 481 >John Damascus (d. 749) 2% 40% 40% 18% 63 > >Obviously, something happenned in the fourth century; the question is what >was it. Several explanations have been advanced, from an official Byzantine >recension, to the textual effects of the Arian controversy, to wider >collation of MSS after the Edict of Milan. > I've not read Pickering's article, but when I read Aland's I think I had the same question which lies behind Pickering's reordering of the statistics; a quick recalculation of the statistics showed a completely different picture than the one being painted by Aland; namely, if anything can be said about the early Fathers' quotations, its that they used a Byz Vorlage as often as an "Alex" one (whatever that might have been). But that raised for me two additional questions. One was that Aland was claiming that there was a high agreement with the Alex text, but I think what he meant was ANY READING FOUND IN ANY ALEX TEXT that wasn't found in Byz mss. I could be wrong here, but I don't recall him making any claification on the issue and that the presentation seemed to indicate that the reading only had to be found in Alex mss to be called Alex. It seems to me that was not very sound methodology. The other thing that troubled me was that, when you look at where these "Fathers" lived it isn't surprising that certain ones show tendencies to one type of text as opposed to another; unless you assume--as I infer Aland believed--that the text was basically the same everywhere in Christian communities throughout the world and that when it changed, it changed with relative uniformity throughout the Christian world. Thus, if we had early Byz Fathers, they would show the same evidence of using an "Alex" text. Aside from it being an argument from silence, the textual variety in Egypt makes me wonder about the validity of such an assumption. BTW, I think that such an assumption lies behind the current interest in the "growth" theory once again (?). I'd be interested to know what you all think about the supposed uniformity of the text across all geographical boundaries at various stages of the church. Of course, with the high incident of Fathers (excluding Marcion) having readings so far not found in any mss, one has to wonder about the validity of the exercise at all ?? Esp., since Aland claimed they had culled out all of the "Non-quotations" from the analysis. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 8 12:18:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16861; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:17:20 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961108161340.00678de0@mail.teleport.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:12:23 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3253 On Fri, 08 Nov 1996, "Dale M. Wheeler" wrote, in part: >But that raised for me two additional questions. One was that Aland was >claiming that there was a high agreement with the Alex text, but I think >what he meant was ANY READING FOUND IN ANY ALEX TEXT that wasn't found >in Byz mss. I could be wrong here, but I don't recall him making any >claification on the issue and that the presentation seemed to indicate >that the reading only had to be found in Alex mss to be called Alex. >It seems to me that was not very sound methodology. If what Wheeler says is true, this is indeed bad methodology. It was Colwell who pointed out that a text-type is a collection of *manuscripts*, not a collection of readings. We can only call a reading "Alexandrian" if it is the clear reading of those manuscripts and only of those manuscripts! >The other thing that troubled me was that, when you look at where these >"Fathers" lived it isn't surprising that certain ones show tendencies to >one type of text as opposed to another; unless you assume--as I infer >Aland believed--that the text was basically the same everywhere in >Christian communities throughout the world and that when it changed, it >changed with relative uniformity throughout the Christian world. Thus, if >we had early Byz Fathers, they would show the same evidence of using an >"Alex" text. Aside from it being an argument from silence, the textual >variety in Egypt makes me wonder about the validity of such an assumption. >BTW, I think that such an assumption lies behind the current interest in >the "growth" theory once again (?). > >I'd be interested to know what you all think about the supposed uniformity >of the text across all geographical boundaries at various stages of the >church. This will depend strongly on one's definition of text-types. I'll give my examples from Paul, since I know it best. Most people would say that the Alexandrian text consists of p46 Aleph A B C 33 etc. However, Zuntz felt, and I agree, that p46-B and Aleph-A-C-33 are *separate* text-types. Moreover, *both* were found in Egypt in the fourth century (since B, Aleph, and at least some Coptic texts come from that period). Egypt also had at least two distinct texts in the third century: the p46/B text and the Origenic text (similar to family 1739). This phenomenon seems to carry across into other parts of the corpus as well -- e.g. in Acts we have both Alexandrian and "Western" papyri; in the Catholic Epistles we see p72 and Origen. In other words, not only was the text not homogeneous *across* boundaries in the third century, it was not homogenous *within* boundaries. >Of course, with the high incident of Fathers (excluding Marcion) having >readings so far not found in any mss, one has to wonder about the validity >of the exercise at all ?? Esp., since Aland claimed they had culled out >all of the "Non-quotations" from the analysis. Again, agreed. Good methodology should focus on a particular set of *readings*, not on whatever passages the father offers data for. This study seems very badly controlled. Although, as Robinson pointed out, we really need to see the articles to know exactly what is being claimed. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 8 12:47:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17350; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:46:15 -0500 Message-ID: <32837F25.490@ionsys.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 10:42:45 -0800 From: John Cameron Organization: Director,Canadian Institute for Telecommunications and Emmerging Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Patristic statistics 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: 102 Can you let me know how to delete myself from the distribution list of this discussion group. Thanks From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 8 14:53:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA18823; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:51:26 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:47:42 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: ENTTC for the table-impaired Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 401 TCers -- One of you who shall remain nameless told me that the tables I used in my articles for the ENTTC were hard to read. I can't say that I've entirely fixed things (the job is just too big), but I think they will prove a bit better for those not using Netscape. Also, I added one example to the article on oral tradition. OK, you can go back to sleep now. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 9 00:12:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA23837; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 00:09:00 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 00:05:08 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Patristic statistics In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961108161340.00678de0@mail.teleport.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1945 On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > I've not read Pickering's article, but when I read Aland's I think I had > the same question which lies behind Pickering's reordering of the > statistics; a quick recalculation of the statistics showed a completely > different picture than the one being painted by Aland; namely, if anything > can be said about the early Fathers' quotations, its that they used a > Byz Vorlage as often as an "Alex" one (whatever that might have been). This was precisely Pickering's point in his article, which simply viewed the identical statistical data from within a pro-Byzantine perspective. > But that raised for me two additional questions. One was that Aland was > claiming that there was a high agreement with the Alex text, but I think > what he meant was ANY READING FOUND IN ANY ALEX TEXT that wasn't found > in Byz mss. I could be wrong here, but I don't recall him making any > claification on the issue and that the presentation seemed to indicate > that the reading only had to be found in Alex mss to be called Alex. > It seems to me that was not very sound methodology. This the readers of the list should determine for themselves by reading Aland's original article. > I'd be interested to know what you all think about the supposed uniformity > of the text across all geographical boundaries at various stages of the > church. I certainly would not concur with such a hypothesis, but would suggest an overarching original Textform which heavily influenced and semi-"controlled" the text in all areas at all times, but which did not preclude localized variant texttypes and subtypes. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 9 00:18:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA23871; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 00:16:59 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 00:13:08 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Patristic statistics 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: 1191 On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > It was Colwell who pointed out that a text-type is a collection of > *manuscripts*, not a collection of readings. We can only call a > reading "Alexandrian" if it is the clear reading of those manuscripts > and only of those manuscripts! I differ on this point. As I have previously noted a texttype is a _pattern_ of readings which, when linked together and viewed as a whole, is fairly clear and definable. MSS which are part of a specific texttype share readings from that pattern in a significant percentage amount. But _some_ readings within that pattern may also be present in other MSS not of that texttype, just as some MSS within that texttype may have a lower percentage of agreement with the pattern than others. MSS do not make texttypes -- patterns of readings define texttypes, and MSS fit into such patterns in various ways. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 9 18:01:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27781; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 17:59:24 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 17:54:33 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: If I may be so undignified -- "I dare you" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1292 TCers -- All right, this is a challenge. It's also an opportunity to get your purple prose in (electronic) print. (Go ahead, say *that* three times fast.... :-) At my proposed ENTTC site, I've added a new article on examples of textual criticism. I don't know if this will survive in the final encyclopedia, but I think it's a worthwhile idea anyway. I'll keep it up there if it doesn't get used elsewhere. I took about a dozen variants, listed their support, and showed how I resolved them. Naturally, many of these are "challenge" variants -- places where my text disagrees with UBS. For balance, though, we should offer to let several scholars resolve the variants and explain the readings. I'm also willing to add more variants. The only thing I would say is that we should resolve the variants independently, without attacks on others' methods. (To put it another way: You don't attack me and I won't attack you.) Once again, you can find the site at http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn. This article should work reasonably well with all browsers, though I did use a few Netscape extensions for legibility. And with that done, I will go back to being a ballad scholar for a while and let you think about the Encyclopedia in peace. :-) Have at it! Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 11 13:18:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08845; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:15:06 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961111181022.006bd26c@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:10:22 -0800 To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4709 I'm finally back at my office where the article is with my notes...here are some follow-up thoughts... Here's an example of what caught my interest in the Aland article (for those who haven't read or don't have it; for those who do, p. 139); he lists the various Fathers with their citation statistics: "2. Irenaeus (181) passages: 67% against the Majority text (24% of which show agreement with the "Egyptian text"), 16.5% common to both texts, and 16.5% with the Majority text." Now if we assume that our base is 100%, then I think this is what we end up with (check the math, my doctorate is in Greek/NT :-) ): Agrees with Maj only - 16.5% Agrees with Maj & Alex - 16.5% ------ Total Agree with Maj 33.0% Agrees with Alex only - 24.0% Agrees with Alex & Bzy - 16.5% ------ Total Agree with Alex 40.5% Agrees with Alex only - 24.0% Agrees with Byz only - 16.5% Agrees with both - 16.5% ------ Total Agree with Known Texts 57.0% Remainder with No Text 43.0% Thus the actual Byz vs Alex comparison is Alex - 24.0% and Bzy - 16.5%, a statistical difference of 7.5% (or 6.5% if you take the total agreements with both texts); which MAY be significant, but my impression was that there are two factors which serious obviate that significance: (1) 43.0% of Irenaeus' text doesn't agree with any known text, and (2) Irenaeus was a Western Father. Also--and I say this in the most kind manner possible-- the figure of "67% against the Maj text" (that's 24% Alex alone + 43% doesn't agree with anything) doesn't seem to be a fair representation of the data, since one could on the same basis say "58.5% against the Alex text" (with no corresponding statment about the Byz, thus making the actual situation look worse than it is). The other thing that struck me was that most of the "early" Fathers listed which "support" the Alex text against the Byz text were either Alex or West Fathers (except Marcion [which I'm not sure really tells us very much]; Irenaeus [West, d. 202]; Clement of Alex [Alex, d. 215]; Origen [Alex to Ceas, d 254]; Hippolytas [West, d. 235]). Methodius and Adamantius have numbers which are pretty much equal in terms of readings from known texts. Additionally, the Fathers cited in the second section which show a more decided use of know Byz readings later are almost all from the Byz area (2 are Caeseraen). Aland concludes (p. 139f.) that "At least one thing is clearly outside Egypt in the early period of what Hodges calls the 'Egyptian text' is unproved. Marcion, Iarnaeus [sic], and Hippolytus were not related in any way to Egypt." But in the very next paragraph, it seems to me, he undermines that argument by pointing out: "...p38 and p48 at least anticipate the so-called 'Western text' (its chief representative, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis [D], is now believed by Latin paleographers to have come from Africa. And both these papyri are from the 3rd century!" While the conclusion that Egyptian readings can be found in Byz Fathers may be supportable, I don't see how pointing to Western Fathers helps the argument at all, esp., if the type of text they are using is a descendant of Alex. I did a quick scan once again of the article and he consistently refers to the "Egyptian text", which is a term he borrows from Hodges, but on p. 138 he does seem to equate that with 96 NT papyrii from Egypt. This raises for me another methodological question, namely, if (and I can't tell from this article that a different approach was used) the "Egyptian" text includes ANY reading from ANY papyrii as a comparison base, shouldn't the Byz readings be equally based on ANY reading in ANY Byz mss, not just restricted to the Majority text (I have NO doubt that the statistical situation would change drastically if we restricted the Alex text or broadened the Byz text). It seems to me that, while Aland's contention that the "Egyptian" form of the text was widespread right from the beginning could be correct, the statistical presentation in this article was IMHO not convincing. I actually came away from this article ambivalent about the benefits of the Fathers to making such a determination. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 11 13:41:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09206; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:39:06 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961111181022.006bd26c@mail.teleport.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:35:30 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2996 On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, "Dale M. Wheeler" wrote, in part: >I'm finally back at my office where the article is with my >notes...here are some follow-up thoughts... > >Here's an example of what caught my interest in the Aland >article (for those who haven't read or don't have it; for >those who do, p. 139); he lists the various Fathers with >their citation statistics: > >"2. Irenaeus (181) passages: 67% against the Majority text >(24% of which show agreement with the "Egyptian text"), >16.5% common to both texts, and 16.5% with the Majority >text." > >Now if we assume that our base is 100%, then I think this >is what we end up with (check the math, my doctorate is >in Greek/NT :-) ): > >Agrees with Maj only - 16.5% >Agrees with Maj & Alex - 16.5% > ------ >Total Agree with Maj 33.0% > > >Agrees with Alex only - 24.0% >Agrees with Alex & Bzy - 16.5% > ------ >Total Agree with Alex 40.5% > > >Agrees with Alex only - 24.0% >Agrees with Byz only - 16.5% >Agrees with both - 16.5% > ------ >Total Agree with Known Texts 57.0% >Remainder with No Text 43.0% Or, to put it another way, Total readings: 181 Agree with the Egyptian text only: 43 Agree with the Byzantine text only: 30 Agree with Egyptian and Byzantine: 30 Agree with neither: 78 Slicing another way -- Byzantine readings: 60 Egyptian readings: 73 Readings that do not go with either: 78 > >Thus the actual Byz vs Alex comparison is Alex - 24.0% >and Bzy - 16.5%, a statistical difference of 7.5% (or >6.5% if you take the total agreements with both texts); >which MAY be significant, but my impression was that >there are two factors which serious obviate that >significance: (1) 43.0% of Irenaeus' text doesn't agree >with any known text, and (2) Irenaeus was a Western >Father. > >Also--and I say this in the most kind manner possible-- >the figure of "67% against the Maj text" (that's 24% >Alex alone + 43% doesn't agree with anything) doesn't >seem to be a fair representation of the data, since >one could on the same basis say "58.5% against the >Alex text" (with no corresponding statment about the >Byz, thus making the actual situation look worse than >it is). Speaking as a mathematician, I would say that the 8% difference in agreements with the two text-types is meaningless given the small size of the sample (181 readings) and the method it was selected (readings in GNT) -- as well as the very fuzzy definitions of the text-types (mentioned below). [ rest omitted as I think the point has been gotten across: Aland's results may be interesting, but they are not firm enough to prove anything.... I think I'm going to have to write an article for the ENTTC on determining when data is statistically meaningful. Yuck.] Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 11 14:18:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09548; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:14:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:10:51 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Patristic statistics In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961111181022.006bd26c@mail.teleport.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1244 On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > Agrees with Maj only - 16.5% > Agrees with Maj & Alex - 16.5% > ------ > Total Agree with Maj 33.0% > > > Agrees with Alex only - 24.0% > Agrees with Alex & Bzy - 16.5% > ------ > Total Agree with Alex 40.5% > Also--and I say this in the most kind manner possible-- > the figure of "67% against the Maj text" (that's 24% > Alex alone + 43% doesn't agree with anything) doesn't > seem to be a fair representation of the data, since > one could on the same basis say "58.5% against the > Alex text" (with no corresponding statment about the > Byz, thus making the actual situation look worse than > it is). That, by the way was the specific point Pickering was trying to make in his article. View the same data from within a pro-Byzantine perspective, and the results shift significantly. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 06:49:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA15175; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:45:09 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:41:13 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <17EC8200648@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 987 The current discussions here over Aland's "patristic statistics" remind me again that text critics still need to assess carefully how we use countings of "agreements" and what constitute "agreements". In my 1981 book, _Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text_, I tried to address the matter, building upon studies by Colwell and later Fee. (See now the chapter by T. C. Geer, Jr., in _The Text of the NT in Contemp. Research_, ed. B. D. Ehrman, M. W. Holmes). Counting "agreements" is almost meaningless, unless (1) agreements are considered in the context of all relevant readings--i.e., agreements as percentages of the total number of relevant variation-units, agreements *& disagreements*, and (2) agreements are assessed as to their significance (but only *after* the counting!). 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 Nov 12 06:51:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA15182; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:47:38 -0500 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199611121140.TAA26570@ms1.hinet.net> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 11:37:15 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.19 (Unregistered) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4568 In , on 10/22/96 at 07:54 PM, "Robert B. Waltz" said: >On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III >wrote: >>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). Hey! Do not leave this lurker out either..... Altho I am not a heavyweight in this discussion I still have done some reading ya know..... I certainly do not accept the Byz priority due to theological grounds!! I started reading Kurt Aland material and Weiss material and started in on other material until it started getting too time consuming and over my head ..... Then I met Maurice Robinson and started corresponding with him. He gave me some extremely valuable suggestions and ideas. I concur that most of the TC theories are a matter of subjectivity since most of the data is interpreted in different fashions according to their respective theories much like that done in Biblical debates. BUT I do not intend to mean that all of the scholarship and study is by nature subjective. No not at all. It is just that I personally contend that each theory has it's own sphere of influence. After reading Maurice Robinson's material and discussing some points with him I decided that it made the most reasonable case...... Now obviously I can not hold a candle to most if not all of the great people on this list!! And should someone want to challenge my post -- Oh Woe is me...... What can I do?????? Each of us makes our decisions based upon many factors, right?? Therefore until something comes along that makes better sense than Maurice Robinson's viewpoint then I will continue to support his position. Subjective ? some..... Lurk mode on .... >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 -- ----------------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 07:17:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA15271; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:16:01 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:49:56 GMT Subject: Re: versions : what do you expect? 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: 2890 Sorry for the late reply to this posting, but I'm on study leave at the moment and this has slowed down my response time to all correspondence! My work involves editing Syriac texts and working with editions of various Middle Eastern writings. On the basis of this it seems to me that the first question that should be asked of any text is: what makes it intrinsically important enough to edit? Once this has been assessed you are in a good position to identify the likely readership of your edition, and so to determine your editorial policy. For example, it is conceivable that a late Arabic version has little of importance to contribute to the reconstruction of the earliest Greek text or recensions, but that its value lies in identifying the text of the NT that was the basis of all local theological writing, or that it is of greatest importance as a witness to the development of Christian Arabic prose, etc. etc. Now, if you decide that it is an important NT textual witness a translation might be useful for other scholars (but if so use a modern language, don't use Latin which is not only little understood by most academics but has always been an inappropriate choice for the translation of semitic languages). A reasonable model might then be Burkitt's translation of the Old Syriac gospels. If the readership is likely to consist of other Arabists and / or members of the churches which own these manuscripts then there is little point in producing such a translation. Even so, it is worth considering publishing instead of a translation a series of tables of collations against the various textual families you mention. A rather dated example of this technique can be found in the edition of Acts produced by Ropes. This would certainly be more useful than a second apparatus at the bottom of each page. (Lectionary readings, as in editions of Greek texts, should simply be included in the main apparatus). As for recensions of the Arabic text, this comes back to your purpose in editing it. Do you want to reconstruct the earliest version, or to lay bare each of the major stages that the text went through? Are the recensions important because of their readings per se, or because of their witness to changing influences on the monastic and church communities? If the latter then the variant readings are perhaps best confined to the apparatus. The introduction would then be the place to detail stemmata and discuss the history and causes of the later recensions. Hope this helps, David Taylor ********************************************************************* Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. ********************************************************************* From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 10:00:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17071; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:59:20 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <17EC8200648@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:50:15 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2570 On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >The current discussions here over Aland's "patristic statistics" >remind me again that text critics still need to assess carefully how >we use countings of "agreements" and what constitute "agreements". >In my 1981 book, _Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean >Text_, I tried to address the matter, building upon studies by >Colwell and later Fee. (See now the chapter by T. C. Geer, Jr., in >_The Text of the NT in Contemp. Research_, ed. B. D. Ehrman, M. W. >Holmes). >Counting "agreements" is almost meaningless, unless (1) agreements >are considered in the context of all relevant readings--i.e., >agreements as percentages of the total number of relevant >variation-units, agreements *& disagreements*, and (2) agreements are >assessed as to their significance (but only *after* the counting!). WIth all of this I have to agree -- but I have to go further. One of the saddest things about Professor Hurtado's study, from my standpoint, is all the issues it *doesn't* address. Hurtado established -- conclusively, to my mind -- that p45 and W are not to be linked to the so-called "Caesarean" text. But his method, and that of Fee, cannot address the Lake/Streeter definition of the "Caesarean" text. Note that Streeter defined the "Caesarean" text as those readings of Theta, family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700, etc. *not found in the Byzantine text.* This definition may be problematic; I myself mentioned Colwell's rule that a text-type consists of manuscripts, not readings. And, of course, Streeter defined the Byzantine text as the Textus Receptus -- a drastic error in this case. But -- however problematic it is -- the definition has never been formally tested. I did what I could; with my thousand-reading sample I looked at all the texts listed above and compared not only their overall agreements but their *non-Byzantine* agreements. I have not finished my analysis, so I cannot give formal results. But the results I have indicate that the "Caesarean" text is real, or at least that the "Caesarean" manuscripts have been subjected to a common influence. This despite the fact that, based on overall agreements, they are all simply "Byzantine" (or at least "mixed Byzantine"). So I agree with Hurtado that we must look at agreements and disagreements, but we must do more. We must *assess* agreements, we must have large enough samples to mean something -- and we should ask that people know what statistics they are citing! Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 10:26:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17407; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:25:22 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:21:26 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <18273F21F90@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3145 Writing in response to my posting, Robt. Walz stated: > WIth all of this I have to agree -- but I have to go further. One > of the saddest things about Professor Hurtado's study, from my > standpoint, is all the issues it *doesn't* address. > > Hurtado established -- conclusively, to my mind -- that p45 and W > are not to be linked to the so-called "Caesarean" text. But his > method, and that of Fee, cannot address the Lake/Streeter definition > of the "Caesarean" text. Note that Streeter defined the "Caesarean" > text as those readings of Theta, family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700, > etc. *not found in the Byzantine text.* My 1981 book was based on my PhD thesis, and was not intended to deal with all the questions one could ask about the Caesarean text--far from it! The specific question I addressed was whether the Caesarean text was evidence in early witnesses (the [then] so-called "pre-Caesarean" witnesses, P45 & W). What I hope to have shown is (1) that W & P45 don't in fact have sufficient or significant enough agreements with Theta, 565, etc., to be linked with them at all, and (2) that, whatever the "Caesarean" text-type might be it is not early, nor even very easily delineated. Moreover, the influential definitions of the "Caesarean" text-type didn't involve particular readings (contra Walz's statement above), but referred to "patterns" of readings, with the so-called Caesareans not aligning themselves simply with any of the other identified text-types. Though my study dealt only with Theta and 565, these are the main reps of the so-called Caesarean text-type; and I think I've shown that they (a) agree with each other to a significant measure, and (b) also seem to have interesting levels of agreement with "Byzantine" text-type witnesses, in both specific readings and in the *types of readings they prefer*. I've suggested that the forces at work (e.g., scribal/editorial preferences) in the Caesarean mss are very similar to those that shaped the Byzantine text-type. Walz goes on: > I did what I could; with my thousand-reading sample I looked at > all the texts listed above and compared not only their overall > agreements but their *non-Byzantine* agreements. > > I have not finished my analysis, so I cannot give formal results. > But the results I have indicate that the "Caesarean" text is real, > or at least that the "Caesarean" manuscripts have been subjected > to a common influence. This despite the fact that, based on overall > agreements, they are all simply "Byzantine" (or at least "mixed > Byzantine"). > > So I agree with Hurtado that we must look at agreements and disagreements, > but we must do more. We must *assess* agreements, we must have large enough > samples to mean something -- and we should ask that people know what > statistics they are citing! Excuse my limited reading, but I don't know where to find the results of your work. Could you point me to the publications? 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 Nov 12 11:02:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17890; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:01:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199611121557.QAA71292@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 18:06:45 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Patristic statistics To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961111181022.006bd26c@mail.teleport.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6047 On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote (inter alia): >Here's an example of what caught my interest in the Aland >article (for those who haven't read or don't have it; for >those who do, p. 139); he lists the various Fathers with >their citation statistics: >"2. Irenaeus (181) passages: 67% against the Majority text >(24% of which show agreement with the "Egyptian text"), >16.5% common to both texts, and 16.5% with the Majority >text." >Now if we assume that our base is 100%, then I think this >is what we end up with (check the math, my doctorate is >in Greek/NT :-) ): >Agrees with Maj only - 16.5% >Agrees with Maj & Alex - 16.5% > ------ >Total Agree with Maj 33.0% >Agrees with Alex only - 24.0% >Agrees with Alex & Bzy - 16.5% > ------ >Total Agree with Alex 40.5% >Agrees with Alex only - 24.0% >Agrees with Byz only - 16.5% >Agrees with both - 16.5% > ------ >Total Agree with Known Texts 57.0% >Remainder with No Text 43.0% What is the implication of "Total Agree with Known Texts" versus "Remainder with No Text"? Does "Text" here mean "text-type" or "supporting witness(es)"? Either way the conclusion is not sound, for (a) in the GNT apparatus usually no singular readings are given, and (b) the agreements between Irenaeus and so-called "Western" witnesses (D F G it Tertullian Ambrosiaster etc.) against "Egyptian" and Byz. (cf. e.g., Gal 2,1.5) were not specified in Aland's statistics. Aland's reason for focussing solely on "Egyptian text" and Byz. in his article was Zane Hodges' assertion that "[i]ts [the Egyptian text's] existence in early times outside Egypt is unproved". >Thus the actual Byz vs Alex comparison is Alex - 24.0% >and Bzy - 16.5%, a statistical difference of 7.5% (or >6.5% if you take the total agreements with both texts); >which MAY be significant, but my impression was that >there are two factors which serious obviate that >significance: (1) 43.0% of Irenaeus' text doesn't agree >with any known text, and (2) Irenaeus was a Western >Father. Same objection. >Also--and I say this in the most kind manner possible-- >the figure of "67% against the Maj text" (that's 24% >Alex alone + 43% doesn't agree with anything)... Same objection [paragraph om.] >Aland concludes (p. 139f.) that "At least one thing is >clearly outside Egypt in the early period of what >Hodges calls the 'Egyptian text' is unproved. >Marcion, Iarnaeus [sic], and Hippolytus were not >related in any way to Egypt." Here part of Aland's quote is omitted which leaves it senseless. Aland stated: "At least one thing is clearly demonstrated: it is impossible to say that the existence outside Egypt in the early period of what Hodges calls the 'Egyptian text' is unproved. Marcion, Iranaeus [sic], and Hippolytus were not related in any way to Egypt." Again, Aland questiones Hodges' assertion about the "Egyptian text". Aland's argument runs as follows. If the early fathers object the Byz. text usually more than 50%, while at the same time usually agreeing more times with "Egyptian" readings than with Byz. readings (where both disagree), Hodges's assertion (Egyptian text is unknown in early times outside Egypt) does not hold water. >But in the very next >paragraph, it seems to me, he undermines that >argument by pointing out: "...p38 and p48 at least >anticipate the so-called 'Western text' (its >chief representative, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis >[D], is now believed by Latin paleographers to >have come from Africa. And both these papyri are >from the 3rd century!" While the conclusion that >Egyptian readings can be found in Byz Fathers >may be supportable, I don't see how pointing to >Western Fathers helps the argument at all, esp., >if the type of text they are using is a >descendant of Alex. This reasoning simply does not make sense to me. Please, help me to get to the point. >I did a quick scan once again of the article and >he consistently refers to the "Egyptian text", >which is a term he borrows from Hodges, but on >p. 138 he does seem to equate that with 96 NT >papyrii from Egypt. Again, I fail to get to the point. Hodges himself mentions "...a small number of ancient manuscripts that derive mainly from Egypt. Among these, Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (aleph)... The most important papyrus witnesses in this group of texts are the Chester Beatty papyri (P 45.46.47) and the Bodmer papyri (P 66.75). The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside Egypt is unproved". With reference to this statement, Aland simply asks (1) for any proof for Egyptian *origin* of aleph and B, (2) for any proof of Egyptian *origin* for all of the 96 papyri from Egypt (the Egyptian origin of the early ones remains doubtful in Aland's judgment), (3) Aland presents his church father statistics, and (4) Aland refers to the "far more complex textual character" of the early papyri. In other words, Aland simply puts Hodges' bold statements to test by highlightening their implications and confronting them with the evidence (or lack thereof). >It seems to me that, while Aland's contention >that the "Egyptian" form of the text was >widespread right from the beginning could be >correct, the statistical presentation in this >article was IMHO not convincing. I actually came >away from this article ambivalent about the >benefits of the Fathers to making such a >determination. The problems with statistics and especially with statistics drawn from samples should be seriously addressed. Indeed, one may ask, if Aland overstated his case with respect to his statistics. However, in so doing one should, first of all, present Aland's case and the conclusions *he* drew therefrom, without obscuring the statistics, and confusing the argument. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 11:25:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18169; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:24:45 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <18273F21F90@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:21:07 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5352 On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: [ ... ] >> Hurtado established -- conclusively, to my mind -- that p45 and W >> are not to be linked to the so-called "Caesarean" text. But his >> method, and that of Fee, cannot address the Lake/Streeter definition >> of the "Caesarean" text. Note that Streeter defined the "Caesarean" >> text as those readings of Theta, family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700, >> etc. *not found in the Byzantine text.* >My 1981 book was based on my PhD thesis, and was not intended to deal >with all the questions one could ask about the Caesarean text--far >from it! The specific question I addressed was whether the Caesarean >text was evidence in early witnesses (the [then] so-called >"pre-Caesarean" witnesses, P45 & W). What I hope to have shown is >(1) that W & P45 don't in fact have sufficient or significant enough >agreements with Theta, 565, etc., to be linked with them at all, With which conclusion I noted my agreement. >and >(2) that, whatever the "Caesarean" text-type might be it is not >early, nor even very easily delineated. No arguments there. >Moreover, the influential definitions of the "Caesarean" text-type >didn't involve particular readings (contra Walz's statement above), >but referred to "patterns" of readings, with the so-called Caesareans >not aligning themselves simply with any of the other identified >text-types. I quote from Streeter, page 81: Lake made the all-important discovery that Theta and these notable cursives [family 1, family 13, 28, 565, 700], taken all together, form in reality a single family [read: text-type]. True[,] Theta and the other five sets of authorities mentioned do not on the face of it exhibit a single type of text; but that is because each of them has been heavily corrected to the Byzantine standard, and in each case a *different* set of corrections has been made. If, however, we eliminate from the text of these manuscripts those variants which are found in the Byzantine text, we find that the residuary readings of the six different representatives support each other to a quite remarkable extent. As I noted, this is a problematic definition, particularly since Streeter and Lake didn't *know* the readings of the Byzantine text. But we can only address the text-type on these terms. Based on my research, I think Streeter overstates the case; the "Caesarean" witnesses do not agree absolutely in their non-Byzantine readings. Family 1, for example, is noticeably closer to the Alexandrian text than the other witnesses. But I do find common influence, possibly a common text-type. >Though my study dealt only with Theta and 565, these are >the main reps of the so-called Caesarean text-type; Debatable; on the basis of distinction from the Byzantine text, the leaders are Theta and Family 1. And, if you will admit versions, the old Armenian and old Georgian seem more "Caesarean" than any Greek manuscript. The witnesses listed above all appear to have suffered 40-80% Byzantine corruption; in the two versions, it's more like 30% (tentative conclusion, as noted). and I think I've >shown that they (a) agree with each other to a significant measure, >and (b) also seem to have interesting levels of agreement with >"Byzantine" text-type witnesses, in both specific readings and in the >*types of readings they prefer*. I've suggested that the forces at >work (e.g., scribal/editorial preferences) in the Caesarean mss are >very similar to those that shaped the Byzantine text-type. I won't argue that. >Walz goes on: [BTW -- my last name is "Waltz"] >> I did what I could; with my thousand-reading sample I looked at >> all the texts listed above and compared not only their overall >> agreements but their *non-Byzantine* agreements. >> >> I have not finished my analysis, so I cannot give formal results. >> But the results I have indicate that the "Caesarean" text is real, >> or at least that the "Caesarean" manuscripts have been subjected >> to a common influence. This despite the fact that, based on overall >> agreements, they are all simply "Byzantine" (or at least "mixed >> Byzantine"). >> >> So I agree with Hurtado that we must look at agreements and disagreements, >> but we must do more. We must *assess* agreements, we must have large enough >> samples to mean something -- and we should ask that people know what >> statistics they are citing! > >Excuse my limited reading, but I don't know where to find the results >of your work. Could you point me to the publications? As I have stated at least a dozen times on this list, I am not a text-critical professional; I am, by training, a physicist and mathematician. Obviously that limits my knowledge of Greek -- but I think it means that I have some knowledge of statistics. I have not published (though I will offer my data to anyone who wants it, if you give me enough time); remember, some people still have to work so that others can make their living by the gospel. Besides, who's going to publish a book-length manuscript on textual criticism (and that's what I would need) by a physicist? Still, if anyone wants to see the sort of work I have done, I refer you to the "text-types" article at my ENTTC web site: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 12:41:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19121; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:39:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3288B494.6CB37632@repurk.mw.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:32:04 -0800 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: John 1:3 Punctuation 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: 1560 The site contains a number of manuscripts which detail the various punctuations on John 1:3 with respect to whether 'hO GENOMEN' should start a new sentence. The punctuation of the text in UBS3-4/NA26-27 puts "hO GEGONEN" with the following verse, to yield: "hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN" I understand that Bruce Metgzer states in his book states "A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took hO GEGONEN with what follows." The shift to the common punctuation of the AV, he says, was a tactic against the Arian attempt to; use the passage to argue that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things. He also says "It is more consistent with the Johannine repetetive style, as well as with Johannine doctrine (c.f. 5:26, 39; 6:53), to say nothing concerning the sense of the passage, to punctuate with a full stop (i.e. a period) AFTER /HO GEGONEN/." However the site I list above appears to come to the oposite conclusion (I think) and prefer the other reading. Does anyone know what were the deciding factors for the commitee of the RSV to determine their position. I have a zerox copy of the Codex Alexandrinus which appears to quite clearly put the stop before 'hO GEGONEN', but this site along with their supplied GIFS do not appear to think that this stop exists. Is there some disagreement among scholars as to whether some faint or small markings are indeed stops ? Regards, -lars From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 12 23:19:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA26141; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:18:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3289746D.2AF3@pinn.net> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:10:37 -0800 From: Timothy Ward X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 391 I am an MBA student at Regent University in Va. Beach, Va. My assignment in Marketing Management class is to find biblical perspectives on sex in advertising. Your thoughts will be appreciated, especially conserning specific scriputres. Regent University teaches how to apply God's will for our lives, and God's word in business situations for His glory. Thanx - God Bless, Tim Ward From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 05:20:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA27302; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:19:10 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:02:47 GMT Subject: Re: John 1:3 Punctuation 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: 248 There is no punctuation in Alexandrinus before or after ho gegonen. I have just checked the reduced collotype facsimile. 