Subject: Re: James

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:07:29 GMT

Robert,
At 12:00 PM 12/28/96 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>Could someone please tell me where I can find a copy of James from D (on the
>>net).
>
>If I interpret this correctly, you're looking for a copy of the book of
>James from either Codex Bezae or Codex Claromontanus. Unfortunately,
>such does not exist. Claromontanus, of course, does not contain the
>Catholics.

Quite right.

> Bezae contained part of them (since a small portion of
>the Johannine Epistles survives on the Latin side), but there is
>no Greek text.

Bummer.  Thanks for helping anyway.  (But, since this is so, what is the
basis of James in TR?)

> Indeed, it has been theorized that Bezae never
>contained James or the Petrines; space considerations argue that
>it contained the Apocalypse instead.
>
>I hope this helps. If I misunderstood your request, you should
>obviously ignore this.
>

You didn't.
>Robert B. Waltz
Thanks,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
Petros TN

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:49:23 -0700

> Bummer.  Thanks for helping anyway.  (But, since this is so, what is the

The same thing that is the basis in Acts and Paul: 2ap, supplemented
by 1eap and the vulgate, with some slight consultation of other
manuscripts.

In the gospels, the sources are 2e, 1eap, and the vulgate.

In the Apocalypse, the sources are 1r and the vulgate.

This implies the question, "What did Beza use to produce his
edition of the TR?" The answer is, he used primarily older TR
editions. Obviously he *had* D, but he did not use it.

Next question:

> Would someone please tell me what the so called "Egerton Gospel" is and
> where it can be found in ms.

The Egerton papyri are a series of documents found in Egypt. The "Egerton
gospel" is a handful of fragments from this collection. I give you the
specific description from Bell & Skeat:

Inv. No. Egerton Papyrus 2. Middle of second century. Portions of three
leaves of a codex, 11.5 cm.x9.2 cm., 11.8 cm.x9.7 cm., 6 cm.x2.3 cm. One
column to the page.

The surviving leaves contain a few dozen lines containing primarily
narrative. Some of the events described (the question about tribute to
Caesar, the cleansing of a leper, a controversy with the lawyers, etc.)
have synoptic parallels, but the phrasing is different and there is
some new material.

For further details, I can only refer you to the Bell & Skeat volume
already cited. It includes photographs, transcriptions of the text,
a translation, plus commentaries and lists of parallels.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 18:43:29 -0600 (CST)

> by 1eap and the vulgate, with some slight consultation of other

The TR is, of course, not to be confused with the MAJORITY TEXT.  Even 
Aland muddied the water some here.  They are similar, but only because 
the mss that were available and used by Erasmus were Byz.

BTW,  Does anyone have a current address for Theodore Letis?  I have lost 
contact with him, and need to know his whereabouts.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:09:29 -0700

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]> wrote,

>the mss that were available and used by Erasmus were Byz.

This is, of course, true (though I'm not sure what it has to do with
a Bezan text of James. :-)

Indeed, I think Aland has muddied the waters more than necessary; he
never paid much attention to the two Majority Text editions, and
never observed their higher critical principles. In addition, there
are a number of places (2 Cor 2:17 springs to mind) where he seems
to have simply accepted the TR reading as *the* Byzantine text
when it is not.

I'll concede that it would be very difficult to determine the
Byzantine reading at all points. But Aland should have *said* so.

We desperately need an edition of the Byzantine text with true
critical apparatus. It's a lot of work, and not much reward. (Since
relatively few people would accept it as original.) Is anyone
working on such a thing? Anybody want a lifetime burden? :-)

Robert B. Waltz
[email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn