From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 2 09:54:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26721; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:52:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Amy Anderson" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:47:16 GMT Subject: Re: James Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 459 In reference to the bit of discussion recently on the differences between TR and Majority text, etc., could someone provide a simple definition of the following terms which helps to keep them differentiated? I mean, really simple, like no more than 4 sentences per term. TR Majority Text Byzantine Text Koine Text The next question would be if all/most text critics agree on these definitions.... In any case, it would sure be a help to me. Thanks! From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 2 10:56:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27059; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:54:20 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:52:52 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1984 On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, "Amy Anderson" wrote: >In reference to the bit of discussion recently on the differences >between TR and Majority text, etc., could someone provide a simple >definition of the following terms which helps to keep them >differentiated? I mean, really simple, like no more than 4 sentences >per term. > >TR TR = Textus Receptus. An edition substantially identical to that which Erasmus published in the early sixteenth century. The most widely mentioned TR editions are those of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, and the Oxford edition of 1873. >Majority Text The text found in the majority of manuscripts. Usually the same as the TR, but there are some thousands of differences. (E.g. the Majority Text does not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.) When the reference is to a particular *book*, it will usually be to the edition by Hodges & Farstad. >Byzantine Text This is more difficult. It could mean the Majority Text. It could mean the text used in Byzantium. I personally tend to use it to refer to the original form of the text which eventually evolved into the Majority Text. This text probably, but by no means certainly, evolved in Byzantium. (BTW -- I use the term "Byzantine Text" in this way not because this is necessarily the best meaning, but because we need *some* name for this text.) The term should not be, but often is, equated with the TR. >Koine Text Refers technically to Von Soden's K text, which is more or less the Byzantine text. However, the term is often used loosely for any of the above three texts. >The next question would be if all/most text critics agree on these >definitions.... I think I've covered that. Everyone agrees about "TR." Almost all would agree about "Majority Text." The other two are fuzzier. I hope this helps. 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 Thu Jan 2 23:59:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA02675; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:58:52 -0500 Date: 02 Jan 97 23:54:19 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Maj text trans Message-ID: <970103045418_102147.2045_EHT90-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1751 >The folks at the Majority Text Society are translating now, but I do not know what will become >of it. Actually, Arthur Farstad put out the Gospel of John called "Living Water The Gospel of John - Logos 21 Version" meaning the Word (Logos) of God for the 21st century. This is a contemporary trans straight out of the Hodges-Farstad text. You can visit the Living Water WWW at http://www.livingwater.org > ** 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. Actually he didn't "miss" it. In his book "The Authorized edition of the English Bible" (p. 247) he leaves "faith" in the text as it was "a mere oversite of our translators". Re. Acts 19:20 Scrivener claims that the 1611 translators followed the Vulgate rather than the Greek (Ibid., p. 263). > ** 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 :) True, but using the Majtxt as a new collating base (as Wallace argued in an article in Bib Sac) would render all previously published collations obsolete. Besides Hodges and Farstad may very well change the text in the future (fat chance but you never know) and then what do you do? Mike A. From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 3 10:30:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05259; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:27:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:23:30 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: ANDERASA@m4-arts.bham.ac.uk, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: 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: 1527 Dr. Waltz, very good summary, I also add my $0.02 :) > TR = Textus Receptus. An edition substantially identical to that which > Erasmus published in the early sixteenth century. The most widely > mentioned TR editions are those of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, and the > Oxford edition of 1873. The Oxford 1825 was used by H&F, so has become a convenient TR used by many. > >Majority Text > The text found in the majority of manuscripts. Usually the same as > the TR, but there are some thousands of differences. (E.g. the > Majority Text does not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.) c. 1850 differences. > >Byzantine Text > > This is more difficult. It could mean the Majority Text. It could mean > the text used in Byzantium. I personally tend to use it to refer to the > original form of the text which eventually evolved into the Majority > Text. This text probably, but by no means certainly, evolved in > Byzantium. (BTW -- I use the term "Byzantine Text" in this way not > because this is necessarily the best meaning, but because we need > *some* name for this text.) I think of the Byz text as a textual family or text type, ie the hypothetical text behind the majority of manuscripts. Other names that are sometimes used for the above are: Received Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Syrian Text, "A" Text, Antiochan Text, Common Text, Traditional Text -- 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 Jan 3 11:27:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05820; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:26:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:23:57 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2721 On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >Dr. Waltz, very good summary, I also add my $0.02 :) Just have to remind everyone that I am not a doctor, nor even a seminarian. Just a person trained in Physics and Math and gifted (?) with a bog mouth (or, in this case, keyboard). >> TR = Textus Receptus. An edition substantially identical to that which >> Erasmus published in the early sixteenth century. The most widely >> mentioned TR editions are those of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, and the >> Oxford edition of 1873. > >The Oxford 1825 was used by H&F, so has become a convenient TR used by many. The Oxford editions are the basis for most recent collations. And it's a good thing that H&F list their readings, because they aren't easy to find any more! >> >Majority Text >> The text found in the majority of manuscripts. Usually the same as >> the TR, but there are some thousands of differences. (E.g. the >> Majority Text does not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.) > >c. 1850 differences. That's the number of differences that Wallace finds between the TR and H&F. But I would note that H&F is *not* the Majority Text; it's a preliminary edition. It's based mostly on von Soden. At this time, with so many manuscripts uncollated, we don't actually *know* the reading of the Majority Text at some points. There are probably a few places where H&F (or Robinson) print a reading which is not a majority reading. I would guess there are fewer than a hundred such, but there are undoubtedly some. >> >Byzantine Text >> >> This is more difficult. It could mean the Majority Text. It could mean >> the text used in Byzantium. I personally tend to use it to refer to the >> original form of the text which eventually evolved into the Majority >> Text. This text probably, but by no means certainly, evolved in >> Byzantium. (BTW -- I use the term "Byzantine Text" in this way not >> because this is necessarily the best meaning, but because we need >> *some* name for this text.) > >I think of the Byz text as a textual family or text type, ie the >hypothetical text behind the majority of manuscripts. I agree. >Other names that are sometimes used for the above are: Received Text, >Ecclesiastical Text, Syrian Text, "A" Text, Antiochan Text, Common Text, >Traditional Text I hereby propose, though, that we stick with "Byzantine text." It's one of the oldest names, and it's less confusing than, say, Hort's "Syrian text." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Jan 3 21:32:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA10060; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:28:56 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 02:24:47 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970103212133.24973ba4@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: P90, P98 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 288 I would appreciate it if someone could provide me with the bibliography of P90 and P98. I.e., I wish to know where they are published. Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 3 22:25:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10282; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:22:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:18:31 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: 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: 3605 On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >The Oxford 1825 was used by H&F, so has become a convenient TR used by many. > > The Oxford editions are the basis for most recent collations. And > it's a good thing that H&F list their readings, because they aren't > easy to find any more! The problem is that for many years Dallas Seminary itself reprinted and used the Oxford 1825 TR, and that is what H/F used. Virtually no one else (including myself) can find a copy of that specific edition anywhere, since Dallas Seminary no longer prints it. Note that the IGNTP uses its own reprinted fascicles of the Oxford 1873 TR, which itself would be difficult to locate apart from IGNTP making its own reprints for internal use. Probably the most common and continuing as available TR edition is the Stephens 1550 text as found in the George Ricker Berry interlinear Greek NT (originally published in 1897, but still in print from various reprint houses). That is the specific Stephens 1550 TR edition utilized in the Online Bible program, along with the artificial TR supposedly underlying the KJV prepared by Scrivener in 1894. > That's the number of differences that Wallace finds between the TR and > H&F. But I would note that H&F is *not* the Majority Text; it's a > preliminary edition. It's based mostly on von Soden. I would count the H/F text as a final edition, despite their suggestions to the contrary. The second edition of the text (1985) merely corrected some typos and oversights, and there have been no changes whatsoever since that time, nor have Hodges or Farstad made any suggestions that any such changes might be forthcoming. The Robinson/Pierpont text has undergone a similar revision process since its 1991 appearance, but the status of two or three otherwise divided readings (nothing of major significance) has been changed after some reflection. The current R/P text should be available from Vincent Broman's site, and any differences found between the text on the Broman site and the printed edition or that found in the Online Bible should be considered to supersede previous versions. > At this time, with so many manuscripts uncollated, we don't actually > *know* the reading of the Majority Text at some points. There are > probably a few places where H&F (or Robinson) print a reading which > is not a majority reading. I would guess there are fewer than a hundred > such, but there are undoubtedly some. This applies more to H/F than to R/P, but it should strictly be noted that even H/F do not "count noses" and actually print the numerically superior reading at all times. Indeed, their non-majority readings (predominantly in Revelation and the Pericope Adultera) remain one of the sole elements of praise allotted by Wallace to the H/F text. In the case of the R/P text, "majority" is basically a non-issue, since the primary issue is and always has been "Byzantine Textform"; the R/P text in a number of places where the Byzantine MSS are divided in fact _does_ adopt minority readings. > >I think of the Byz text as a textual family or text type, ie the > >hypothetical text behind the majority of manuscripts. > > I agree. >From my perspective the Byzantine is neither a "family" nor "text type", but is instead the archetypical "textform" which thus underlies the text found in the majority of MSS (which coincidentally happen to comprise the "Byzantine MSS" group) > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn Wow....I thought I was the only one offering such opinions. :-) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 3 22:35:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10341; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:34:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:30:19 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970103222706.2787d0d8@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: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1281 At 10:18 PM 1/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > > >On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >The problem is that for many years Dallas Seminary itself reprinted and >used the Oxford 1825 TR, and that is what H/F used. Virtually no one else >(including myself) can find a copy of that specific edition anywhere, >since Dallas Seminary no longer prints it. Note that the IGNTP uses its >own reprinted fascicles of the Oxford 1873 TR, which itself would be >difficult to locate apart from IGNTP making its own reprints for internal >use. Probably the most common and continuing as available TR edition is >the Stephens 1550 text as found in the George Ricker Berry interlinear >Greek NT (originally published in 1897, but still in print from various >reprint houses). That is the specific Stephens 1550 TR edition utilized in >the Online Bible program, along with the artificial TR supposedly >underlying the KJV prepared by Scrivener in 1894. I don't know if this is what you want- but the TR is indeed available in the States. I will try to find out the publisher Monday- but I think it is somewhere in TN. I got a copy last year. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 3 22:44:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10395; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:43:59 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:39:53 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970103223640.26473e56@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: Byz Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 912 Yes, I found it. The publisher is AMG Publications. Their number is either 615 894-6060 or 423 894-6060 (I am not sure which because recently we have all had our area codes changed- so they might have the new one 423 or they might still be in that part of the state which has the old one). When I called them last year the person I talked to first did not know there was such a thing as the Greek New Testament! So you might have some trouble getting them to understand what you want. The title is "he kaine diatheke" subtitled "the Greek text underlying the english version of 1611". Trinitarian Bible Society. the intro says that this text follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition and is identical to scrivener's edition. Sorry if this is useless info. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 3 23:15:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA10553; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:14:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:09:50 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970103222706.2787d0d8@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1231 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: > >The problem is that for many years Dallas Seminary itself reprinted and > >used the Oxford 1825 TR, and that is what H/F used. Virtually no one else > >(including myself) can find a copy of that specific edition anywhere, > >since Dallas Seminary no longer prints it. Note that the IGNTP uses its > >own reprinted fascicles of the Oxford 1873 TR, which itself would be > >difficult to locate apart from IGNTP making its own reprints for internal > >use. > > I don't know if this is what you want- but the TR is indeed available in the > States. I will try to find out the publisher Monday- but I think it is > somewhere in TN. I got a copy last year. Even if the Oxford 1825 TR might be available in print (it is a public domain text in any case), there really is _no_ reason for anyone to use it for collation or other purposes, since it does not conform to the Stephens 1550 or Elziver 1633 TR, let alone to the IGNTP's Oxford 1873 edition which -- if anything -- should be the "standard" TR for text-critical purposes. I would not myself recommend anyone to obtain the Oxford 1825 edition, since no collation or other data will be based upon such, even if made in the 1800s. From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 3 23:17:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA10579; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:16:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:12:47 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byz Text In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970103223640.26473e56@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 772 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: > Yes, I found it. The publisher is AMG Publications. > > The title is "he kaine diatheke" subtitled "the Greek text underlying the > english version of 1611". Trinitarian Bible Society. > the intro says that this text follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition and is > identical to scrivener's edition. That is a "TR", but it most emphatically is NOT the Oxford 1825 TR which had previously been reprinted by Dallas Seminary. Instead, that is the Scrivener 1894 TR which was artificially created by him to reflect the text purportedly underlying the KJV. That text also is useless for text-critical purposes, and I do not recommend it, especially for collation, since it has over 220 differences from the Stephens 1550 text. From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 08:24:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12046; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 08:22:12 -0500 Message-ID: <32CE8240.27B1@voicenet.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 08:16:00 -0800 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: P90, P98 References: <1.5.4.16.19970103212133.24973ba4@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: 405 Hi Jim West! I believe New Docs vol 7 discusses p90. Mark Bruffey Jim West wrote: > > I would appreciate it if someone could provide me with the bibliography of > P90 and P98. I.e., I wish to know where they are published. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Petros TN > Professor of Biblical Studies, > Quartz Hill School of Theology > > jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 09:36:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA12306; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 09:34:50 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.16.19970103223640.26473e56@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 08:31:53 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Byz Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1873 Maurice Robinson , responding to Jim West, wrote: >On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: > >> Yes, I found it. The publisher is AMG Publications. >> >> The title is "he kaine diatheke" subtitled "the Greek text underlying the >> english version of 1611". Trinitarian Bible Society. >> the intro says that this text follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition and is >> identical to scrivener's edition. > >That is a "TR", but it most emphatically is NOT the Oxford 1825 TR which >had previously been reprinted by Dallas Seminary. Instead, that is the >Scrivener 1894 TR which was artificially created by him to reflect the >text purportedly underlying the KJV. That text also is useless for >text-critical purposes, and I do not recommend it, especially for >collation, since it has over 220 differences from the Stephens 1550 text. This reminds us of an important point: Not all TRs are the same. Yes, they are highly similar. But not identical! Extreme editions may differ in hundreds of places. The Berry edition, which Robinson mentioned earlier, cites differences between Stephanus and Elzevir (based on the comparison by Scrivener). So do several editions of Tischendorf. The problem is not finding editions of the TR; I have two (the Berry edition and Scrivner's KJV reconstruction). The problem is finding a *specific* edition of the TR. I can't remember the reading, but I remember spending hours trying to figure out what appeared to be a nonsensical reading in a collation. The problem turned out to be that I was using the wrong TR edition at one of the places where the editions split. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jan 4 11:19:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12754; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:16:24 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:12:18 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970104111359.2797758e@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: P90, P98 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 702 At 08:16 AM 1/4/97 -0800, you wrote: >Hi Jim West! > >I believe New Docs vol 7 discusses p90. What is this New Docs vol 7? Sorry, but I do not know this abbreviation. Yours, Jim > >Mark Bruffey > >Jim West wrote: >> >> I would appreciate it if someone could provide me with the bibliography of >> P90 and P98. I.e., I wish to know where they are published. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jim >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Jim West, ThD >> Petros TN >> Professor of Biblical Studies, >> Quartz Hill School of Theology >> >> jwest@sunbelt.net > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 12:10:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13017; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:09:50 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:05:46 -0500 Message-ID: <970104120546_2088203240@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byz or M text translation Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 539 Dear colleagues: In light of the discussion of Mike Arcieri and Julian Goldberg Re. the Maj. text, has anyone any comments on a volume that I have found somewhat at odds with itself; the title is: THE INTERLINEAR GREEK - ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT The Nestle Greek text with a Literal English Translation. The margianal text is the King James (as is the interlinear yet the Greek is Nestle!). So, go figure. By the way the author is Alfred Marshall D. Litt. Samuel Bagster & Sons 1959. Any Comments? Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com) From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 12:11:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13024; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:10:04 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:06:01 -0500 Message-ID: <970104120600_1525064553@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: H&F Maj Text apparatus Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 669 Dear TC colleagues: I have recently been in discussion with a previous Greek professor of mine who is still using the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text. I was arguing how the apparatus is insufficient at best. I would appreciate any comments from any of you either pro or con in respect to this work so as to give further reference and maybe even learn something from some of you out there (as I usually do). I am mainly arguing that the apparatus of either the UBS or NA contains much more information as to the textual nature of the variants. This is not a discussion of the text itself. Thank you for your input In His Service Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com) From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 12:20:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13090; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:19:16 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970104120546_2088203240@emout02.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:17:56 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Byz or M text translation Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1345 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com) wrote: >Dear colleagues: > >In light of the discussion of Mike Arcieri and Julian Goldberg Re. the Maj. >text, has anyone any comments on a volume that I have found somewhat at odds >with itself; the title is: THE INTERLINEAR GREEK - ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT > The Nestle Greek text with a Literal English Translation. > >The margianal text is the King James (as is the interlinear yet the Greek is >Nestle!). >So, go figure. By the way the author is Alfred Marshall D. Litt. Samuel >Bagster & Sons 1959. > >Any Comments? There are any number of these Marshall volumes. I have a Marshall text with the RSV alongside. There's also one with the NIV, and I believe there's one with the NIV and NRSV. It just seems to be a publishing trick: Take the Marshall interlinear, put another text alongside of it, and see if you can get somebody to but it.... On the other hand, I think the Marshall interlinear is fairly good. I personally like it better than the other NRSV interlinear -- though I wish they would re-typeset it. My humble opinions, of course. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jan 4 12:26:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13112; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:25:16 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970104120600_1525064553@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:24:00 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1834 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com) wrote: >Dear TC colleagues: > >I have recently been in discussion with a previous Greek professor of mine >who is still using the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text. I was arguing how >the apparatus is insufficient at best. I would appreciate any comments from >any of you either pro or con in respect to this work so as to give further >reference and maybe even learn something from some of you out there (as I >usually do). I am mainly arguing that the apparatus of either the UBS or NA >contains much more information as to the textual nature of the variants. > This is not a discussion of the text itself. > >Thank you for your input It depends on your purpose. If you want to reconstruct a text -- then, yes, the H&F apparatus is inadequate. It is inadequate even for the purpose of determining the true majority text, because it doesn't include the readings of any manuscripts, and does not even give the readings of textual groupings consistently (that is, it will sometimes list Kr or Kc or whatnot, but where it lists an Mpart reading, you can't tell which groups go which way). On the other hand, as a starting point for controversial discussions, it's fairly good. Yes, it would be better if it cited more TR editions, and also if it cited at least two other critical editions (I would say it should cite Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and -- now -- R&P in the first apparatus, and W&H and NA25 along with UBS in the second). But that's not the point. The point is to show how a text constructed on H&F's principles would appear. Most of us don't accept that principle -- but if we did, the apparatus would be acceptable if not ideal. But you see why I keep calling out for a Majority Text edition with a *real* critical apparatus. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 12:38:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13145; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:36:56 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:32:46 -0500 Message-ID: <970104123245_1223868463@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions & TR Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 452 TC Colleagues, As far as differing TR texts online I know that the Logos Bible program offers both the 1550 and 1897 TR as well as the Maj. text and the NA26. But alas, as of yet no one has put an apparatus with their programs (as far as I know) yet I have spoken with the president of BibleWorks for windows (Hermeneutika) and they are attempting to complete one and add it to their very wonderful and powerful program. In His Service Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 13:24:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13285; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:23:50 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:19:21 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: spread sheet of variants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 686 My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27. I will let you know as soon as we have it transfered on to a spread sheet (Spring 1997 Semester). Right now the approximately 12,000 variants are not as valuable because we have to do manual calculations. Still, we can get some data. For instance the TR agrees with both Aleph and B some 300 times (3.1%) AGAINST the Majority Text. Ours is a statistical table that has take nine years to complete (97% done). -- 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 Sat Jan 4 14:12:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13450; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:11:04 -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: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:08:45 -0700 To: "Ronald L. Minton" From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: spread sheet of variants Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1969 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the >variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27. I will let you know as soon >as we have it transfered on to a spread sheet (Spring 1997 Semester). >Right now the approximately 12,000 variants are not as valuable because >we have to do manual calculations. Still, we can get some data. For >instance the TR agrees with both Aleph and B some 300 times (3.1%) >AGAINST the Majority Text. Ours is a statistical table that has take >nine years to complete (97% done). Have you considered transferring this to a data analysis program -- or, failing that, a programmable database? It means you would have to do a bit of simple programming to do your data modelling -- but you would also be able to create much more involved (and, IMHO, useful) statistics. I tried to set up a similar project in a spreadsheet about five years ago. It just wasn't possible to produce the statistics I wanted (e.g. for near-singular readings). The database gave much more flexibility. It was also easier to read.... I would hope you would keep us posted on this project, though. It sounds like a useful undertaking. It shouldn't really come as a surprise to see the TR occasionally agreeing with B and Aleph against the majority text. After all, in addition to its Byzantine componets, the TR includes readings from 1 (with a large non-Byzantine component in the gospels) and the vulgate (significantly non-Byzantine throughout). In any case, the real question is, "Where the TR disagrees with the Majority Text, what does it *most often* agree with?" Also, "What does the TR agree with most often?" -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jan 4 15:02:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13746; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:00:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:56:10 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <73750.2016@compuserve.com> Subject: P 90 To: TC-List Message-ID: <199701041456_MC1-E3A-5B4E@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 293 New Docs is probably _New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 7_ (Macquarie U.), but I haven't seen volume 7. P 90 (Oxy 3523) is discussed by T. C. Skeat in the "official publication," _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol. 50_ , pp. 3 - 8, plate 1. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 17:38:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14073; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:32:56 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:33:36 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus 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: 6736 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > It depends on your purpose. If you want to reconstruct a text -- then, > yes, the H&F apparatus is inadequate. It is inadequate even for the > purpose of determining the true majority text, because it doesn't > include the readings of any manuscripts, and does not even give the > readings of textual groupings consistently (that is, it will sometimes > list Kr or Kc or whatnot, but where it lists an Mpart reading, you > can't tell which groups go which way). Bob and I would concur on this point. The H/F text probably should never have included an apparatus if the intent were somehow to demonstrate how a "majority text" might be constructed or evaluated. H/F themselves refer their readers to Von Soden as the primary apparatus (which obviously everyone does not possess, but it is available in most seminary libraries or by interlibrary loan if its use is required). All the data in the H/F apparatus is intended to do is to (a) clearly show where their "majority text" differs from Nestle 26/27 (and this probably should have been done solely by printing "N26" instead of attempting to give the "E" for "Egyptian text" symbol along with the supposed leading representatives of that Egyptian text in each book etc., as well as selected papyrus readings. There is obviously some attempt in that portion of the apparatus to reflect the H/F view that there are but two texttypes, the "majority" and the "Egyptian", but I fail to see how their apparatus as presented really demonstrates that aspect. Better simply to list the N26/27 variants, and refer readers to the Nestle edition for their apparatus data. The other portion of the H/F apparatus is more valuable, since it attempts to show some (but not all) Byzantine sub-variants as listed in the Von Soden apparatus, reflecting the Ka K1 Kc Kr etc. sub-groups. Even here, however, the H/F apparatus fails, since it does not list all the various K-group sub-variants cited by Von Soden, but only those considered most significant. Once more, the reader is forced to use Von Soden to understand the whole scope of the Byzantine (K) Textform and its sub-variant groups. So all in all, while the H/F text could and probably should stand alone as the result of their process of critical editing, their apparatus is not and, under the circumstances, could not be adequate for further textual study of the "majority" or Byzantine Textform. I would have preferred that the apparatus had either been left out entirely, or else had been totally restricted only to showing variation from N26/27 and the various K-subgroup readings in their entirety. The R/P text included no apparatus for this very reason, though I do agree that there is a place for a solely continuous text edition such as R/P for the general reader, as well as for the scholarly reader an apparatus which lists at least the N26/27 differences and K-subgroup readings, which perhaps may be included in a later edition, electronic or printed. Part of the problem was that in the publisher's rush to print, there was no time left to prepare an apparatus of that type before publication, even though we had all the data completely listed within the margins of a master copy of the TR which had been adjusted to reflect the Byzantine Textform. As it stands, the only indication of variant readings in the R/P edition is the enclosure of certain words in square brackets [ ], which indicates only a divided Byzantine text regarding inclusion or omission of the words so bracketed. These bracketed cases do not, however, reflect all the divided Byzantine readings, and many instances where transposition or substitution occur are simply not noted; only the editors' choice is printed in such cases. Back to the discussion of the H/F edition: > On the other hand, as a starting point for controversial discussions, > it's fairly good. Yes, it would be better if it cited more TR editions, > and also if it cited at least two other critical editions (I would > say it should cite Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and -- now -- R&P in > the first apparatus, and W&H and NA25 along with UBS in the second). I differ dramatically from Bob here. The TR is basically totally irrelevant, whether the Oxford 1825 used by H/F in their apparatus, or any of the other editions. The citation of the TR in any apparatus has no bearing on either textual criticism or the establishment of the text, majority/Byzantine or otherwise. H/F would have been wiser not to have included any TR reference in their apparatus. I most certainly hope that they do not similarly decide to include other editions such as W-H and R/P in any future editions -- a similar waste of time, no more valuable than all the subvariants listed in the Berry interlinear edition which merely reflect the choices of editors of that time (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Griesbach, Lachmann, etc.) as well as the Elzevir differences from the Stephens 1550 base text. What is most important in an apparatus to a majority text edition is basically the Byzantine sub-groups and how the text as a whole differs from that in current use by eclectic scholars. Nothing more. > But you see why I keep calling out for a Majority Text edition with > a *real* critical apparatus. :-) Simple solution: use Nestle 27 and follow the gothic "M". That will take anyone virtually 99% toward a "majority" or Byzantine text edition, and you don't even need H/F or R/P for that purpose. Use Von Soden to cover the remaining places where "K" differs from N27 but is not cited in the N27 apparatus, and you will have it all. The only remaining item of significance is the K-subgroup testimony and the decisions made when the main "K" groups is itself divided. Constructing a Byzantine Textform edition is (on the surface at least) far easier than the creation of an eclectic text -- what is difficult is determining the entire theory of textual transmission which will explain both the favored Byzantine Textform as well as explain the other texttypes, sub-types, families, and other remaining readings as found in our extant manuscript resources. That is why I have consistently addressed the issue of the underlying history of transmission rather than the matter of determining the Byzantine readings in most cases. There is a world of difference between that methodology and that which underlies that of the modern eclectics. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 20:08:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA14480; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:07:56 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970105010119.0068c0d0@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: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 17:01:19 -0800 To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1574 I did some paste-up work on the original H&F Maj text while I was a student. One of the tasks I did as part of the checking/paste-up was to compare the H&F choices for the M reading with the choice found in UBS3/NA26 for the M reading. The thing that struck me--its been a while and I didn't do the whole of the NT (its been so long that I don't even remember which portion I did), so don't take this as gospel-- was that the H&F choice for the M text matched the M reading in NA every single time. The reason that struck me was, as others have noted, the original collation was done on the basis of von Soden and I had heard all of these terrible things about von Soden's errors. Yet the comparison to the M reading in NA matched everytime...I came to the (tentative !!!!!) conclusion that von Soden (and his students) must not have done all that bad of a job after all. I asked Zane Hodges about that and he referred me to an article on that issue (J.R.Royse, "Von Soden's Accuracy," JTS 30/1 [Apr, 1979]:166-71). I'm not claiming that either Royse or von Soden is accurate; just thought a bit of historical trivia might be found interesting in the midst of the discussion... *********************************************************************** 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 Sat Jan 4 20:36:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA14570; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:35:41 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:31:29 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970105010119.0068c0d0@mail.teleport.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2715 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > I asked Zane Hodges about that and he referred me to > an article on that issue (J.R.Royse, "Von Soden's > Accuracy," JTS 30/1 [Apr, 1979]:166-71). I'm not > claiming that either Royse or von Soden is accurate; just > thought a bit of historical trivia might be found interesting > in the midst of the discussion... As Wisse noted, Von Soden's accuracy in the matter of group designations is far superior to his accuracy with individual MS citations. I have a lengthy doctoral seminar paper on Von Soden in which I examined the original claims regarding his accuracy or lack of it, and it turns out that the key review by Hoskier which claimed the work was "positively honeycombed with errors" was a statement made due to Hoskier's failure to understand Von Soden's system. E.g., Hoskier complained that a certain MS had "ffff" after it, and Hoskier mistakenly thought that meant that MS number (say, a4 or the like), and the four MSS in direct numerical sequence following (i.e. a5 a6 a7 a8), when such was not Von Soden's intent at all, as anyone who understands Von Soden's system should know. A later review by Souter also was wrong when it claimed error in a passage in Ephesians as presented in Von Soden's apparatus, mainly because Souter also was unable properly to understand Von Soden's curious symbolic designations and manuscript nomenclature. I tested Von Soden's accuracy in regard to Codex Vaticanus by collating that MS for a single Pauline Epistle and comparing that collation with Von Soden's text and apparatus, and found his data unimpeachable, though easily subject to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. This is not to say that there are not any errors in Von Soden's apparatus -- indeed, with as complex a system as he had (and considering that the material all had to be hand-typeset or use a very complex linotype), it is small wonder that there are not far more errors in Von Soden's apparatus than actually appear. I personally find almost all of Von Soden's group designations regarding the Byzantine Textform (K) and the Alexandrian texttype (H) to be quite accurate. The greatest weakness is the mish-mash of the "western" (I) group, which mixes quite disparate elements from the western, Caesarean, and other groups under one head. But even then, the small sub-family groups even within (I) remain generally accurate. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 21:38:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15059; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 21:36:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:56:46 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Re: spread sheet of variants To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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: 3249 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: > > >My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the > >variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27. I will let you know as soon > >as we have it transfered on to a spread sheet (Spring 1997 Semester). > >Right now the approximately 12,000 variants are not as valuable because > >we have to do manual calculations. Still, we can get some data. For > >instance the TR agrees with both Aleph and B some 300 times (3.1%) > >AGAINST the Majority Text. Ours is a statistical table that has take > >nine years to complete (97% done). > > Have you considered transferring this to a data analysis program -- > or, failing that, a programmable database? It means you would have > to do a bit of simple programming to do your data modelling -- but > you would also be able to create much more involved (and, IMHO, > useful) statistics. > > I tried to set up a similar project in a spreadsheet about five > years ago. It just wasn't possible to produce the statistics I > wanted (e.g. for near-singular readings). The database gave much > more flexibility. It was also easier to read.... > > I would hope you would keep us posted on this project, though. It > sounds like a useful undertaking. > > It shouldn't really come as a surprise to see the TR occasionally agreeing > with B and Aleph against the majority text. After all, in addition to its > Byzantine componets, the TR includes readings from 1 (with a large > non-Byzantine component in the gospels) and the vulgate (significantly > non-Byzantine throughout). > > In any case, the real question is, "Where the TR disagrees with the > Majority Text, what does it *most often* agree with?" Also, "What > does the TR agree with most often?" > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > > > When comparing the TR of Stephanus, Bezae and Elzevirs, it was found that the Elzevirs TR was more similar in agreement to the Bezae TR than the Stephanus TR most of the time with regards to variants. Also, the Bezae TR seemed to have been the closest in Greek to the English King James Version. However, one cannot be most sure about this because the Scrivener TR text of Bezae was considered and the edition that was used did not mention and variants which most likely is found in other Scrivener TR that are not based on the Bezae TR but which were placed in the text to get as close as possible to the original King James Version underlying Greek. An estimation is that the TR in general may have 3/4 of it based on the majority text and about 1/4 of it based on many other different texts whether minority Greek and some Latin translations. The goal is to find out in any given TR since they differ slightly what passages constitute this 1/4 and to make changes to it to get it in line if possible as a majority reading of the text. Even comparing the variations between the different TRs would be a start in finding what's what. From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 21:55:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15248; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 21:54:14 -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: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:52:06 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Compound Reply (Was: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7117 Responses to selected snippets.... Maurice Robinson, quoting me: >> On the other hand, as a starting point for controversial discussions, >> it's fairly good. Yes, it would be better if it cited more TR editions, >> and also if it cited at least two other critical editions (I would >> say it should cite Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and -- now -- R&P in >> the first apparatus, and W&H and NA25 along with UBS in the second). > >I differ dramatically from Bob here. The TR is basically totally >irrelevant, whether the Oxford 1825 used by H/F in their apparatus, or any >of the other editions. The citation of the TR in any apparatus has no >bearing on either textual criticism or the establishment of the text, >majority/Byzantine or otherwise. H/F would have been wiser not to have >included any TR reference in their apparatus. I most certainly hope that >they do not similarly decide to include other editions such as W-H and R/P >in any future editions -- a similar waste of time, no more valuable than >all the subvariants listed in the Berry interlinear edition which merely >reflect the choices of editors of that time (Tischendorf, Tregelles, >Griesbach, Lachmann, etc.) as well as the Elzevir differences from the >Stephens 1550 base text. What is most important in an apparatus to a >majority text edition is basically the Byzantine sub-groups and how the >text as a whole differs from that in current use by eclectic scholars. >Nothing more. I suppose I should explain myself. In principle I agree with Robinson; the various versions of TR and the more modern editions have no *critical* value in reconstructing the Byzantine or Majority text. On the other hand, it is useful to know the readings of the modern editions, just to see where the differences lie. And I'd like the readings of the various TRs just to be able to use some of