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 Nov 13 08:02:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA27734; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:00:45 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:56:36 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <1980AD551E4@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 681 As to which mss are best reps of any "Caesarean" text-type, or any other text-type, I resist on methodological grounds the procedure of counting disagreements from the "Byzantine" text-type. I think, therefore, that I must take issue with Mr. Waltz's procedure, and would still support Colwell's basic method of counting *all* agreements at *all* variation-units. When we do that Theta & 565 show a close enough agreement (in Mark) to make them close witnesses of something similar or in common. 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 Wed Nov 13 08:11:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA27811; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:10:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:06:56 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: question X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961113080614.26c76e38@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: 1200 At 11:10 PM 11/12/96 -0800, you wrote: >I am an MBA student This is an interesting forum for an MBA. I suppose marketing of texts is now as common as marketing flesh in the temple of Jesus' day (but, ooops, those folk were cast out). > at Regent University in Va. Beach, Va. My >assignment in Marketing Management class is to find biblical >perspectives on sex in advertising. You won't find any. Only the most active imagination would suggest that you could. The Biblical discussion of sex is generally confined to marriage- and even then sex per se is not discussed. >Your thoughts will be appreciated, >especially conserning specific scriputres. I dont know what a scriputre is. But I do know that no texts on marketing can be forthcoming. Unless you count Paul's "I have not sold the word" texts. Which rather defeats the purpose of your exercise, I think. >Regent University teaches how to apply God's will for our lives, and >God's word in business situations for His glory. !!!! (comment withheld out of respect for the public). > Thanx - God Bless, > Tim Ward Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 08:40:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA27955; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:39:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:33:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611131333.IAA03306@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: question Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 907 I think your best tactic would be to explore the biblical theology of sex in general, the purpose, the scope, etc. and then by contrast show how advertising perverts God's plan for sex and basically appeals to lust, not biblical sexual love At 11:10 PM 11/12/96 -0800, you wrote: >I am an MBA student at Regent University in Va. Beach, Va. My >assignment in Marketing Management class is to find biblical >perspectives on sex in advertising. Your thoughts will be appreciated, >especially conserning specific scriputres. >Regent University teaches how to apply God's will for our lives, and >God's word in business situations for His glory. > Thanx - God Bless, > Tim Ward > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 10:03:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28504; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:01:42 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1980AD551E4@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:57:30 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3974 On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >As to which mss are best reps of any "Caesarean" text-type, or any >other text-type, I resist on methodological grounds the procedure of >counting disagreements from the "Byzantine" text-type. I think, >therefore, that I must take issue with Mr. Waltz's procedure, and >would still >support Colwell's basic method of counting *all* agreements at *all* >variation-units. When we do that Theta & 565 show a close enough >agreement (in Mark) to make them close witnesses of something similar >or in common. I will concede that my statement was subject to misinterpretation; when I argued that Theta and family 1 are the "best" "Caesarean" witnesses, I meant that they were the ones with the fewest Byzantine readings. Whether they are truest to the text-type is a different, and more subjective, matter. It is obvious, too, that Theta and 565 are among the most closely related manuscripts of the type. But so what? We need the full spread of the text-type, not the best pair of witnesses. Does the Byzantine text consist of S and Omega (or whatever your two favorite Kx witnesses are)? No, it consists of A and E F G H and K Pi and S V Omega and all of Kx and all of Kr and all of the M groups and.... I would argue that the least Byzantine witnesses are those most important to constructing other text-types, since they give us more material to work with. I agree that, ideally, we should collate all manuscripts in all variantion units. However, consider that there are an estimated 150,000 variation units. Even if we take only those found in (say) two uncials and/or major minuscules, we are probably left with at least 25,000. For any random variant there may be 1000 or more manuscripts extant (more in the Gospels, fewer in Revelation, but I just want to give an idea of what we are talking about). That means that, to cross-collate all those manuscripts requires 25,000 times 1000 factorial collations. That is, 25,000 * 1000 * 999 * 998 * 997 * 996 * ... * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 That number is so large that I can't even begin to calculate it, but it is on the order of 10 to the 2200 power (that is, a 1 followed by 2200 zeroes). Neither you nor I nor any computer ever likely to be invented can do the whole job. We have to work with samples -- samples of readings or samples of manuscripts or both. (Hence the Claremont Profile Method; hence also Hurtado's limited study, which is to be commended for including all variants, but which is therefore very limited in the manuscripts it can include.) But Colwell did *not* focus on "overall agreements." Yes, in one misguided essay (the only major error that I know of from his pen), he gave us the "70% Rule." But elsewhere he stated the real rule: The Rule of Multiple Statistics. "In conclusion I suggest that the location of a manuscript within the tradition should use Multiple Readings to find the related group, Distinctive Readings to demonstrate the kinship, and total comparison to confirm the relationship." (See Studies in Methodology, p. 39.) As best I can tell, Colwell never applied the 70% rule outside the one essay. For the record: I developed my method independently, using the power of computers to find statistics that Colwell would have had a hard time creating. But in substance we agree: Only multiple-statistic methods are complete. Finally (and I'll get off the soapbox now), if we are to work with the "Caesarean" text (or the family 2138 text in the Catholics, or any text-type with heavy Byzantine influence), we *must* get away from this best-manuscript thing. I state firmly: There *are no "Caesarean" manuscripts.* At best -- assuming the text-type exists at all -- there are manuscripts which are mixed "Caesarean"/Byzantine. But until we get away from the Byzantine readings, and start looking at the "Caesarean" ones, we cannot determine whether the type exists. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 11:02:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29110; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:01:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:57:14 -0500 Message-Id: <9611131557.AA11330@is.nyu.edu> X-Sender: sqs2081@is4.nyu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Sari Slater Subject: Question on God and Sex Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1152 At 08:33 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >I think your best tactic would be to explore the biblical theology of sex in >general, the purpose, the scope, etc. and then by contrast show how >advertising perverts God's plan for sex and basically appeals to lust, not >biblical sexual love I don't read much sexual "love" in the bible. There is not a great deal of affection between humans or between humans and any other creature, for that matter. Most of what is sexual in the OT is verging on the pornographic (a couple of the more graphic prophets!), or is about rape and violence or incest (Lot's daughters, Dinah, the concubine in Judges 19, Amnon's rape of Tamar, his half-sister) or is about what women, men and animals a man cannot have sex with (mainly Leviticus), or is about a woman seducing a man so that she can conceive to carry on "his line" (Ruth, Tamar/Judah). Of course there's a good deal of carrying on about "whoring." If the deity has a plan for sex, it is not terribly well fleshed-out. Given his own solitary bachelorhood, widowhood or state of permanent divorce, it is not surprising. - Sari Slater From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 11:04:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29149; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:03:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:02:58 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: NETS Translation Manual 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: 645 Many members of this list will be interested in a new online book by Albert Pietersma, _Translation Manual for "A New English Translation of the Septuagint" (NETS)_, which can be found at http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~pietersm/text/manual.html. I've also added it as a link to the TC-Links page, a page of links to sites that deal in some way with biblical textual criticism. If some of you haven't yet checked out this page, you can do so at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 11:22:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29463; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:21:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:21:19 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: question In-Reply-To: <3289746D.2AF3@pinn.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: 472 With regard to Tim Ward's question concerning the biblical perspective on sex and advertising, since this is clearly not a topic related to textual criticism, please direct your responses (if any) to Tim directly (at photog@pinn.net) rather than to the list. 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 Nov 13 11:30:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29548; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:29:24 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:24:36 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <19B82342DDD@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 949 Small note in response to Robt. Waltz: The logic behind using "best" reps of text-types in attempting to see the relationships of another given ms is as follows: (1) We can't realistically consider all available NT mss--too many to deal with in this lifetime; (2) We don't need to anyway if the question is to what main group ("text-type") a given ms might belong--all we need are mss sufficiently representative of the text-types to serve the purpose. Finally, as Fee and I have demonstrated, a firm determination of the textual relationships of mss requires (1) a good quantitative method--we both opt for Colwell; (2) plus assessment of the *significance* of readings shared by mss, which I tried to do in some detail for Codex W and representative witnesses. 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 Wed Nov 13 12:18:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00127; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:17:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:13:15 -0500 Message-Id: <9611131713.AA18154@is.nyu.edu> X-Sender: sqs2081@is4.nyu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Sari Slater Subject: Re: question Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1053 At 11:21 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >With regard to Tim Ward's question concerning the biblical perspective on >sex and advertising, since this is clearly not a topic related to textual >criticism, please direct your responses (if any) to Tim directly (at >photog@pinn.net) rather than to the list. > >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 <----------------- > > > Jimmy - I'm not 100% sure that I agree it's not related to textual criticism. By it I mean "sex" in the bible. Advertising, clearly not textual criticism related. But sex? Yes. I posted only because one of the immediate responses to the Ward question read ill-informed and prejudiced to me. In addition, the religious content contained in both of the posts is totally inappropriate to a scholarly list. IMHO. If my post upset you, please let me know. Thanks, Sari From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 12:32:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00416; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:31:20 -0500 From: ptl@sprynet.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:27:56 -0800 Message-Id: <199611131727.JAA22405@m2.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9611131557.AA11330@is.nyu.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.10.06.22 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 671 On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Sari Slater wrote: If the deity has a plan for sex, it is not terribly well >fleshed-out. Given his own solitary bachelorhood, widowhood or state of >permanent divorce, it is not surprising. > >- Sari Slater > Do I pick up a little bit of "bias" in these statements?!? Perhaps a little bit of "eisegesis?" *********************************************************** Paul Lorenzen -- Sparks, Nevada -- Email - ptl@sprynet.com http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/ptl/lorenzen.htm Only one life, 'twill soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last! ***********************************************************  From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 13:27:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01101; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:26:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:20:55 -0700 From: Lyle Eslinger Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199611131727.JAA22405@m2.sprynet.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: 719 On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:27:56 -0800 ptl@sprynet.com wrote: >If the deity has a plan for sex, it is not terribly well >>fleshed-out. Given his own solitary bachelorhood, >widowhood or state of >>permanent divorce, it is not surprising. >> >>- Sari Slater >> > >Do I pick up a little bit of "bias" in these statements?!? >Perhaps a little bit of "eisegesis?" > > > >*********************************************************** >Paul Lorenzen -- Sparks, Nevada -- Email - ptl@sprynet.com >http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/ptl/lorenzen.htm > >Only one life, 'twill soon be past; >only what's done for Christ will last! ^ /|\ | No bias in your call sign, eh Paul? From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 13:39:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01201; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:38:00 -0500 Message-ID: <328A1677.5934@accesscomm.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:41:59 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex 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: 567 Lyle Eslinger wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:27:56 -0800 ptl@sprynet.com wrote: > > >If the deity has a plan for sex, it is not terribly well > >>fleshed-out. Given his own solitary bachelorhood, > >widowhood or state of > >>permanent divorce, it is not surprising. > >> > >>- Sari Slater > >> > > > >Do I pick up a little bit of "bias" in these statements?!? > >Perhaps a little bit of "eisegesis?" If the Creator didn't think sex was a grand idea, we would reproduce by transverse fusion. Off topic...but brings a smile. Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 13:41:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01225; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:40:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:31:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611131831.NAA05464@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: Question on God and Sex Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2414 Dear Sari: On the contrary, the Bible has a great deal to say in the realm of sex. Unfortunately there is much that is taught by negative example. I must take issue with your Ruth reference. A careful reading of the text does not say that Ruth "seduced" Boaz, but that she approached him to remind him of his duty as the _goel_/ the kinsman-redeemer. The Books of Proverbs has a lengthy section dealing with the proper and improper aspects of sex. The Song of Songs/Canticles/Song of Solomon is a magnificent (almost erotic) paean to the glory of sexual love within the bounds of marriage. The New Testament has much to say about the sexual relationship in both positive praise and negative warnings about the misuse/abuse of love. The book of Hebrews tells us that the "marriage is honorable before all men, and that the bed is undelfiled". for those who are willing to read the Bible has much to say about this beautiful and sacred aspect of God's plan for mankind. At 10:57 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:33 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >>I think your best tactic would be to explore the biblical theology of sex in >>general, the purpose, the scope, etc. and then by contrast show how >>advertising perverts God's plan for sex and basically appeals to lust, not >>biblical sexual love > > I don't read much sexual "love" in the bible. There is not a great >deal of affection between humans or between humans and any other creature, >for that matter. Most of what is sexual in the OT is verging on the >pornographic (a couple of the more graphic prophets!), or is about rape and >violence or incest (Lot's daughters, Dinah, the concubine in Judges 19, >Amnon's rape of Tamar, his half-sister) or is about what women, men and >animals a man cannot have sex with (mainly Leviticus), or is about a woman >seducing a man so that she can conceive to carry on "his line" (Ruth, >Tamar/Judah). > > Of course there's a good deal of carrying on about "whoring." > > If the deity has a plan for sex, it is not terribly well >fleshed-out. Given his own solitary bachelorhood, widowhood or state of >permanent divorce, it is not surprising. > >- Sari Slater > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 13:41:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01223; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:39:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:34:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611131834.NAA05488@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: Apologies for Re: question Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 846 My apologies to the list! I just hit the reply button without looking at where it was going to. At 11:21 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >With regard to Tim Ward's question concerning the biblical perspective on >sex and advertising, since this is clearly not a topic related to textual >criticism, please direct your responses (if any) to Tim directly (at >photog@pinn.net) rather than to the list. > >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 <----------------- > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 14:43:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02152; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:42:42 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19B82342DDD@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:39:07 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Patristic statistics Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3006 On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >Small note in response to Robt. Waltz: >The logic behind using "best" reps of text-types in attempting to see >the relationships of another given ms is as follows: (1) We can't >realistically consider all available NT mss--too many to deal with in >this lifetime; No argument on that one; observe what I said. (2) We don't need to anyway if the question is to what >main group ("text-type") a given ms might belong--all we need are mss >sufficiently representative of the text-types to serve the purpose. The defect here is that this assumes the solution. How do we *know* what are the best mss until we have examined enough of them to have a feeling for the text-type? Case in point (in Paul, as usual from me...). B was long considered a member of the Alexandrian group. Then came p46, and Zuntz, and a clear demonstration that B is *not* Alexandrian, but part of the p46 text-type. >Finally, as Fee and I have demonstrated, a firm determination of the >textual relationships of mss requires (1) a good quantitative >method--we both opt for Colwell; I agree with the need for a good quantitative method. But your method should not be called "Colwell"; it is "Colwell-Tune 1963" (for those of you who have Studies in Methodology, the decisive quote is on page 59. I would opt for a different "Colwell": "Colwell 1959." Otherwise the method loses its point. Yes, using Colwell-Tune 1963, or the Claremont Profile Method, you can find the *closest* relative of any manuscript. But so what? The closest relative usually adds relatively little to our knowledge. We want the more distant relatives. Taking another example from Paul, the manuscript 104 is listed in most tables of witnesses as Alexandrian. And yet, it agrees with the major Byzantine witnesses much more often than with any Alexandrian text. We call it Alexandrian not because that is its dominant text-type, but because its Alexandrian readings -- even though they are in the minority -- are those that interest us. To take an analogy from genetics: If you want to learn something about the human genome, and how it evolved, you don't take DNA from me and from my parents; you take DNA from me, and from an ape, and from a monkey. >(2) plus assessment of the >*significance* of readings shared by mss, which I tried to do in some >detail for >Codex W and representative witnesses. This analysis takes place *after* the main comparison. I maintain they should be done simultaneously. But this is a minor point. Now let me make an observation: I have Hurtado's dissertation, and use it, and think it one of the more methodologically sound works in my library (as opposed to, say, Richards, which has 'way too many errors in it). I am simply pointing out that we need to do more. P.S. Apologies to the list if I'm grumpy today. I've had a computer go down and several miscellaneous sorts of idiocy to deal with today. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 16:03:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03402; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:02:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:58:15 -0500 Message-Id: <9611132058.AA24213@is.nyu.edu> X-Sender: sqs2081@is4.nyu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Sari Slater Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4643 Kevin - Thanks for replying. My comments are strictly about the Hebrew bible. I know of no word for "sex" or "lovemaking" in the bible. Other than in Shir HaShirim, there is no joy, no joy, no celebration, abandonment, play, fun, delicious, delightful yummy feelings about sharing our sexuality, our physicality, our tenderness and passion with another human. Please tell me where that glorious erotic piece mentions "marriage." The words "proper" and "improper" are about judgment, repression, anger, constriction. "Beneficial, health-giving, positive, healing" - I prefer both words and ideas of that nature. Sex: if you're talking sex for procreation, it is necessary for a woman to ovulate and menstruate. There is no mention of ovulation (maybe they didn't know about it). There is no word for menstruation. There are dysphemisms for it (ill, unclean, weak, abomination). The Naomi/Ruth pericope does not contain the word for "seduce." Naomi encouraged Ruth to go and "lie down at his feet" upon the threshing floor after he'd eaten. "Foot" is sometimes code for "penis." Yes, scholars debate what happened that night. Sexual play or no? 'Doesn't much matter. The goal was for Ruth to be able to become pregnant to have a baby to continue some putative male line. Lovemaking isn't about goals. If the book of Hebrews truly has the word "men" in the verse you refer to ("marriage is honorable before all men, and that the bed is undefiled") then I have no clue as to what is going on. I am not a man, I am a woman. The human species consists of ***women*** and men. Where am I here? Where are women in that text you cite? As for an "undefiled" bed - what defiles a bed? Bedwetting? Lovemaking with someone you're not married to? In case you're bewildered here, I'm trying to inject some reality into the discussion. Most of us never ever question our cultural constructs. We think they're "life." They're not. They're artificial and sometimes harmful to humans and all beings on earth. - Sari Slater At 01:31 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Sari: > >On the contrary, the Bible has a great deal to say in the realm of sex. >Unfortunately there is much that is taught by negative example. I must take >issue with your Ruth reference. A careful reading of the text does not say >that Ruth "seduced" Boar, but that she approached him to remind him of his >duty as the _goel_/ the kinsman-redeemer. The Books of Proverbs has a >lengthy section dealing with the proper and improper aspects of sex. The >Song of Songs/Canticles/Song of Solomon is a magnificent (almost erotic) >paean to the glory of sexual love within the bounds of marriage. The New >Testament has much to say about the sexual relationship in both positive >praise and negative warnings about the misuse/abuse of love. The book of >Hebrews tells us that the "marriage is honorable before all men, and that >the bed is undelfiled". for those who are willing to read the Bible has much >to say about this beautiful and sacred aspect of God's plan for mankind. > > >At 10:57 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >>At 08:33 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>I think your best tactic would be to explore the biblical theology of sex in >>>general, the purpose, the scope, etc. and then by contrast show how >>>advertising perverts God's plan for sex and basically appeals to lust, not >>>biblical sexual love >> >> I don't read much sexual "love" in the bible. There is not a great >>deal of affection between humans or between humans and any other creature, >>for that matter. Most of what is sexual in the OT is verging on the >>pornographic (a couple of the more graphic prophets!), or is about rape and >>violence or incest (Lot's daughters, Dinah, the concubine in Judges 19, >>Amnon's rape of Tamar, his half-sister) or is about what women, men and >>animals a man cannot have sex with (mainly Leviticus), or is about a woman >>seducing a man so that she can conceive to carry on "his line" (Ruth, >>Tamar/Judah). >> >> Of course there's a good deal of carrying on about "whoring." >> >> If the deity has a plan for sex, it is not terribly well >>fleshed-out. Given his own solitary bachelorhood, widowhood or state of >>permanent divorce, it is not surprising. >> >>- Sari Slater >> >> >> > >Kevin W. Woodruff >Reference Librarian >Cierpke Memorial Library >Temple Baptist Seminary >Tennessee Temple University >1815 Union Ave. >Chattanooga, TN 37404 >423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) >Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net > > > From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 17:39:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04369; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:38:25 -0500 Message-ID: <328A4BEF.59E9DC7B@repurk.mw.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:30:07 -0800 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu CC: lars@repurk.mw.com Subject: Re: John 1:3 Punctuation 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: 2983 DC PARKER wrote: > > There is no punctuation in Alexandrinus before or after ho gegonen. I > have just checked the reduced collotype facsimile. > DC PARKER > DEPT OF THEOLOGY > UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM > TEL. 0121-414 3613 > FAX 0121-414 6866 > E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK Thanks, I checked that yesterday too. I have summarized the information on the site, to make it easier for someone to help me with this question. Please let me know if this issue is not one of interest to the list. I guess my question now relates to how does one determine if a correction made to a manuscript is to be prefered to the original and how much weight is to be given to the fact that Anti-Nicene Fathers (on both sides of the Christology issue) took 'hO GENOMEN' to be part of John 1:4 ? I summarize the 8 manuscripts that they compare. The issue is how to translate based upon if 'hO GENOMEN' is taken with John 1:3 or John 1:4. Punctation Century Codex before Two Witnesses ? 'hO GEGENON' ? (changes made) ------------------------------------------------------- 200CE P66 N N 175-225CE P75 Y Y 350CE Vaticanus N N 350CE Sinaiticus Y Y 500CE Bezae Y Y 400/600CE Washintonesis Y Y 400CE Alexandrinus N N 1100/1200 666 Y Y In none of these manuscripts, except for Codex 666 which is a miniscule from the 12th or 13th century did the original punctuation support the KVJ rendering (with 'hO GENONEN taken with John 1:3). This was corrected to put a stop before 'HO GENOMEN'. If Bruce Metzger is correct as to the ancient interpretation, this manuscript was clearly written in disregard of older manuscripts and later corrected to conform to the proper translation. Interestingly, the corrector did not bother to remove the 'offending' punctuationm, and as it stands this manuscript cannot be translated in any meaningful way. In the Washingtonesis the punctuation is clearly the original with plenty of space around it (which shows it was originally placed), although the portion of this manuscript for the book of John was added in the seventh century and is later that the rest of the text. This punctuation corresponds to the NRSV translation which takes 'hO GENOMEN with John 1:4. As to the punctuation in the Bezae (corresponds to NRSV) it is not certain if it was the original or whether it was corrected. From the GIF, by my eye, it looks like it matches the previous text quite well. The P75 appears to have been corrected to correspond to the NRSV rendering because there is not much space between the letters as if it was inserted at a later date. ( It is concievable that it was punctuated by the original scribe ) -lars From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 17:47:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04460; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:46:10 -0500 From: STaylor502@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:42:13 -0500 Message-ID: <961113174212_1451473183@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 204 It seems to me that people don't want to admit that the bible is indeed full of examples of sex that are anything but God-like. Please post two positive passages that deal with sex and we'll see. Steve From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 17:50:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04490; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:49:09 -0500 From: STaylor502@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:45:11 -0500 Message-ID: <961113174510_1584994476@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 146 Again, the NT does refer to sex, but usually as something that were it not for marriage, we should be ashamed of. Enough, take me off this list From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 20:24:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04871; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:22:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199611132321.SAA04861@scholar.cc.emory.edu> From: "Jim Mendelson" To: Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:19:08 -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: 437 > It seems to me that people don't want to admit that the bible is indeed full > of examples of sex that are anything but God-like. Please post two positive > passages that deal with sex and we'll see. > > Steve How about Song of Solomon Chapter 2. In CHRIST, Jim email:jim_mendelson@eee.org Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 12:11:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10686; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:09:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:09:12 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex In-Reply-To: <199611132321.SAA04861@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: 549 Sari asked me (on the list) whether I was offended by her first comment and if that's why I asked for this discussion to take place off the list. No, I wasn't offended, but I suspected that the discussion, if it continued, would take us far afield from the topic this list is dedicated to, namely, textual criticism. As further posts on the topic have demonstrated, I was right. Feel free to continue the discussion among yourselves or on a more appropriate list, but let's keep to the topic on this list. Jimmy Adair Listowner, tc-list From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 13:41:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11535; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:40:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:33:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611141833.NAA15323@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: Question on God and Sex Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 839 No problem! At 12:09 PM 11/14/96 -0500, you wrote: >Sari asked me (on the list) whether I was offended by her first comment >and if that's why I asked for this discussion to take place off the >list. No, I wasn't offended, but I suspected that the discussion, if it >continued, would take us far afield from the topic this list is dedicated >to, namely, textual criticism. As further posts on the topic have >demonstrated, I was right. Feel free to continue the discussion among >yourselves or on a more appropriate list, but let's keep to the topic on >this list. > >Jimmy Adair >Listowner, tc-list > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Temple Baptist Seminary Tennessee Temple University 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, TN 37404 423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 15:35:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12763; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:34:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:29:23 +0100 (MET) From: Danijel Berkovic To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex 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: 1072 Would not this topic be more appropriate on lists like B-HEBREW, where one can find such topics as this. In my opinion this topic is far more 'theological' then of the 'textual critical' nature. In terms of OT very relevant area of study and interest, but not necessarily part of this list and area of (re)search. Daniel BERKOVIC P.S. Though new to this list, I feel important that the list keeps its identity if it is going to serve its purpose. On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > Sari asked me (on the list) whether I was offended by her first comment > and if that's why I asked for this discussion to take place off the > list. No, I wasn't offended, but I suspected that the discussion, if it > continued, would take us far afield from the topic this list is dedicated > to, namely, textual criticism. As further posts on the topic have > demonstrated, I was right. Feel free to continue the discussion among > yourselves or on a more appropriate list, but let's keep to the topic on > this list. > > Jimmy Adair > Listowner, tc-list > > From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 20:18:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA14834; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 20:17:15 -0500 Message-ID: <328B53D9.1503@ucr.campus.mci.net> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:16:10 +0000 From: Don Wilkins Organization: UC Riverside X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: (recent) mss and GNT/Nestle References: <7756766E29@div.ed.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: 710 Hi guys, I've received a question that you can answer more easily than I. What (if any) manuscripts found during the past 25 years have been incorporated into the apparati of Nestle or GNT, and have any of these led to changes in the text. I'm pretty sure the person asking the question isn't concerned about changes (lectionary readings etc.) in the Nestle 27 apparti that are the result of changes in editorial policy, but rather Greek mss unknown before the last 25 years. I'm not sure how to begin to research the question, because I don't know of any source which would list discovery dates within that time range, if there were such discoveries. Any help would be appreciated. Don Wilkins UC Riverside From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 21:05:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15057; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:04:35 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <328B53D9.1503@ucr.campus.mci.net> References: <7756766E29@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:01:37 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: (recent) mss and GNT/Nestle Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2081 On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Don Wilkins wrote: >I've received a question that you can answer more easily than I. What >(if any) manuscripts found during the past 25 years have been >incorporated into the apparati of Nestle or GNT, and have any of these >led to changes in the text. I'm pretty sure the person asking the >question isn't concerned about changes (lectionary readings etc.) in the >Nestle 27 apparti that are the result of changes in editorial policy, >but rather Greek mss unknown before the last 25 years. I'm not sure how >to begin to research the question, because I don't know of any source >which would list discovery dates within that time range, if there were >such discoveries. Any help would be appreciated. Since you didn't give an exact date, it's hard to answer this precisely. But the last *major* papyrus, p75, was discovered well before this. You're talking about papyri from about p80, uncials from perhaps 255, and minuscules in the high 2600s and up. It will be noted that, though NA27 cites these papyri and uncials, none of these minuscules are cited in any of the major editions. Also, the basic UBS text was determined in the mid-Sixties, and has not changed since then. So recent discoveries have not changed it. Chances are, though, that the recent discoveries would not have had any effect. The papyri discovered since p75 have all been short. There have been some substantial uncials (0278 springs to mind), but they are late and not especially valuable. And who pays any attention to minuscules? Among the versions, perhaps the best is the Budapest Old Latin codex (cited as b in Paul). The easy way to look things up is to compare the list of manuscripts in the latest Nestle with those listed in the first edition of the Kurzgefasste Liste (or in UBS3). Both those lists date from the early sixties. A quick check shows the Kurzgefasste Liste lists papyri to p75, uncials to 0250, minuscules to 2646, and lectionaries to L1997 (plus a couple of oddballs). Hope this helps. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 21:14:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15137; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:12:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:06:25 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: TANAKH To: tc-list@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: 603 The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text and all in one compact black hard covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that have been arranged according to traditional Jewish chapter and verse divisions along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a volume of this size. Only $ 20.00 U.S. postpaid ( $ 15.50 for the book plus $ 4.50 for postage, etc.) from Julian Goldberg, 215 - 260 Adelaide St., E., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5A 1N0. Thanks. From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 22:14:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA15542; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:13:33 -0500 Message-Id: <9611150409.AA16662@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: (recent) mss and GNT/Nestle Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 04:12:36 +0100 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: 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: 1238 >I've received a question that you can answer more easily than I. What >(if any) manuscripts found during the past 25 years have been >incorporated into the apparati of Nestle or GNT, and have any of these >led to changes in the text. I'm pretty sure the person asking the >question isn't concerned about changes (lectionary readings etc.) in the >Nestle 27 apparti that are the result of changes in editorial policy, >but rather Greek mss unknown before the last 25 years. I'm not sure how >to begin to research the question, because I don't know of any source >which would list discovery dates within that time range, if there were >such discoveries. Any help would be appreciated. Hmmm... I have a vague rememberance of a whole bunch of new manuscripts found during works at Mt Sinai, among which some greek NT manuscripts. I don't have the reference but I can check. I see there are Sinaitic mss mentioned at the very end of the list in NA27 (page 711), they are numbers 2492 and 2495. I'll check (or maybe someone will be quicker than me). Greetings, Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable. From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 14 22:27:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA15627; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:26:34 -0500 Message-Id: <9611150422.AA16750@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Versions - your expectations Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 04:25:36 +0100 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-LIST" 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: 990 Hello all tc-ers! With this note I wish to thank all those of you who reacted to my question about what you would expect from the edition of a NT version. I received many interesting comments and bibliographical references. I'm also surprised at the fact that many of you would like greek retroversions - most of the good authors that I had read seemed to say that it probably is the most misleading thing one can do when editing a version. This is surprising, and really wasn't expecting it! So I'll have to analyze this problem too. This is my first reaction. I will not give more feedback today as I want to take the time to analyze your postings, but I just wanted to say again: thanks to you all. I will give news about the progress of the work and I really appreciate your readiness to help me. Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable. From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 15 09:43:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18302; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:40:35 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:58:05 GMT Subject: Re: (recent) mss and GNT/Nestle 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: 654 The first edition of the Liste appeared in 1963. Does it have to be 25 years, or will 33 do? If it will, just examine the list of witnesses cited in NA26 and NA27, and UBS editions. All witnesses listed in the Intro to those edd., with numbers higher than the last entry for each category in the 1963 Liste, will be your MSS. If 25 years is essential, then use the addenda to the Liste , one in ANTF 3 (1969), and one in the 1972 Bericht of the Munster Institut. N.B. Some witnesses included in NA26 are not in NA27. 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 Nov 15 09:44:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18334; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:42:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9611150409.AA16662@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:38:44 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: (recent) mss and GNT/Nestle Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1086 On Fri, 15 Nov 96, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >Hmmm... I have a vague rememberance of a whole bunch of new manuscripts >found during works at Mt Sinai, among which some greek NT manuscripts. I >don't have the reference but I can check. >I see there are Sinaitic mss mentioned at the very end of the list in >NA27 (page 711), they are numbers 2492 and 2495. I'll check (or maybe >someone will be quicker than me). >Greetings, There have, in fact, been several discoveries in Sinai lately. However, 2492 (a member of family 330) and 2495 (part of family 2138, and a rather corrupt near-sister of 1505) were discovered more than thirty years ago; they are listed in the first edition of the _Liste_. Few of the more recent discoveries at Sinai have been assessed yet; the only major items to make it into NA27 are 0278, 0281, and 0285. The minuscules, for the most part, haven't even been assessed yet. (See the notes in Aland & Aland, acknowledging their existence but not rating them. I don't think they're in _Text und Textwert_.) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 15 13:54:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA21208; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:52:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 12:48:33 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re:Call for papers, Klutznick Symposium on the Hebrew Bible Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2206 In the Call for Papers below, please note that we are encouraging the submission of proposals for "papers on textual studies of the Hebrew Bible." Do not hesitate to contact me for further information, etc.. -- leonard *************CALL FOR PAPERS*********** The Tenth Annual Klutznick Symposium: September 14-15, 1997 Sacred Text, Secular Times: The Hebrew Bible in the Modern World Creighton University's Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization and Center for the Study of Religion and Society will host the Tenth Annual Klutznick Symposium to take place in Omaha, Nebraska on Sunday, September 14, and Monday, September 15, 1997. The theme of the Symposium will be *Sacred Text, Secular Times: The Hebrew Bible in the Modern World.* The Program Committee seeks proposals for presentations on the impact of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh on art, literature, philosophy, religion, and other areas of the humanities or sciences over the past two centuries or so. Papers on textual studies of the Hebrew Bible are also appropriate if accessible to the Symposium's target audience (see below). Those chosen to participate in the symposium will be expected to make twenty minute presentations of their papers in a manner suitable to an audience composed of the general public and scholars. Participants must submit their papers in a scholarly format; those papers will be published in a collected volume. Please note that the reading of papers as submitted for publication would not be appropriate to this audience. Audio/visual aids are encouraged. Some support for the presenter's costs of transportation and accommodation will be provided. For further information contact Leonard Jay Greenspoon, Chairholder of the Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization (ljgrn@creighton.edu or phone 402-280-2304), or Bryan Le Beau, Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society (blbeau@creighton.edu or phone 402-280-2562) at Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska 68178. One page abstracts and vitae should be submitted to either Dr. Greenspoon or Dr. Le Beau by March 1, 1997. *************************************************** From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 15 21:25:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23902; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:24:36 -0500 Message-Id: <9611160320.AA17475@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: long post about arabic Gospel mss Date: Sat, 16 Nov 96 03:22:57 +0100 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-LIST" 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: 17555 Hello Jimmy Adair and all tc-ers, I have visited your web page on the versions of the NT. I have = several remarks and suggestions, I hope they can be helpful. As for = today, I will limit myself to the Arabic language. SEVERAL PUBLICATIONS OF ARABIC VERSIONS - the "Alexandrian Vulgate" of the XIIIth century has been published = according to... one manuscript (!) by Paul de Lagarde. But as its = transmission is rather stable, this edition must be considered as = quite reliable. P. de Lagarde Die vier Evangelien arabisch aus der Wiener = handschrift herausgegeben (Leipzig, 1864; repr. Osnabr=FCck, 1972) - The oldest Arabic version, originating from Southern Palestine in = the IXth century, has partial publications. It was made from Greek = manuscripts, and seems to be another witness of the "cesarean" or = palestinian text (that is, it has many common variants with = Koridethi, f1, f13, 565 etc... and the armenian, syropalestinian and = georgian versions). (1) S. Arbache Le t=E9tra=E9vangile Sina=EF arabe 72 (th=E8se, = Louvain-la-Neuve, 1975) Not a publication, but a study of the oldest dated ms (but in my = opinion, this ms has a revised form of text compared to Sin. arb. 74 = and others). The same author made a doctoral thesis in Bordeaux with = a publication of Mk - arabic text and french translation - with a = long study of the vocabulary and grammar. Arbache works at the = university of Lille (north of France) and teaches textual criticism, = but I don't know if he has plans to edit his manuscript. (2) A. Galli Garland An Arabic Translation of the Gospel According to = Mark thesis, Catholic University of America (Washington 1979) sees ms = 72 as a revision. I agree with this. (3) B. Levin Die griechisch-arabische Evangelien-Ubersetzung, Vat. = Borg. ar. 95 und Ber. orient. ar. 1108 (thesis, Uppsala, 1938) is an = edition of two other mss of the same version. It has only Mt and Mk. We should not forget, of course, the Arabic diatessaron. The latest = edition is by Marmardji (full refercences in Metzger EVNT) but is to = be used with caution. I have found several mistakes and omissions in = the french translation he gives. I would say the french translation = in unreliable, it is better to look at the Arabic text, and even = then, knowing that it is a reconstructed text about which very few = scholars were enthousiastic: always look at the critical apparatus. = And, the variants are translated. About this edition, I don't understand Marmardji's principles: he = makes an "eclectic" text, but often he rejects in the apparatus the = genuine diatessaric variant and prints the one that agrees with the = peshitto, giving a wrong impression as to the degree of = "vulgatization" of that text. At least, this is what I've found when = I had to use it - would you agree or disagree, Bill Petersen? OLD ARABIC? RECENSIONS? REVISIONS? Now here I answer also to some questions that have been sent to me in = the "what do you expect" thread. Bob Waltz, for example, asked me if = there is an "old arabic" version. Some of you also reacetd to my = question about what to do with recensions. In Arabic there is not one version, but many. Also, we cannot say = they are dependent of each other (like for example in syriac or latin = where the successive versions are revisions of the older ones). Each = confession (copts, nestorians, melkites, maronites and jacobites) = produced its own version, even several according to the region, the = liturgical language prevalent, the use (liturgical or apologetical) = etc... Of course, some of these versions have been revised in the course of = time. There are several processes we find, sometimes gradually as = each scribe introduced several corrections, sometimes with what i = call a recension, when there's a deliberate project, recurrent = modifications following the same pattern in a ms or a group of mss. What I've observed is (1) correction of the language, from a = colloquial form of Arabic to a more literary form; (2) modification = of the text-type: there's a progress of the byzantine text-type, it's = already at work in the first revision of the first version (IXth = century) and it seems to be definitively victorious in the XIIIth = century in Palestine; (3) progressive influence of the "Alexandrian = vulgate" from the XIIIth century on. THE SINAI COLLECTION In my study of the Arabic gospel mss of Mount Sinai (to which I added = several mss from Jerusalem), I see the following: there are 42 mss = (both tetravangelion and lectionaries) and they represent about 13 = different versions. The number may change as it is not always easy to = see clearly in the several recensions of the melkite version of the = XIth century. I hope to publish a survey in due time, but here = already some informations. The oldest versions come first. (1) The version of mss 72, 74 and 54 appears in the IXth century. It = is made from greek. It is in a quite un-classical arabic, except that = 72 ameliorates the arabic and makes the text (a little) closer to the = byzantine text-type. It is probably the earliest one - at least the = earliest mss contain it. It is also helpful in that it is quite = literal in its rendition of Greek, sometimes to the point of being = un-semitic. Samir Arbache of the University of Lille, is working on = ms 72, I don't know what his plans are. (2) The version of ms 75, also from the IXth century, is in a very = good classical arabic. According to some authors, it is a revision of = (1), but some others deny this. Sinai Arabic 75 is the only ms known. (3) The version of ms 71 (Xth century) is very special. It is very = often the shortest text of the Gospels that I've ever seen. But is it = because it follows a very old shorter text, or because it is a free = translation? It is written in an arabic that is much colored with = aramaisms and unknown words and roots. Nevertheless, it was = translated from a Greek text. We can be very sure of this, as several = mistakes and nonsenses can be explained only by Greek. When a = distinct greek text-type can be detected, we are very close to codex = Koridethi (even closer than the syropalestinian is). I'm preparing an = edition and translation of this very special ms. A revised form exists in ms 133, which is a lectionary from the XIIth = century. This second ms has some syropalestinian annotations. Its = arabic is much better, and many readings from the syriac peshitto = have been introduced. (4) Ms 70 from the IXth century is also very old. I haven't studied = it much, but it seems to be also a mixed text based on greek cesarean = texts and the syriac peshitto. These were the earliest tries, here follow an important milestone. (5) Then there is "the melkite version of the XIth century" as I call = it. It is by far the version that is represented in the biggest = number of manuscripts. The oldest ones (69 and 106) represent a mixed = text with greek and syriac readings. With the time, the syriac = readings are eliminated. Two mss (82 and 89) seem to represent a = revision where a conscious effort was produced to produce a text very = close to the greek and in good arabic. In total there are 15 mss that = represent, in all their variations, this version in its evolution. It = is about this text that I was sending the "What do you expect" = message. But there are related forms about which I don't know yet what I = should think. A ms of the XVth century, also in Sinai, but written by = a scribe from nort-western Syria, has basically the same version, but = has many... old syriac readings that are not present, even in mss 69 = and 106. Other mss (6 in Sinai and 2 in Jerusalem) represent three = distinct lectionaries, where this version was revised in order to = produce the lectionary. There are also mss of this version in Leiden and other places, and = there have been some allusions to it in ealier scientific works, = including an important article by Curt Peters who publishes a few = sample texts - but doesn't use the Sinaitic mss . Peters, Voobus and others remarked that, according to the = big number of manuscripts, this version must have enjoyed an official = status. (6) There are still other mss which I haven't studied much, so I = won't say much about them. (a) The "Alexandrian vulgate" is an = eclectic recension. It was produced in Egypt in the XIIIth century, = but was based on an earlier version supposedly made from Coptic. It = is strange that I find this version in a XIIth century in Mount = Sinai, but its text-type is definitely not Alexandrian - once again = mixed cesarean-syriac. A second, later Sinaitic ms represents the = usual type. Ignazio Guidi in his pionner article , gives a lengthy discussion of the elaboration and = characteristics of the "Alexandrian vulgate", which quickly evinced = all the other versions. It also progressively influenced the = transmission of, then eliminated the Melkite version on its own = ground. (b) Ms 112 is a strange patchwork. I have done some surveys in Mt, = and therefore this qualification: chapters 1-5 are purely peshitto, = chap 23 is "cesarean" and ch. 28 has several typically old syriac = variants! (c) In Jerusalem, ms Staurou 26 is very peculiar. It is a bilingual = lectionary (greek-arabic) from the XIth century. Its greek text is = byzantine, but the Arabic follows a very different text-type, having = agreements again with the palestinian text-type (Koridethi and its = allies). (d) There are other versions, mostly with a mixed text. A version = tries; like centuries before ms 75 did, to have an elevated style in = a very good literary Arabic. Others were made for the purpose of a = lectionary. Etc, etc... There are 13 main versions in Mt Sinai and Jerusalem (at = least for the mss to which I had an access). "Main" versions because = as I say, we could split some of them in two, three, four recensions. = The melkite version of the XIth century has 24 of the 42 mss = surveyed. Some are represented in one ms only. And of course, this = represents only the situation in the Jerusalem melkite patriarchate, = which according to the places and the periods used four languages: = greek, syriac, syropalestinian and arabic. The situation is surely = very different in Egypt or in Iraq, to mention only those places. A QUESTION ABOUT METHOD Now some words about the very interesting question by Henry = Carmichael: how do I determine a version was made from Greek, Syriac, = Syropalestinian, or Coptic? These are the four main candidates in the = east. The question of the Vorlage is a very important one, and also a = difficult one. I must say I'm still thinking about the method in = finding the language of the Vorlage. Also, for those wishing to have = a greek retroversion, such a thing can only be done when we are sure = that only the greek text was used by the translator. For Michael Holmes: Yes, I've read the article by Baarda. In fact I = was thinking about his argumentation when I wrote about his point in = my recent post. Also, Blake in the introduction to his edition of the = Gospel of mark (p. 444-445) argues for latin, also from the fact that = it has more similarities in its functionment with georgian that greek = has, and it allows him to be very litteral. But as to Arabic, this = language is much too different both from greek or latin or even = french or english to allow a literal translation. I think I still = need some more thought about it. Now, back to the determination of the Vorlage. Here follows the = actual state of my thinking about it, but maybe I will change my = mind. I would really appreciate your comments about what follows. There are several indications, none of which is 100 percent sure. (1) Geographical area. In Egypt, Coptic is possible. In Syria, Iraq = and Persia, Syriac is dominant. In Palestine, the melkite church is = by far dominant, and so the greek language is favored. But as you = know, the curetonian syriac version was discovered in Egypt. = Alexandrian scholarship did much work directly from the greek. Syriac = and syropalestinian had an important role in big sectors of the = melkite church. Etc, etc... (2) Liturgical language of the Church that produces the version. But = here again, we should remember that the greek language, as reputed = original, must always be considered. And, from one period to another, = from a geographical area to another, it can change. (3) Variants. I don't think they prove much. Such variants that we = find only in syriac or coptic mss may have existed in greek. Except = for a word-for-word rendering of a well known version (e.g. the = peshitto) with all its peculiarities, there's not much help from the = variants. Also, many versions mix several text-types. The alexandrian = vulgate, according to Guidi, was made with the intention to produce = an eclectic text, a fusioned text that would incorporate the readings = of the three great vulgates of the East: the Byzantine greek text, = the syriac peshitto and the bohairic versions. Using variants to = determine the vorlage is just confusing - I've tried, and except in = very few cases like Mt 1-5 in Sinai Arabic 112 leads to nothing. (4) Linguistic peculiarities. You can find aramaisms in Arabic and = think they are induced by the use of an aramaic (syriac or = syropalestinian) text. But (a) maybe the translator had aramaic as = his mothertongue and it influenced his rendition into Arabic (just = like some of my constructions in English must be influenced by = French), or (b) maybe we are in an area where spoken Arabic is still = under the influence of an important aramaic substratum. (4b) Now this also: Arabic has a very large vocabulary. There is = always, when translating, the choice between several roots. The = choice of the same root or word than in syriac proves nothing, except = when it is _recurrent_ - I mean by this: the syriac or = syropalestinian has probably guided the translator in the choice of = his vocabulary when there are too many agreements between the syriac = and arabic vocabularies. But this is quite difficult to determine. There's only one criterium that works very well, but the problem is = that you have to be lucky to find several examples. It is if the = translator can be caught "red-handed" (en fran=E7ais: la main dans le = sac) making a mistake or a nonsense that can be explained only by ONE = language. For this, you need a translator that makes real blunders, = and most of the Arabic translators were strong, multilingual, = encyclopedic sholars. But there are sometimes examples. Here are TWO that allow me to = determine that ms Sinai Arabic 71 was translated from Greek. (1) In Mt 23.5 we find in Arabic something that must read like = "AHFAZ". It must be a plural, but it can't be found in any Arabic = dictionary. It just doesn't mean anything in Arabic. We can see that = it must be derived from the root H-F-Z, that means "to keep". Now, = here it is: in greek, we have "phylakteria", which comes from the = same root as the verb "phylasso", meaning also "to keep". Now you all = get it: the translator came upon this technical word that he didn't = understand, but he could see its etymology. So he tried to reproduced = in Arabic the etymological derivation of the greek word, and left it = to the reader to understand... And, we can be sure it is from greek = and not from an aramaic dialect: all the syriac and syropalestinian = version use a word akin to the hebrew tefillin, which has no = connection whatsoever with the meaning "to keep". So the = mistake/nonsense could not come from syriac or syropalestinian. (2) In Mt 26.18, we find another nonsensical word in Arabic: Dayna. = It also means nothing in Arabic, and no etymological derivation from = Aramaic is possible. But in the greek text we have "deina", a hapax = in the NT according to my concordance! (Go in town to such_and_such = and tell him...). So here, the scribe came upon a rare word that he = didn't understand and chose simply to transliterate it. And, if he = had consulted the syriac or syropalestinian texts, he would have read = "felan", which corresponds exactly to the Arabic "fulan". He would = have been guided in his translation by the resemblance between his = own language and the one of his Vorlage. This example indicates, not = only that he translated from greek, but also that he used _only_ the = greek text. Somebody working with both a greek and a syriac exemplar, = if he didn't understand one, would have looked at the other... Do you = never-never-never have an english bible opened in front of you = besides your greek text ? :-) As you see, it is not easy to find such cases as these two ones, and = a good translator doesn't leave you many chances to catch him in this = way. I consider myself very lucky to have found two such examples, = and maybe there will be more in the future as this translator seems = rather careless. That's all for Arabic today. Sorry for this long post. Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est = inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable. From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 16 18:02:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA28978; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:00:34 -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: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 23:59:12 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 195 Who knows something about the Greek Testament published by P. Hermann Goldhagen at Leipzig in 1839? What kind of text is it and what is his goal? What is he trying to accomplish etc... Thanx. From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 16 18:42:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29173; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:41:10 -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: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:39:29 +0100 To: dwilkins@ucr.campus.mci.net From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: (recent) mss and GNT/Nestle 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: 323 New mss found at Mt Sinai: YES! I have the reference B. ALAND Die neuen neutestamentlichen Handschriften von Sinai (Bericht der Stiftung zur Foerderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung), Muenster 1985, pp. 76-89 I think there was also a second one, but I don't find it for the moment. Hope this helps. Greetings, From owner-tc-list Sun Nov 17 23:35:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA07640; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:34:18 -0500 X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 18-Nov-1996 14:59:41 -0500; at TP.BAEA To: b-greek@virginia.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <61A7903201870370@-SMF-> Subject: On the lighter side... From: AKULIKOV@baea.com.au (KULIKOVSKY, Andrew) Date: 18 Nov 96 14:59:31 EST In-Reply-To: <9EF3C54001870370@-SMF-> References: <5EEEC54002870370@-SMF-> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1891 Here a rather amusing story concerning manuscript copying.... A monk his entire adult life, Brother Andrew was responsible for training new scribes in the art of copying by hand - word for word - the holy writs. One day an eager new scribe, Brother Johnathon, asked if anyone had ever made a mistake. "Oh, no," said Brother Andrew, "These words have been correctly copied from generation to generation." Sceptical, Brother Johnathon asked how he knew that. "My son, " said Brother Andrew, shuffling off towards the monastery's library, "Let me get you the first volume ever written and you will see that it is just as correct today as it was then." Many hours passed. Finally, Brother Johnathon decided he had better check on the elderly monk. At the library, he saw him sitting alone in a candle-lit corner, tears streaming down his cheeks. "What's the matter?" Brother Johnathon asked. "I can't believe it," Brother Andrew responded, his voice quivering, "The word is celebrate. Cel-e-BRATE!!!" 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 Nov 18 00:50:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA07998; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:48:01 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:44:07 -0500 Message-ID: <961118004407_2081330013@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Maurice, Mark, and the ENTTC. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 520 In a message dated 96-11-03 14:10:04 EST, Maurice Robinson writes: << It seems the shortchanging is more in regard to the "shorter ending" of Mark and also in regard to the omission of the passage entirely. I have a theory in regard to the shorter ending, but I will have to write it up in a more extended form before I loose it upon the world. *;-) >> A possible article for the Encyclopedia??? Maurice, please let me know when you have this completed, I would love to read it! In His Service Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 18 00:51:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA08009; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:49:15 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:45:23 -0500 Message-ID: <961118004523_1783118432@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: versions Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1076 In a message dated 96-11-04 05:09:48 EST, DC Parker writes: >That is to say, the versions are as valuable as Greek MSS in reconstructing the >history of the text. I took the endings of Mark as a passage where that is clearly >illustrated. I will only add that where, for example, two early versions concur in a >striking reading that could not be due to similarities in translation technique or to >coincidence, then we will have evidence of a widespread early form of the text. >The examination of the versions is is such an established part of the >way in which I learned to study the transmission of the NT text, that I >can hardly imagine conducting research without it. Surely most >people are taught like this? >> Yes, I do agree with these points, especially regarding the historical aspects. I was simply saying that I don't believe that a version or patristic quote can supersede the Greek MS evidence. Yes, the versions and fathers play an important role in NTTC, but there is a hierarchy in the evidence and the way it should be used. Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 18 00:52:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA08019; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:50:00 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:46:05 -0500 Message-ID: <961118004604_704920161@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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: 1437 In a message dated 96-11-04 10:33:10 EST, Jimmy Adair writes: << To say that a versional witness is secondary to a particular Greek witness (i.e., its Vorlage) is true enough, but to go on to claim that the testimony of the versions _as a whole_ is secondary to the testimony of the Greek mss _as a whole_ is simply not true. To oversimplify the matter, suppose that an Old Syriac ms were translated from the autograph of Mark. It would be a witness much closer to the original than a twelfth century Greek ms with 20 copies separating it from the autograph. Obviously the limitations of the Syriac language in rendering Greek and aspects of the translation technique would have to be taken into account in reconstructing the Greek readings lying behind the versional witness, but its value as a witness to the text would remain great. Versional witnesses are secondary only in the sense that translation technique and similar matters limit to a greater or lesser extent the certainty of the retroversion into Greek. They should not be considered secondary to the entire Greek ms tradition simply because they are not written in Greek. A similar case can be made for the value of patristic testimony, although of course other factors are involved. >> Bravo Jimmy! This is also what was intended in my original writ, but may have been missed due to it's brevity. Thank you for the clarification. Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 18 04:42:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA09137; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 04:40:36 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: DC PARKER Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:32:31 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: 796 RE Elliott wrote > > Yes, I do agree with these points, especially regarding the historical aspects. I was simply saying that I don't believe that a version or patristic quote can supersede the Greek MS evidence. Yes, the versions and fathers play an important role in NTTC, but there is a hierarchy in the evidence and the way it should be used. > > Rich Elliott I do not see how you can agree with my opinion and then speak of a hierarchy. It is precisely that way of thinking which I was criticizing! Certainly, all kinds of evidence need interpreting in a way that is appropriate to them. But that piece of commonsense does not indicate a hierarchy. 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 Nov 18 09:14:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10291; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:13:09 -0500 From: "J.K. ELLIOTT" Organization: University of Leeds To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:09:04 GMT X-pmuue: TC-LIST X-finfo: DOS,"TC-LIST",,,,WordPerfect Subject: lists of NT MSS> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <5861A324833@west-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4233 * This message contains the file 'TC-LIST', which has been * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use * the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents * out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message * and uudecode it manually. begin 660 TC-LIST M_U=00UT"```!"@`!`````/O_!0`R`!<"```'``X```!"````#P!6````4``` M``P`6@```*8````#`!`!X`"P!`0````"J-,(!>`#^%3806`<````$$4#)`),XQP$[`%@"0/[^_O[^ M_O[__O________[_______________________[__TA0($1E#!>, M"@````010,D`A\\!``$`>`#$`BP!+`$PN1XEC%@"0-,`#``N`"P`+@`L``P` M`-/3$0@`55-52P@`$=/0"_<`D#/8)P$````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````"0,]@G`0A3=&%N9&%R9``````````````` M``````````````````````````````#0-L(F`0`````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````-`VPB8!`%-T86YD87)D``$#__\` M``,`2F5T(#4U,$,`#?__``!XDJ0#&@"^`]4%```JV+`$L`2P!+`$```````` M`````````````````0``````````````````````````````]P`+T/O_!0`R M```````)``(```!)`@``!@`0````2P(```@``@```%L"```````````````` M*M@((WP`>`````$```````````!)(&%M(&EN=&5R97-T960@:6X@=&AE(&1I M7)U2!H:6=H(&YU;6)E7,@;&]O;6EN9R!I;B!.97<- M3W)L96%N'1U86P@ M8W)I=&EC:7-M("AA:6UE9"!A="!R96%D97)S('=I=&AO=70-1W)E96LI('=R M:71T96X@8GD@;7ES96QF(&%N9"!T:&4@;&%T92!)86X@36]I2X@270@:7,@36%N=7-C0U";V]K"`V,#4L($AE Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10292; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:13:14 -0500 From: "J.K. ELLIOTT" Organization: University of Leeds To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:09:05 GMT Subject: lists of NT MSS> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <5861A345EEF@west-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 20 Attachment follows: From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 18 09:43:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10558; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:43:07 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:40:08 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Enclosures/Attachments [was: lists of NT MSS] Cc: TRS6JKE@WEST-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 890 > * This message contains the file 'TC-LIST', which has been > * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use > * the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents > * out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message > * and uudecode it manually. > > >Attachment converted: Dallas:TC-LIST (????/----) (00000AB9) Please do not send enclosures or attachments to this (or any other) mailing list. Certainly few free to announce the availability of such information (e.g. on a web-page) or to invite people to e-mail requests for such information. However 1] the amount of bandwidth consumed in broadcasting such items makes this of questionable netequette and 2] in any case, the effort is almost surely wasted because it is very likely that a sizable fraction of the recipients don't even have the application needed to open the darn thing! Thanks From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 18 13:49:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA12918; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:42:30 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:39:32 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Enclosures/Attachments [was: lists of NT MSS] Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 664 On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote: >Please do not send enclosures or attachments to this (or any other) mailing >list. Nichael is right; this is considered a violation of list etiquette, since many people use mailers that cannot read such files. Also, for those who send e-mail privately, it is probably better to use the Base64 format for enclosures, since more mailers (e.g. Eudora Light) can use it. BTW -- if it helps anyone, the file was (according to my translators) in WordPerfect 5.1 format. It didn't show any formatting, though, and could have been posted as text. Hope this helps. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 19 10:04:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20727; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:02:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:02:26 -0500 From: owner-tc-list Message-Id: <199611191502.KAA20727@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 1484 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 03:14:17 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Encyclopedia of NT TC, update! Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu To All TCer's: Thanks so much for the continued support of the ENTTC! I am currently working on getting a web site set up so that any articles submitted might have an initial site to go to. I encourage all those who subscribe to this list to continue to submit any articles that you think would be fitting for the ENTTC. As this work is currently evolving, it is quite possible that it will become a two part work: 1, to be electronically published as well as 2, standard hardcover publication. The hard cover will serve the general population that studies NTTC, while at the same time being updated electronically (although, I believe that most of the information to be included is already standard history, but as we move forward on this electronic highway we must offer both aspects). All papers that have already been submitted and are yet to be completed will be read by an editorial board (which is in the making) I, of course, am the general editor and will work in this capacity. I will do to the best of my ability to take an absolute neutral and balanced position in this role. I feel that this is most important in order to produce an excellent work. More later In His Service Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 19 10:24:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20955; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:22:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:22:40 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new NT mss Message-ID: 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: 2717 I have decoded J K Elliott's message for those on the list unable to do so. This is probably a good place to remind people to post only ASCII=20 messages (text only) to the list, since the members of the list use a=20 variety of different word processors. Thanks. 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 interested in the discussion about additions of Greek NT MSS. to the Liste and the effect that these may have had on the apparatus to the critical editions. Readings from the unpublished Sinai uncials are to be found occasionally in the apparatus to the Nestle edition. Also, the M=FCnster publication: Wachtel and Witte's Das NT auf Papyrus II,2 (=3DANTF 22) has readings from 0278 0280 0282 0285. My reviews of UBS 4th. ed. and NA 27th. edition in Theologische Revue 90 (1994) cols. 9-20 go into some great detail about the MSS. used, cited, and listed in these editions.=20 A review of the Liste 2nd. edition will appear (I hope) in the January issue of Novum Testamentum. One needs to be careful in assuming that all the newly registered MSS. are the only high numbers in the Liste. Some "new" MSS. like 2814 are, in fact, new numbers for old friends (1r in that case). Other changes need to be sought in the list as a whole: some numbers have been deleted, some MSS., previously registered as separate MSS. are now seen as part of another MS. and hence such numbers are superseded and made redundant. Thus the total number of minuscules, papyri and the like cannot be seen by taking the highest registered numbers in the Liste. Another thing to be alert to is that just because a MS. is listed in the introductory matter of NA or UBS does not always mean that it will be found in the apparatus. Only a scouring of the apparatus themselves will reveal that information. Now for the pedantry that is encouraged by our discipline: I note that some correspondents have a problem with the plural of the Latin 'apparatus', and with the spelling of minuscule! I realise that TC is not a vehicle for plugging one's publications, but, with the SBL book displays looming in New Orleans, may I alert N. American readers in particular to the little primer of NT textual criticism (aimed at readers without Greek) written by myself and the late Ian Moir of Edinburgh University. It is Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament, published by T&T Clark (Edinburgh, 1995). Clark's will be at New Orleans. Otherwise their books are distributed in N. America by Books International Inc., PO Box 605, Herndon, VA 22070-0605, USA. J.K.Elliott From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 19 14:02:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA23756; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:00:45 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961119185545.006bf0b4@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:55:45 -0800 To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 15763 First let me say that I greatly appreciate Ulrich Schmid clearing up the use of the numbers in Aland's article (I thought that the numbers for Fathers' quotes not matching anything looked funny, but I don't keep that info in my head and I've never had the chance to check it out...it would be interesting to see if someone has done a further check on the quote agreements to see exactly what the percentage of non-agreement with any known text actually is..or perhaps someone has and I'm just unaware of the work [my main focus for that past several years has been the electronic parsed databases for the OT and NT, so some TC discussions have no doubt slipped by me...]). Secondly, I totally agree with him also in his statement that Aland's stated purpose for the article was to interact with Hodges' contention that the Egyptian text was not in existence in early times outside of Egypt. Whether there were other agendas implicit in Aland's presentation, I'll leave that to you, the individual readers, to determine. I'm very sorry that Ulrich seems to be under the impression (at least that's the way I read it...) that I was somehow deliberately trying to misrespresent Aland's article...the thought never crossed my mind ! There were two methodological problems as I saw it that Aland had in the article (and if Ulrich is right that the "missing matches" are to Western texts the problem is in my mind even more inscrutable). First, regardless of his stated objectives, Aland didn't tell us where the rest of the quotes matched, or even if they matched anything at all. I think that's a problem in his presentation; and if they match the "Western" mss, AND his only clear demonstration of the existence of Alex *readings* outside of Egypt is in the West, then its even more inscrutable in my mind. Why didn't he just say that in the first place (and saying that we all should have just known that doesn't work for me, since, if that's the case, we should have known all these other statistics off the tops of our heads as well--but he goes to great lengths to point out that much of this data is as the result of new research). I'm not sure how Ulrich figured this out; did I miss something in THIS article ? Second, he never tells us what his comparison base is; and it certainly isn't just the "Egyptian" mss mentioned by Hodges. It appears to be either the NA text or any reading in any Alex mss; but who knows--can someone find a statement in the article that tells us ? If it is the NA text, then a comparison to the Majority text is, in my mind, fair but methodologically weak--for one thing the NA is not in toto found in any mss so far (is the Majority text ?). This of course raises an ancillary methodological problem which has troubled me in this debate for a while now; why is it that Byz only readings ARE NOT evidence of some sort of Byz text in existence somewhere in the Christian world early on, but Alex readings are (this would be a moot point if the early Alex text exhibited a very high degree of agreement in Alex only reading). The Father's quotes cited by Aland only serve, in my mind--and it may only be in MY mind--to heighten this tension. Thus, while it was not part of Aland's stated purpose, the Byz only readings in the early Fathers no doubt mean SOMETHING; the question which came to my mind as I read it was, What does this mean for the existence of an early Byz text form ? All I was trying to point out was that an interesting phenomenon arises from Aland's use of statistics in this article, namely that the use of the Fathers to show text-types early on in the history of the text may in fact be a hopeless search, since they don't seem to focus in on any one known text or text-type; indeed the early ones cited by Aland seem to go their own way with a great degree of regularity. Ulrich's response may indicate that such is not the case...indeed it may be possible to line up the quotes with some mss readings most or all the time (???). With respect to some of the specific things Ulrich raised: >What is the implication of "Total Agree with Known Texts" versus "Remainder with >No Text"? Does "Text" here mean "text-type" or "supporting witness(es)"? I have no idea what Aland meant by his use of the various categories of texts that he cited, since he never clearly said that I can determine; my use of the above terms was simply a convention based on the limited information provided by Aland in the article. I wish he had said whether his "Egyptian" witnesses were "readings" of the various mss, the NA text (which of course I couldn't check since he never gave the passages he was referring to), some "Egyptian text-type", or something else. >Either way the conclusion is not sound, for (a) in the GNT apparatus usually no >singular readings are given, and (b) the agreements between Irenaeus and >so-called "Western" witnesses (D F G it Tertullian Ambrosiaster etc.) against >"Egyptian" and Byz. (cf. e.g., Gal 2,1.5) were not specified in Aland's >statistics. Aland's reason for focussing solely on "Egyptian text" and Byz. in >his article was Zane Hodges' assertion that "[i]ts [the Egyptian text's] >existence in early times outside Egypt is unproved". As I said above, this was a very helpful piece of information; perhaps I should have picked it up myself (but I don't think I was the only one who didn't make this assumption about Aland's unstated information and connections...) If I understand you correctly, then you mean to say that in general the percentage left over after doing the Egyptian and Byz comparisons was in fact agreements with the KNOWN "Western" witnesses ? If that is the case, then all I can say is that it sure would have been nice for Aland to have said that explicitly, since to omit such an important piece of information created the wrong impression on several levels...regardless of his stated objective. This is especially true, I think, since the only early Fathers Aland listed who demonstrate the existence of the Alex text outside of Egypt are Western...so why is the Western information not stated explicitly ? >>Aland concludes (p. 139f.) that "At least one thing is >>clearly outside Egypt in the early period of what >>Hodges calls the 'Egyptian text' is unproved. >>Marcion, Iarnaeus [sic], and Hippolytus were not >>related in any way to Egypt." > >Here part of Aland's quote is omitted which leaves it senseless. Aland stated: >"At least one thing is clearly demonstrated: it is impossible to say that the >existence outside Egypt in the early period of what Hodges calls the 'Egyptian >text' is unproved. Marcion, Iranaeus [sic], and Hippolytus were not related in >any way to Egypt." Mea culpa, I committed a scribal error in transcribing the text... I assure you that this was unintentional... >Again, Aland questiones Hodges' assertion about the "Egyptian text". Aland's >argument runs as follows. If the early fathers object the Byz. text usually more >than 50%, while at the same time usually agreeing more times with "Egyptian" >readings than with Byz. readings (where both disagree), Hodges's assertion >(Egyptian text is unknown in early times outside Egypt) does not hold water. I agree again that this is Aland's stated objective; however I'm not absolutely convinced that it follows; to show that the Egyptian text existed in the writings of the Fathers outside of Egypt one would need to quote from Fathers outside of Egypt, esp., Byz Fathers. Aside from Marcion, the only ones quoted were Egyptian and Western Fathers... which brings us to the next point... >>But in the very next >>paragraph, it seems to me, he undermines that >>argument by pointing out: "...p38 and p48 at least >>anticipate the so-called 'Western text' (its >>chief representative, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis >>[D], is now believed by Latin paleographers to >>have come from Africa. And both these papyri are >>from the 3rd century!" While the conclusion that >>Egyptian readings can be found in Byz Fathers >>may be supportable, I don't see how pointing to >>Western Fathers helps the argument at all, esp., >>if the type of text they are using is a >>descendant of Alex. > >This reasoning simply does not make sense to me. Please, help me to get to the >point. The point of this argument, which I am repeating here from others, is that if the "Western text (-type)" is Egyptian in origin and character--as *Aland* asserts; here he refers to D, but elsewhere he has said the same thing about p38, p48--, and this is the text used by the Western Fathers (an assumption; and perhaps the heart of the matter), then citing Western Fathers doesn't demonstrate an INDEPENDANT witness to the Egyptian type of text outside of Egypt, since the stream of transmission is so narrow. Now one might certainly counter-argue that it doesn't matter how it got there, the only important thing is that it is THERE and being used by these Fathers; thus the Egyptian text-type or mss readings or whatever existed outside of Egypt (I'm not trying to set up a straw man here...). I was under the impression that the argument was more complex than that these readings existed elsewhere. To put it the other way around...the presence of Byz readings in Egyptian mss has never been accepted as a proof of the existence of the Byz text-type in early times. Aland certainly didn't seem to be willing to say, here or anywhere else that I've ever read by him, that this or any percentage of agreement with Byz mss found in the *Egyptian* Fathers or mss leads one to the conclusion that some sort of Byz type mss tradition must have existed in Egypt early on. If the readings are only found in p38, p48, and D, and not in a broader sample of Western witnesses, then perhaps they are just transplanted Egyptian texts and should not be labeled as "Western" at all. And if that's the case, then they don't demonstrate the existence of the Egyptian text-type as a separate, vital, and independant text-type outside of Egypt in early times. You may or may not accept that line of argumentation, but that's the way the argument goes... >>I did a quick scan once again of the article and >>he consistently refers to the "Egyptian text", >>which is a term he borrows from Hodges, but on >>p. 138 he does seem to equate that with 96 NT >>papyrii from Egypt. > >Again, I fail to get to the point. Hodges himself mentions "...a small number of >ancient manuscripts that derive mainly from Egypt. Among these, Codex Vaticanus >(B) and Codex Sinaiticus (aleph)... The most important papyrus witnesses in this >group of texts are the Chester Beatty papyri (P 45.46.47) and the Bodmer papyri >(P 66.75). The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these >may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside Egypt >is unproved". Is what you are saying is that the ONLY mss Aland cited as being the basis for the quotes from the Fathers was the ones Hodges mentioned ?? Again, if that's the case, I sure wish Aland had simply said so; I sure didn't get that impression. It seems