From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 9 01:30:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA13082; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:28:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:28:41 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: technical problems on tc-list Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 397 We've had technical problems on the computer that houses the tc-list, so if you've had messages rejected during the last couple of days, please resubmit them. Sorry for the inconvenience. 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 Dec 9 13:21:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16631; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:03:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:57:16 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Isaiah Scroll and Jesus (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: 852 Hi. One of the best preserved Dead Sea scrolls is the Isaiah scroll (1 Q Isa) which is well-known. There is also another well preserved scroll of Isaiah (1 Q Isb) which is slightly different from (1 Q Isa). In Luke 4:18 Jesus is reading from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue. This reading is related to Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text word for word. Now if one of the above Dead Sea scrolls matches this reading as found in the New Testament and the Septuagint would it not have been perhaps possible that Jesus may have actually read from this scroll itself? Of course this could be a matter of faith for some people to believe this but my speculation is interesting. Also, the scroll would have to have been written many years before Jesus read from it. Please write back to me when you can. Thanks. From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 9 14:49:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17718; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:47:46 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961209194202.0069a3a4@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, 09 Dec 1996 11:42:02 -0800 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Aland's article Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5737 I really don't have the time to continue this discussion--though it raises some very interesting issues for TC. Let me say as my last post on this topic that I've appreciated Ulrich's input and insight into Aland's statments--which for me left something to be desired in their clarity. On some specific points: Ulrich said: >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). Here is Aland's statement (I've abbreviated some names): "At the Institute for NTTR in Muenster we have been working for several years on the proparation of a fully revised Fourth Edition of The GNT with special concern for the patristic citations in its critical apparatus....This critical apparatus admittedly represents only some 1,200 passages, but these are important and sufficient to provide some significant conclusions. The results for the "early times" are as follows:..." In the following statistics Aland then uses the term "Egyptian text". Now if he had used the term NA27 or critical text or anything that connected with the intro paragraph, I would have understood what he was talking about. But "Egyptian text"??; in what sense does the NA text represent the "Egyptian text". And saying that he's simply using the term Hodges used, for me at least, does not solve the dilemma, since by adopting Hodges term he confused the issue for me by intimating that he was using all the various Egyptian mss as his comparison base, not the NA text. If no one else was confused by this... fine; but I certainly was (this was not the first time in this article that Aland used confusing terminology--his equation of the Majority text and the TR is, as Dan Wallace puts it: "...either a lack of knowledge of the differences between the two editions or an intentional guilt by association." [in reference to the similar equation of the MT and TR in _Text of NT_; Wallace, "Second Thoughts," BS 146 (1989): 275, n. 22; cf., idem, JETS 37/2 (1994): 194, n. 60]). I'm not saying that I think Aland was deliberately trying to mislead the readers, just that his use of terminology was not precise enough for the type of article he was writing and the complexity of the information he was introducing; any other reader of the article may certainly feel free to disagree... Ulrich asked: >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 quote was as follows: >>>>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!" "...D [came] from Africa...!" (cf., _Text of NT_, pp. 109ff). Thus the papyrii simply strengthen the case for the Egyptian origin of the "Western" text-type. Thus my point again is that you can't refer to Fathers who follow a "Western" text and who lived in the West as necessarily independent witnesses to the "early times" text (as Aland puts it); they may or may not be--it depends on whether they follow other "Western" texts which are clearly independent of the p38-p48-D stream. Ulrich asked: >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? I probably should have been clearer... I'm not aware of any Byz Fathers (is anyone else ??). Thus the point is that, as with the Byz text itself, we are left with a "black hole" of data in the area where the bulk of the NT writings were penned and sent. Thus we are left with the necessity of constructing a theory to explain the rise of the Byz text and its differences with the Egyptian text--and at present there are primarily two competing theories (1. the earlier Egyptian mss best represent the autographs; 2. the later Byz mss best represent the autographs). Two final observations: (1) As I said in my original post on this topic, I still find it interesting (regardless of what we do with Aland's "missing percentages"--I'm willing to grant that they are Western) that, for example, Irenaeus agrees on singular readings with the Egyptian text 24% and with the Byz text 16.5%; or if you count all agreeing readings, with the E-txt 40.5% and with the B-txt 33%. Now I know that wasn't Aland's point, but I still find it intriguing ! (2) Aland raised herein (as well as elsewhere) that Aleph and B are not of Egyptian origin...and Ulrich added that he also didn't believe that the papyrii were necessarily of Egyptian origin either. Is anyone aware of any paleograpic studies which defend or refute such ideas ?? One final question to the list members... What has been your response to the publications of Comfort on the idea that the autographs are best represented by the earliest Egyptian mss at each point ?? Sorry for the length... 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 Mon Dec 9 15:22:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18021; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:20:54 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961209194202.0069a3a4@mail.teleport.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:17:57 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Aland's article Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1187 On Mon, 09 Dec 1996, "Dale M. Wheeler" wrote, in part: >One final question to the list members... > >What has been your response to the publications of Comfort on the idea >that the autographs are best represented by the earliest Egyptian mss >at each point ?? I found both of Comfort's books to be utterly irritating. A case can be made for using "the best manuscript," but does the mere fact that a manuscript is early make it good? Take a manuscript like p52, or one of the equally fragmentary papyri. It might prove, if we had the whole thing, that it is incredibly corrupt. We can only work with manuscripts that are substantial enough that we can assess their texts. That does not mean that the papyri are intrinsically bad; quite the contrary. P75 is, to my mind, the best manuscript of the gospels, and p46 and p72 are, in their respective areas, among the three or four most important documents. But I say that based on knowing their texts, not their ages! Comfort's papyriolatreia (if I dare coin such a dreadful term) is one of the most stupid ideas I've seen in recent years. In my humble opinion, of course. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 10 11:08:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24866; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:06:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199612101602.RAA77700@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:12:39 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Aland's article To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961209194202.0069a3a4@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: 4120 On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: >I really don't have the time to continue this discussion--though it >raises some very interesting issues for TC. Let me say as my last post >on this topic that I've appreciated Ulrich's input and insight into >Aland's statments--which for me left something to be desired in their >clarity. 