the older editions. :-) I asked for what I did not for the critical value of the editions, but purely for convenience. >> But you see why I keep calling out for a Majority Text edition with >> a *real* critical apparatus. :-) > >Simple solution: use Nestle 27 and follow the gothic "M". That will take >anyone virtually 99% toward a "majority" or Byzantine text edition, and >you don't even need H/F or R/P for that purpose. Use Von Soden to cover >the remaining places where "K" differs from N27 but is not cited in the >N27 apparatus, and you will have it all. But that's exactly the problem. I want solid detail about the point where M divides. And von Soden (even if I could decipher it, which is hard since I don't have Kraft) is much better for groups than manuscripts. But I want the manuscripts! Dale M. Wheeler: >I did some paste-up work on the original H&F Maj text while >I was a student. One of the tasks I did as part of the >checking/paste-up was to compare the H&F choices for the M >reading with the choice found in UBS3/NA26 for the M reading. >The thing that struck me--its been a while and I didn't do >the whole of the NT (its been so long that I don't even >remember which portion I did), so don't take this as gospel-- >was that the H&F choice for the M text matched the M reading >in NA every single time. The reason that struck me was, as >others have noted, the original collation was done on the >basis of von Soden and I had heard all of these terrible >things about von Soden's errors. Yet the comparison to the >M reading in NA matched everytime...I came to the >(tentative !!!!!) conclusion that von Soden (and his >students) must not have done all that bad of a job after >all. I asked Zane Hodges about that and he referred me to >an article on that issue (J.R.Royse, "Von Soden's >Accuracy," JTS 30/1 [Apr, 1979]:166-71). I'm not >claiming that either Royse or von Soden is accurate; just >thought a bit of historical trivia might be found interesting >in the midst of the discussion... I can cite at least one instance where von Soden is right and NA27 is wrong about M: 2 Cor. 2:17 (one of our favorite controversial readings). According to T&T, the majority reading is LOIPOI (supported by something like 52% of the manuscripts). According to H&F, von Soden reports this as the majority reading. Whereas NA27 lists POLLOI as the M reading, and gives the support for LOIPOI as "al." (It will be obvious from the above that the H&F M also differed from the NA27 M.) I think I found one other instance of this, but I can't recall what it was. Robinson again: >I tested Von Soden's accuracy in regard to Codex Vaticanus by collating >that MS for a single Pauline Epistle and comparing that collation with Von >Soden's text and apparatus, and found his data unimpeachable, though >easily subject to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. > >This is not to say that there are not any errors in Von Soden's apparatus >-- indeed, with as complex a system as he had (and considering that the >material all had to be hand-typeset or use a very complex linotype), it is >small wonder that there are not far more errors in Von Soden's apparatus >than actually appear. I personally find almost all of Von Soden's group >designations regarding the Byzantine Textform (K) and the Alexandrian >texttype (H) to be quite accurate. The greatest weakness is the mish-mash >of the "western" (I) group, which mixes quite disparate elements from the >western, Caesarean, and other groups under one head. But even then, the >small sub-family groups even within (I) remain generally accurate. I think Robinson's points should be amplified. Now please note that I am not entirely qualified to speak here, as I am using von Soden mostly as interpreted by Bover and Merk. But I think the basic observations are sound. First, von Soden's K groups are basically sound. They are also cited fairly accurately. His I groups warrant a separate discussion, but I won't go into that here. His collations of individual manuscripts, however, can only be called "so-so." As Robinson notes, he is highly accurate for B. Most of the other uncials are also good. The minuscules are another matter. I have, of course, paid particular attention to 1739. And there von Soden is terribly inaccurate. I wouldn't be surprised if his error rate exceeds 10%. Neither von Soden nor any of his followers (Bover, Merk) should *ever* be trusted for 1739. His collation of 424** is incomplete. His collation of 330 seems to have been made out of whole cloth. At least, it shows any number of non-Byzantine readings which do not appear in the manuscript, while ignoring 330's legitimate non-Byzantine readings. 6 is a little better than 1739 or 330, but no prize. 33, if NA27 is accurate, is better than 1739 or 6, but not perfectly accurate. Several of the other Alexandrian minuscules (81, 1175) seem to be accurate when cited individually, but less so when cited by silence. I would sum up as follows: If you want to use von Soden's apparatus for a particular minuscule, *check it first.* If you can't find a collation, use the data in T&T. Many of von Soden's collations are good. But a few are very very bad. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 00:47:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA15906; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:44:59 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:40:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Maurice Robinson cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: 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: 1061 .... > The problem is that for many years Dallas Seminary itself reprinted and > used the Oxford 1825 TR, and that is what H/F used. Virtually no one else > (including myself) can find a copy of that specific edition anywhere, > since Dallas Seminary no longer prints it. Note that the IGNTP uses its > own reprinted fascicles of the Oxford 1873 TR, which itself would be > difficult to locate apart from IGNTP making its own reprints for internal > use. Probably the most common and continuing as available TR edition is > the Stephens 1550 text as found in the George Ricker Berry interlinear > Greek NT (originally published in 1897, but still in print from various > reprint houses). Just for clarification, I thought Berry only did the dictionary in the back, and that Samuel Bagster did the actual interlinear. If this is true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear. Can someone verify this? -- 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 Jan 5 01:04:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA15957; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:03:00 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:58:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Maurice Robinson cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus 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: 475 Maurice wrote a good explanation of things, but the HF text has the advantage of coming last. Thus, it is my text of choice for casual reading and textual items. One immediately knows what the others said. No one supposes it is the best for detailed work. However, it lists some variants that are in neither UBS or NA. -- 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 Jan 5 01:19:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA16000; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:17:50 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:13:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Harold P. Scanlin" <73750.2016@compuserve.com> cc: TC-List Subject: Beatty and Bodmer Papyri In-Reply-To: <199701041456_MC1-E3A-5B4E@compuserve.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 291 Can any one tell me where our library can buy the Beatty and Bodmer Papyri in the nice multi-volume editions like I used when in Seminary? :) -- 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 Jan 5 08:00:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16828; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:59:38 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:55:35 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: spread sheet of variants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3122 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Julian Goldberg wrote: > When comparing the TR of Stephanus, Bezae and Elzevirs, it was found that the > Elzevirs TR was more similar in agreement to the Bezae TR than the Stephanus > TR most of the time with regards to variants. Also, the Bezae TR seemed to > have been the closest in Greek to the English King James Version. However, > one cannot be most sure about this because the Scrivener TR text of Bezae was > considered and the edition that was used did not mention and variants which > most likely is found in other Scrivener TR that are not based on the Bezae > TR but which were placed in the text to get as close as possible to the > original King James Version underlying Greek. In the original edition of the Scrivener TR, the differences from the actual Beza 1598 edition and the Scrivener TR are listed in an appendix. The Trinitarian Bible Society reprint edition does not have that appendix, and might cause people to think that it actually is the Beza 1598 when in fact it is not. Scrivener also has collations of the various TR editions within his Plain Introduction, and so too Hoskier as an appendix to his Collation of MS 704 [Greg.700] volume. The readings placed in the Scrivener TR which come closest to the KJV were those which had previously been found in a printed Greek edition before 1604; this meant that Scrivener at times had to use extreme creativity when trying to set a Greek reading as "underlying" when items like the Latin Vulgate were followed by the KJV translators, since Scrivener would _not_ play Erasmus and retranslate the Latin back into Greek. > An estimation is that the > TR in general may have 3/4 of it based on the majority text and about 1/4 > of it based on many other different texts whether minority Greek and some > Latin translations. Set your percentages higher. Probably 98% of the Scrivener or any other TR is in agreement with the Byzantine/majority text. If Wallace's count of only 1850 differences is correct, the percentage might even be higher. The TR is a _very_ Byzantine text, except in Revelation. > The goal is to find out in any given TR since they > differ slightly what passages constitute this 1/4 and to make changes to it > to get it in line if possible as a majority reading of the text. Even > comparing the variations between the different TRs would be a start in > finding what's what. As mentioned, the establishment of most of the "M" text is easy enough to do, using N27 and Von Soden for the basic data. Comparison of differences between various TR's would contribute nothing to this goal. There might be value in a separate study inquiring as to the sources of TR readings which are not "majority"; but this exercise would be only of historical and not of ultimate text-critical concern. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 08:25:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16863; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:24:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:20:11 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Compound Reply (Was: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus) 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: 5625 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On the other hand, it is useful to know the readings of the modern > editions, just to see where the differences lie. And I'd like the > readings of the various TRs just to be able to use some of the older > editions. :-) I asked for what I did not for the critical value of > the editions, but purely for convenience. For that then, I would simply suggest Scrivener's or Hoskier's collations of those earlier editions, and keeping it handy when comparing against modern editions. > But that's exactly the problem. I want solid detail about the point where > M divides. And von Soden (even if I could decipher it, which is hard since > I don't have Kraft) is much better for groups than manuscripts. But I > want the manuscripts! You obviously need Kraft or Freddy Krueger (Friedrich Krueger -- I just couldn't help myself :-)....however, Von Soden will generally list only the group designators, and you have to painstakingly use Kraft or Krueger to figure out which MSS remain under the group designator after removing all the exceptions Von Soden lists. It is a very time-consuming task, and the errors in Von Soden tend to be in cases where he fails to list a MS as being an exception to the group designator by accident or oversight; more so errors of this type than simply citing an individual MS wrongly. > I can cite at least one instance where von Soden is right and > NA27 is wrong about M: 2 Cor. 2:17 (one of our favorite controversial > readings). According to T&T, the majority reading is LOIPOI > (supported by something like 52% of the manuscripts). According > to H&F, von Soden reports this as the majority reading. Whereas > NA27 lists POLLOI as the M reading, and gives the support for > LOIPOI as "al." (It will be obvious from the above that the H&F > M also differed from the NA27 M.) I would offer a strong caution about misuse of Von Soden in this regard: Soden did _not_ consider the "K" symbol to mean "majority" but the "Koine" or Byzantine Textform. Whether that text was in the majority or not (and here 52% is a total toss-up anyway on the basis of number) was not relevant to Von Soden's classification -- only the matter of the K-archetype. > I think I found one other instance of this, but I can't recall > what it was. There definitely are other cases where Von Soden gives a bold K to what should be a divided Byzantine testimony, but I don't have a list conveniently at hand. Most of the time of course Von Soden does not do that, but lists K in non-bold type or cites it as divided. > I think Robinson's points should be amplified. If time were available, I would be happy to type in the relevant portions of that 80pp paper, but this is unlikely under the current academic circumstances with syllabi etc to prepare for the coming semester. Maybe if I can get someone to run it through a scanner and upload the results to Jimmy.... > The minuscules are another matter. I have, of course, paid particular > attention to 1739. And there von Soden is terribly inaccurate. I > wouldn't be surprised if his error rate exceeds 10%. Neither von > Soden nor any of his followers (Bover, Merk) should *ever* be trusted > for 1739. I concur that it is primarily in regard to the minuscules where Von Soden is inaccurate. However, I also wonder whether the errors in regard to 1739 are by simply not mentioning the MS directly, or subsuming it into a group where it should have been an exception, or what. I also am leery of Bover and Merk if Von Soden's original edition is not being consulted, since it is very easy for editors to err when trying to extract data from Von Soden (I know -- I have done it myself, and corrected the error only much later). Does Von Soden directly cite 1739 for a wrong reading at certain points? Are you including also his apparatus #3, which lists minor readings of MSS which will override the citation of that same MS in apparatus #1 or #2 ? There are a number of factors here, and I would simply urge caution rather than overreaction. > His collation of 424** is incomplete. Did he claim this to be complete? Many MSS were cited only "cursorilich" which are not designated as such. With minuscules especially I would not be surprised to see incomplete data. > His collation of 330 seems to have been made out of whole cloth. > At least, it shows any number of non-Byzantine readings which do > not appear in the manuscript, while ignoring 330's legitimate > non-Byzantine readings. Again is this from Merk and Bover, or from Von Soden directly? > I would sum up as follows: If you want to use von Soden's apparatus > for a particular minuscule, *check it first.* If you can't find > a collation, use the data in T&T. Many of von Soden's collations > are good. But a few are very very bad. I would suggest further that if someone wants complete or extensive information for a particular MS, a critical apparatus is _not_ the place to find or expect it. Seek out the published collation data directly when available or a facsimile edition of the complete text and make your own collation when not. J.K.Elliott's volume giving resources for such is invaluable in this regard, and the data from collations is far superior to that found in any critical apparatus when studying particular MSS. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 08:29:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16883; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:28:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:24:45 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: "Ronald L. Minton" cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: 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: 1220 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > Just for clarification, I thought Berry only did the dictionary in the > back, and that Samuel Bagster did the actual interlinear. If this is > true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear. Can someone verify this? This is correct. The 1897 publication contained Berry's Lexicon and Synonym studies, but the base text and apparatus of editor's preferences was produced by Bagster publishers (which, as was their practice in the 19th century sweatshops, did _not_ give credit to the particular editor or compiler of those data, so Bagster is certainly _not_ the "author", but he or she is totally unknown; for all we know Berry might actually have been the author). In any case, all reprints currently made have the Berry material, and for convenience' sake I and others tend to refer to it as the Berry Interlinear, without implying authorship of that portion. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 08:38:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16900; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:37:06 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:33:01 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: "Ronald L. Minton" cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus 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: 1878 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > Maurice wrote a good explanation of things, but the HF text has the > advantage of coming last. How so? Or what do you mean? The R/P text came out in 1991, whereas H/F came out in 1982/1985. However, whether first or last, the matter is not based on time but on content and methodology, and the H/F and R/P methodologies are themselves significantly different, even if they tend to produce a similar resultant text. I specifically mentioned in my introduction the anomaly of H/F claiming their text to be "majority" when in Revelation there are at least 30 places where they choose to follow readings which have only 19%-30% support due to their stemmatic principles, whereas the R/P text almost never abandons a reading with 70% or more support on general principles of establishing a Byzantine archetype (how "Byzantine" is a reading when it possesses less than 30% support anyway?). > Thus, it is my text of choice for casual > reading and textual items. One immediately knows what the others said. > No one supposes it is the best for detailed work. However, it lists some > variants that are in neither UBS or NA. This is true, since there are a number of Byz/majority readings which are established from Von Soden which are considered insignificant by the UBS or Nestle editors. H/F's apparatus is helpful in that regard, as well as in knowing the differences from the current critical text. The listing of the MSS themselves and the "E" text in H/F is less than helpful, and sometimes inaccurate, however. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 10:37:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17170; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:36:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:30:32 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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: 1376 On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > > Just for clarification, I thought Berry only did the dictionary in the > > back, and that Samuel Bagster did the actual interlinear. If this is > > true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear. Can someone verify this? > > This is correct. The 1897 publication contained Berry's Lexicon and > Synonym studies, but the base text and apparatus of editor's preferences > was produced by Bagster publishers (which, as was their practice in the > 19th century sweatshops, did _not_ give credit to the particular editor or > compiler of those data, so Bagster is certainly _not_ the "author", but > he or she is totally unknown; for all we know Berry might actually have > been the author). In any case, all reprints currently made have the Berry > material, and for convenience' sake I and others tend to refer to it as > the Berry Interlinear, without implying authorship of that portion. > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament > Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > It says that it was based on the earlier work of Newberry. From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 13:34:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17855; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:32:41 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:28:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: 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: 310 On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Julian Goldberg wrote: > > the Berry Interlinear, without implying authorship of that portion. > It says that it was based on the earlier work of Newberry. Neither my original 1897 Berry copy nor either of my two later reprints say that. Where did you find that bit of information? From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 13:34:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17819; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:31:49 -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, 5 Jan 1997 11:27:47 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 814 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >Just for clarification, I thought Berry only did the dictionary in the >back, and that Samuel Bagster did the actual interlinear. If this is >true, we should not call it the Berry interlinear. Can someone verify this? The cover of my copy states that Berry did the dictionary. It does not even credit the interlinear (as best I can tell). I believe the collation of the various editions was done by Scrivener; at least, I've seen that comparison, without the interlinear, published under his name. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jan 5 13:35:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17870; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:34:02 -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, 5 Jan 1997 12:06:42 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Compound Reply (Was: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4939 On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote in part: >> I can cite at least one instance where von Soden is right and >> NA27 is wrong about M: 2 Cor. 2:17 (one of our favorite controversial >> readings). According to T&T, the majority reading is LOIPOI >> (supported by something like 52% of the manuscripts). According >> to H&F, von Soden reports this as the majority reading. Whereas >> NA27 lists POLLOI as the M reading, and gives the support for >> LOIPOI as "al." (It will be obvious from the above that the H&F >> M also differed from the NA27 M.) > >I would offer a strong caution about misuse of Von Soden in this regard: >Soden did _not_ consider the "K" symbol to mean "majority" but the "Koine" >or Byzantine Textform. Whether that text was in the majority or not (and >here 52% is a total toss-up anyway on the basis of number) was not >relevant to Von Soden's classification -- only the matter of the >K-archetype. Note that I was merely pointing out a place where different editions cite M differently -- and where von Soden and H&F were more correct than Nestle. But the warning is useful. [ ... ] >> The minuscules are another matter. I have, of course, paid particular >> attention to 1739. And there von Soden is terribly inaccurate. I >> wouldn't be surprised if his error rate exceeds 10%. Neither von >> Soden nor any of his followers (Bover, Merk) should *ever* be trusted >> for 1739. > >I concur that it is primarily in regard to the minuscules where Von Soden >is inaccurate. However, I also wonder whether the errors in regard to >1739 are by simply not mentioning the MS directly, or subsuming it into a >group where it should have been an exception, or what. I also am leery of >Bover and Merk if Von Soden's original edition is not being consulted, >since it is very easy for editors to err when trying to extract data from >Von Soden (I know -- I have done it myself, and corrected the error only >much later). Does Von Soden directly cite 1739 for a wrong reading at >certain points? Are you including also his apparatus #3, which lists >minor readings of MSS which will override the citation of that same MS in >apparatus #1 or #2 ? There are a number of factors here, and I would >simply urge caution rather than overreaction. I will admit that I have *not* verified the inaccuracies in von Soden (though, as I recall, Lake also complained about that particular collation). I must admit that I *don't* have von Soden; I have to consult it at the seminary. And even the seminary only has the text volume; either they never had the introduction or someone walked off with it. Since I don't have any of the keys, the only way I can check von Soden is to work backward from the Kurzgefasste Liste -- which seems certain to create more errors than Merk or Bover ever did. >> His collation of 424** is incomplete. > >Did he claim this to be complete? Many MSS were cited only "cursorilich" >which are not designated as such. With minuscules especially I would not >be surprised to see incomplete data. I don't know (see above). >> His collation of 330 seems to have been made out of whole cloth. >> At least, it shows any number of non-Byzantine readings which do >> not appear in the manuscript, while ignoring 330's legitimate >> non-Byzantine readings. > >Again is this from Merk and Bover, or from Von Soden directly? >From Merk and Bover. The strange thing is, 330 sits right in the middle of the Ia3 group, and the other collations in that area that I've checked (462, in particular) seem to be fairly good. >> I would sum up as follows: If you want to use von Soden's apparatus >> for a particular minuscule, *check it first.