to me--and the point I was making in response to a question someone else asked, but I didn't repeat in order to try to keep the length of the response down to a reasonable size--that Aland was NOT just using the mss Hodges mentioned as his basis of comparison, but rather he was *apparently* refering to *any* "Egyptian" mss or the NA text; but again there's no way to know from the article, since he never tells us the basis of the comparisons. As I said before, it strikes me as a methodological weakness IF Aland was using *any* reading in any Egyptian mss as his basis for establishing Egyptian origins, while at the same time resticting the Byz to the Majority text...should it not be *any* reading in *any* Byz text ?? Again, without clear delineation of the basis of the statistics, its hard to evaluate the argument. >With reference to this statement, Aland simply asks (1) for any proof for >Egyptian *origin* of aleph and B, (2) for any proof of Egyptian *origin* for all >of the 96 papyri from Egypt (the Egyptian origin of the early ones remains >doubtful in Aland's judgment), (3) Aland presents his church father statistics, >and (4) Aland refers to the "far more complex textual character" of the early >papyri. >In other words, Aland simply puts Hodges' bold statements to test by >highlightening their implications and confronting them with the evidence (or >lack thereof). If that was all that happened in the article, I'd say "Fine !" I'd say that the origins of Aleph, B, and the early papyrii is an important question which needs to be resolved if possible, since if the earlies one are NOT from Egyptian pens then it raises some very interesting questions. Perhaps my (and I wish to emphasize that I'm NOT the only one who had this response, I've talked to others) response to this article was based on *presentation* of evidence and not method; if Aland had simply done a better job in *presenting* his data and comparison bases, then the methodological questions would have never arisen. >>It seems to me that, while Aland's contention >>that the "Egyptian" form of the text was >>widespread right from the beginning could be >>correct, the statistical presentation in this >>article was IMHO not convincing. I actually came >>away from this article ambivalent about the >>benefits of the Fathers to making such a >>determination. > >The problems with statistics and especially with statistics drawn from samples >should be seriously addressed. Indeed, one may ask, if Aland overstated his case >with respect to his statistics. However, in so doing one should, first of all, >present Aland's case and the conclusions *he* drew therefrom, without obscuring >the statistics, and confusing the argument. I'm sorry if you feel like I was obscuring and confusing...it certainly was not my intention and I had no agenda to prove anything. My concern with Aland's article--and it still remains--is that he left out crucial pieces of information about the bases of his statistics which left significant problems for the reader in evaluating his argument. For example, it seems to me hard to understand how he could expect us to believe that the Egyptian type of text existed in the Western region (to prove it was outside of Egypt) and then omit the Western statistics. You may be right that a large block of the quotations that Aland didn't line up with either the Byz or Egy text were in fact related to West witnesses; my question is simply, Why didn't he just say so ? What I'd really be interested in knowing is whether anyone is doing any follow up work on these quote statistics, how they are compiled and what the bases they are compiled against (both Alex, Byz, and West). The types of statistics presented by Aland (along with other data) is leading some TC'ers to suggest that the Byz text "grew" from the Alex type of text gradually (and was perhaps codified at one point--I, for one, was surprised to see Aland say that Lucian did it...I wonder what other members of this list feel about that ??). These Father's statistics **may**(?) point in that direction... Sorry to all list members about the long response.... XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Tue Nov 19 20:58:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27664; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:56:36 -0500 Message-Id: <32921F22.1C051D53@dhinternet.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:57:06 +0000 From: RHS Linux User X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.6 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TANAKH 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: 599 Julian Goldberg wrote: > > The ... > Only $ 20.00 U.S. > postpaid ( $ 15.50 for the book plus $ 4.50 for postage, etc.) from > > Julian Goldberg, 215 - 260 Adelaide St., E., Toronto, Ontario, Canada > M5A 1N0. > > Thanks. Perhaps we need to restate the Boulder Pledge, for those who haven't seen it. "Under no circumstance will I ever purchase _anything_ offered to me as a result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I foward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 20 01:18:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA29485; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:17:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:17:13 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new review on TC Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1275 Michael Moore has provided readers of TC with our latest book review: J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. I should note that this book was not one that was sent to the TC editors for review; rather, Mike took the initiative to examine the book and send us his review. Thanks, Mike! The SBL annual meeting begins on Saturday, and I hope that many members of the tc-list will finally get to meet one another in person. I look forward to seeing many of you in the textual criticism seminars, in the CARG room, in the exhibit hall, or going to and from different places in New Orleans. I plan to have handouts about TC and the tc-list, so ask for them, and share them with your friends. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend every t-c session because of scheduling conflicts and other commitments, but I will try to have the information available in the room for anyone who is interested. If you hear a t-c paper that you especially enjoy (or if you've written one yourself!), why not ask the presenter if he/she would consider submitting it to TC for our editors' consideration? 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 Nov 20 12:47:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02906; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:44:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:40:57 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961120123952.0b5f7ca4@mail.sunbelt.net> X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Jim West Subject: Sirach Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 190 Does anyone know where I can find a copy of Ben Sirach in Hebrew? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 20 13:21:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03276; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:19:42 -0500 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 F1.5.4b9 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:18:14 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin) Subject: Re: Sirach Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 752 >Does anyone know where I can find a copy of Ben Sirach in Hebrew? > >Thanks, > >Jim > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Professor of Biblical Languages >Petros TN Here are the references of my copy: The Book of Ben Sira - Text, concordance and an analysis of the vocabulary= (The historical dictionary of the Hebrew Language) Published by the Academy= of the hebrew language and the shrine of the Book. Jerusalem, 1973. It gives the text of the several mss in juxtalinear disposition concordance,= etc... Hope this helps, Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique Ce qui est trop simples est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est inutilisab= le. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 20 13:35:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03422; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:34:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:34:33 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Sirach In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961120123952.0b5f7ca4@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: 610 On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Jim West wrote: > Does anyone know where I can find a copy of Ben Sirach in Hebrew? The parallel-aligned Hebrew and Greek texts from CATSS contains the Hebrew text, although it's not a continuous text (i.e., one word typically per line, aligned with its Greek counterpart). That's the only online copy I know of, but maybe someone else knows of a continuous text version. 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 Nov 20 14:10:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04040; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:09:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 14:01:48 EST From: george howard Subject: Re: Sirach To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961120123952.0b5f7ca4@mail.sunbelt.net> X-Mailer: MailBook 96.01.000 Message-Id: <961120.140428.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> 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: 361 For Ben Sira in Hebrew see: Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965. Israel Levi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Brill, 1904. A. A. di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach. The Hague, 1966. George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 20 14:30:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04878; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:29:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:24:54 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961120142428.2637593c@mail.sunbelt.net> X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Jim West Subject: Re: Sirach Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 590 At 02:01 PM 11/20/96 -0500, you wrote: >For Ben Sira in Hebrew see: > Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration > Society, 1965. > Israel Levi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Brill, 1904. > A. A. di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach. The Hague, 1966. > George Howard > UGA > Thanks to all for the Ben Sira help!! It is heartily appreciated. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages Petros TN From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 21 12:27:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13163; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:24:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199611211720.SAA89898@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 19:30:16 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Dale M. Wheeler's recent (untitled) post To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961119185545.006bf0b4@mail.teleport.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8740 In assessing the various points of Dale's post (Tue, 19 Nov 1996) I am seriously restricted, since -believe me or not- currently I do not have access to either Hodges' Majority text edition or Aland's article; the Institute's library has been evacuated due to some painting work that needs to be done. However, I will try to address some of the points with reference to either Hodges or Aland from memory. Dale M. Wheeler wrote (inter alia): >I'm very sorry that Ulrich seems to be under the impression >(at least that's the way I read it...) that I was somehow >deliberately trying to misrespresent Aland's article...the >thought never crossed my mind ! I never suspected any deliberate misrepresentation of Aland's article. Sorry for giving rise to this "reading". I simply got the impression that Dale, while pursuing *his* own points of interest, somehow lost contact to *Aland's* own line of argument, and only thereby partly -in my view- misread Aland's article. Now, first of all, what caused this impression? >First, regardless of his stated objectives, Aland didn't tell >us where the rest of the quotes matched, or even if they >matched anything at all. I think that's a problem in his >presentation; and if they match the "Western" mss, AND his >only clear demonstration of the existence of Alex *readings* >outside of Egypt is in the West, then its even more inscrutable >in my mind. Why didn't he just say that in the first place (and >saying that we all should have just known that doesn't work for >me, since, if that's the case, we should have known all these >other statistics off the tops of our heads as well--but he >goes to great lengths to point out that much of this data is >as the result of new research). I'm not sure how Ulrich figured >this out; did I miss something in THIS article ? Well, as far as I recall Aland introduced his statistics by pointing out that they refer to the *GNT (4th ed) apparatus*. Everyone familiar with the GNT knows that the presence of singular readings therein is very limited (at least within the Church Father testimonies). Therefore, Aland's statement: "2. Irenaeus (181) passages: 67% against the Majority text (24% of which show agreement with the "Egyptian text"), 16.5% common to both texts, and 16.5% with the Majority text" most likely should be read: "At 181 units of variation presented in GNT (4th ed.) Irenaeus testimony is extant and the alignments of his testimony with respect to the Majority text and the "Egyptian text" is as follows...". I consider this a very simple hermeneutical operation. To add just another hermeneutical guess: Aland presumably referred to the GNT (4th ed.) apparatus because everyone who owns a copy of this publication is able to check his calculations and their rationale. Concerning the newness of the data Aland referred to the extensive revision taken place between the 3rd and the 4th ed. of GNT including the check of all of the Church Father citations. >Second, he never tells us what his comparison base is; and it >certainly isn't just the "Egyptian" mss mentioned by Hodges. >It appears to be either the NA text or any reading in any >Alex mss; but who knows--can someone find a statement in the >article that tells us ? If it is the NA text, then a comparison >to the Majority text is, in my mind, fair but methodologically >weak--for one thing the NA is not in toto found in any mss so >far (is the Majority text ?). Dale, why are you so sure about Aland's comparison base ("it certainly isn't just the "Egyptian" mss mentioned by Hodges")? Just a small digression concerning the problem of MSS attestation of any modern edition "in toto": From the collation of almost every known MS containing text of the Catholic Epistles at 98 Teststellen Klaus Wachtel concluded that no single MS totally agrees with the majority of MSS at each and every of the Teststellen (orthographicals, itacisms, and singulars are not counted as deviations). If we refer to the Majority text in purely quantitative categories, it is an eclectic entity. What about the methodological implications of this result? Additionally, Dale seems to be sometimes one or even two steps ahead of my own reading of Aland's article by introducing additional information, conclusions, and most of all hypotheses which I could not detect from within Aland's article. Example: [Wheeler:] >>>But in the very next >>>paragraph, it seems to me, he undermines that >>>argument by pointing out: "...p38 and p48 at least >>>anticipate the so-called 'Western text' (its >>>chief representative, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis >>>[D], is now believed by Latin paleographers to >>>have come from Africa. And both these papyri are >>>from the 3rd century!" While the conclusion that >>>Egyptian readings can be found in Byz Fathers >>>may be supportable, I don't see how pointing to >>>Western Fathers helps the argument at all, esp., >>>if the type of text they are using is a >>>descendant of Alex. [Schmid:] >>This reasoning simply does not make sense to me. Please, help me to get to the >>point. [Wheeler:] >The point of this argument, which I am repeating here from others, >is that if the "Western text (-type)" is Egyptian in origin and >character--as *Aland* asserts; here he refers to D, but elsewhere >he has said the same thing about p38, p48--, and this is the text >used by the Western Fathers (an assumption; and perhaps the heart >of the matter), then citing Western Fathers doesn't demonstrate >an INDEPENDANT witness to the Egyptian type of text outside of >Egypt, since the stream of transmission is so narrow. Where does Aland "assert" the Egyptian origin of the "Western text (-type)"? In the above given quote Aland speaks of the 3rd century witnesses p38, p48 as anticipating the "Western" text. The broader context of this quote, as far as I recall, was the far more complex situation of the early "Egyptian" papyri Aland emphasized against Hodges' somehow uniform perspective. One shold not overlook that in Aland's view, though all of our papyri had been found in Egypt (due to climatic circumstances), the Egyptian *origin* of the papyri and/or of the text they display is far from being established to say the least. Now as far as I can see, the whole case rests on Aland's alleged "assertion" of the Egyptian origin of the "Western text (type), which I could not figure out up to now. In fact, if Aland could be convicted of this assertion, Dale's and some others' case could be valid. Now shall we pursue this case or shall we discuss the whole framework of the early (MSS and patristic) evidence with its implications for the competing theories? Finally, I would like to address some points where clarification is needed from my perspective. [Schmid:] >>Either way the conclusion is not sound, for (a) in the GNT apparatus >>usually no >>singular readings are given, and (b) the agreements between Irenaeus and >>so-called "Western" witnesses (D F G it Tertullian Ambrosiaster etc.) against >>"Egyptian" and Byz. (cf. e.g., Gal 2,1.5) were not specified in Aland's >>statistics. Aland's reason for focussing solely on "Egyptian text" and Byz. in >>his article was Zane Hodges' assertion that "[i]ts [the Egyptian text's] >>existence in early times outside Egypt is unproved". >As I said above, this was a very helpful piece of information; perhaps I >should have picked it up myself (but I don't think I was the only one who >didn't make this assumption about Aland's unstated information and >connections...) If I understand you correctly, then you mean to say that >in general the percentage left over after doing the Egyptian and Byz >comparisons was in fact agreements with the KNOWN "Western" witnesses ? I fail to understand the capitalized "KNOWN" in this question. Who knows of *unknown* "Western" witnesses? All I wanted to do was to express as neutral as possible the agreements between Irenaeus and witnesses like D F G, lat, Marcion, and various other (mostly latin) Church Fathers, which are commonly labelled as "Western" witnesses. I did not want to predetermine whether these witnesses alltogether form a single text-type or if it is of geographically western origin or if it is locally restricted at all, etc. >... to show that the Egyptian text >existed in the writings of the Fathers outside of Egypt one would need >to quote from Fathers outside of Egypt, esp., Byz Fathers. Sorry, if insisting on a possible slip, but to avoid misunderstandings: Who would be a candidate of being a "Byz Father" (geographically speaking) in the second and third centuries? My apologize for the long post. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 21 12:58:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13472; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:56:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:51:04 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Byz or M text translation To: tc-list@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: 1334 I have read somewhere that no one has ever made a New Testament translation into English that is based only on the Byzantine or Majority text purely. The King James Version is translated from a mixture of Byzantine (Majority), Textus Receptus, Latin Vulgate and other texts into English. The J.P. Green New Testament translation tried to do so with a modified and corrected King James Version based on Scrivner's reconstructed Greek text based mostly on Bezae but modified to match the King James Version as best as possible in Greek with a few other changes. Some have suggested that the New King James Version especially with reference to the footnotes of Byzantine Majority text readings gets as very close when it varies with the English King James Version (AV). More or less such majority texts have been put together in Greek by Erasmus, Stephanus, Bezae and Elzevirs but these texts are mostly referred to as "The Textus Receptus" which may not be 100% based on the Byzantine (Majority) text types. At present as far as I know, there are two Textus Receptus texts that are easily available. The first is by Berry and it's an interlinear with variant readings but is mostly based on Stephanus mostly and Elzevir. The other is a Greek New Testament by Scrivener based on the Textus Receptus of Bezae for the most part. From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 22 08:33:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21045; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:32:35 -0500 From: "J.K. ELLIOTT" Organization: University of Leeds To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:28:26 GMT Subject: attachments Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <5E57023449B@west-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 161 To all those whom I offended and inconvenienced with my first communication to the list with a illegible annexe - my apologise. I stand rebuked! J.K.Elliott From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 22 08:53:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21239; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:52:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:48:49 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: attachments In-Reply-To: <5E57023449B@west-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk> 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: 423 On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, J.K. ELLIOTT wrote: > To all those whom I offended and inconvenienced with my first > communication to the list with a illegible annexe - my apologise. I > stand rebuked! I don't think "offended" is the right word. Please understand that probably most of us were glad for the infomation. It's just that attachments don't usually work in this mode. The message -yes; the medium no! ;-) N From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 22 15:13:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA24869; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:09:27 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Sirach Message-ID: <19961122.120201.7974.0.HILKAP@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.16.19961120123952.0b5f7ca4@mail.sunbelt.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-9,11-19 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:04:45 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 443 On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:40:57 -0500 Jim West writes: > > >Does anyone know where I can find a copy of Ben Sirach in Hebrew? > >Thanks, > >Jim > Sirach in Hebrew was one of the manuscripts which Schechter uncovered at the Genizah as Fosta circa 1896. Most of the MSS which he recovered have been cataloged. You should find it listed there. If however, you are seeking the entire ancient document.... you are OOL. HILLEL From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 22 20:03:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA26628; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 20:02:42 -0500 Date: 23 Nov 96 01:59:41 +0100 Subject: Two variants of Sinai Arabic 71 From: "Jean Valentin" To: "TC-LIST" X-Mailer: Cyberdog/1.2 Message-Id: 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: 1975 While typing the text of my manuscript (Sinai arabic 71), I fall again on one of these large omissions of this Arabic version. The whole verse of Mk 7.34 is omitted. Well, I've look in the Greek editions (NA, Soden, Tischendorf, Legg etc) and found not one ms where it happens. Neither in the versions or in the Harmonies. I failed to find this verse in Ephrem's quotations though, but it doesn't prove anything as there are many other verses that aren't cited by Ephrem... So, I wouldn't make much about it, but here's why I nevertheless write a little note: the text reads very well without that verse! And this makes me think to another passage where the same happens, and it's Mt 23.26. The picture is a little different in Mt 23.26. It's also missing in Sinai arabic 71. But here there is more: (1) In this verse, Jesus speaks to the Pharisees in the singular (Farisaie tyfle), while in the whole chapter he uses the plural. So this verse is kind of a break in the style of the passage. (2) Some textual witnesses were aware of this anomaly, and corrected to the plural - if my understanding of the correction is right. They are: the two old syriac mss, the georgian Adysh ms (geo.c), the georgian pre-vulgate (geo.abde), the diatessaron in Arabic and the Persian harmony. And, in the West, there's the old latin manuscipt c. I'm not thinking my Arabic version has a more original text than the rest of the tradition! It has very often _the_ shortest text, and probably the translator, his carelessness and his insufficient knowledge of Greek are the main reasons behind this. But if those variants were found in a Greek manuscript or in a few older eastern and western versions, it would become interesting... Any thoughts? (Sinai arabic is a ms of the Xth century, which is early for Arabic. It has only kept the text of Mt 23.3-Lc 8.2 on 49 folios of parchment. When variants existing in greek can be recognized, they are in agreement with codex Koridethi). From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 23 07:31:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA28292; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 07:29:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199611231225.NAA79608@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 23 Nov 96 14:35:11 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Two variants of Sinai Arabic 71 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2763 On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jean Valentin wrote: >While typing the text of my manuscript (Sinai arabic 71), I fall again on >one of these large omissions of this Arabic version. >The whole verse of Mk 7.34 is omitted. Well, I've look in the Greek >editions (NA, Soden, Tischendorf, Legg etc) and found not one ms where it >happens. Neither in the versions or in the Harmonies. I failed to find this >verse in Ephrem's quotations though, but it doesn't prove anything as there >are many other verses that aren't cited by Ephrem... >So, I wouldn't make much about it, but here's why I nevertheless write a >little note: the text reads very well without that verse! As far as I can see, the most likely explanation for the omission of Mk 7,34 is Homoioteleuton in the Greek Vorlage: KAIHNOIGHSAN...; MS 1424 omitted KAILEGEI AUTW... Within the paratactic (KAI...KAI...KAI...) parts of Mark this type of homoioteleuton is not uncommon, cf. MS W at Mk 1,42f; 2,16; MS 1424 at Mk 2,14; MS 579 at Mk 2,18. These (and some others) can be easily found in Swansons edition *New Testament Manuscripts. Variant readings arranged in horizontal lines against Codex Vaticanus: Mark, Sheffield, Passadena 1995*. And there are many more of them in a couple of MSS not yet examined in great detail (cf. the forthcoming *Text und Textwert* volumes for the Gospel of Mark, 1997?). This type of omission usually misses one or more isolated features within a narrative. And missing them often makes sense. >And this makes me >think to another passage where the same happens, and it's Mt 23.26. >The picture is a little different in Mt 23.26. It's also missing in Sinai >arabic 71. But here there is more: >(1) In this verse, Jesus speaks to the Pharisees in the singular (Farisaie >tyfle), while in the whole chapter he uses the plural. So this verse is >kind of a break in the style of the passage. >(2) Some textual witnesses were aware of this anomaly, and corrected to the >plural - if my understanding of the correction is right. They are: the two >old syriac mss, the georgian Adysh ms (geo.c), the georgian pre-vulgate >(geo.abde), the diatessaron in Arabic and the Persian harmony. And, in the >West, there's the old latin manuscipt c. (snip) >Any thoughts? Changes from singular to plural (and vice versa) are also not uncommon in versions, especially when a Greek neutrum is involved, though in this peculiar case it is not a neutrum. However, as Jean pointed out, the context is very much in favour of this "correction". Therefore, even if Greek witnesses to the plural existed, I would not consider this type of evidence genealogically significant. It may well have happened by mere chance. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 23 16:44:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA00815; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:43:45 -0500 Date: 23 Nov 96 18:10:51 +0100 Subject: Re: Two variants of Sinai Arabic 71 From: "Jean Valentin" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Mailer: Cyberdog/1.2 Message-Id: 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: 468 Ulrich Schmid wrote: > As far as I can see, the most likely explanation for the omission of Mk > 7,34 is > Homoioteleuton in the Greek Vorlage: > KAIHNOIGHSAN...; MS 1424 > omitted KAILEGEI AUTW... > Within the paratactic (KAI...KAI...KAI...) parts of Mark this type of > homoioteleuton is not uncommon I agree that this is surely the best explanation, and probably also another proof of the carelessness of the translator. From owner-tc-list Sat Nov 23 21:13:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA01732; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:12:15 -0500 Date: 23 Nov 96 21:06:59 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Byz or M text translation Message-ID: <961124020659_102147.2045_EHT55-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2129 Julian Goldberg RE: Byz or M text translation I have read somewhere that no one has ever made a New Testament translation into English that is based only on the Byzantine or Majority text purely. **This is correct. The closest thing you can have to an English translation of a true Maj-txt is the Interlinear of the Hodges/Farstad GNT pub by Thomas Nelson. The Interlinear is word-for-word H/F but the left hand column has the NKJV - not a smooth translation of the H/F. The King James Version is translated from a mixture of Byzantine (Majority), Textus Receptus, Latin Vulgate and other texts into English. The J.P. Green New Testament translation tried to do so with a modified and corrected King James Version based on Scrivener's reconstructed Greek text based mostly on Bezae but modified to match the King James Version as best as possible in Greek with a few other changes. ** Scrivener tried to "reconstruct" as best as he may what most likely was the Greek text which lay before the 1611 translators. The resultant composite Greek text agrees primarily with Beza, then with Stephanus (with some exceptions - see Heb 10:23 "faith" vs "hope"). Green's translation is wooden. The best trans of Scrivener is the NKJV. Some have suggested that the New King James Version especially with reference to the footnotes of Byzantine Majority text readings gets as very close when it varies with the English King James Version (AV). ** A good study Bible of the NKJV will have the footnotes re. a) major variants of the TR from the H/F text and b) major variants from the Nestle-Aland/UBS (refered to as "NU") from the H/F. More or less such majority texts have been put together in Greek by Erasmus, Stephanus, Bezae and Elzevirs but these texts are mostly referred to as "The Textus Receptus" which may not be 100% based on the Byzantine (Majority) text types. ** The TR was a "rough and ready" tool used as a ref. to the Byz text, but since the H/F text and the Robinson/Pierpont GNT have been published the TR is only useful for collation purposes (no critical value). Hope this is helpful. Mike A. From owner-tc-list Mon Nov 25 14:44:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10553; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:37:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 12:42:22 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Megillah (Book) of Esther (fwd) To: tc-list@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: 1497 In the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Museum in Los Angeles Califonia, there is an interesting scroll of the biblical book of Esther. It is a scroll that was made for children in that it has drawings in it. It is located in archives # 93-012 and was printed in Berlin Germany in 1936 as it is copyrighted in this year. It was put together by Dr. Herbert Loewenstein, the drawings were made by Otto Gismar and the printer was M. Lessmann. This scroll is interesting not only for being printed in Germany in 1936 after Hitler and the Nazis were in power but also because of the symbolism found in the drawings. One striking feature made by the artist of this scroll is that a bulldog has been drawn in association with King Ahasverus. The bulldog is seen sitting infront of the King's throne and walking together with the King in different drawings on the scroll. A few years ago, it was found by a scholar that the very small Hebrew letters of Tav, Shin and Zayin as they appear in such Megillahs in the column where Haman's ten sons that were hung are listed corresponded to the year of 1946 (ten years after this scroll was made) and there were ten Nazis that were hung at the Nuremberg Trials in Germany after WWII for their part in the Holocaust. The idea and efforts behind the trials were laid down by the London Conference and the British were the foremost in charge of these trials since the chief justice was British. From owner-tc-list Thu Nov 28 21:41:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA10659; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:39:37 -0500 Date: 29 Nov 96 03:37:40 +0100 Subject: Cesarean Text From: "Jean Valentin" To: "TC-LIST" X-Mailer: Cyberdog/1.2 Message-Id: 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: 780 Hello all! Am I having problems with my connections, or is it really so quiet on the list these last days? :-) So tell me: what do you have to say about the so-called "cesarean text"? Some scholars deny it even existed (I think Kurt Aland was of this opinion), others seem to make it very important - specially people who publish oriental versions, so I might be concerned with my Arabic. So what is this all about? Thanks, Jean V. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" ------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 29 10:14:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA13119; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:13:35 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 09:10:08 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Cesarean Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4918 On 29 Nov 96, "Jean Valentin" wrote: >Hello all! > >Am I having problems with my connections, or is it really so quiet on >the list these last days? :-) Remember that November 28 was a holiday in the United States. Also, it seems like disputes on this list always die off after a few messages... whether they've been settled or not. So let's start a new arguement! >So tell me: what do you have to say about the so-called "cesarean >text"? Some scholars deny it even existed (I think Kurt Aland was of >this opinion), others seem to make it very important - specially >people who publish oriental versions, so I might be concerned with my >Arabic. > >So what is this all about? The basic problem with the "Caesarean" text, as defined by Lake, Blake, New, and Streeter, was that it was defined in terms of divergences from the TR. This is always a bad procedure, but it was *particularly* bad in the case of the "Caesarean" text, because family 1 is considered a member of that text -- and 1 was also used to compile the TR. The net result was that Streeter, in particular, labelled *everything* "Caesarean." (Streeter, for instance, considers effectively all of Soden's I group, except D, to be weak "Caesarean.") The finding of the "Caesarean" text led everyone to try to find more witnesses. So, for instance, Kenyon classified p45 (which Colwell has shown to be a wild text) as "Caesarean." Once this mad rush was over, people sat back and looked to see what they had found. And what they found was problems. One of the most important steps was Hurtado's study (which we have argued about on this list). This work, if nothing else, proved that there is no link between p45/W and the rest of the "Caesarean" text. This left a problem, because it meant that there is no pure "Caesarean" witness. If one applies the Colwell 70% criterion, the "Caesarean" text ceases to exist. I think people will agree up to this point. It's what follows that gets complicated. The question is, "Can a text-type exist without a pure representative?" The answer, if one follows the Colwell definition, is NO. (This is one of the reasons I don't like the Colwell definition. It simply does not allow for mixture. Whereas we know that mixture is almost universal among manuscripts that are not purely Byzantine.) But the "Caesarean" text was not defined in terms of Colwell; it was defined in terms of places where *certain manuscripts (Theta, fam 1, fam 13, 28, 565, 700, arm, geo) diverged from the Byzantine text.* (The fact that Lake et al used the TR to represent the Byzantine text made their results invalid, but it does not influence their definition.) This is a much harder definition to apply, but also could bear more fruit. Let me demonstrate the difficulty. Take two manuscripts, A and X. Let's assume that they are both Caesarean. Let's even assume that they are sisters, and agree absolutely. Now let's subject them to heavy correction against a Byzantine text. Assume that half the "Caesarean" readings of each are conformed to the Byzantine text. However, by the nature of things, each will receive a *different* set of corrections. Now let's copy A, as corrected, to produce B. Let's copy X, and corrected, to produce Y. Both B and Y are 50% Byzantine and 50% "Caesarean." But -- and this is important -- they do not agree very often. In fact, they will agree, on average, *only 50% of the time.* To be precise, in 25% of the cases, both will retain the original "Caesarean" reading. In 25% of the cases both will have the same Byzantine correction. In the remaining 50% of variants, one will be "Caesarean" and the other Byzantine. I would maintain, therefore, that the only was to truly examine the nature of the "Caesarean" text is to look at the cases where *both* manuscripts are *non-Byzantine.* Only there can we safely assume that they are not mixed. This, obviously, means that we don't have as much data available. Even the best "Caesarean" texts (Theta, family 1) appear to have lost half or more of their "Caesarean" readings, and most of the others are worse (28, e.g., is "Caesarean" only in Mark, and 565, while it has some early readings outside Mark, is really strong only in that book). Still, it would appear that, if we follow this procedure, the "Caesarean" text *does* exist. (I think; recall that I've spent most of my time on Paul and the Catholics, and my results for the Gospels are incomplete.) But note that this all depends on definitions. Anyone who accepts the Colwell definition will say that the "Caesarean" text does not exist. By the Lake definition, it does. Until we can agree on a definition of a text-type (or find a pure witness), the "Caesarean" text will remain in limbo. If anybody wants to see more of my opinions on the matter, check my article on text-types at http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 29 10:44:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA13318; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:43:52 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:40:17 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Cesarean Text Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <449CDE2C87@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1767 In addition to the specific data about the mss sometimes referred to as "Caesarean", summarized briefly by Waltz, we also have to think of the associated question: What do we mean by "text type"? Waltz doesn't like Colwell's emphasis on some kind of minimal quantitative agreement criterion, and seems to prefer something like patterns of readings. But it seems to me that Waltz presupposes what he in fact needs first to show--that there was a developed "Byzantine" *text-type* to "mix" with other influences to produce the "Caesarean text-type". I've tended to view "text-types" as the varying products of different scribal traditions, tendencies & purposes. Thus, the "Neutral/Alexandrian" type of text seems to have been heavily shaped by scribes more concerned than many with careful copying, etc. (though no ancient scribes were *fully* consistent or infallible!). I emphasize the *comparative* nature of any judgment, and this means that judgments must be *inductively* arrived at so far as possible. For example, we need first to *demonstrate* a text type existed at a given period before we can invoke it to explain things. And to demonstrate that a text-type existed, we first have to specify what we mean by the term "text-type". To clarify thinking, I strongly recommend E.J. Epp's essay, "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in Epp & G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory & Method of NT Textual Criticism_ (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274-97. 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 Fri Nov 29 11:31:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13642; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:30:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:26:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: searching 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: 295 I need the exact wording of the 1537 Matthews Bible for Luke 11:2-4. All I can find are later editions and modern spelling editions. Many thanks. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 29 11:43:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13696; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:42:40 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <449CDE2C87@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:40:00 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Cesarean Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3842 On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >In addition to the specific data about the mss sometimes referred to >as "Caesarean", summarized briefly by Waltz, we also have to think of >the associated question: What do we mean by "text type"? I believe that I asked that question. I also pointed out that there are several different answers possible -- one of which is Colwell's. I obviously don't agree with Colwell, but I concede that the definition exists. The question is, is it *useful*? For my opinions on this point, I again refer to the article I cited, http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn >Waltz >doesn't like Colwell's emphasis on some kind of minimal quantitative >agreement criterion, and seems to prefer something like patterns of >readings. My point is that there are two ways to define the type. One way -- Colwell's -- disbands the "Caesarean" text, because there are no pure representatives. The other way *probably* preserves it. Scholars must make up their own mind which they prefer. I am simply pointing out the alternatives. >But it seems to me that Waltz presupposes what he in fact >needs first to show--that there was a developed "Byzantine" >*text-type* to "mix" with other influences to produce the "Caesarean >text-type". Let me get this straight: You don't believe in the Byzantine text? Certainly there can be questions about its date, its origin, its exact degree of unity. But, surely, no one would deny that there was such a text-type in the ninth century (which is, after all, the date of the earliest Greek witness to the "Caesarean" type). Once a text-type exists, it will start mixing. Once it become dominant (as the Byzantine text was by the ninth century), it will inherently become the primary source of mixed readings. If that isn't obvious, I can't see any point to the discussion. >I've tended to view "text-types" as the varying products of different >scribal traditions, tendencies & purposes. [ ... ] This would imply that there is no such thing as mixture. How, then, does one account for mixed manuscripts? >For example, we need first to *demonstrate* a text type existed at a >given period before we can invoke it to explain things. Again I ask: Are you denying the existence of the Byzantine text in the ninth century (and after)? If so, let's have a show of hands for how many agree with you. (I thought so.) >And to >demonstrate that a text-type existed, we first have to specify what >we mean by the term "text-type". With that I have no argument. I would argue merely argue that, to date, no one has come up with a universally accepted definition. And that includes Colwell's definition. Even if you ignore me, and the discussion on this list earlier this summer, I know that Richards argued against Colwell's definition. Perhaps I should moderate that a bit. I think that, in general, Colwell's definition does find text-types. It just does not find *all* text-types. It is, in mathematical parlance, a sufficient but not a necessary condition. What *is* a necessary condition? I don't think anyone has ever answered the question.... >To clarify thinking, I strongly recommend E.J. Epp's essay, "The >Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New >Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual >Transmission," in Epp & G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory & Method of >NT Textual Criticism_ (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274-97. It perhaps says something that I consider Epp, after Colwell, the greatest textual thinker of the second half of this century -- and yet I constantly find both quoted against me, just as I quote them on my behalf. Sounds like it's time the rest of us try to figure out what the two of them are saying. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Nov 29 16:25:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15514; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:24:37 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:20:42 -0500 Message-ID: <961129162042_1151846505@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: searching Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 335 Dear Ron: You wrote << I need the exact wording of the 1537 Matthews Bible for Luke 11:2-4. All I can find are later editions and modern spelling editions. Many thanks. >> Try contacting Scott Carroll at sc@scriptorium.org; his scriptorium has copies of most of the early editions of the English Bible. Best wishes, Jim Price