1) As far as I can see there is at least a strong possibilty of reading Aland's article in "Trinity Journal" with reference to Hodges' terminology and argument concerning the "Egyptian text" (as Hodges puts it) that is clear and makes sense. I simply wanted to emphasize that. 2) Surely, I concede that Aland's reasoning may be put to test by highlightening its implications with respect to an overall textual theory. As far as I understand Dale's various posts on this subject, this was at least partly his intention. In so doing Dale sometimes added features of different theories to Aland's reasoning which are not necessarily part of Aland's own theory. For example, to my mind Dale's use of the geographic connotations of various texts ("Egyptian", "Western", "Byzantine") are not inherent to Aland's own theory. See the following example on the so-called "Western" text: >Ulrich asked: >>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 quote was as follows: >>>>>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!" >"...D [came] from Africa...!" (cf., _Text of NT_, pp. 109ff). Thus the papyrii >simply strengthen the case for the Egyptian origin of the "Western" text-type. >Thus my point again is that you can't refer to Fathers who follow a "Western" >text and who lived in the West as necessarily independent witnesses to the >"early times" text (as Aland puts it); they may or may not be--it depends on >whether they follow other "Western" texts which are clearly independent of >the p38-p48-D stream. a) Although Egypt is part of the continent of Africa, the supposed *Latin-African* origin of D (cf. "Latin paleographers") does not imply any connection whatsoever to Greek (and Coptic) speaking Egypt. b) Again, Aland simply questions the Egyptian provenance of all the papyri (BTW-- *papyri* is already plural) that had been found in Egypt. The simple fact of having survived in Egypt due to favorable climatic conditions tells us not whether the papyri and/or the text they display really originated in Egypt or not. c) Even if we assume the Egyptian origin of p38, p48, it is anachronistic to establish the Egytian origin of the "Western" text to which Irenaeus (late second century) partly testifies to by means of third century papyri and 4/5th century Codex D. The usual reasoning goes exactly the other way. Because of the late 2d and early 3rd century "Western" Church Fathers like Irenaeus (BTW-- Irenaeus was brought up in Asia minor) and Tertullian and late 2d/early 3rd century versions (like the Vetus Latina) at least parts of the text of 4/5th century Codex D and 3rd century papyri can be dated back to the late 2d or (cf. Marcion) early 2d century. However, including Marcion in this list (one must add the Old Syriac too) points to the conclusion that the "Western" text in fact originated somewhere in the East. To conclude therefrom: While it is very important to have our textual witnesses (MSS and Fathers) dated and localized, we should not focus on the geographic denomintations of various texts. As far as I can see nothing in this field is beyond dispute. To add some fuel to the fire: There is no conclusive evidence that connects even the "Alexandrian" text(-type) to Alexandria. Any comments on that? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 10 16:19:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28408; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:18:11 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:13:55 -0500 Message-ID: <961210161354_1886287452@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Isaiah Scroll and Jesus (fwd) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1660 In a message dated 96-12-09 13:29:13 EST, you write: Hi Julian Goldberg: You wrote: << Hi. One of the best preserved Dead Sea scrolls is the Isaiah scroll (1 Q Isa) which is well-known. There is also another well preserved scroll of Isaiah (1 Q Isb) which is slightly different from (1 Q Isa). In Luke 4:18 Jesus is reading from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue. This reading is related to Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text word for word. Now if one of the above Dead Sea scrolls matches this reading as found in the New Testament and the Septuagint would it not have been perhaps possible that Jesus may have actually read from this scroll itself? Of course this could be a matter of faith for some people to believe this but my speculation is interesting. Also, the scroll would have to have been written many years before Jesus read from it. Please write back to me when you can. Thanks.>> Of course that is possible, but textual scholars think that Matthew merely used the Septuagint text to enter this passage into his Greek Gospel rather than translate from the Hebrew. However, if Matthew's words match those in one of the Dead Sea scrolls it is likely that the Hebrew text Jesus was reading was a copy of a master text like the one used by the Septuagint translators. It is not likely that Jesus read the same manuscript that the Septuagint translators used. The Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BC in Egypt. Jesus read a synagog scroll in the small town of Nazareth, whereas the master scrolls would have been kept in the temple in Jerusalem. Sincerely, James D. Price >> From owner-tc-list Wed Dec 11 22:22:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10569; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:20:27 -0500 Message-ID: <32AFA30A.340B@voicenet.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:38 -0800 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: ANYBODY KNOW ABOUT . . . ? 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: 356 Hello ALL! Please forgive for the off topic post, but does anybody know of a serious scholarly discussion group (such as this one) on the topic of world history, particularly Roman history during the New Testament period? I would love to know about the time of year the Roman Empire would have been counting heads for the census in 6 BCE. Mark Bruffey From owner-tc-list Thu Dec 12 02:45:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA11639; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:44:58 -0500 X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 12-Dec-1996 18:11:10 -0500; at TP.BAEA To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <07E9AE4201870370@-SMF-> Subject: dating the gospels From: AKULIKOV@baea.com.au (KULIKOVSKY, Andrew) Date: 12 Dec 96 18:11:01 EST References: <07E9AE4202870370@-SMF-> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1221 Friends, How do we know (ie. what archaelogical, textual, historical evidence is there?) when the gospels were written? Redaction and Source criticism show Mark was written first then Matthew and Luke, but this only gives order not date. Mark is generally accepted as being written around AD 50-55 - but what evidence is there for this? Any ideas? 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 Thu Dec 12 04:56:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA12077; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 04:56:18 -0500 Message-ID: <32AFFFFB.22F9@ionsys.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 04:52:11 -0800 From: John Cameron Organization: Director,Canadian Institute for Telecommunications and Emmerging Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: dating the gospels References: <07E9AE4202870370@-SMF-> <07E9AE4201870370@-SMF-> 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: 469 Dear Andrew: Thanks for the email question re the date of the Gospels..I will reply shortly to this question...I have a question for you Andrew. Did you send this question to me as an individual or did it go into the large hopper of a discussion group that you are a part of..I get a lot of mail from two of the latter groups and I was wondering what discussion group you were on. I will get back to you shortly regarding your question. All the best. John Cameron From owner-tc-list Thu Dec 12 08:25:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12806; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:25:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:21:27 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: dating the gospels In-Reply-To: <07E9AE4201870370@-SMF-> 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: 734 AKULIKOV@baea.com.au wrote: > How do we know (ie. what archaelogical, textual, historical evidence is > there?) when the gospels were written? Redaction and Source criticism > show Mark was written first then Matthew and Luke, but this only gives > order not date. Mark is generally accepted as being written around > AD 50-55 - but what evidence is there for this? Hi Andrew Most of the standard "Introductions" to the NT cover this topic extensively. A very good source here (with lots of pointers into the literature) is the Intro by Purlin & Dulling, which was recently published in a enlarged 3rd edition. Another excellent source for this material is Helmut Koester's _Ancient Christian Gospels_. Hope this helps Nichael From owner-tc-list Thu Dec 12 08:26:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12794; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:25:17 -0500 Message-ID: <32B008DF.75B2@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 07:30:07 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: dating the gospels References: <07E9AE4202870370@-SMF-> <07E9AE4201870370@-SMF-> 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: 6391 KULIKOVSKY, Andrew wrote: >=20 > Friends, >=20 > How do we know (ie. what archaelogical, textual, historical evidence is > there?) when the gospels were written? Redaction and Source criticism > show Mark was written first then Matthew and Luke, but this only gives > order not date. Mark is generally accepted as being written around > AD 50-55 - but what evidence is there for this? Without autograph copies, there is no positive way to know the exact dating of the Gospels. All we can do is look at various internal and external indices to make assumptions. The consensus of scholarly opinion is that Mark was written first sice Matthew uses Mark but even this is still disputed by some. My opinion is that Matthew (Matthai Levi ben Alfai), a disciple and cousin of Jesus, wrote "sayings" during the ministry of Jesus. Something of a maverick, I believe an original primitive "proto-John" narrative was written by Yohanon bar Zebediya very early (40's). I agree with Powell that Mark was a response (mid-40's). This is my view: Oracles of the Lord 27-29 by Levi Mattai ben Alfai** (later to be incorporated in "Matthew" and Luke) Sayings Gospel compiled by Jerusalem Assembly under James 40-42 The first "burst" of Gospel writing begins just prior to the second half of the first century. I believe this Gospel Writing period was stimulated by an initial animosity and rivalry between the disciples and followers of Jesus. First, an animosity to Peter by John, who believed Peter a traitor, and perhaps some hard feelings by Peter to James, Jesus=92 brother. The assumption of authority over the Kingdom Movement by James could have been a blow to Peter. James=92 absence from the movement prior to the crucifixion and his position of authority immediately afterwards has been an enigma to New Testament scholars.=20 James=92 sudden rise to leadership can only be explained by it having bee= n ordered by Jesus himself. Evidence of this may be preserved in Logion 12 of the Gospel of Thomas: =09 John I "Proto-John" 44-45 Hostile to Peter. Shaken by Jesus=92 crucifixion, his cousin John bears animosity to Peter whom he believed a traitor. John was Jesus=92 closest relative who was a follower from the very beginning. He may have felt that he, as the surviving cousin (James the Greater now dead) should have assumed leadership of the movement. That James and John felt some "special position" in the coming "Kingdom of God," and was chastised by Jesus for it, may be reflected in Mark 10:35-45. The polemic against Peter in the first edition of John would later be softened and edited by redactors. Letter from James 45 The Epistle of James is written in good literary Greek but contains Aramaisms that suggest the letter was dictated by James to a secretary writing in Greek. Whether or not there was an Aramaic original of the Letter is not known. Some scholars place James at a later date and dependent on Q source material or the Synoptics for Jesus=92 sayings. More likely is James himself as a source of much of the Q material. It is very likely that the Epistle was indeed composed by Jesus brother. Jesus sayings are plays on words, alliterations and rhymes reminiscent of typical Yeshuine style. Signs Gospel. Earliest and most rudimentary gospel. A continuous and connected account of the deeds of Jesus beginning with John the Baptist. Composed by the Jerusalem Assembly to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. 45 Letter from Jude 45 The Cross Gospel, an account of the passion and resurrection by Jerusalem Assemby. 45 May have been composed by James and Peter and would be preserved in the "Gospel of Peter." I believe it reflects the "suffering Righteous One" link to the Essenes and may also have been written to alleviate the John-Peter controversy. Paul=92s first missionary journey (Acts 13-14) 45 =09 I Thessalonians 48 Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11-16) late 48 Mark I 43-49 counters "proto-John=92s" hostility to Peter. Expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius "Apostolic" Council 49 in Jerusalem Paul=92s second Missionary Journey (Acts 15:36 to 18:23) late 49 II Thess 50 If authentic, may have originally been addressed to Philippi Galatians late 49, early 50. Paul=92s 3rd missionary journey (Ephesus) 52-56 I & II Corinthians compiled from 4 letters written in 54 from Ephesus to Corinth Philippians 54 Hebrews 55-56 by Apollos in Corinth Romans..from Corinth Dec 56-Feb 57 Paul=92s trial before Agrippa (acts 26) 59 Voyage to Rome 59-60 Paul=92s imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:30) 60-62 Colossians 60 Philemon 60 Q material. A sayings gospel from a Greek source for Greek speaking "pre-Christian" Jews. O.T. references are from Septuagint. James the Righteous executed 62 Protoluke 65 uses MarkI, "sayings" and Q Mark II "secret Mark" 65 7Q5 I & II Timothy, Titus 66-67 May be by Polycarp. Jewish War 66 Destruction of Temple 70 (Sept 2) Luke 80 Gospel of Thomas I. Compiled from "Sayings source" Acts II 85 Ephesians 85 A revised Colossians used as a cover letter for the collected letters of Paul. Matthew 85 Stimulated by the excommunication of the "minim" from the synagogues John II 85 ... The excommunication may have been the stimulus in 85 to write and compile, edit. This editor incorporates the Signs Gospel verbatim without rewriting or paraphrase, leaving rough connections between the text of Signs and the text of JohnI. Egerton Gospel. Written independently of Canonicals using same earlier "sayings" source closer to Q than Gospel of Thomas. Egerton lacks the editorial language of Synoptics reflecting earlier traditions. I believe it was used by Jews of Palestine and Syria who were experiencing the strong opposition to "Jesus Jews" by the excommunication. 1 Clement 92 ?? Revelations 94 John III =20 I Peter 95 probably by Sylvanus to soften Revelation (time of Domitian) 1 Clement 96 Domitian dies, Nerva Emperor 96 Trajan 98 1 Epistle John c. 110 by editor of Gospel of John 2 John 3 John II Peter c. 140 Uses I Peter and Jude. This is only MY view of the chronology of NT writings and as a model is subject to change. The responses that will arise from this..demonstrating disagreement, agreement, even outrage, will be a microcosm of the general scholarly forum on the issue of dating. In short...it's all a matter of assumption. Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Thu Dec 12 10:37:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14020; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:36:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:35:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612121535.KAA12416@mail3.voicenet.com> X-Sender: cbtslibr@popmail.voicenet.com (Unverified) 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: "L. Mark Bruffey" Subject: Re: dating the gospels Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1948 Hello Andrew! Source crit may seem to indicate Mark 1st, but it cant prove it. Redaction critism proves nothing,; it just assumes source criticism's view of Markan priority correct. To get a scholarly and fair introductory analysis you might read Carson, Moo, and Morris, NT Intro; There is also an excellent collection of Essays on New Testament Criticism and Introduction edited by Black and Dockery. Also, if you search the web for "Synoptic problem", you will find at least one web page that deals with the topic in a scholarly fashion, but I cant remember the URL. Mark At 06:11 PM 12/12/96 EST, you wrote: >Friends, > >How do we know (ie. what archaelogical, textual, historical evidence is >there?) when the gospels were written? Redaction and Source criticism >show Mark was written first then Matthew and Luke, but this only gives >order not date. Mark is generally accepted as being written around >AD 50-55 - but what evidence is there for this? > >Any ideas? > >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! >+------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446 From owner-tc-list Thu Dec 12 21:50:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA19701; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:49:49 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961213024619.219f2350@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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:46:19 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Synoptic Problem URL, was Re: dating the gospels Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 556 At 10:35 12/12/96 -0500, L. Mark Bruffey wrote: >Also, if you search the web for "Synoptic problem", you will find at least >one web page that deals with the topic in a scholarly fashion, but I cant >remember the URL. I've got a web page on the Synoptic Problem. The URL is: http://www.mindsprind.com/~scarlson/synopt/ 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 Sun Dec 15 17:46:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09265; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:43:57 -0500 Message-Id: <9612152339.AA22787@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: mixed texts in Acts Date: Sun, 15 Dec 96 23:36:34 +0100 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 853 Just a question about the Greek text of Acts (I'm doing some work with a friend on the Arabic texts). Do you know if there are mss of Acts that can't be categorized in one of the three groups : B-text, D-text and Byz-text? In other words, mss with mixed texts a little like the Palestinian witnesses of the Gospel text? This is because we work on Arabic mss that linguistically are most probably derived from Greek, but we can't find a clear parenty with one of the three great groups. So where should we look? Thanks to all. _______________________________________________________________________ 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. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Sun Dec 15 19:17:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09719; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:16:46 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9612152339.AA22787@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:13:50 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: mixed texts in Acts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1356 On Sun, 15 Dec 96, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >Just a question about the Greek text of Acts (I'm doing some work with a >friend on the Arabic texts). >Do you know if there are mss of Acts that can't be categorized in one of >the three groups : B-text, D-text and Byz-text? In other words, mss with >mixed texts a little like the Palestinian witnesses of the Gospel text? >This is because we work on Arabic mss that linguistically are most >probably derived from Greek, but we can't find a clear parenty with one >of the three great groups. So where should we look? I am by no means expert on this, but it seems to me that there are at least two such groups: Family 1739 and Family 2138. Family 1739, consisting of 1739, 1891, 945, 630, 323, etc., has been called "Western," but it clearly is not. On the other hand, it doesn't agree perfectly with the old uncials either. So it could be something like what you are looking for. Family 2138 is also called "Western," and certainly it has some characteristically "Western" readings. But there are other readings which stand apart. Not as many (the whole family is rather weaker than family 1739), but some. I know someone (Geerlings?) has done work on family 1739 in Acts. It might be worth looking up. I hope this is at least some slight help. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Dec 15 22:06:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10352; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:05:38 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961216030208.212fcf94@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: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:02:08 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: The correct Synoptic Problem URL Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 753 Much to my embarrassment, it has been pointed out to me that there is an error in the URL I gave. >Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:46:19 -0500 >To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >From: "Stephen C. Carlson" >Subject: Synoptic Problem URL, was Re: dating the gospels > >I've got a web page on the Synoptic Problem. The URL is: > > http://www.mindsprind.com/~scarlson/synopt/ ^ The correct URL is as follows: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ Apologies, Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 16 11:22:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13786; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:20:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:20:33 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: mixed texts in Acts 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: 652 On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I know someone (Geerlings?) has done work on family 1739 in Acts. > It might be worth looking up. The reference is Thomas C. Geer, Jr., _Family 1739 in Acts_, SBL Monograph Series, no. 48 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). We have an online review at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/jbl-crbr/6sept14.html, in case anyone is interested. Bill Petersen, a member of this list, is the reviewer. 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 Dec 16 12:03:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14175; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:02:57 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: ANYBODY KNOW ABOUT . . . ? Message-ID: <19961216.085659.10182.0.HILKAP@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-15 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:58:49 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 528 On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:38 -0800 "L. Mark Bruffey" writes: >Hello ALL! > >Please forgive for the off topic post, but does anybody know of a >serious scholarly discussion group (such as this one) on the topic of >world history, particularly Roman history during the New Testament >period? I would love to know about the time of year the Roman Empire >would have been counting heads for the census in 6 BCE. > > >Mark Bruffey > If you happen to get a positive response, please let me know. Hill Kaplan From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 16 12:09:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14231; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:08:51 -0500 To: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: 4 ESDRAS Message-ID: <19961216.085659.10182.2.HILKAP@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-17 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:58:49 EST Content-Type: text ReSent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:08:38 -0500 (EST) ReSent-From: "James R. Adair" ReSent-To: TC List ReSent-Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 555 In preparing for my class on the Apocrypha, I became aware of 70 missing verses from 4 Esdras, that are now included as 7:36-105. These verses emphatically deny the value of prayers for the dead, and it is assumed that they were stricken from all Latin Texts in about the sixth century. Does anyone have any information regarding a church debate on the subject of prayers for the dead that would lead to this expungement. Syriac and Aramaic versions were known but not accepted until a copy was found at Amien in the early eighteenth century. HILL From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 16 12:49:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14794; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:47:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:47:54 -0500 From: owner-tc-list Message-Id: <199612161747.MAA14794@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 826 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:58:49 EST From: HILL R KAPLAN To: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: 4 ESDRAS Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In preparing for my class on the Apocrypha, I became aware of 70 missing verses from 4 Esdras, that are now included as 7:36-105. These verses emphatically deny the value of prayers for the dead, and it is assumed that they were stricken from all Latin Texts in about the sixth century. Does anyone have any information regarding a church debate on the subject of prayers for the dead that would lead to this expungement. Syriac and Aramaic versions were known but not accepted until a copy was found at Amien in the early eighteenth century. HILL From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 16 12:51:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14862; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:51:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:46:08 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961216124447.24672154@mail.sunbelt.net> X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) 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: ANYBODY KNOW ABOUT . . . ? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 997 At 11:58 AM 12/16/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:38 -0800 "L. Mark Bruffey" > writes: >>Hello ALL! >> >>Please forgive for the off topic post, but does anybody know of a >>serious scholarly discussion group (such as this one) on the topic of >>world history, particularly Roman history during the New Testament >>period? I would love to know about the time of year the Roman Empire >>would have been counting heads for the census in 6 BCE. >> >> >>Mark Bruffey >> >If you happen to get a positive response, please let me know. > >Hill Kaplan > What you want is ioudaios list. It is presently down until December 20- but when it restarts the 20th subscribe and you can find out all about the NT era from some very learned folk. To subscribe send a message to listserv@lehigh.edu and in the message portion write subscribe ioudaios-l Yours, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 17 00:12:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA20294; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:11:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:11:34 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Vinton Dearing's Web page Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 671 Vinton Dearing, author of _Manual of Textual Analysis_ and _Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis_, has informed me that he has a Web page dealing with his project "The Greek Text of the New Testament Before the Tenth Century." The URL is http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu/Individuals/dearing. He includes several computer programs that illustrate his methodology, which involves the use of computers to reconstruct the stemma of a group of manuscripts. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 17 00:25:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA20376; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:24:45 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199612170523.WAA21662@wave.sheridan.wy.us> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:18:55 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: James Tauber? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 290 Has anybody heard from James Tauber lately? I've sent him several emails but no responses and they haven't bounced. James, are you there? Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html I've never had an original thought in my life, so this opinion must be someone else's fault. From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 17 14:35:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25124; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:33:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:28:38 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Re: ANYBODY KNOW ABOUT . . . ? To: HILL R KAPLAN cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <19961216.085659.10182.0.HILKAP@juno.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: 637 On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, HILL R KAPLAN wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:38 -0800 "L. Mark Bruffey" > writes: > >Hello ALL! > > > >Please forgive for the off topic post, but does anybody know of a > >serious scholarly discussion group (such as this one) on the topic of > >world history, particularly Roman history during the New Testament > >period? I would love to know about the time of year the Roman Empire > >would have been counting heads for the census in 6 BCE. > > > > > >Mark Bruffey > > > If you happen to get a positive response, please let me know. > > Hill Kaplan > Hi. Try iudaios-l@lehigh.edu From owner-tc-list Wed Dec 18 02:00:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA29750; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:59:27 -0500 Message-Id: <9612180755.AA25348@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: have salt with each other ?? Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 07:52:04 +0100 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be 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: 2639 Hello tc-ers. I'm back with a strange translation I found in the Arabic version of ms Sinai Arabic 71 (Xth century, one of the earliest mss on which I'm working). In NA27, Mk 9.50 (second part) is translated: "Have salt in yourselves, and be in peace with each other". In Sin. Arb. 71, this sentence is translated: "Have salt in yourselves (litt. in your souls, usual in Arabic), and have _salt_ with each other". I ask myself several questions about this passage. Could it be just another carelessness of the translator or the scribe, or is it possible that we have here a correct interpretation of this enigmatic sentence of Jesus? I mean by this, could it be that, in the milieu that produced the Gospel texts, "salt" was a metaphor for "peace"? Here are some pros and cons in disorder. NB. I don't want to get into speculations about "semitic originals of the Gospels" here, only I want to understand what happens in my Arabic version and its interpretation of the Greek! (1) The translator is often free, if not careless. It might be just another occurrence. (2) If an expression in Aramaic involved "salt" as a metaphor for "peace", then it might have survived in Palestinian Arabic and it would have been easy for the translator to restitute an idiomatic expression that was "simplified" by the Greek redactor(s) of Mk for the sake of being understood by his (their) audience. (3) On the other hand, I've found some occurrences where Jewish realia were not known to the translator, who mistranslates words like "phylacteries" and sometimes "synagogue" (both in Mt 23). So I ask the exegetes among you if they know of references to salt as an emblem of peace? And, maybe this can help us also understanding the meaning of the salt in the OT passages where it accompanies several sacrifices cf. Lev 2.13, Nb 18.19, Esd 4.14 and 7.22, Ez 43.24 - and what about Mt 5.13?). Also, if somebody had Rabbinic references about this, I think they would be interesting to examine in this context. I've just looked in the Qoran, there are a few references to salt but they don't help us as they are in descriptions of the sea as created by God. Frankly, my impression after writing this is that options (1) and (3) are the most plausible, but one never knows... Thanks for your feedback. _______________________________________________________________________ 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. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Wed Dec 18 02:35:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA29877; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 02:35:04 -0500 From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 09:25 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1859331058878767@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: RE: Vinton Dearing's Web page X-Mailer: Netmail V3.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2059 > Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Tue, 17 Dec > 96 06:51:51 +0200 > Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP; > Tue, 17 Dec 1996 7:11:22 GMT > Received: from scholar.cc.emory.edu (scholar.cc.emory.edu [170.140.38.9]) by > graf.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id AAA00079; > Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:08:32 -0500 (EST) > Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id AAA20294; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:11:38 -0500 > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:11:34 -0500 (EST) > From: "James R. Adair" > To: TC List > Subject: Vinton Dearing's Web page > Message-ID: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > > Vinton Dearing, author of _Manual of Textual Analysis_ and _Principles and > Practice of Textual Analysis_, has informed me that he has a Web page > dealing with his project "The Greek Text of the New Testament Before the > Tenth Century." The URL is > http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu/Individuals/dearing. He includes > several computer programs that illustrate his methodology, which involves > the use of computers to reconstruct the stemma of a group of manuscripts. > > 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 <----------------- Let me just remind the readers of Jimmy Adair's article in JNSL 20/2, 1994, 111-142 on textcritical methodology: "A Methodology for using the Versions in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament". The next volume of JNSL 22/2, 1996, will be on the street in Janury 1997! Prof. Johann Cook co-editor JNSL Dept of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA From owner-tc-list Wed Dec 18 09:12:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01321; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:11:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199612181406.PAA76164@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 16:17:52 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: have salt with each other ?? To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9612180755.AA25348@iris.arcadis.be> 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: 1718 On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Jean Valentin wrote: >In NA27, Mk 9.50 (second part) is translated: >"Have salt in yourselves, and be in peace with each other". >In Sin. Arb. 71, this sentence is translated: >"Have salt in yourselves (litt. in your souls, usual in Arabic), and have >_salt_ with each other". >I ask myself several questions about this passage. Could it be just >another carelessness of the translator or the scribe, or is it possible >that we have here a correct interpretation of this enigmatic sentence of >Jesus? I mean by this, could it be that, in the milieu that produced the >Gospel texts, "salt" was a metaphor for "peace"? >So I ask the exegetes among you if they know of references to salt as an >emblem of peace? And, maybe this can help us also understanding the >meaning of the salt in the OT passages where it accompanies several >sacrifices cf. Lev 2.13, Nb 18.19, Esd 4.14 and 7.22, Ez 43.24 - and what >about Mt 5.13?). Though personally lacking any up-to-date knowledge, I may quote from the 1933 article *hALAS* (by Hauck) in: Kittel, Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, S. 229: "Gemeinsames Geniessen von Brot und Salz oder von Salz allein stiftet feste Buendnisse: Nu 18,19; 2 Chr 13,5 Salzbund (Anmerkung: Vgl. Aristot[eles] Eth[ica] Nic[omachea] VIII 4 p 1156 b 27ff; Cic[ero] Lael[ius] 19,67)." Though I did not check the references, I suspect this "Salzbund" a cultural feature transcendending limited regional or tribal/national boundaries. BTW-- Some (German) novels and "Reiseberichte" of the last century describe the "Salzbund" as peace and wellcome rite performed in various arabian societies. Hope this helps Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Wed Dec 18 10:11:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01740; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 10:10:36 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9612180755.AA25348@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:41:59 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: have salt with each other ?? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1454 On Wed, 18 Dec 96, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >Hello tc-ers. > >I'm back with a strange translation I found in the Arabic version of ms >Sinai Arabic 71 (Xth century, one of the earliest mss on which I'm >working). > >In NA27, Mk 9.50 (second part) is translated: >"Have salt in yourselves, and be in peace with each other". > >In Sin. Arb. 71, this sentence is translated: >"Have salt in yourselves (litt. in your souls, usual in Arabic), and have >_salt_ with each other". > >I ask myself several questions about this passage. Could it be just >another carelessness of the translator or the scribe, or is it possible >that we have here a correct interpretation of this enigmatic sentence of >Jesus? I mean by this, could it be that, in the milieu that produced the >Gospel texts, "salt" was a metaphor for "peace"? While I have heard of salt being used as a peace offering, I don't think that is what is involved here. As I recall, the most common scribal error, after haplography, is parallelism. And parallelism usually involves conforming to the most familiar parallel. Which is usually the nearer parallel. (See Colwell's article on the subject.) In other words, I think the translator used "salt" in the second phrase because it occurred in the first. It's just an error. Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/waltzmn From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 21 23:02:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA27189; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 23:00:59 -0500 From: petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Sigrid Peterson) Message-Id: <199612220357.WAA07709@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: have salt with each other ?? To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:57:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Dec 18, 96 08:41:59 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 604 Before concluding that "have salt with each other" is a simple error, check Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. "Salt." It includes a number of HB/OT references to "a covenant of salt" and ends by referring to Arabic usages. If peace is understood in terms of covenants, treaties, agreements, then to "have salt with each other" would be the equivalent of being at peace with each other, especially for an Arabic translation, and would have the advantage of filling out the chain of associations in Mark 9.49-50. Sigrid Peterson UPenn petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Finkelstein Fellow University of Judaism From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 24 07:11:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA08518; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 07:07:36 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 12:18:19 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Modelling early MS transmission In-Reply-To: <9603290500.AA14111@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: 2665 Thanks to Vincent Broman and Maurice Robinson for their replies on MS copying parameters. A few more thoughts: Firstly, the critical time for development of variants is said to be the first two hundred years of transmission i.e. 100 to 300 AD. We have a few MSS from this era, mainly papyri from Egypt. (On this point, while vellum is more durable than papyrus, papyri, nevertheless, can have a lifetime of far more than 30 to 40 years. Take P46 for example.) Is there historical, psychological and statistical data that can inform us of likely copying frequencies, practices and habits of that time? As Vincent noted, population statistics for this era are important. Studies have been made on this, and the Alands mention one in their _Text of the New Testament_ (off the top of my head, I think that it was by Harnack, early this century). I have come across an estimate of the number of MSS made based on the number of churches (referred to in Amphoux' book on the Text. Sorry about these vague references - I'm not at the library.) I also have a vague recollection of seeing a reference to a paper in a statistical journal that addressed such problems. Most unfortunately, I did not write it down at the time. Returning to my call for data rather than speculations, I don't want to stifle discussion. Certainly not -- this can lead us to new discoveries! But I would like to have a good set of references which give solidly based answers to these questions, if such are possible. James Adair is setting up a tc bibliography accessible via the tc web page. Perhaps he could include a section called History, Statistics and Psychology of (early) MS copying or suchlike? So if you do come across a good, relevant reference, don't be like me and assume that you will be able to find it again: write it down and send it to this list (with a summary?) I would like to say that the idea of discovering the psychology of early scribes is not mine: it was mentioned to me by researchers at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) in Muenster. To finish, as far as I know, the only cases of extant copies of extant MSS are the two copies of Codex Claromontanus. This would indicate that we have but a small number of the total ever made surviving. Assuming that copyists did not destroy their exemplars (remembering that a decree was once made that forbade the cleaning of Biblical MSS for other writings -- another reference I should have written down), can you think of how to arrive at an estimate of the total number of uncials from this fact? Have a good weekend, Tim Finney Baptist Theological College of Western Australia From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 24 12:09:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09606; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:07:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:03:46 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Modelling early MS transmission 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: 4043 On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: Being away from my home computer in North Carolina for the holidays (I am currently in Michigan), I cannot answer the questions raised in sufficient detail with data, but the following points can be noted: > Firstly, the critical time for development of variants is said to be the > first two hundred years of transmission i.e. 100 to 300 AD. We have a few > MSS from this era, mainly papyri from Egypt. (On this point, while vellum > is more durable than papyrus, papyri, nevertheless, can have a lifetime of > far more than 30 to 40 years. Take P46 for example.) Is there historical, > psychological and statistical data that can inform us of likely copying > frequencies, practices and habits of that time? In the proper climate and with sufficient care, a papyrus book could likely last 50-60 years with regular use, I would think. In some cases a papyrus MS might even last more than a century, though I would suspect this to be more doubtful. The fragments of papyrus MSS which survive all seem to have fallen apart or disintegrated some time before the possible maximum life of such a MS, perhaps due to travel or less than optimum preservation conditions. Of course, if the surviving evidence is instead taken as typical, then one is faced with a possible shelf/use life of papyri for about 20-25 years. I tend to doubt this scenario. Of course, all this is speculation and unsupported by factual data, but I do seem to recall some comments about old MSS (I know the colophon to the Martyrdom of Polycarp speaks of finding an old copy which was almost totally worn out from age and in poor condition, but the age implied there seems to be more pushing the century mark than anything less). > To finish, as far as I know, the only cases of extant copies of extant MSS > are the two copies of Codex Claromontanus. This would indicate that we > have but a small number of the total ever made surviving. With this I fully concur, of course (and probably most everyone else as well). There is an important point here, however, and that is that the limited sample of MSS preserved from antiquity -- especially in the pre-minuscule era -- might _not_ provide to us a statistically significant representative sample of the _real_ state of affairs in MS transmission in the period from century I-VIII, both due to the limited amount of material preserved and the limited geographical area of MS preservation, especially in the papyrus era. This of course has been part of my contention continually in regard to the possibility that the Byzantine Textform may well have been dominant even in the early centuries, both numerically as well as geographically. > Assuming that > copyists did not destroy their exemplars (remembering that a decree was > once made that forbade the cleaning of Biblical MSS for other writings -- > another reference I should have written down), can you think of how to > arrive at an estimate of the total number of uncials from this fact? The decree was made by the Council of Trullo, AD 692, and it specifically concerned turning biblical MSS into palimpsests. I suspect two major things regarding this decree, and they are (1) that the destruction of biblical MSS for re-use as palimpsests was widespread and problematic in the period before AD 692, which caused the council even to consider a ban on the practice; and (2) that the decree obviously was not effective, since most of the known palimpsests we currently possess were made after the 692 decree. I suspect that, especially at the time of the conversion from uncial to minuscule script, the conversion of most uncial MSS to either scrap paper or palimpsest use was a dominant practice. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Tue Dec 24 14:00:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10202; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:00:05 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:57:42 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Modelling early MS transmission Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2764 On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Timothy John Finney wrote: BTW -- didn't anyone else note this date? I rather suspect we're resuming an old thread here, and some of this may already have been copied. [ snip] > >> To finish, as far as I know, the only cases of extant copies of extant MSS >> are the two copies of Codex Claromontanus. This would indicate that we >> have but a small number of the total ever made surviving. > >With this I fully concur, of course (and probably most everyone else as >well). There is an important point here, however, and that is that the >limited sample of MSS preserved from antiquity -- especially in the >pre-minuscule era -- might _not_ provide to us a statistically significant >representative sample of the _real_ state of affairs in MS transmission in >the period from century I-VIII, both due to the limited amount of material >preserved and the limited geographical area of MS preservation, especially >in the papyrus era. This of course has been part of my contention >continually in regard to the possibility that the Byzantine Textform may >well have been dominant even in the early centuries, both numerically as >well as geographically. We should probably offer a clarification here: The only known copies of extand *uncials* are the two copies of Claromontanus. There are a few copies of minuscules known, of which the most important (I think) are 205 and 205abs. Since 205 is itself extremely close kin to 209 (someone though 205 a copy of 209), this group -- and indeed family 1 as a while -- form a good basis for comparisons of the habits of scribes. Other minuscule copies (I'm taking this from the Kurzgefasste Liste; there may be more that haven't been observed) include 9 and 9abs; 30 and 30abs; 1160 and 1160abs; 1909 and 1909abs; 1929 and 1929abs; 1983 and 1983abs; 2036 and 2036abs; it's also been speculated that 614 is a copy of 2412, and I wouldn't be surprised if some other members of family 2138 turn out to be copies. There are also a handful of copies among the lectionaries. For that matter, I expect the Munster T&T volumes will reveal a few more copies. But these are, of course, minuscules, and the circumstances of their transmission may (note that I say *may*) not match those of the uncial era. I think that, to learn about copying in the uncial era, we will have to turn to sister manuscripts (e.g., in Paul, K and 0151 or 056 and 0142) and see what we can extrapolate from those. And even that gives us information for the late uncial era. BTW -- there are also some known copies of vulgate and (I think) Peshitta and Armenian manuscripts. But I doubt they tell us much.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Dec 26 10:57:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16835; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:55:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:51:42 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, BBFI Preacher list , BBFI Missionary list Subject: Tyndale update 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: 1742 1996 saw two significant advances in Tyndale research. Andrew J. Brown published his WILLIAM TYNDALE ON PRIESTS AND PREACHERS (London: Inscriptor Imprints, 1996) which is a short book of only 79 pages. He includes some hitherto unpublished documents (mostly relating to when Tyndale was at Oxford). The documents provide new information on Tyndale's amazing scholarship. The rest of the book consists of quotations form Tyndale that relate to preachers and ecclesiastical authorities. Preachers, be prepared to be roasted if you are not doing your duty by preaching and teaching the Word! At any rate, this little book is a blessing to read. ISBN # 0 9528271 0 7 The second item is the very recent discovery of a third Tyndale 1526 New Testament. It was found at Stuttgart, Germany. I quote the CHURCH TIMES of London, November 22, 1996 as follows: "Curators recataloguing the Bible Collection in the Wurttembergische Landesbibliothek found the hitherto unrecognised Bible undisturbed in its 16th-century binding." It also has the title page which neither of the other two known copies had. The title page says in part, "The newe Testament as it was written and caused to be written by them which herde yt. To whom also our saveour Christ Jesus commaunded that they shulde preache it to all creatures." NOTE: If this is not new information to you, I apologize for the intrusion. The above spelling should not be modernized. Also note the two spellings of "it" in close proximity. Spelling consistency was not so important then. Blessings on your new year. -- 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 Dec 27 08:00:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA21895; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:59:22 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Henry T. Carmichael" To: "Ronald L. Minton" , tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 08:55:50 +0000 Subject: Re: Tyndale Update Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-Id: <96Dec27.085315-0000_.9232-2+19@ctc-fw.ctronsoft.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1736 Ronald Minton wrote: > > The second item is the very recent discovery of a third Tyndale 1526 New > Testament. It was found at Stuttgart, Germany. I quote the CHURCH TIMES > of London, November 22, 1996 as follows: > "Curators recataloguing the Bible Collection in the > Wurttembergische Landesbibliothek found the hitherto unrecognised Bible > undisturbed in its 16th-century binding." It also has the title page > which neither of the other two known copies had. The title page says in > part, "The newe Testament as it was written and caused to be written by > them which herde yt. To whom also our saveour Christ Jesus > commaunded that they shulde preache it to all creatures." > > > NOTE: If this is not new information to you, I apologize for the > intrusion. The above spelling should not be modernized. Also note the > two spellings of "it" in close proximity. Spelling consistency was not so > important then. > > Blessings on your new year. > - -- > 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 > In connection with this title page, have you seen an image of it? I know that printers in those days used various spellings and abbreviations to justify lines of print - perhaps these spellings had the purpose of making the line or lines of print the correct size in the layout of the page. May you be likewise blessed. Henry T. Carmichael htc@ctronsoft.com Henry T. Carmichael VMS System Programmer Computron Software, Inc. (201) 935-3400 x557 301 Route 17 North FAX (201) 935-6355 Rutherford, NJ 07070 E-mail htc@ctronsoft.com From owner-tc-list Fri Dec 27 11:47:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA22992; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 11:46:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:42:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Henry T. Carmichael" cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tyndale Update In-Reply-To: <96Dec27.085315-0000_.9232-2+19@ctc-fw.ctronsoft.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: 1412 On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Henry T. Carmichael wrote: > > Ronald Minton wrote: > > > > The second item is the very recent discovery of a third Tyndale 1526 New > > Testament. It was found at Stuttgart, Germany. I quote the CHURCH TIMES > > of London, November 22, 1996 as follows: > > "Curators recataloguing the Bible Collection in the > > Wurttembergische Landesbibliothek found the hitherto unrecognised Bible > > undisturbed in its 16th-century binding."... It also has the title page > > which neither of the other two known copies had. The title page says in > > part, "The newe Testament as it was written and caused to be written by > > them which herde yt. To whom also our saveour Christ Jesus > > commaunded that they shulde preache it to all creatures." > > > In connection with this title page, have you seen an image of it? I know > that printers in those days used various spellings and abbreviations to > justify lines of print - perhaps these spellings had the purpose of > making the line or lines of print the correct size in the layout of the > page. > As of yet, I have not seen a copy. I am asking a friend in London if he has seen one published, and if so, to send me a copy. If anyone knows where it is available, say on. -- 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 Dec 27 15:59:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA24645; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:58:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:54:16 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <73750.2016@compuserve.com> Subject: Tyndale title page To: TC-List Message-ID: <199612271555_MC2-DF8-B51A@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 544 The "Times Higher" of London, Nov. 29, 1996 ran a photo of the title page. It reads in full (with the text centered) The newe Testame(+line above the e for n)t as it was written / and caused to be written by them which her= de yt. To whom also oure sa= veoure christ Jesus commaunded that they shoulde pre= ache it unto al creatures. While spelling variants could be utilized for the purpose of layout and line length, it does not appear to explain the it - yt variant on the title page. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies New York From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 28 11:07:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA28967; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:06:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 16:02:38 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961228105915.23c72a74@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: James Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 229 Could someone please tell me where I can find a copy of James from D (on the net). Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 28 13:02:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29447; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:01:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 17:57:03 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961228125409.27e75d80@mail.sunbelt.net> X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) 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: Egerton Gospel Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 230 Would someone please tell me what the so called "Egerton Gospel" is and where it can be found in ms. Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 28 13:02:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29455; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:02:04 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961228105915.23c72a74@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:00:33 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: James Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 883 On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Jim West 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. Bezae contained part of them (since a small portion of the Johannine Epistles survives on the Latin side), but there is no Greek text. 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. Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 28 13:12:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29544; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:11:36 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:07:29 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961228130435.27e7f0dc@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: James Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1076 Robert, At 12:00 PM 12/28/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Jim West 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 jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 28 13:16:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29586; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:16:26 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:32:06 -0600 From: Mack Roark To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Egerton Gospel -Reply Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 167 For Egerton Papyrus 2 see Bell and Skeat, "Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri", Oxford UP, 1935. Mack Roark Oklahoma Baptist University From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 28 13:36:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29638; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:36:20 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:52:36 -0600 From: Mack Roark To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, jwest@sunbelt.net Subject: Re: James -Reply Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 368 Jim, Since I am new to both tc-list and internet I can only hope I am doing the mechanics of this correctly. To pursue your interest in the text of James, particularly the TR text, you might start with the good and brief discussion in the Dibelius/Greeven commentary in the Hermeneia series, 57ff. Mack Roark Oklahoma Baptist University mack_roark@mail.okbu.edu From owner-tc-list Sat Dec 28 14:51:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00226; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:51:29 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961228130435.27e7f0dc@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:49:23 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: James Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1755 On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Jim West wrote, in part: >> 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?) 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 waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Dec 29 19:49:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA05592; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:47:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 18:43:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 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: 1001 On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Jim West wrote, in part: > >>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?) > > 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. 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: 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 Sun Dec 29 20:14:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA05743; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:12:41 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:09:29 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: James Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1265 On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote, in part: >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. 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 waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn From owner-tc-list Sun Dec 29 21:13:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06158; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 21:11:15 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 21:05:15 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Byz or M text translation (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: 2329 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 23 Nov 96 21:06:59 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Byz or M text translation 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 Dec 30 20:16:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA12941; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 20:15:03 -0500 Message-ID: <32C86A51.12BD@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:20:17 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Egerton Gospel References: <1.5.4.16.19961228125409.27e75d80@mail.sunbelt.net> 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: 693 Jim West wrote: > > Would someone please tell me what the so called "Egerton Gospel" is and > where it can be found in ms. > Jim, I didn't see a reply to your question over the last day or so, so here goes. The Egerton Papyrus 2 was found in Egypt in 1935 and consisted of two pages, a fragment of a third and a little scrap of a 4th. The pericopes have close parallels to GJohn but is not dependent on John. Personally, I believe that Egerton is a Greek translation of the original Aramaic "proto-John." Helmut Koester treats the Egerton in depth in "Ancient Christian Gospels" and since I know you have that, I will not list bibliographies. Jack Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Mon Dec 30 23:36:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA13569; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:34:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 22:30:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Julian Goldberg cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byz or M text translation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1262 On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Julian Goldberg forwarded: > > 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 folks at the Majority Text Society are translating now, but I do not know what will become of it. > ** 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").... He also missed at Acts 19:20 Lord vs God. > ** 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). The Maj Text should be used by the IGNTP and all other collators. This would save a lot of work because more mss agree with that than any TR. I told them, but they said don't call us, we'll call you :) > Hope this is helpful. > > Mike A. It was. -- 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