* If you can't find >> a collation, use the data in T&T. Many of von Soden's collations >> are good. But a few are very very bad. > >I would suggest further that if someone wants complete or extensive >information for a particular MS, a critical apparatus is _not_ the place >to find or expect it. Seek out the published collation data directly when >available or a facsimile edition of the complete text and make your own >collation when not. J.K.Elliott's volume giving resources for such is >invaluable in this regard, and the data from collations is far superior to >that found in any critical apparatus when studying particular MSS. Obviously a direct collation is the way to go where possible. That is what allowed me to check the errors in 330 and 1739. On the other hand, a lot of very important manuscripts (1506 springs to mind) have never been published. We work with what comes to hand. Especially at the first stage of the work, when we're trying to decide what is important. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jan 5 14:39:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA18273; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:37:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:31:11 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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: 497 On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Julian Goldberg wrote: > > > > the Berry Interlinear, without implying authorship of that portion. > > > It says that it was based on the earlier work of Newberry. > > Neither my original 1897 Berry copy nor either of my two later reprints > say that. Where did you find that bit of information? > > > The information is from the introduction of the Zondervan Publication house reprinted Berry interlinear TR. J.G. From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 15:51:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18631; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:49:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:45:20 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: 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: 314 On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Julian Goldberg wrote: > The information is from the introduction of the Zondervan Publication house > reprinted Berry interlinear TR. Neither of my two Zondervan reprint editions of Berry mention that fact. Is it somewhere in the introduction or on the dust jacket (mine have no jacket). From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 16:52:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA19047; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:51:06 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:45:12 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: Re: James) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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: 503 On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Julian Goldberg wrote: > > > The information is from the introduction of the Zondervan Publication house > > reprinted Berry interlinear TR. > > Neither of my two Zondervan reprint editions of Berry mention that fact. > Is it somewhere in the introduction or on the dust jacket (mine have no > jacket). > > It's at the very beginning where a list of other books in the series of scholarly books by Zondervan are listed. J.G. From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 16:59:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA19149; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:58:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:54:20 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine editions (Was: 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: 553 On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Julian Goldberg wrote: > > Neither of my two Zondervan reprint editions of Berry mention that fact. > > Is it somewhere in the introduction or on the dust jacket (mine have no > > jacket). > > > > > It's at the very beginning where a list of other books in the series of > scholarly books by Zondervan are listed. Must have been added in reprints later than the 1970s....Hope Zondervan's information is correct. I only know of Newberry's study bible in English, which is nothing like the material in the Berry interlinear. From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 17:47:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA19502; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:46:04 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:41:30 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: More TC Encyclopedia information Cc: REElliot@aol.com Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1985 TCers (and Rich Elliot in particular) -- I was amazed to find that, in the last week, two people had written to me about the ENTTC. I, of course, referred the to Rich Elliot, since it's his baby, not mine. But I also got inspired to add another article (well, *part of* another article) to the Encyclopedia. All books on textual criticism describe "important" manuscripts. But their lists are always too short. So I decided to put up more comprehensive entries. I chose five manuscripts that I deal with fairly regularly (1505, 1506, 1739, 1799, 1881) and put together descriptions and bibliographies for each. Naturally we want to include more manuscripts -- many more manuscripts. But it strikes me that we should come up with a format first. I tried, but this is probably only a first draft. I invite you to visit the site and see what I've forgotten. :-) I also invite you, once again, to contribute. Ultimately it will be Rich Elliot and his editorial board who decides what goes into the Final Encyclopedia (with apologies to Gordon Dickson -- and if that means nothing to you, be glad :-). But at least having a web site -- even a very half-baked one -- can get people thinking about what they would like to see. And you don't need to know HTML; I can take care of that for you. I repeat, I invite your contributions. (I imagine Rich will, also, when he is in position to do so. But I'm being my usual anarchistic self.) I would especially like items for the "Manuscript Descriptions" and "Examples of Textual Criticism" sections. And just think: If somebody respectable (or even somebody who isn't me) contributes an article, I will have to change my signature to be slightly less sarcastic. Isn't that worth it all by itself.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jan 5 18:34:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA19726; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:33:38 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:29:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: JACK HYLES AND KJV-ONLYISM (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4082 I forward this post for your textual evaluation. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 20:37:24 From: Bob Ross To: chalced@goldrush.com Subject: JACK HYLES AND KJV-ONLYISM .... Jack Hyles is obviously seeking to be "head" of such a cult, as he has the "ear" of thousands of so-called "Fundamentalists" who follow him, attend his conferences, listen to his cassettes, and read his writings. He long ago departed from the position held by DR. JOHN R. RICE, who is no doubt "turning over in his grave" at the heresies now being taught by former associate Hyles. Anyone today who dares to maintain Dr. Rice's position, and thus differ with Hyles, is allegedly "opposed to soul-winning and the KJV Bible." And this is reason-enough for "Hylesites" to refuse to even listen to or read any cricitism of Hyles' ideas. A "cultic mentality" is such that it will always find a "reason" which will vindicate, justify, and clarify any alleged wrong or error in the cult leader's teachings and behavior. THE KJV AND SALVATION In this cassette by Hyles, he presents to his listeners what he says they have "never heard" before -- namely: "Don't leave me now, for I am going to get down to something you've never heard. That means, the King James Bible is necessary for anybody to be saved in the English language." If Hyles is correct, here is what is involved: 1. No one was saved "in the English language" before the appearance of the KJV in 1611. 2. The necessary requirements for salvation "in the English language" did not exist until 1611; thus, salvation was not possible in the English language until the translation of the KJV. 3. English people who professed salvation under earlier Bible translations, such as the Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, Matthew Bible, Coverdale Bible, the Great Bible, Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale's, Taverner's or any other English translation of Scripture were deceived. 4. The Pilgrims, who brought the Geneva Bible with them to America, believed a "corrupt Bible" and did not have the true Word of God with them. 5. No one since 1611, or a later date of a KJV revision, has been saved thru use of any other English translation. "NEW BIRTH" BY OTHER VERSIONS PRODUCES "CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL," SAYS HYLES According to Hyles, the KJV is the pure, or uncorrupted, "seed." The "pure seed" is essential to being born of God. Hyles says if you are not born again under the "pure" seed, then you are "born again" of the Devil via some other "corrupt" translation. Hyles says you can be "born again" under other versions than the KJV, but it is a "new birth" that makes you a "child of the devil." This is what Hyles calls a "shocker." He explains that a man is born a "child of Adam," but is not born a "child of the devil." He becomes a "child of God" via salvation thru the pure Word of God, or he becomes a "child of the devil" by a "corrupt word." He says that any other English version than the KJV is impure and corrupt, and when another version is used produces a "new birth" which makes men "children of the devil." Among other "shockers" in this cassette is Hyles' questioning the salvation of "Bible translators;".... If you interested in further "documentation" of Hyles' views, I suggest you contact Dr. James Singleton about getting the cassette. I believe in due course of time this KJV-Only cult may become the most vicious of any cult to arise in this century, and the views of Hyles, Ruckman, Riplinger, Beebe, Waite, Gipp, Marrs, and their kind churn the mash from which the cultic doctrine is fermented. [Permission is granted to quote or reproduce the above] WWWebsite: http://members.gnn.com/pilgrimpub >>> pilgrimpub@gnn.com (Bob Ross) ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* Sorry, I promise not to do this again :) I thought you might not have heard of the KJVO revival. From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 18:51:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA19804; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:49:49 -0500 Message-ID: <32D03E28.6FA7@intercom.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:50:00 -0500 From: "Alfredo De La Fe'" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Changing to Digest format? 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: 562 How do I change to digest format? The volume of messages on this list has increased greatly the last two weeks. I appologize, but I have lost the original message sent to me when I first signed on. -Alfredo delafe@intercom.com -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= For some of the lowest Long Distance rates in the Industry (Australia .30/Min, France .29/Min, Japan .39/Min, Russia .6745, Sweden .25/Min, UK .19/Min, etc.) Take a look at: http://www.ldnet.com/?delafe =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 18:52:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA19814; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:51:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:47:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: spread sheet of variants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1178 On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: > > >My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the > >variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27. I will let you know as soon > >as we have it transfered on to a spread sheet (Spring 1997 Semester). > >Right now the approximately 12,000 variants are not as valuable because > >we have to do manual calculations. Still, we can get some data. For > >instance the TR agrees with both Aleph and B some 300 times (3.1%) > >AGAINST the Majority Text. Ours is a statistical table that has take > >nine years to complete (97% done). > > Have you considered transferring this to a data analysis program -- > or, failing that, a programmable database? It means you would have > to do a bit of simple programming to do your data modeling -- but > you would also be able to create much more involved (and, IMHO, > useful) statistics. We are doing that this Spring Semester, God willing. -- 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 Mon Jan 6 10:25:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24706; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:21:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:17:21 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199701061517.JAA06095@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: P90, P98 Cc: jwest@sunbelt.net Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1748 At 02:24 AM 1/4/97 GMT, Jim West wrote: >I would appreciate it if someone could provide me with the bibliography of >P90 and P98. I.e., I wish to know where they are published. > The starting place for all such inquiries is: K. Aland, et al., eds., _Kurzegefasste Liste der Griechischen Handscriften des Neuen Testaments_, 2nd ed. (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1994). --This is the latest edition of the official register of NT MSS. It lists 99 papyri, and includes publication details of the _editio princeps_ for all those that have been published (no details have been given for p83 and p84, e.g.; but for the Johannine portions of p84, see the entry by Parker and Elliott below). For p90, Harold Scanlin's comments (in his e-mail of Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:56:10) are on target: >New Docs is probably _New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 7_ >(Macquarie U.), but I haven't seen volume 7. >P 90 (Oxy 3523) is discussed by T. C. Skeat in the "official publication," >_The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol. 50_ , pp. 3 - 8, plate 1. --The page numbers in NewDocs 7 are 242-243; it is apparently a reprint of the text of the _editio princeps_ in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri volume. For p90 there is also: _The New Testament in Greek IV: The Gospel According to St. John, Vol 1: The Papyri, ed. by W. J. Elliott and D. C. Parker (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 116-118 with plates 47a-b. --this is the "first fruits" of the IGNTP John project. It includes complete photographs of all the Johannine papyri except p66 and p75. For p98--a fragment of the Apocalypse, 1:13-20--see (this info is from the Aland vol. mentioned above): D. Hagedorn, "Johannesapokalypse 1,13-20," _Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik_ 92 (1992) 243-247. Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 6 10:50:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24977; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:48:24 -0500 Date: 06 Jan 97 10:43:05 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: H-F apparatus and Soden Message-ID: <970106154304_102147.2045_EHT108-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2151 >The thing that struck me--its been a while and I didn't do >the whole of the NT (its been so long that I don't even >remember which portion I did), so don't take this as gospel-- >was that the H&F choice for the M text matched the M reading >in NA every single time. The reason that struck me was, as >others have noted, the original collation was done on the >basis of von Soden and I had heard all of these terrible >things about von Soden's errors. Yet the comparison to the >M reading in NA matched everytime...I came to the >(tentative !!!!!) conclusion that von Soden (and his >students) must not have done all that bad of a job after >all. I asked Zane Hodges about that and he referred me to >an article on that issue (J.R.Royse, "Von Soden's >Accuracy," JTS 30/1 [Apr, 1979]:166-71). I'm not >claiming that either Royse or von Soden is accurate; just >thought a bit of historical trivia might be found interesting >in the midst of the discussion... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Dr. Wheeler, To compliment Dr. Robinson's personal verification of Soden's accuracy/inaccuracy, did you ever receive a copy of Pickering's 2 papers put out by the Majtxt Society on "The Reliability of von Soden and H-F"?? This was based on the _complete collations_ of all MSS (on microfilm) available at Aland's Institute and pub in the Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments series. Aland presented evidence on select variants in the Catholic epistles, Pauline epistles, Acts etc. Pickering compared the HF "M" variants with Aland and found that in the overwhelming number of cases, HF was 100% correct in what was the M reading. Not only that, but even their evaluation of M (gothic M, bold M and Mpt) was correct. This means of course that von Soden's evaluation of the K was largely correct too. Hence von Soden _can_ be trusted and deserves to be given more benefit of doubt than has been done so far. I cannot provide details now, but if you (or any fellow TC-LISTer) want some just let me know and I'll send up some relevant stats. Mike A. From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 6 11:24:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25515; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:22:05 -0500 Date: 6 Jan 1997 16:17:05 -0000 Message-ID: <19970106161705.15001.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: (rminton@mail.orion.org) Subject: Re: spread sheet of variants Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1207 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- rminton@mail.orion.org wrote: > My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the > variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27. If this is now in some kind of machine-readable form, then I would be willing to offer assistance in translating the material into some other formats, and to make the data available for internet access. This sounds like great stuff. I would also have some potential interest in checking the data against the machine readable editions I have available, and possibly against the printed texts, to some extent. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMtElUmCU4mTNq7IdAQGn/QQApuF27LCj6TJZajp6kqu/K5r7zaTIAh6B 6HTCCNtkk22DgfyenO6uT+EhmdyB/czZ7Yfww+7WYP8Pkunf45aTR/h7kWAEjbim sHoB5zfadynzLuSb38XJeqK9wJ2xc1GnpFOG3tnFJOqVLRwF1vAduyZh5cftuXko pvc8zaMLjeA= =Yrfo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 6 11:45:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25798; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:42:46 -0500 Date: 6 Jan 1997 16:38:20 -0000 Message-ID: <19970106163820.15029.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Maurice Robinson on Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:33:36 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1042 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com wrote: > Simple solution: use Nestle 27 and follow the gothic "M". That will take > anyone virtually 99% toward a "majority" or Byzantine text edition, and > you don't even need H/F or R/P for that purpose. A slight corrective: in my study of byzantine/alexandrian variants, I found that 30% of the text type differences were undocumented in the NA26 apparatus. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMtEqZWCU4mTNq7IdAQFbWgP+MCtD0eUhPYUAp0mBQNeTICqQOyU+sBXc //gB/HmqhDQT/CZRRxKNe4rFUeUVRRYtXjhFpZOWwwcKPeN6lxI8M1vLjxUxiYqR hv1dQm3Gboc2zQIumdfajLPd3hkg9LFqWZvyRXLS3dTwLrbVAsDf9HqPGK86K8RF maSAuMgFhHA= =4Hyb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 6 20:37:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA01969; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:35:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:31:00 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Vincent Broman cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: spread sheet of variants In-Reply-To: <19970106161705.15001.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 881 On 6 Jan 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > rminton@mail.orion.org wrote: > > My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the > > variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27. > > If this is now in some kind of machine-readable form, then I would > be willing to offer assistance in translating the material > into some other formats, and to make the data available for > internet access. This sounds like great stuff. > > I would also have some potential interest in checking the data against > the machine readable editions I have available, and possibly against > the printed texts, to some extent. I will definitely post to this list when the project is finished. I predict it will be ready in March, 1997. -- 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 Tue Jan 7 01:56:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA03411; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 01:54:43 -0500 Message-Id: <9701070750.AA12929@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Majority text? Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 07:50:50 +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: 518 Incredible! 24 messages in one connection! These Americans are there again with their "Majority text"! So typical... Sorry friends, it was just a remark, I couldn't withhold it... Peace 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 Tue Jan 7 06:56:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA04407; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 06:55:08 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:41:42 GMT Subject: Re: Life of papyrus MSS Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 367 I don't believe in a 'standard' life for a papyrus MS (or any other kind, for that matter) - see recent correspondence. I can think at once of three variables: 1. The degree of use. 2. The care taken by the user(s). 3. The climate. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 7 08:16:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04769; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:14:29 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Conversation with last message Priority: Normal To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jonathan "D." Safren Subject: Re: Life of papyrus MSS Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 15:10:38 PST Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 519 DC Parker wrote: I don't believe in a 'standard' life for a papyrus MS (or any other kind, for that matter) - see recent correspondence. I can think at once of three variables: 1. The degree of use. 2. The care taken by the user(s). 3. The climate. I can think of support for that: 1) ancient Egyptian papyri; 2) the palimpsest found at Qumran, dating, if memory serves me right, from the 7th century BCE. Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 7 09:12:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05248; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:11:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:06:39 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <73750.2016@compuserve.com> Subject: P 98 To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199701070907_MC1-E4A-4838@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 470 The bibliographic reference to Hagedorn, ZPE for P 98 provided by Mike Holmes jogged my memory. P 98 is briefly described, with collations, in _New Testament Textual Research Update_, vol. 1, no. 1 (1993):17-18. P 98 was first published in 1971 and identified as (merely) a list of objects. But a computer check has shown that it actually is a fragmentary text of Rev. 1:13-20, preserving the beginnings of 21 lines of text. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 7 09:44:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05555; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:43:08 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9701070750.AA12929@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:29:26 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Majority text? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 944 On Tue, 7 Jan 97, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >Incredible! 24 messages in one connection! These Americans are there >again with their "Majority text"! >So typical... >Sorry friends, it was just a remark, I couldn't withhold it... Conceding the humour, and the differences between American and European opinions, I think this is slightly exaggerated. Most American scholars do not believe the Byzantine text-type to represent the original text. (And I agree with them.) However, I believe that the Byzantine text *must* be studied, because of the vast amount of influence it had on all manuscripts after the fourth century. If it were up to me, I would like to see a true edition of the Majority text, citing all the Byzantine uncials, a selection of minuscules, and the various groups. But no, I'm not going to edit it. Sorry. I have a ballad index to use up the rest of my life.... :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 7 10:44:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06355; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:42:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:37:48 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Life of papyrus MSS 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: 2065 On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, DC PARKER wrote: > I don't believe in a 'standard' life for a papyrus MS (or any other kind, > for that matter) - see recent correspondence. I can think at once of > three variables: > > 1. The degree of use. > 2. The care taken by the user(s). > 3. The climate. Dr Parker is precisely correct on these points. I would assume, however, the following points: (1) Papyrus copies of the biblical books were probably used fairly frequently (unlike the many printed bibles which might remain unused on our shelves), since in a time of persecution and limited literacy, the time needed to produce a copy on papyrus would tend to indicate a need and desire for continued use. MSS under such continual use would in fact wear out and require replacement far more frequently than other non-religious MSS which might be consulted only sporadically. (2) The care taken would likely be high, so long as the material on the papyrus was considered sacred text. But even if not, there would still be sufficient care as with any other laboriously-copied hand-produced MS. MSS of any type simply were too valuable to treat with merely casual care. (3) The climate is the primary destructive element, and that is why probably 99% of all papyri perished in the non-dry regions of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. So, even while there is no "standard" life for papyrus MSS, assumptions can at least be made based upon principles 1 through 3 to some degree, and I think one would not be too far afield from supposing a 30-40 year life for MSS which were well cared for but in heavy use; a 50-100 year life for MSS which were consulted only infrequently, and a very short life for MSS which ended up in damp climates and which got moist or mildewed. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 8 01:54:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA14229; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:52:31 -0500 Message-Id: <9701080748.AA23052@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Majority text? Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 07:48:48 +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: 1128 >>Incredible! 24 messages in one connection! These Americans are there >>again with their "Majority text"! >>So typical... >>Sorry friends, it was just a remark, I couldn't withhold it... > >Conceding the humour, and the differences between American and European >opinions, I think this is slightly exaggerated. > Of course there's humor in my remark! But the sudden raise in the amount of messages remains symptomatic... ;-) > >However, I believe that the Byzantine text *must* be studied, >because of the vast amount of influence it had on all manuscripts >after the fourth century. I agree with you. ALL the manuscripts must be studied, and we must all confess that there remains much work to be done. BTW, this is one of the reasons why I study some "obscure" versions... I can but agree with you. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 8 15:55:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20171; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 15:49:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:45:01 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: rev@antiquarian.com Subject: Romans 6:3,11,23 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: 454 All four of my editions of the TR have Christ Jesus instead of Jesus Christ at Rom. 6:3,11,23. The KJV mostly follows the earlier English Bibles here (except Rheims). Can anyone tell me which editions, if any, of Erasmus the were following, and why did they have the reverse order at these passages? -- 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 Thu Jan 9 00:14:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA23295; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 00:08:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:04:07 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Ms half-lives 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: 4694 I sent a message a week ago, but I don't think that it got through to everyone. D.C. Parker seems to have got it as he says he doesn't believe that there was a standard life time for a papyrus manuscript. Just in case my earlier post didn't get through to everyone, here is a summary: I made a histogram of extant NT papyri and uncials, plotting number vs century. (When a ms was dated c. 200 I said it was 2nd C., etc.) Instead of seeing a gradual increase in number vs. time, as I was expecting, I saw something completely different. For the papyri, the number increases in what looks like an exponential fashion for the 2nd and 3rd centuries, peaks, drops down, peaks again around the 6th/7th C. then falls away. For the uncials, the number peaks around the 4th C. and drops away, but flattens out for a couple of later centuries (6th and 7th again?) before dropping down to zero. Upon reflection I interpreted this as follows (thanks to my friend Tim Sullivan for suggesting the word saturation): The papyri picture might be explained in terms of maximum likelihood of deposition in the sand, and, consequently, maximum likelihood of digging up later, corresponding with a couple of historical events: the persecutions of the 3rd C. and the Moslem conquest around 640. The uncial histogram might be explained as rapid production within an organisation that has suddenly changed from being illegal and poor (hence use of papyrus) to being legal and supported. It can be interpreted as being consistent with large scale parchment scripture production continuing until saturation was reached in the 5th century i.e. everyone who had the resources to commission one (probably beyond individuals but within reach of bishops) had one. After that, production was for new churches and replacement of worn out mss. Now for the contentious point. We have about 18 uncials from the 4th century. Du Placy estimated 1600 - 2000 mss were produced in the 4th C. That means a 1% survival rate. At this point my rusty physics suggested that a situation analogous to radioactive decay was at hand. If 1% of mss have survived the random destruction process after 1600 years, then assuming exponential decay (i.e. number lost proportional to number extant in any given time period) leads to a NT uncial half-life of about 250 years. This is an estimate of the average life span. In fact there is an average life of all NT uncials ever produced. There must be. We don't know it, but the number I derived is a reasonable estimate provided that the no. of mss lost in a given time period is proportional to the no. extant in that period. As to how long an individual ms will last, all the wiles that beset mss will come into play, resulting in some living shorter, some longer than this estimate, according to some kind of statistical distribution (Gaussian?). Another point. Looking at the initial rise in numbers, exponential growth seems to be at play. That is, the rise might be explained as a doubling every X years. How big is X? Strangely, it is about the same for the uncials and papyri: just over twenty years. This might be interpreted as reflecting the doubling time of the Church in Egypt in the 2nd C., but is probably not much to do with the Church's population in the case of the parchments. And, to the glee of the weary reader, a last point. I did a histogram for the minuscules given in the UBS4 insert. The same kind of picture emerges but with a much slower initial growth. The peak is reached at about the 11th C. then drops down again -- perhaps the decline can be interpreted as due to the contraction of demand for Greek New Testament mss. In conclusion, histograms of date vs number for the Greek New Testament mss represent samples of the original population. Assuming exponential growth and decay of this population allows a doubling time and half-life for the class of mss under study to be derived. The half-life estimate depends on an estimate of the total population at some point. I used Du Placy's estimate of 4 to 5 copies per century for 400 sees in the 4th C. Happily, his estimate of 4 - 5 copies per century is consistent with the doubling time that can be derived from the initial portion of the uncial histogram. All This relies on the mss being correctly dated in general. It can be looked on as a confirmation that the datings are sound, especially the correspondence of population peaks in the papyri with known times when mss would be likely to end up in the sand. Profuse apologies for this monstrous post. Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 09:44:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA25810; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:40:28 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:55:01 GMT Subject: Re: Life of papyrus MSS Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 638 Maurice Robinson ended his thoughts with > So, even while there is no "standard" life for papyrus MSS, assumptions > can at least be made based upon principles 1 through 3 to some degree, and > I think one would not be too far afield from supposing... _Assumptions_ are precisely that, and these seem to me to be figures with no basis in scientific observation. Where papyrology lacks evidence, we should admit ignorance rather than offer guesses. Any offer of hard evidence would be very helpful. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 10:34:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26243; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:31:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:31:14 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ms half-lives 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: 920 Tim's discussion of ms half-lives is interesting and thought-provoking, though I think some caveats must be kept in mind. The radioactive decay analogy works only to the extent that conditions of ms destruction remain constant over time. So, for example, rampant destruction of mss during a persecution would skew the data, as would changes in technology (shift from uncial to minuscule script, introduction of paper, invention of printing). If these factors can be taken into consideration, however, I would think that the assumption of a more or less constant rate of ms destruction between the fourth and the fifteenth centuries might be valid. What kind of boundaries did you have in mind, Tim? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 11:10:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26599; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:06:18 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:59:40 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Ms half-lives Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <33F5D912EB@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 363 On how many mss might have been produced, economic factors figure in also. Seems to me vaguely that historians refer to economic crunch(es) in the 3rd century Roman empire. Might this be relevant? L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 11:11:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26617; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:08:45 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:06:54 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Ms half-lives Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2204 On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, "James R. Adair" wrote: >Tim's discussion of ms half-lives is interesting and thought-provoking, >though I think some caveats must be kept in mind. The radioactive decay >analogy works only to the extent that conditions of ms destruction remain >constant over time. So, for example, rampant destruction of mss during a >persecution would skew the data, as would changes in technology (shift >from uncial to minuscule script, introduction of paper, invention of >printing). If these factors can be taken into consideration, however, I >would think that the assumption of a more or less constant rate of ms >destruction between the fourth and the fifteenth centuries might be >valid. What kind of boundaries did you have in mind, Tim? Since I'm on deadline today, I haven't had time to read and respond to Tim's remarks in detail. But let me offer a thought. The objection here boils down to saying, "Sometimes things happen." Which is precisely true, but not the point. Take the decay of radioactive atoms. If you look at one atom of, say, U-238, you *cannot* predict when it will break down. But if you observe enough of them, you can say that -- no matter *what* happens -- after about 5 billion years (the half-life of U-238), half of them will be gone. Tim is not stating a thesis ("manuscripts break down after 500 years," or the like). He is stating an observation and making a hypothesis. In fact, he is almost certainly right, too: In a large enough universe of manuscripts, they *will* break down in a pattern approximating radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is a statistical process. It is absolutely uniform when you are working with trillions of atoms. When you are dealing with tens of thousands of manuscripts, you will see bumps and valleys in the graph. (Just as you would if you tracked the decay of tens of thousands of radioactive atoms. There aren't enough of them.) This has no effect on the rule. Unsolicited testimonial, based on incomplete data -- but at least it is the comment of someone trained in physics. (For once, something I'm *supposed* to know something about. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 12:33:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27514; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:29:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:24:49 -0600 Posted-Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:24:49 -0600 X-Sender: schrader@smartnet.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: TC-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: schrader@smartnet.net (Stephen Schrader) Subject: Textual Criticism List Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 352 Dear Sir: I have a Th.D. in Old Testament and Hebrew and have been teaching in this area the past twenty-two years on the graduate level. Ron Minton, a colleague of mine, told me about your service. I would like to be placed on the Textual Criticism list. Thanks for you consideration and I look forward to this service. Dr. Stephen R. Schrader From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 16:06:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA00288; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:02:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:02:47 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ms half-lives 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: 2192 On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Take the decay of radioactive atoms. If you look at one atom > of, say, U-238, you *cannot* predict when it will break down. > But if you observe enough of them, you can say that -- no matter > *what* happens -- after about 5 billion years (the half-life of > U-238), half of them will be gone. > > Tim is not stating a thesis ("manuscripts break down after 500 > years," or the like). He is stating an observation and making > a hypothesis. In fact, he is almost certainly right, too: In > a large enough universe of manuscripts, they *will* break down > in a pattern approximating radioactive decay. > > Radioactive decay is a statistical process. It is absolutely > uniform when you are working with trillions of atoms. When > you are dealing with tens of thousands of manuscripts, you will > see bumps and valleys in the graph. (Just as you would if you > tracked the decay of tens of thousands of radioactive atoms. > There aren't enough of them.) This has no effect on the rule. I agree that radioactive decay is uniform, since, as Bob mentioned, there are huge numbers of atoms (in a mole of U, 6.02 x 10^23, if I remember correctly--that's several hundred, what, sextillion?). But radioactive decay proceeds randomly, unaffected by the outside world (at least largely so--but compare C-14 dating fluctuations). On the other hand, the "decay" of a group of mss created in a certain century, while generally decaying exponentially, may be affected by outside influences, such as the ones I mentioned (persecutions, changes in technology, etc.). I suppose over a long enough period of time even ouside influences might possibly fit into some sort of pattern of random interference, but I don't think 1000 years or so (or 2000) is long enough. So, as a general description of the phenomenon of ms decay, I like the radioactive decay analogy. All I'm saying is that I don't think we can push the analogy too far. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 17:13:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01222; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:10:39 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:08:54 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Ms half-lives Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2842 I don't know if I should go on about this, since no one else seems to be interested -- but *I'M* interested, so I will keep talking. :-) On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, "James R. Adair" wrote: >I agree that radioactive decay is uniform, since, as Bob mentioned, there >are huge numbers of atoms (in a mole of U, 6.02 x 10^23, if I remember >correctly--that's several hundred, what, sextillion?). Footnotes: the number of atoms in a mole is always the same. The number looks right, though. (I'm too lazy to go downstairs and dig up my CRC handbook.) As for what the number is, it depends on whether we're using American or British numberation. In America, yes, that's 600 sextillion. In Britain, it's 600 thousand trillion. >But radioactive >decay proceeds randomly, unaffected by the outside world (at least >largely so--but compare C-14 dating fluctuations). There is actually some very slight evidence emerging of radioactive decay being dependent on outside conditions. But the effects are minimal -- not enough, e.g., to account for C-14 fluctuation. We're talking about changes in the .01% range, if I recall correctly (and I may not). >On the other hand, >the "decay" of a group of mss created in a certain century, while >generally decaying exponentially, may be affected by outside influences, >such as the ones I mentioned (persecutions, changes in technology, >etc.). I suppose over a long enough period of time even ouside >influences might possibly fit into some sort of pattern of random >interference, but I don't think 1000 years or so (or 2000) is long >enough. The point here is that we are looking at it from *outside*. The manuscript era is over. There is no new production (a factor which also figures into the decay rate). It's true that something like Diocletian's persecution would have caused an unusually large number of manuscripts to be lost. But this would be followed, inevitably, by a period of increased manuscript copying and more careful preservation. So it would even out. The problem here is not time but the small number of manuscripts. Atoms are so numerous that radioactive decay can be modeled as a continuous process. Manuscripts must be treated as discrete. (Which, incidentally, brings us from the range of differential equations to difference equations -- which are much harder to solve. At my college, They taught us differential equations after only three semesters of calculus. They never taught us difference equations at all....) >So, as a general description of the phenomenon of ms decay, I >like the radioactive decay analogy. All I'm saying is that I don't think >we can push the analogy too far. That I actually agree with... at least, it needs to be investigated before we start placing much faith in it. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 18:19:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01727; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:17:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199701092311.PAA09099@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:14:56 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Ms half-lives Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 500 On 9 Jan 97 at 16:08, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >I agree that radioactive decay is uniform, since, as Bob mentioned, > >there are huge numbers of atoms (in a mole of U, 6.02 x 10^23, if I > >remember correctly--that's several hundred, what, sextillion?). > > Footnotes: the number of atoms in a mole is always the same. The > number looks right, though. (I'm too lazy to go downstairs and dig > up my CRC handbook.) Yes, it's Avogadro's number and yes, it's correct. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 19:59:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02403; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:57:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:53:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Textual Criticism web sites 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: 240 Where can I find a recent descriptive list of Textual Criticism and manuscript web sites? -- 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 Thu Jan 9 20:34:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02605; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:33:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199701100129.RAA27455@ecf2.puc.edu> From: "John K. McVay" To: Subject: Re: Textual Criticism web sites Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:30:58 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 437 ---------- > From: Ronald L. Minton > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: Textual Criticism web sites > Date: Thursday, January 09, 1997 4:53 PM > > Where can I find a recent descriptive list of Textual Criticism and > manuscript web sites? > > -- > 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 Thu Jan 9 20:45:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02664; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:43:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199701100139.RAA28529@ecf2.puc.edu> From: "John K. McVay" To: Subject: Re: Textual Criticism web sites Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:41:19 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1264 In a bid to send a private message in response to Ron's request for TC websites I inadvertently managed to repeat his message to all of you. To attempt to atone for that crime, I offer my own meager list of TC sites: The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism (In Progress) Brown University Textual Criticism Materials Facsimile Pages of Manuscripts Quartz Hill School of Theology CEU Course in Textual Criticism Textual Criticism: A Course TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism TC Links: Other Sites Dealing with Textual Criticism The University of Michigan Papyrus Collection Vanderbilt Textual Criticism Page The Electronic Manuscripts NT Manuscripts Project With apologies, John McVay, Ph.D. Religion Department Pacific Union College Angwin, CA From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 9 22:47:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA03351; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 22:45:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 22:41:34 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Life of papyrus MSS 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: 2790 On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, DC PARKER wrote: > Maurice Robinson ended his thoughts with > > > So, even while there is no "standard" life for papyrus MSS, > > assumptions can at least be made based upon principles 1 through 3 > > to some degree, and I think one would not be too far afield from > > supposing... > _Assumptions_ are precisely that, and these seem to me to be figures > with no basis in scientific observation. Where papyrology lacks > evidence, we should admit ignorance rather than offer guesses. Any > offer of hard evidence would be very helpful. Of course it should be obvious that all assumptions made are "guesses" -- educated guesses, I would hope, to some degree. But in point of fact, virtually everything else presumed or assumed by modern eclectic scholars regarding the transmission and development of the text for the pre-4th century papyrus era reflects a similar degree of educated guessing based upon extrapolation from the extant evidence. I certainly see no reason why suppositions regarding the average lifespan of a biblical papyrus MS should not at least be hypothesized in a similar manner. I'm sure that anyone could reasonably postulate a reasonable terminus ad quo and terminus ad quem for the life of a papyrus MS -- any MS might be destroyed on the day it is copied, and most biblical papyrus MSS obviously did not survive, regardless of lifespan, since we only have around 100 existing which "beat the odds" as it were. Anything therefore which reasonably takes account of these two factors and which is based upon logical assumptions should be able to stand as a valid hypothesis when attempting to explain such a significant factor regarding early textual transmission. Otherwise, we might as well simply admit we know little or nothing about the history of transmission or the state of the text in any given era, and therefore Keith Elliott's "rigorous eclectic" procedure is in fact the _only_ one that any of us should follow. I merely have attempted to offer _one_ reasonable hypothesis regarding the average lifespan of a biblical papyrus MS. Anyone else is of course free to offer another, and its merits or demerits will depend upon the logical and historical factors which might bear upon the question, just as in the three-point scenario which I discussed. But I do not think that admission of non-certainty regarding the matter should imply that only a declaration of total ignorance is the only option which remains. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 00:08:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA03810; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:06:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:02:51 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ms half-lives In-Reply-To: <33F5D912EB@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1316 On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > On how many mss might have been produced, economic factors figure in > also. Seems to me vaguely that historians refer to economic > crunch(es) in the 3rd century Roman empire. Might this be relevant? I would think so, to an extent. However, in the pre-4th century period, the church was basically a persecuted body, and yet it still managed to prepare and obtain at least minimal copies of the NT scriptures for its use, so the possibility of sacrificial giving to support obtaining of papyrus (which even under an economic crisis would probably still remain cheap) would probably be quite likely and would not necessarily impede normal production of NT MSS by local churches or individual Christians to any great degree. Of course, economics might preclude the use of professional scribes for the purpose, but I suspect that such was rare in any case in the era before the legitimization of Christianity while the church was under threat of persecution. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 05:29:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA04992; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 05:27:18 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:46:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970110044640_1073997542@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: KJ onlyism and NTTC :-( Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 932 TCer's My only lament about the world of NT textual criticism is that the KJ only cult gives us a bad name, just as televangelists have given Christianity a bad name. We as Christians and scholars can debate and argue about differing texts and variants and interpretation all day long, but once this ignorant and cultic aspect enters in, so along with it does fallacy, lies and darkness. I should know, I was a KJ only person for a short while (due to the teachings of my pastor, Chuck Smith), but after I read the other side of the argument I knew I (and Chuck) was wrong. So, I continue on my journey through the world (small as it may be, but mightily needed) of NT textual criticism in hopes of educating this group and erradicating it's teachings (I can dream can't I?). Anyway, don't mean to take up anymore precious space in this great forum. Continue on scholars!!! In His Service Rich Elliott General Editor, ENTTC From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 06:36:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA05180; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:34:38 -0500 Message-Id: <9701101130.AA01882@lagonda> X-Sender: hoffmann@mail.wsl.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:29:23 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Christian Hoffmann Subject: KJ abbreviations Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1486 Dear netters, as an interested lay person I am trying to follow your arguments, especially on the tanak. _BUT_ some of the abbreviations are hard to guess: KJ = ?? For the benefit of my humble self, please, extend abbreviations once in the text, or give me a pointer to a FAQ. Thank you very much At 04:46 1997.01.10 -0500, you wrote: >TCer's >My only lament about the world of NT textual criticism is that the KJ only >cult gives us a bad name, just as televangelists have given Christianity a >bad name. >We as Christians and scholars can debate and argue about differing texts and >variants and interpretation all day long, but once this ignorant and cultic >aspect enters in, so along with it does fallacy, lies and darkness. I should >know, I was a KJ only person for a short while (due to the teachings of my >pastor, Chuck Smith), but after I read the other side of the argument I knew >I (and Chuck) was wrong. >So, I continue on my journey through the world (small as it may be, but >mightily needed) of NT textual criticism in hopes of educating this group and >erradicating it's teachings (I can dream can't I?). >Anyway, don't mean to take up anymore precious space in this great forum. > Continue on scholars!!! >In His Service >Rich Elliott >General Editor, ENTTC Christian Hoffmann Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland phone: ++41-1-739 22 77 fax : ++41-1-739 22 15 e-mail: hoffmann@wsl.ch From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 09:00:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA05887; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:58:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:52:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701101352.IAA29234@aus-c.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: KJ abbreviations Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1857 KJ= King Jamees Version At 01:29 PM 1/10/97 +0100, you wrote: >Dear netters, > >as an interested lay person I am trying to follow your arguments, especially >on the tanak. _BUT_ some of the abbreviations are hard to guess: > >KJ = ?? > >For the benefit of my humble self, please, extend abbreviations once in the >text, or give me a pointer to a FAQ. > >Thank you very much > >At 04:46 1997.01.10 -0500, you wrote: >>TCer's >>My only lament about the world of NT textual criticism is that the KJ only >>cult gives us a bad name, just as televangelists have given Christianity a >>bad name. >>We as Christians and scholars can debate and argue about differing texts and >>variants and interpretation all day long, but once this ignorant and cultic >>aspect enters in, so along with it does fallacy, lies and darkness. I should >>know, I was a KJ only person for a short while (due to the teachings of my >>pastor, Chuck Smith), but after I read the other side of the argument I knew >>I (and Chuck) was wrong. >>So, I continue on my journey through the world (small as it may be, but >>mightily needed) of NT textual criticism in hopes of educating this group and >>erradicating it's teachings (I can dream can't I?). >>Anyway, don't mean to take up anymore precious space in this great forum. >> Continue on scholars!!! >>In His Service >>Rich Elliott >>General Editor, ENTTC > >Christian Hoffmann >Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research >CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland >phone: ++41-1-739 22 77 fax : ++41-1-739 22 15 e-mail: hoffmann@wsl.ch > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 09:23:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06193; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:21:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:17:06 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: REElliott@aol.com cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC In-Reply-To: <970110044640_1073997542@emout03.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1327 I was astounded when I first encountered the individuals who support the odd claim known as "KJV onlyism." When I first heard of this, I wondered, what would make someone support such a claim, for which there is very little or no serious evidence of any kind. Studying the matter further, I apply the axiom "when there's no justificiation, look for a motivation." There being no academic or scholarly motivation for this position, one must ask, what is the motivation for defending this position? And here we can begin to understand this odd movement. The motivation seems to be a desire to defend the purity and integrity of the teachings by defending the purity and integrity of the text. This group sees later translations as "weakening" the message. This position is, if not correct, at least understandable, because (from an "ad hominem") standpoint, many scholars who produced later translations were far from orthodox in their beliefs - and (from a "de facto" standpoint) some later texts did indeed have the net effect of "weakening" the evidence for various doctrinal dogmas, whatever the motivation for the translation might have been. So the KJV-onlyism movement represents an understandable emotion reaction to the situation. Unfortunately, it is also an irrational and indefensible reaction. Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 11:05:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07469; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:01:32 -0500 Message-ID: <32D69081.5090@voicenet.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 10:54:57 -0800 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: If you want an insider's perspective: was Re: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC 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: 673 Hello All! ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > I was astounded when I first encountered the individuals who support the Hello! If you want an inside perspective on this issue, see the latest edition of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary Journal, Vol. 12 (1996) [to be printed by end of Jan 97] and also Vol 1, nos. 1 and 2 of the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (1996). These publications deal with both historical and textual issues. They are from the perspective of those of us who believe God's truth is absolute and must never be compromised, but who also realize the KJV only position cannot be maintained, even from the very text it purports to defend(!). Mark Bruffey From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 11:20:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07758; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:18:12 -0500 Date: 10 Jan 1997 16:13:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19970110161340.15044.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: <199701100139.RAA28529@ecf2.puc.edu> (jmcvay@puc.edu) Subject: Re: Textual Criticism web sites Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 942 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Where can I find a recent descriptive list of Textual Criticism and > manuscript web sites? In addition to the sites on McVay's list, there is my own site, which will soon be moving to a private ISP account, but is now at: http://archimedes.nosc.mil/gnt ftp://archimedes.nosc.mil/pub/gnt . Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMtZqYmCU4mTNq7IdAQGB9gP/V0x9AIg7oMTE0PyJu4Qbrfd3pIxRmVh0 862NjSCSycToNKzWUObRpNNeSgOyDMu8K9mVA4zBYBEimPe7TvZMYkwr23Jkl05j sMGS7dwo7bdjjt+aFeq6B8zUux6Ye8KXKo4IkuFSeX0hzymYZiusH241y1PlYf8f JVIwnySMtjM= =Lh0w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 12:33:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08674; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 12:31:04 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFEEE.83417FC0@ts01-sb-4.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 12:04:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBFEEE.835248A0" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 12222 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFEEE.835248A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mr. Smith makes some excellent points especially regarding the = psychological and spiritual motivations of those who hold that the KJV = (or any particular translation) is the only acceptable translation. = Often such beliefs are held by individuals who belong to religious = organizations which do not respect modern scholarship and do not accept = the notion that clergy should earn advanced degrees, such as the Master = of Divinity, as a prerequisite to ordained ministry. Although these = same groups may support and encourage acceptable "Bible Colleges". = Usually the pastors in such groups have little or no formal Biblical / = ministry training and almost never any training in the original Biblical = languages. Usually such individuals are "fundamental" and "literalist" = in Biblical interpretation. Often such individuals have memorized = particular scripture quotes to defend their group's particular beliefs. = Given such background it is no wonder that these groups most defend the = particular translations (such as KJV) since this translation, rather = than the actual Biblical texts, is the basis for their "proof texts" and = the "foundation on which they stand". The notion that the Bible is = infallible and inerrant commonly is a foundation for such individuals. = They often attest that "the Bible is the written word of God, given by divine inspiration = through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by The = Holy Spirit. In His Word, God has committed to man, the knowledge = necessary for his salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible = revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of = experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines and the trustworthy = record of God's acts in history." [1] Because Biblical inerrentcy and infallibility are such major tenants of = their fundamental faith, such individuals reason that the KJV (or = whatever chosen translation) was, in fact, provided by God to the = translators to insure doctrinal purity, else their teachings may be in = error. One seminary professor of mine once remarked: I've actually = met several clergy in such groups who actually believe that God wrote = the King James Version by inspiring the translators! Later translations = are dismissed as the devil's work to dilute the Word. At least two = preachers that I've met while living in the Ozarks actually denied that = the Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek. In those ministers' = minds, the KJV is the only text because it is THE TEXT ITSELF! Actually = there is a logic chain to such beliefs: If my faith is based on what it = says in this text being a true witness and what the text says is flawed, = than maybe my faith is flawed." (A variant on the Scripture's = proclamation that "If Christ is not raised than my faith is in vain.) This is clearly not to say that those who attest to the "conservative" = view of Scripture quoted above in the idented all reject modern Biblical = textual scholarship. Clearly the argument then becomes which of the = modern translations, if any, accurately reflect the original manuscripts = as we now collect them. "Does the RSV reflect the best scholarship or = the NIV?" and so on. Many people have the psychological, emotional, and spiritual lives = clearly defined. Such people often find "Bible believing" churches or = sometimes cults to define their lives for them, to tell them how they = should live. These people are most likely to accept notions such as: = "the KJV-only". When I was earning my theology degree, one professor commented that if = more people could accept the notion that the Biblical witnesses were = portraits rather than "eyewitness minicams", there would be much less = temptation to "Biblicise" the faith by many people. - Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W. Consultation, Assessment, & Treatment Services South Bend, Indiana 1.] Seventh Day Adventist Year Book: 1987 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and = Hearld Publishing Association, 1987), p. 5. Note: This is not to imply = that the Seventh Day Adventists reject modern textual criticism. I do = not imply that Seventh Day Adventists accept the KJV-only position. ---------- From: ANDREW SMITH[SMTP:smitha@scnc.aaps.k12.mi.us] Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 4:17 AM To: REElliott@aol.com Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC I was astounded when I first encountered the individuals who support the odd claim known as "KJV onlyism." When I first heard of this, I = wondered, what would make someone support such a claim, for which there is very little or no serious evidence of any kind. Studying the matter further, I apply the axiom "when there's no justificiation, look for a motivation." There being no academic or scholarly motivation for this position, one must ask, what is the motivation for defending this position? And here we can begin to understand this odd movement. The motivation seems to be a desire to defend the purity and integrity = of the teachings by defending the purity and integrity of the text. This group sees later translations as "weakening" the message. This position is, if not correct, at least understandable, because (from an "ad hominem") standpoint, many scholars who produced later translations were far from orthodox in their beliefs - and (from a "de facto" standpoint) some later texts did indeed have the net effect of "weakening" the evidence for various doctrinal dogmas, whatever the motivation for the translation might have been. So the KJV-onlyism movement represents an understandable emotion = reaction to the situation. Unfortunately, it is also an irrational and = indefensible reaction. Andrew C. Smith ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFEEE.835248A0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgQRAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AEgBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADALAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AFNNVFAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFy LmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB0AAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNj aG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAAB8AAAAndGMtbGlz dEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdScAAAIBCzABAAAAIgAAAFNNVFA6VEMtTElTVEBTQ0hPTEFS LkNDLkVNT1JZLkVEVQAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAALf0IBCIAHABgA AABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAJAAAAFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBv bmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDAOgLAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcBAAoADAAEABoABQAOAQEggAMADgAAAM0HAQAK AAwABAAaAAUADgEBCYABACEAAAAxNEU2NzI2MEQ3NkFEMDExODIxRTQ0NDU1MzU0MDAwMAC5BgED kAYAjA8AABIAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAEAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQDABKJVGP+7AR4A cAABAAAAJAAAAFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBvbmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDAAIBcQABAAAAFgAA AAG7/xhVmmBy5ipq1xHQgh5ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAAUAAAA cndlaXRlckBza3llbmV0Lm5ldAADAAYQDXkKmQMABxAhEgAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAATVJTTUlUSE1B S0VTU09NRUVYQ0VMTEVOVFBPSU5UU0VTUEVDSUFMTFlSRUdBUkRJTkdUSEVQU1lDSE9MT0dJQ0FM QU5EU1BJUklUVUFMTU9USVZBVElPTlNPRlRIT1NFV0hPSAAAAAACAQkQAQAAAAYOAAACDgAAehoA AExaRnX5I7PL/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0 ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEwMxRQCwoUUU0L8mMAQAXQci4G AG1QaXRoIADAaweRcwEDcGUgZXhjZWymbAnwBUBwbwuAdAQgjQeQcAWQBzFseSAWEGZnCxELgGcg G2AcIHCMc3kRcBWRZ2ljB0BKIABwZBvgcGkFEHSGdR+RBGB0aXZhIMBTAiAEIG9mHpFvEbAg+ncf ICAfIR/gG2Ag8B6T4EtKViAoBbEAcB3gMwqxIMBjdQtgBcB0cucAcQtgIQIpIAQAHpMCIP8d0QDQ HGAFMAGgHJAkehsQXCBPAYAJ8BvgdRFwIP5iHHAIkAPQH7AWECIgHHAdH+BiHeALgB5Qdmlk/yBh BCAh8ihRAiAegSIQFhBvKHAfYAhgIUFyHiADAHqvIPUh8B9wG3BkIhBuILD/HfEdYgVABGUE8B8h EZEswP5wH7MtFSYUHpMtQSERInR+YxyQK+Ad4C7gCGAiUWXTCsADoGFkIOBuHGAvUVMeEAnRcywn 9GElZE1vM/AT0AXAIWFEKcEDAHR2eTOAM/FhHNAWEBYQcb51BAAbUCahIhAFsGQLcU8y4RtAAwAT wHJ5J3FBcmwhkXVnG3AeoSHBc/5hHBEJwAhgHuAbgTGhOaA/HOAAIB+zCfAFoAhwYWfjHCAmGSJC aSaCCFAcgek7UHMiJ3FVKAAdsx6jfzRxBbAEIAuAJ/Q5dRGAdr8cIChwAkAmkQWxLUAgAhDecgDA AyA8Qh9zLzd3JHJ/NTEecR/CB0AEYBPALTBlfz+wI3RCZz6hJYMFEB9gbv9A+hjyIGA88T05KAMp mijSeCJmdR/QOTECMAdAIv0fsyI/4QSQB0A3sUmwPqH/QScdAQSQNfEBkCc/KYs/k/cHgARgBRB6 MuEj2QT0CHD/HCA2QCCwB5ErAQ2xCfAiYvZlICA5ZCcEICPZKFUnce5HINAn1wDQazlyH9EbUPsl QkCBdwIgBIEidyHBOXbfQ2JRCCPPJNQEICgzpiMR/yUwAJAywR6RJVIkmDOAJJB/HqFV40TkANAg U0EnE9B4/x0gM4AlVVRQAJAEIECxUWX6IhNQbyFiXhJJtB6iSPD/VLIg8yWxLKUeoTGhAZAf0H09 IlQwbR6iPEQlUQuAZu8dsTxTH8I3MXIkkTExA3D/BGAl0iVRNdBhWV9CTR5jRP8d4CFgJ8Ig8FCR IrIg8AqFvwqLKHABwRnPGtAKhSJke30eoncgMSfCVZALICFSR/8EcDOAH2BTwilhKbI3QCmB/yAC YaQbYDmBOJEfIR3gSVH3cDUh4x1gbxuwH7NvcFCB+zPlHeB3NhEgkT+wKUNjclpIcxJTIBMncUkD oEj9JVFXNvEzgHPCEYAEIGbCv2+SImEiEAOBM4AeomstQPp3HJBkO1E3QBxgBBAKwO8d4F9CWvI5 IGwg5BsQdqj/T9YotB6iZUkWED+wJNQhUv938gPwHIBpln4mYuMLESFS/xFyXQEEkHoUapMhYRxA HXDnCIEywXoUYXUhkSAxIPH/P7F/UgdANKQtEC3QBRA3QO8osVe1JIAroHRv8RtgHeL/BaFwJlIh XQE+g1rxPlE38HFJsFsxXWsvGa9tqUK/BZCE4CHBSxlmURyhYyXxf2YDZWQDEDVRKMMoAwDAav9f UgnwZoEhRVGSSQlAoAtw/xtgM4UpmhYQM/Bj+iMWIfD/IPBDsx8REbAw4SSaIeAz8P9eUWgxXQEz gF/xKdF2RHPC/ysBh2QkpD5iKwFxwVAihoX9H5FwCHE1YhxwIcFRdBPQ/wDQLMAZEDnEKFA+kmZR BbD/J3EnkHGREbA3gXtyX/FRIP8EEAWxIWE3gSWiWrEWEADA0nIbsGQ6d6EnP7FdBP9zIwVAEbBD wR+RMVU+rSHy/6KXKFM/sZUTc8N08yLTHmL2SjkxBCBWBJAAkDDRKWPXIAMedZpZISeATJZBWL37 KNIeUHMbQAQQMuEz9Q2w7SnQbFIhb/FrUMMDEITw/35EeDI4AgVAHJA0cR6QVZD/NeKdoaiBlQSi Q6MiLLEmkfcocDUhRLdPLDCh0IlDPYT/DbADAHmCIpZ9eXXDb3Y+obhIZWIWEAfgH8JHCdFea3eU IZQ3hKiBJzdyZH8zcSLWJVpeAihBjaRVBFRESEVjYEVYVHewVNBTRUxGqrFBoqZcIv9k8zXQH0OC YkTSdCEoGaIQ/kmg0XuRkzIlQl7hMuFiA/8ioVUBOSATsETEJVK69EKz/4eSIdEbUIbhhwTBw4Mk uwH/wkRfIQtgdcBwkVxkOeGeYc/AesZUilEjQEEgIOAHIf8csTDTtPlSIgNgMVA5MHIm9SKhIsBB Q3KQN7FVJC1hfwtwrLLG5MCJPqEg4AuALr4pirxjcGUSePGvsXId0X8tQr8yOfGVFSG2anaZ9CL/ BaAAgASQIOI/sEmwKdAH0f8hYX13UFRDEQbgP7FE1Zkh70uxQxIDIBYQai3JXXsgYrsueSdxQ9CV XMMr4HVJUv8eknEBBZEHgiy0kdQt9lja/15RIXAjkTWBJiA7IRPQHdP/GOAtwkULA4EroAUDBCAz 4l91wC0xB+AVgeAGbSdxIsxEb1CiHrFSUyMw39ofKFBDcS56X1QHsElWP3dJtBvwJbEuirw0YCOi Zf5vC1Ao8T+iHq+csSCiAiD/6oIfzLIxB5HQhg2xNzIncf5TKBLo1WoU7VFJ8TxEphT/HmFJsBFw CHCwkSuyG+MgwP8HglhxHSFQ1HGCUXTsVF9F/m16EZnxHHHjAyIhB+BilP8x1OxSfMMhwejVKNJD Uyhw/xuwPbKlYjADMJQb0TO0ohC7blMjES0lwj0girxX28L+SZfyMiMeYsBx6ZEfMrPy/wnCM4AC IB7BoDdmwtb0lRP/3qFOkfaXOwEiUS/vZBwfc7/ENbWWOlJCcR0hXAoiYrDvB9DERTeCQXBtPRB6 E7Xi/zHjx2IoEhyQxIET0SZRMLT/IhA8Mx9wzTFJsOmSwKQpYdd54ei2550t5BBvKFA6cRpBGxBX UZCC000uU8guVy4zgEMuDpAOMt+LJTygm1E4QFuVQQPCrHBbHKEzgCZjYJShdNtjU+/T0R9wqECL JVMrkMDRjYDfH9AzgHfAHlCXQGGKvBR/MYtSMS5da/GMDlxp1xHRU8HA0UQ58UEykByhXcxiWTIx QRBgEGuiEDG4OTg3Fn9twCNASDtBSy7QKwB3W9FNRKIQUp+tcbcFtsDQsR/gUHVBQX8u4amREGGG kBPAW6QZ0inrmMF8wDUncU5QgaIQ0Ab/0QXxcBog0Ze08RffN7GUgv/XutkG4XFYUaxhd5ItBiE5 /yIvIzQBOfomBFE2cUxSFO+PKt8r7yz/a38xODBsoCHu8C0xNDRsoHR4xzADGiUvsXMxNufAdPJd I9EtMieLJzDbYjGXRv1gAG2iEDC/McQwQDvgEFCgTkRSRVfU4E28oMRIWzdQVFA6rHGVEUZA4WA6 8C5hYT9gLtBrMTIueUAuh8CKpv8zPzGmEeDbgDUPNhs0wGkwn9GAk3CoEOFAe3IxMB7iQDk3IDQ6 MT9AQeZNOb8z3VRvO/82GzcQRkWPwSDQdEBh5aAu59whP98z3UNjQf82G48A/i1Kgjhh2aNEoDig ToKKQP2h8HVE7zrOHZDXskcPNhv6UOnmeaIQlaC6gyVRYLMwTlRUQy4vbDMzNv9srjGmiyX79K/R YWLBYXQA//vD7vAboYPQWqBhYasBtFP/caKUCHQDpQAEYumCiyUkEL/NYMsB8XB6Y2pRZ2AilaL/ T+WKUfulVcTpoIIFwsITcfdv4VUBVqEsiyXBwweUkPD/dHHxIv4SWCb5RFl0k3B7srfchL3HlnF5 iyWQEXTuYv/oYCDAn4HhgBLg/DGZEqFSW3OR6JJraOHnnVPZMGT/UBCplcsxqwKSYIgRguL78Lc4 0CFUonF4qLD00CJVU++9w8qhIMCLJWqHwd6gCfH/HpXqMBmQ83PDwOrSfGXm4N/2Ub3xw2RjofhQ YfJQeUD/vrD+wIsl5XVzImyn83W74d8ppv30CCCDgazwa5NwwcR/ujOLJXAd8lETQamEcSk//xBQ hzEHRACxxwG/sODBCWH/iyVU8huhhyS74VlCJACxYP8RkuedfOJwGaNgoaDyA55h/8PA8lCooH4y 8jMTQemEnGP/jzUIwKTQkCL+cIslgySdpv+o8XTqfh9/JsU39jKskIsl/6TTe/K+MKuRqx9aUQQQ XwH//IIKRKgx0XAbgIQEKZeLJf9c4t6hIMIA0I7BmKKVMa+0n3ho1gCj8JNwuzYoZjTRP8Sh7zBu cEql6hCg8m0i/5fQeLNf8H7hk3ALM+V2V9P/ytGUQPhw9dGFnwQDSqWYgN9noY0iBHHqECXQeLKV 8vF/v7UMwbcyjQXvMPJQmHNv/+bgjtjPFvEikTa68b4wrFC/fsLyUMFh6UftcFYBZv6A/yPR1MGG 7UqlZFfzgskiZBLfJdAj0Klxo7El0Gde8Llxf8HCo3LdBXA9WMarSQZxZ/5oXBHpUr+wZJBlntMk KRb/UCJ5pteBsFEKINuAxJKLff/qtteBloGJGNMVKcEksGzz+CBVbvOB2TDg4N+C3oH/zINXodKB tnGKgN4jJMF+pP90430A73FKpagW5512cbbyfw6Q1OA4Ei2/UY9Sn1OpfQVKoAC0kAAAAwAQEAAA AAADABEQAAAAAEAABzAgfWyyDv+7AUAACDDABKJVGP+7AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAA3Sg= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFEEE.835248A0-- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 13:23:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09201; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:19:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:01:38 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970110130302.26073732@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: KJV only Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 303 I think we have now left the realm of text criticism and entered the kingdom of sociology. Though valuable, such studies have their own place. Yours, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 14:42:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10207; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:38:09 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01BBFEEE.83417FC0@ts01-sb-4.skyenet.net> References: Conversation <01BBFEEE.83417FC0@ts01-sb-4.skyenet.net> with last message <01BBFEEE.83417FC0@ts01-sb-4.skyenet.net> Priority: Normal To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jonathan "D." Safren Subject: Re: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 21:15:21 -0000 (B+2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 134 >Biblical inerrentcy and infallibility are such major tenants of their >fundamental faith, Interesting. How much rent do they pay? From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 15:58:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10983; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:55:19 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:46:17 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: TC Sites Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1103 TCers -- Following on the question about where to find textual criticism web sites, I've set up a links page at the encyclopedia web site (listed at the bottom of this letter). Unfortunately, it only lists links already mentioned on the list, but at least you can link to them in your browser. I've also added a few more entries to the encyclopedia site, and corrected a couple of minor errors. (The big errors, no doubt, are beyond my comprehension. :-) Once again, I encourage any of you who want to put your opionion in electronic purple prose (and yes, I can make it purple if you really want to display it in that colour), contact me. And contact Rich Elliot to participate in the *real* encyclopedia. I now go off to do real work for a while.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 18:31:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12323; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:29:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF23.C129C920@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:15:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 770 Opps! I had spelled correctly and was trying out the spell checker on = this mail program (new to me, since I've moved from Netscape 3.0 to = Internet Explorer. I do not believe I like IE as well , but it = does have a built in spell checker. Sometimes best to go with what I = spelled rather than let the "corrections" go through. Thanks for the = laugh and reminder not to trust spell checkers blindly . ---------- From: Jonathan "D." Safren[SMTP:yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il] Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 4:15 PM To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC >Biblical inerrentcy and infallibility are such major tenants of their=20 >fundamental faith,=20 Interesting. How much rent do they pay? From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 18:31:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12339; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:29:47 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF23.CD9A4B80@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:25:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.CD9A4B80" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5034 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.CD9A4B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Opps! I had spelled correctly and was trying out the spell checker on = this mail program (new to me, since I've moved from Netscape 3.0 to = Internet Explorer. I do not believe I like IE as well , but it = does have a built in spell checker. Sometimes best to go with what I = spelled rather than let the "corrections" go through. Thanks for the = laugh and reminder not to trust spell checkers blindly . ---------- From: Jonathan "D." Safren[SMTP:yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il] Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 4:15 PM To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC >Biblical inerrentcy and infallibility are such major tenants of their=20 >fundamental faith,=20 Interesting. How much rent do they pay? ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.CD9A4B80 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiAXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAEAAQABBJAG AFQFAAADAAAADgAAAAMAADAGAAAACwAPDgEAAAACAf8PAQAAAEQAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAQBUQyBMaXN0AFNNVFAAJ3RjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAB4AAjAB AAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAfAAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUn AAADABUMAAAAEAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAKAAAAJ1RDIExpc3QnAAAAAgELMAEAAAAkAAAAU01U UDonVEMtTElTVEBTQ0hPTEFSLkNDLkVNT1JZLkVEVScAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AAAAAAIB9g8BAAAA BAAAAAAAAAYeABoAAQAAAAgAAABJUE0uTk9URQIBFDoBAAAAEAAAAL7tN+n2atARgh5ERVNUAAAU AAAAAwAAMAcAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHRj LWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUAU01UUAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnku ZWR1AAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAHQAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5l bW9yeS5lZHUAAAAAAwAVDAAAABADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHwAAACd0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIu Y2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1JwAAAgELMAEAAAAiAAAAU01UUDpUQy1MSVNUQFNDSE9MQVIuQ0MuRU1PUlku RURVAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAceABoAAQAAABQAAABSRVBPUlQu SVBNLk5PVEUuTkRSAEAAMgCgFLW8Sf+7AQMABAwAAAAAAwAFDP////8eAAEQAQAAAEQAAABObyB0 cmFuc3BvcnQgcHJvdmlkZXIgd2FzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmb3IgZGVsaXZlcnkgdG8gdGhpcyByZWNp cGllbnQuAAIBEjoBAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xh ci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUAU01UUAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAeABM6AQAA AB8AAAAndGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdScAAAIBFDoBAAAAIgAAAFNNVFA6VEMt TElTVEBTQ0hPTEFSLkNDLkVNT1JZLkVEVQAAAA4AAAADAAAwCAAAAAsADw4BAAAAAgH/DwEAAABX AAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQBT TVRQAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAD MAEAAAAdAAAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAA HgABMAEAAAAfAAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAAACAQswAQAAACIAAABT TVRQOlRDLUxJU1RAU0NIT0xBUi5DQy5FTU9SWS5FRFUAAAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAAgH2DwEA AAAEAAAAAAAACB4AGgABAAAACAAAAElQTS5OT1RFAgEUOgEAAAAQAAAAvu036fZq0BGCHkRFU1QA ADUlAQiABwAYAAAASVBNLk1pY3Jvc29mdCBNYWlsLk5vdGUAMQgBBIABACgAAABSRTogUkU6IFBz eWNob2xvZ3k6IEtKIG9ubHlpc20gYW5kIE5UVEMA2QwBBYADAA4AAADNBwEACgASABkAKAAFADcB AQYABwAYAAAASVBNLk1pY3Jvc29mdCBNYWlsLk5vdGUAMQgBIIADAA4AAADNBwEACgARABwABgAF ABcBAQmAAQAhAAAAQkVFRDM3RTlGNjZBRDAxMTgyMUU0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAAAwcBA5AGAAwFAAAT AAAACwAjAAEAAAADACYAAQAAAAsAKQABAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkA4A6hl03/uwEeAHAAAQAAACgA AABSRTogUkU6IFBzeWNob2xvZ3k6IEtKIG9ubHlpc20gYW5kIE5UVEMAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbv/ RY0f6Tft9mr2EdCCHkRFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABQAAAByd2Vp dGVyQHNreWVuZXQubmV0AAMABhBrgv2DAwAHEFYCAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABPUFBTSUhBRFNQRUxM RURDT1JSRUNUTFlBTkRXQVNUUllJTkdPVVRUSEVTUEVMTENIRUNLRVJPTlRISVNNQUlMUFJPR1JB TShORVdUT01FLFNJTkNFSVZFTU9WRURGUk9NTkVUAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAZwMAAGMDAADZBQAATFpG dQcPAzT/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKD M3cC5AcTAoB9CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoENsQtg4G5nMTAzFFALChRRBQvyYwBAIE9wcHOgISAg SSARgGQbQKBzcGVsbAmAIAWhwRYQY3RseSAAcBugRHdhBCB0cnkLgGfGIAhgBUB0aGUbxBxA+R4w Y2sEkB3QA6AeIAQALiAAwAMRE1BvCcBhbUggKG4H0XRvH7BlFiwbwAuAYx5ASSd2vx5ABGAh0Bug A1IHsXQE8EJhG+AgMy4wINJJxwIwBJERwCBFeAtQBbCVBJAuG0JkIPBubwVA/mIb8AiQIdEbYCWg HwAbUNZFHOAEIHcegjwJwAuA6j4hMGId8WkFQCUQB5H7EYAh0WEnkQMQJ8EDoB5r/STBUwNwEcAH cyWAE8Ag0v5nIPAD8B4gHSARgAVAG2D/G9YgUB4hBcAeIAORHBAeBMoiHFVpAiBzIityHiBRA2B1 Z2gkwVQtcWv/BCACEC1CHkALYC+BHOMWEL5tC4AEgSUzIOEdcHUrIb8eayrhJaAdABzBJyQuCoUj CosloDE4MALRaS14MTQ0DfAM0DaTC1kxnjYKoANgE9AcoCAtOLevCoc3awwwODZGA2E6Ob5zODYM giBKAiAtAQORIjxELi7wBhADUAnwW1NgTVRQOnkuwT5gQMclgCfgJYBybC4/hwDQ+i4DEF05Xzpt BmACMDufQzyrO1BpZGF5ITBKPQBwdQrAHNAZMCEwMTkAOTcgNDoxNSDMUE1BDzptVG9DTzyrWHRj LSWgE8BABPBocwbwCsAuY0CwE+AFsHkZTEBkdUcvQh51YmonHJFJTzyrUmVPUFJFsU9QUHN5S7Ig MHlPUHxLSh8xHMAEACBwHPJOmFRUQzS/NcMzNjc34xpFODY+QmkzwSLwAyC/C4AEkD6BSyAc1AuA ZgdAfSWgYgMQJ+Ac0RYQG8B1+xFwH7FqMGIJ8ABwItAd0IpmHhJpU/c+ZnUdAP8gYEMRVxFYUCvB ITBTrCOzpysRHaEkwEhvB+BtWWKfV4IlAh4hHNAKsHk/TO3/GkQ1HBnfXL1Uj1WfY2xj3xdk72X8 FTEAaoAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzCAIz7SQ/+7AUAACDDghB+NRf+7AQIBFDoBAAAAEAAA AL7tN+n2atARgh5ERVNUAAAeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAALRy ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.CD9A4B80-- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 18:31:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12336; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:29:40 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF23.C71E2380@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:21:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C71E2380" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5099 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C71E2380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Opps! I had spelled correctly and was trying out the spell checker on = this mail program (new to me, since I've moved from Netscape 3.0 to = Internet Explorer. I do not believe I like IE as well , but it = does have a built in spell checker. Sometimes best to go with what I = spelled rather than let the "corrections" go through. Thanks for the = laugh and reminder not to trust spell checkers blindly . ---------- From: Jonathan "D." Safren[SMTP:yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il] Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 4:15 PM To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC >Biblical inerrentcy and infallibility are such major tenants of their=20 >fundamental faith,=20 Interesting. How much rent do they pay? ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C71E2380 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhUXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAEAAQABBJAG AIQFAAADAAAADgAAAAMAADAGAAAACwAPDgEAAAACAf8PAQAAAFsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAQBUZXh0dWFsIENyaXRpY2lzbSBNYWlsaW5nIExpc3QAU01UUAAndGMtbGlzdEBzY2hv bGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdScAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAfAAAAJ3RjLWxp c3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAAADABUMAAAAEAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAhAAAAJ1Rl eHR1YWwgQ3JpdGljaXNtIE1haWxpbmcgTGlzdCcAAAAAAgELMAEAAAAkAAAAU01UUDonVEMtTElT VEBTQ0hPTEFSLkNDLkVNT1JZLkVEVScAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAYe ABoAAQAAAAgAAABJUE0uTk9URQIBFDoBAAAAEAAAAL7tN+n2atARgh5ERVNUAAAUAAAAAwAAMAcA AAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2No b2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUAU01UUAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAeAAIw AQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAHQAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUA AAAAAwAVDAAAABADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHwAAACd0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnku ZWR1JwAAAgELMAEAAAAiAAAAU01UUDpUQy1MSVNUQFNDSE9MQVIuQ0MuRU1PUlkuRURVAAAAAwAA OQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAceABoAAQAAABQAAABSRVBPUlQuSVBNLk5PVEUu TkRSAEAAMgCgFLW8Sf+7AQMABAwAAAAAAwAFDP////8eAAEQAQAAAEQAAABObyB0cmFuc3BvcnQg cHJvdmlkZXIgd2FzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmb3IgZGVsaXZlcnkgdG8gdGhpcyByZWNpcGllbnQuAAIB EjoBAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9y eS5lZHUAU01UUAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAeABM6AQAAAB8AAAAndGMt bGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdScAAAIBFDoBAAAAIgAAAFNNVFA6VEMtTElTVEBTQ0hP TEFSLkNDLkVNT1JZLkVEVQAAAA4AAAADAAAwCAAAAAsADw4BAAAAAgH/DwEAAABXAAAAAAAAAIEr H6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQBTTVRQAHRjLWxp c3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAdAAAA dGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAf AAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAAACAQswAQAAACIAAABTTVRQOlRDLUxJ U1RAU0NIT0xBUi5DQy5FTU9SWS5FRFUAAAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAA CB4AGgABAAAACAAAAElQTS5OT1RFAgEUOgEAAAAQAAAAvu036fZq0BGCHkRFU1QAAFM3AQiABwAY AAAASVBNLk1pY3Jvc29mdCBNYWlsLk5vdGUAMQgBBIABACgAAABSRTogUkU6IFBzeWNob2xvZ3k6 IEtKIG9ubHlpc20gYW5kIE5UVEMA2QwBBYADAA4AAADNBwEACgASABUANwAFAEIBAQYABwAYAAAA SVBNLk1pY3Jvc29mdCBNYWlsLk5vdGUAMQgBIIADAA4AAADNBwEACgARABwABgAFABcBAQmAAQAh AAAAQkVFRDM3RTlGNjZBRDAxMTgyMUU0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAAAwcBA5AGAAwFAAATAAAACwAjAAEA AAADACYAAQAAAAsAKQABAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkA4NlNEU3/uwEeAHAAAQAAACgAAABSRTogUkU6 IFBzeWNob2xvZ3k6IEtKIG9ubHlpc20gYW5kIE5UVEMAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbv/RY0f6Tft9mr2 EdCCHkRFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABQAAAByd2VpdGVyQHNreWVu ZXQubmV0AAMABhBrgv2DAwAHEFYCAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABPUFBTSUhBRFNQRUxMRURDT1JSRUNU TFlBTkRXQVNUUllJTkdPVVRUSEVTUEVMTENIRUNLRVJPTlRISVNNQUlMUFJPR1JBTShORVdUT01F LFNJTkNFSVZFTU9WRURGUk9NTkVUAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAZwMAAGMDAADZBQAATFpGdQcPAzT/AAoB DwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKDM3cC5AcTAoB9 CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoENsQtg4G5nMTAzFFALChRRBQvyYwBAIE9wcHOgISAgSSARgGQbQKBz cGVsbAmAIAWhwRYQY3RseSAAcBugRHdhBCB0cnkLgGfGIAhgBUB0aGUbxBxA+R4wY2sEkB3QA6Ae IAQALiAAwAMRE1BvCcBhbUggKG4H0XRvH7BlFiwbwAuAYx5ASSd2vx5ABGAh0BugA1IHsXQE8EJh G+AgMy4wINJJxwIwBJERwCBFeAtQBbCVBJAuG0JkIPBubwVA/mIb8AiQIdEbYCWgHwAbUNZFHOAE IHcegjwJwAuA6j4hMGId8WkFQCUQB5H7EYAh0WEnkQMQJ8EDoB5r/STBUwNwEcAHcyWAE8Ag0v5n IPAD8B4gHSARgAVAG2D/G9YgUB4hBcAeIAORHBAeBMoiHFVpAiBzIityHiBRA2B1Z2gkwVQtcWv/ BCACEC1CHkALYC+BHOMWEL5tC4AEgSUzIOEdcHUrIb8eayrhJaAdABzBJyQuCoUjCosloDE4MALR aS14MTQ0DfAM0DaTC1kxnjYKoANgE9AcoCAtOLevCoc3awwwODZGA2E6Ob5zODYMgiBKAiAtAQOR IjxELi7wBhADUAnwW1NgTVRQOnkuwT5gQMclgCfgJYBybC4/hwDQ+i4DEF05XzptBmACMDufQzyr O1BpZGF5ITBKPQBwdQrAHNAZMCEwMTkAOTcgNDoxNSDMUE1BDzptVG9DTzyrWHRjLSWgE8BABPBo cwbwCsAuY0CwE+AFsHkZTEBkdUcvQh51YmonHJFJTzyrUmVPUFJFsU9QUHN5S7IgMHlPUHxLSh8x HMAEACBwHPJOmFRUQzS/NcMzNjc34xpFODY+QmkzwSLwAyC/C4AEkD6BSyAc1AuAZgdAfSWgYgMQ J+Ac0RYQG8B1+xFwH7FqMGIJ8ABwItAd0IpmHhJpU/c+ZnUdAP8gYEMRVxFYUCvBITBTrCOzpysR HaEkwEhvB+BtWWKfV4IlAh4hHNAKsHk/TO3/GkQ1HBnfXL1Uj1WfY2xj3xdk72X8FTEAaoAAAwAQ EAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzCAIz7SQ/+7AUAACDDghB+NRf+7AQIBFDoBAAAAEAAAAL7tN+n2atAR gh5ERVNUAAAeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAAKVy ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C71E2380-- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 18:31:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12337; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:29:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF23.C9713B40@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:22:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C9713B40" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4588 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C9713B40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Opps! I had spelled correctly and was trying out the spell checker on = this mail program (new to me, since I've moved from Netscape 3.0 to = Internet Explorer. I do not believe I like IE as well , but it = does have a built in spell checker. Sometimes best to go with what I = spelled rather than let the "corrections" go through. Thanks for the = laugh and reminder not to trust spell checkers blindly . ---------- From: Jonathan "D." Safren[SMTP:yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il] Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 4:15 PM To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC >Biblical inerrentcy and infallibility are such major tenants of their=20 >fundamental faith,=20 Interesting. How much rent do they pay? ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C9713B40 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhkXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAEAAQABBJAG AAgEAAACAAAAFAAAAAMAADAFAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AFNNVFAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFy LmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB0AAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNj aG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAAAB4AGgABAAAAFAAAAFJFUE9SVC5JUE0uTk9URS5ORFIAQAAy AKAUtbxJ/7sBAwAEDAAAAAADAAUM/////wMAFQwAAAAQAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEQAQAAAEQAAABObyB0 cmFuc3BvcnQgcHJvdmlkZXIgd2FzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmb3IgZGVsaXZlcnkgdG8gdGhpcyByZWNp cGllbnQuAB4AATABAAAAHwAAACd0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1JwAAAgELMAEA AAAiAAAAU01UUDpUQy1MSVNUQFNDSE9MQVIuQ0MuRU1PUlkuRURVAAAAAwAAOQAAAAACARI6AQAA AFcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1 AFNNVFAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAHgATOgEAAAAfAAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RA c2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAAACARQ6AQAAACIAAABTTVRQOlRDLUxJU1RAU0NIT0xBUi5D Qy5FTU9SWS5FRFUAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAUOAAAAAwAAMAYAAAALAA8OAQAA AAIB/w8BAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5l bW9yeS5lZHUAU01UUAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABT TVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAHQAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUAAAAAHgAaAAEA AAAIAAAASVBNLk5PVEUDABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAfAAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xh ci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAAACAQswAQAAACIAAABTTVRQOlRDLUxJU1RAU0NIT0xBUi5DQy5FTU9S WS5FRFUAAAADAAA5AAAAAAIBFDoBAAAAEAAAAL7tN+n2atARgh5ERVNUAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8B AAAABAAAAAAAAAa96AEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQSAAQAoAAAA UkU6IFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBvbmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDANkMAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcBAAoA EgAWACgABQA0AQEGAAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIASCAAwAOAAAAzQcB AAoAEQAcAAYABQAXAQEJgAEAIQAAAEJFRUQzN0U5RjY2QUQwMTE4MjFFNDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAAMH AQOQBgAMBQAAEwAAAAsAIwABAAAAAwAmAAEAAAALACkAAQAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AIBZQCxN/7sB HgBwAAEAAAAoAAAAUkU6IFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBvbmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDAAIBcQAB AAAAFgAAAAG7/0WNH+k37fZq9hHQgh5ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEA AAAUAAAAcndlaXRlckBza3llbmV0Lm5ldAADAAYQa4L9gwMABxBWAgAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAT1BQ U0lIQURTUEVMTEVEQ09SUkVDVExZQU5EV0FTVFJZSU5HT1VUVEhFU1BFTExDSEVDS0VST05USElT TUFJTFBST0dSQU0oTkVXVE9NRSxTSU5DRUlWRU1PVkVERlJPTU5FVAAAAAACAQkQAQAAAGcDAABj AwAA2QUAAExaRnUHDwM0/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHBy QnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEwMxRQCwoUUQUL8mMA QCBPcHBzoCEgIEkgEYBkG0Cgc3BlbGwJgCAFocEWEGN0bHkgAHAboER3YQQgdHJ5C4BnxiAIYAVA dGhlG8QcQPkeMGNrBJAd0AOgHiAEAC4gAMADERNQbwnAYW1IIChuB9F0bx+wZRYsG8ALgGMeQEkn dr8eQARgIdAboANSB7F0BPBCYRvgIDMuMCDSSccCMASREcAgRXgLUAWwlQSQLhtCZCDwbm8FQP5i G/AIkCHRG2AloB8AG1DWRRzgBCB3HoI8CcALgOo+ITBiHfFpBUAlEAeR+xGAIdFhJ5EDECfBA6Ae a/0kwVMDcBHAB3MlgBPAINL+ZyDwA/AeIB0gEYAFQBtg/xvWIFAeIQXAHiADkRwQHgTKIhxVaQIg cyIrch4gUQNgdWdoJMFULXFr/wQgAhAtQh5AC2AvgRzjFhC+bQuABIElMyDhHXB1KyG/Hmsq4SWg HQAcwSckLgqFIwqLJaAxODAC0WkteDE0NA3wDNA2kwtZMZ42CqADYBPQHKAgLTi3rwqHN2sMMDg2 RgNhOjm+czg2DIIgSgIgLQEDkSI8RC4u8AYQA1AJ8FtTYE1UUDp5LsE+YEDHJYAn4CWAcmwuP4cA 0PouAxBdOV86bQZgAjA7n0M8qztQaWRheSEwSj0AcHUKwBzQGTAhMDE5ADk3IDQ6MTUgzFBNQQ86 bVRvQ088q1h0Yy0loBPAQATwaHMG8ArALmNAsBPgBbB5GUxAZHVHL0IedWJqJxyRSU88q1JlT1BS RbFPUFBzeUuyIDB5T1B8S0ofMRzABAAgcBzyTphUVEM0vzXDMzY3N+MaRTg2PkJpM8Ei8AMgvwuA BJA+gUsgHNQLgGYHQH0loGIDECfgHNEWEBvAdfsRcB+xajBiCfAAcCLQHdCKZh4SaVP3PmZ1HQD/ IGBDEVcRWFArwSEwU6wjs6crER2hJMBIbwfgbVlin1eCJQIeIRzQCrB5P0zt/xpENRwZ31y9VI9V n2NsY98XZO9l/BUxAGqAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAABAAAcwgCM+0kP/uwFAAAgw4IQfjUX/uwEC ARQ6AQAAABAAAAC+7Tfp9mrQEYIeREVTVAAAHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAADTcQ== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C9713B40-- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 18:31:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12319; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:29:29 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF23.C31FCCC0@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:19:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C31FCCC0" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4588 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C31FCCC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Opps! I had spelled correctly and was trying out the spell checker on = this mail program (new to me, since I've moved from Netscape 3.0 to = Internet Explorer. I do not believe I like IE as well , but it = does have a built in spell checker. Sometimes best to go with what I = spelled rather than let the "corrections" go through. Thanks for the = laugh and reminder not to trust spell checkers blindly . ---------- From: Jonathan "D." Safren[SMTP:yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il] Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 4:15 PM To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC >Biblical inerrentcy and infallibility are such major tenants of their=20 >fundamental faith,=20 Interesting. How much rent do they pay? ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C31FCCC0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ig4XAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAEAAQABBJAG AAgEAAACAAAAFAAAAAMAADAFAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AFNNVFAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFy LmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB0AAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNj aG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAAAB4AGgABAAAAFAAAAFJFUE9SVC5JUE0uTk9URS5ORFIAQAAy AKAUtbxJ/7sBAwAEDAAAAAADAAUM/////wMAFQwAAAAQAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEQAQAAAEQAAABObyB0 cmFuc3BvcnQgcHJvdmlkZXIgd2FzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmb3IgZGVsaXZlcnkgdG8gdGhpcyByZWNp cGllbnQuAB4AATABAAAAHwAAACd0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1JwAAAgELMAEA AAAiAAAAU01UUDpUQy1MSVNUQFNDSE9MQVIuQ0MuRU1PUlkuRURVAAAAAwAAOQAAAAACARI6AQAA AFcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1 AFNNVFAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAHgATOgEAAAAfAAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RA c2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAAACARQ6AQAAACIAAABTTVRQOlRDLUxJU1RAU0NIT0xBUi5D Qy5FTU9SWS5FRFUAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAUOAAAAAwAAMAYAAAALAA8OAQAA AAIB/w8BAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5l bW9yeS5lZHUAU01UUAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABT TVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAHQAAAHRjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xhci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUAAAAAHgAaAAEA AAAIAAAASVBNLk5PVEUDABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAfAAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RAc2Nob2xh ci5jYy5lbW9yeS5lZHUnAAACAQswAQAAACIAAABTTVRQOlRDLUxJU1RAU0NIT0xBUi5DQy5FTU9S WS5FRFUAAAADAAA5AAAAAAIBFDoBAAAAEAAAAL7tN+n2atARgh5ERVNUAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8B AAAABAAAAAAAAAa96AEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQSAAQAoAAAA UkU6IFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBvbmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDANkMAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcBAAoA EgATABsABQAkAQEGAAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIASCAAwAOAAAAzQcB AAoAEQAcAAYABQAXAQEJgAEAIQAAAEJFRUQzN0U5RjY2QUQwMTE4MjFFNDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAAMH AQOQBgAMBQAAEwAAAAsAIwABAAAAAwAmAAEAAAALACkAAQAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AICTJLlM/7sB HgBwAAEAAAAoAAAAUkU6IFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBvbmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDAAIBcQAB AAAAFgAAAAG7/0WNH+k37fZq9hHQgh5ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEA AAAUAAAAcndlaXRlckBza3llbmV0Lm5ldAADAAYQa4L9gwMABxBWAgAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAT1BQ U0lIQURTUEVMTEVEQ09SUkVDVExZQU5EV0FTVFJZSU5HT1VUVEhFU1BFTExDSEVDS0VST05USElT TUFJTFBST0dSQU0oTkVXVE9NRSxTSU5DRUlWRU1PVkVERlJPTU5FVAAAAAACAQkQAQAAAGcDAABj AwAA2QUAAExaRnUHDwM0/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHBy QnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEwMxRQCwoUUQUL8mMA QCBPcHBzoCEgIEkgEYBkG0Cgc3BlbGwJgCAFocEWEGN0bHkgAHAboER3YQQgdHJ5C4BnxiAIYAVA dGhlG8QcQPkeMGNrBJAd0AOgHiAEAC4gAMADERNQbwnAYW1IIChuB9F0bx+wZRYsG8ALgGMeQEkn dr8eQARgIdAboANSB7F0BPBCYRvgIDMuMCDSSccCMASREcAgRXgLUAWwlQSQLhtCZCDwbm8FQP5i G/AIkCHRG2AloB8AG1DWRRzgBCB3HoI8CcALgOo+ITBiHfFpBUAlEAeR+xGAIdFhJ5EDECfBA6Ae a/0kwVMDcBHAB3MlgBPAINL+ZyDwA/AeIB0gEYAFQBtg/xvWIFAeIQXAHiADkRwQHgTKIhxVaQIg cyIrch4gUQNgdWdoJMFULXFr/wQgAhAtQh5AC2AvgRzjFhC+bQuABIElMyDhHXB1KyG/Hmsq4SWg HQAcwSckLgqFIwqLJaAxODAC0WkteDE0NA3wDNA2kwtZMZ42CqADYBPQHKAgLTi3rwqHN2sMMDg2 RgNhOjm+czg2DIIgSgIgLQEDkSI8RC4u8AYQA1AJ8FtTYE1UUDp5LsE+YEDHJYAn4CWAcmwuP4cA 0PouAxBdOV86bQZgAjA7n0M8qztQaWRheSEwSj0AcHUKwBzQGTAhMDE5ADk3IDQ6MTUgzFBNQQ86 bVRvQ088q1h0Yy0loBPAQATwaHMG8ArALmNAsBPgBbB5GUxAZHVHL0IedWJqJxyRSU88q1JlT1BS RbFPUFBzeUuyIDB5T1B8S0ofMRzABAAgcBzyTphUVEM0vzXDMzY3N+MaRTg2PkJpM8Ei8AMgvwuA BJA+gUsgHNQLgGYHQH0loGIDECfgHNEWEBvAdfsRcB+xajBiCfAAcCLQHdCKZh4SaVP3PmZ1HQD/ IGBDEVcRWFArwSEwU6wjs6crER2hJMBIbwfgbVlin1eCJQIeIRzQCrB5P0zt/xpENRwZ31y9VI9V n2NsY98XZO9l/BUxAGqAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAABAAAcwgCM+0kP/uwFAAAgw4IQfjUX/uwEC ARQ6AQAAABAAAAC+7Tfp9mrQEYIeREVTVAAAHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAB9cg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF23.C31FCCC0-- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 19:09:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12616; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:06:23 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970111000254.006fb3c8@mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: peterd@mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:02:54 -0600 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Peter Diebenow Subject: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 369 At 12:04 PM 1/10/97 -0500, you (Robert A. Weiter) wrote: Robert, There are at least three attachments that you have sent, e.g,: >Attachment Converted: C:\EUDORA\DOCUMENT.FOL\RE Psychology KJ onlyism >and What format are they in? Wordperfect 7.0 and Notepad are unable to convert them. Are the attachments the same as the note(s) that you sent? Thanks, --pete From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 19:29:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12781; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:27:08 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 00:04:19 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970110190540.279fa820@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: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 256 Again, though this might be interesting from a sociological perspective, it now has nothg to do with TC. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 20:02:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA12913; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:00:26 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF30.78833B40@ts02-sb-30.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:57:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBFF30.788ADC60" Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5401 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF30.788ADC60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: The "attachments"... I switched my browser from Netscape 3.0, which was an upgrade from a = licensed 2.1 version, but since I didn't "subscribe" to Netscape's = subscription plan, Netscape deleted itself from my Pentium after 60 days = of use...right out of registry, etc. I am currently using the Internet = Explorer with Microsoft Mail Exchange. I didn't send any attachments. = The program seems to have flawed. It didn't send out some messages and = sent out others with non-existent attachments or garbled. I just got = off the phone with my service provider (Skyenet) who assisted me after = repeated attempts to reach Microsoft. (This is a licensed version right = off a CD-ROM which I ordered, free "tech support" comes with it!) I = hope the message regarding types of textual criticism in relation to = theology transmitted or I'll try to post again. I was **attempting** to = return the discussion to focus.... even though I'm as "guilty" as = anyone as straying off topic. --- Of course, I had an Old Testament prof at Seminex who ALWAYS used to = stray off topic as listening to his old tapes clearly reminds = me... pax! Bob ---------- From: Peter Diebenow[SMTP:peterd@iadfw.net] Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 7:02 PM To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC At 12:04 PM 1/10/97 -0500, you (Robert A. Weiter) wrote: Robert, There are at least three attachments that you have sent, e.g,: >Attachment Converted: C:\EUDORA\DOCUMENT.FOL\RE Psychology KJ onlyism = >and=20 What format are they in? Wordperfect 7.0 and Notepad are unable to = convert them. Are the attachments the same as the note(s) that you sent? Thanks, --pete ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF30.788ADC60 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgwAAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAEAAQABBJAG AEgBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNjaG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AFNNVFAAdGMtbGlzdEBzY2hvbGFy LmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdQAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB0AAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNj aG9sYXIuY2MuZW1vcnkuZWR1AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAAB8AAAAndGMtbGlz dEBzY2hvbGFyLmNjLmVtb3J5LmVkdScAAAIBCzABAAAAIgAAAFNNVFA6VEMtTElTVEBTQ0hPTEFS LkNDLkVNT1JZLkVEVQAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADb0IBCIAHABgA AABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAJAAAAFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBv bmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDAOgLAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcBAAoAEwA5AAEABQAxAQEggAMADgAAAM0HAQAK ABMAMQAMAAUANAEBCYABACEAAAA5QkNDNUNBQzIxNkJEMDExODIxRTQ0NDU1MzU0MDAwMADwBgED kAYAjAcAABIAAAALACMAAQAAAAMAJgABAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQCgVpJaWv+7AR4A cAABAAAAJAAAAFJFOiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5OiBLSiBvbmx5aXNtIGFuZCBOVFRDAAIBcQABAAAAFgAA AAG7/1pakqxczJxrIRHQgh5ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAAUAAAA cndlaXRlckBza3llbmV0Lm5ldAADAAYQFeKMWwMABxBABQAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAUkU6VEhFIkFU VEFDSE1FTlRTIklTV0lUQ0hFRE1ZQlJPV1NFUkZST01ORVRTQ0FQRTMwLFdISUNIV0FTQU5VUEdS QURFRlJPTUFMSUNFTlNFRDIxVkVSU0lPTixCVVRTSU5DRQAAAAACAQkQAQAAAAcGAAADBgAAwQkA AExaRnXjQ8pC/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0 ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEwMxRQCwoUUQ0L8mMAQAfwZTog VGBoZSAiYQJAANBo4weAAjBzIi4cQAqFCoU0SSAD4XQRcAmAIG3oeSBiA2B3EbAFwANSIwexHBBj YXAbUDMuwDAsIHdoaRFwH9CmYQQgA5F1cAnAYQ2w8R6kYSBsIAAJ8BGwHeD0Mi4a0HYEkACQAiAf wGxidQVAAJBuIcAdQWQQaWRuJwVAInN1AmIE8mJlIiB0b70e9ycEICRFBTAisSALUfci0R8HDbBs EcAd0R2QEbAsbGYepB4BUBvxaXWnIWEBgB6BNjAjsGETsHQgbyhgdRGwHEEFEGe+aAVACGArMShg FhBnBAAYdHJ5H8ARwGMuIHUdQWEe4GMIcBYQAjBstx4QKpALgGck4BtBSQIw4wSREcAgRXgLUAWw HoHbHYEgIE0gAANgcypgBUD+TQtwAyAu4BFxGRAqsCyi+yPFEbBuHeAAcB4QG4kskfsbMhNQbyDR HuARsBPgBCDfJPERgCJwHqALYHcJgCySfwVAMYorUjAQB4Ad8AeQc/5hMRAgYh3gMfErNS4REaDF L2RuAiAtZXgr8TfydxuJKlAFwGcKwAJgNUQg9moqkAVAZzhwKlEoYC4SfHBoAiAbUC9zHgEecXYP IbEzkj3QBIEgKFNr9nkJ8BHAKR/RJQAgUACQ/xPBHeEbUCmEFhAfYBuAHdH/G4ET4AUwNGMWEBux L7gskf4oGzAEACgAIGEhmCJ1K7AHKwQ8USGAQ0QtUk/+TR/VHVAFsASBCYAfwANQnwngG2AT0CAR JEBwcBWx3yTQBaAHgi9zHZAhPzAdQX880B9hLhI3FSuyCxEt03nHH2AqQxPQeHR1B0AtAPsFECZQ YwQAHuALgCuxC2DvJlMk8S4RFZFnHhAsEABxjm0dkCfSBbFJJ2wDIP8sESTiSAA70TdQC3EskyBC /CoqQUUt0VFQQcRMAASh/y4SI8AE8CqQRJMk8QIQU1HbHEEskDwJwAuAPixQInA/UsIIYCsQT1Eh YQQgImfedQMQS0Ak0CBTeTziIFF/LAEqIC3SPENJoCAAHG0t+VmwIE8oYAWgCHARsB/Ap0lxIPAg ck9sHeBUB5D/AZAb4jOSRWEFQAZgTsAuoIJ4P0NBTFdBWQXw/yqRHeAk8VejWChUliBRIaD/OaIt 0zSRQ1EG8F3xH1EEIL5jJ7AKwC2BFhBcsWQEICcHgBxPCrB4IRx8Qm+OYhx8CvQhoDE4MALR4Gkt MTQ0DfAM0Gbz+QtZMTYKoANgR4EFQFmx32kVCodnywwwaJZGA2EbEN9nr2i0DIIo8SmiRAiQJLAB OTB3W1NNVFA6Ex9gKaFkQAcwZGZ3+i4uoV1pv2rNBmACMGv/320La7Aj0CogH8BKAHBMEAdPwRkw H8AxOTk3IMg3OjAR4FBNcC9qzVxUb3JvbQsdoC1f4kDHBPA80Atgci5jLIAT4OUFsHl7YGR1dk9x PiRQTmpo0XhvbQtSRRsQUJxzeXrSTjEbEEtKKlAObi2ATLI3ok5UVEO7ZR9mIzMp4BnNaJZBBUC0 MTJ14DR2EXUwLxkw4i91oS0wNWaQH8BXIH51PqAIACSwACAUsCyQV95lHZAEkD8xaKI6HHyHhP4s HHwbMRYQIHCLYgVAYaH/O9EuEEcyOgouEFxhhzI0s6M34ixBLmcsiP0+hYA/G6ZFkAIgInEn0RsQ QzoAXFxFVURPUkFDkYCRwENVTUWCQC54Rk9MkYCAUICJgUo+2zeiHHxXjZICEHIAwDnh74thLhEe EAuAP4gQRpEfYPRyZmjSNx+ggfRosQqw8zIhi2F1bgGgJ7Ak4gWg+5DTLgJtHG0HEEnEjMyOQZ9b sVYCLhI5MBPQKHM/MJuNhzfiP4peAHBrc4pN/1lHbxIZzxrQgo6EP2jSgv8XhA+lXBUxAKkAAAMA EBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAABAAAcwAPTBQln/uwFAAAgwAPTBQln/uwEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAA AJBb ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBFF30.788ADC60-- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 20:28:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13003; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:25:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF33.FFC16520@ts02-sb-30.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu" Subject: Mail Error! Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:22:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 1254 To everyone: If you received a mesage from me (rweiter@skyenet.net) with file = attachments, please 1.) either let me know privately OR simply delete = these. I did ** not ** attach files to any messages sent to anyone in = ther TC-list individually OR in bulk. There was a major problem with = the MAPI server on my system OR a problem at my Internet service = provider! It appears that my system took a text message and converted = it to some kind of file. I attempted to open these files when one of = you returned them to me to no avail. I do not know if my message = arrived WITH the attachments or simply the attachments. As a security = measure I just ran Norton Anti-virus and PCTuneup, which is updated = monthly and consists of a number of programs (including Norton, etc.) by = a service to which I am a paid subscriber: www.tuneup.com . Thank = heavens, nothing. I am truly sorry for any inconvience this may have caused. I have = contacted Microsoft via email. I never could get through on their free = technical support lines. =20 Pax! Robert A. Weiter, MSW, CCSW Consultation, Assessment, & Treatment Services 18115 State Road #23 #175 South Bend, Indiana 46637 email: rweiter@skyenet.net OR rweiter@protestant.com From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 10 20:34:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13094; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:32:24 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFF34.B9B5C3E0@gateway.vnet.net> From: "Mark E. Burrill" To: "'tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Life of papyrus MSS Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:26:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 787 ---------- On a related topic and purely as a matter of curiosity on my part, could = anyone happen to tell me what the oldest mss are that are believed to = have existed throughout their lives in the regions west of Palestine and = North of Egypt? As a hypothetical example, P52 is believed to be the oldest extant ms. = Its survival has been credited to the arid climate of Egypt where it was = found. Tradition suggests it (the autograph) was composed in Ephesus. = Given favorable political conditions, what would be the likelihood that = a ms of similar age would have survived near the supposed area of = composition or anywhere in the Asia Minor or Southern Europe area? If it = were sealed in a jar and put in a cave like the DSS, would it have = survived? Thanks, Mark From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 11 02:44:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA14607; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:44:10 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970111074012.387f4fd0@mail.actcom.co.il> X-Sender: margaret@mail.actcom.co.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:40:12 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Margaret Hayon Subject: Ethiopic word-processing problem. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1028 I am having a technical problem with my Ethiopic word-processor. I recently installed the Gamma UniType Biblical/Scholar program (produced by Gamma Productions, California: their Website is ). I am using it with Windows 3.11 (Hebrew Microsoft Windows for Workgroups) and Word 6 (Hebrew version). For the most part it is working well; however, I find that 2 particular characters will not type into my document; and certain characters convert into different ones when I press space-bar or Enter. (possibly the keyboard is confused and is treating these characters as if they were contextually-determined?) It's very annoying to have to keep an eye open for them while I am typing, and have to go back and correct them! I'd like to contact other users of this program - has anyone else had similar problems? I've sent several e-mails to Gamma's Support section, but so far received no reply from them. Margaret Hayon 49 Raanan Street, Haifa 34385, Israel e-mail address: margaret@actcom.co.il From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 11 02:44:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA14606; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:44:08 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970111074005.387f4e6c@mail.actcom.co.il> X-Sender: margaret@mail.actcom.co.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:40:05 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Margaret Hayon Subject: Introduction - Ethiopic texts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1757 I would like to introduce myself to this list. I am doing research on the religious traditions of the Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel). I live in Israel, and am in close contact with priests and elders of this community; they have allowed me to photograph various manuscripts in their possession. I am now working on one of these manuscripts, known as "Baqadami gabra Egziabher" ["In the beginning God created"]: I am translating it from Ge`ez, comparing it with the only other two versions I've found (both in Tel Aviv University library, Rare Books room; part of the Faitlovitch Collection). The book begins with an Ethiopic version of Genesis 1, which I am comparing with J.Oscar Boyd's critical edition "The Octateuch in Ethiopic". Most of the book, however, is not Biblical but consists of prayers of various types: the two dominant themes are the 6 days of Creation; and personal repentance and petition for forgiveness and purification. I am trying to get more information from the priests about the liturgical use of these prayers: they appear to be connected to the Beta Israel Sabbath liturgy (they have a 7-Sabbath liturgical cycle). There are also some midrash-type passages about Moses and God. I am an external MPhil/PhD student of London University: my advisor there is Dr David Appleyard, Head of the Department of Africa at S.O.A.S. I am also in contact with Prof. Gideon Goldenberg of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I would like to know if there are any other Ge`ez scholars on this list. Are there scholars of other disciplines who might be interested in helping me to locate sources/parallels of selected portions of this text? Margaret Hayon 49 Raanan Street, Haifa 34385, Israel e-mail address: margaret@actcom.co.il From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 11 07:44:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA15325; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:43:30 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01BBFF23.C129C920@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> References: Conversation <01BBFF23.C129C920@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> with last message <01BBFF23.C129C920@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> Priority: Normal To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jonathan "D." Safren Subject: Re: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 14:38:45 -0000 (B+2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 224 Hi Bob, No offense meant; I just couldn't resist it. Grin, Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel e-mail: yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il Tel.: (972)-(9)-906396 From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 11 07:46:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA15343; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:46:39 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01BBFF23.C71E2380@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> References: Conversation <01BBFF23.C71E2380@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> with last message <01BBFF23.C71E2380@ts02-sb-28.skyenet.net> Priority: Normal To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jonathan "D." Safren Subject: Re: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 14:41:52 -0000 (B+2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 235 Hi Bob, I can't view the attachment you sent me on my Keyview viewer. Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel e-mail: yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il Tel.: (972)-(9)-906396 From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 11 11:12:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA16014; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:11:49 -0500 Message-ID: <01BBFFAF.C9B0FDC0@ts01-sb-10.skyenet.net> From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W. C.C.S.W." To: "tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu" Subject: RE: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:04:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 801 None taken. I was just discussing with an attorney for whom I do = "expert witness" work about a similar situation in some documents his = paralegal sent. Of course, being legal documents she had to redo the = WHOLE thing. We sometimes rely on word-processing spell checkers too = much and sometimes we can hit the "change" button to quickly without = seeing the context (esp. this one which blocks the actual text ... Now if I'll only turn off the irritating "windows" music that plays = after checks, etc. are made . ---------- From: Jonathan "D." Safren[SMTP:yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 1997 9:38 AM To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: Psychology: KJ onlyism and NTTC Hi Bob, No offense meant; I just couldn't resist it. From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 11 13:36:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16710; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:35:25 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970111182455.3277690c@nd.edu> X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:24:55 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: Ethiopic word-processing problem. Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1769 At 09:40 AM 1/11/97 +0200, you wrote: >I am having a technical problem with my Ethiopic word-processor. > >I recently installed the Gamma UniType Biblical/Scholar program (produced by >Gamma Productions, California: their Website is ). >I am using it with Windows 3.11 (Hebrew Microsoft Windows for Workgroups) >and Word 6 (Hebrew version). > >For the most part it is working well; however, I find that 2 particular >characters will not type into my document; and certain characters convert >into different ones when I press space-bar or Enter. (possibly the keyboard >is confused and is treating these characters as if they were >contextually-determined?) It's very annoying to have to keep an eye open >for them while I am typing, and have to go back and correct them! There are several problems with Gamma's Ethiopic font. If you can be more specific, perhaps I can help you with them. Their omission of the letter "kwe" (despite their assurances to the contrary) makes the program virtually useless. They are supposedly working on the problem, but I haven't heard anything from them in about a year. Let me know if you have better luck. As for your work, I would suggest you contact Getatchew Haile (ghaile@csbsju.edu) at the Hill Monastic Microfilm Library at St. John's University (www.csbsju.edu/hmml/) or someone at the Ethiopic Manuscript Microfilm Library in Addis Ababa. Both have over ten thousand Ethiopic religious texts on microfilm (10 volumes containing indexes and descriptions of many have been published). Getatchew is highly knowledgeable and could probably give you the greatest assistance. Apart from the software issue, I doubt if I could be of much help as I am editing the Ethiopic text of Acts. Curt Niccum From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 13 00:57:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA25067; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:55:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:55:43 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: Textual Criticism web sites 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: 762 I have put five very brief articles about various t-c topics on the Web, all accessible from the TC-Links page (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html). The topics addressed are Codex Sinaiticus, the Hexapla, the Muratorian Fragment, the Nash Papyrus, and uncials. These are slightly expanded versions of the articles I have submitted to the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Because of their brevity, they do not contain any earthshattering new information, but they might be useful for someone interested in a quick reference. 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 Jan 13 01:05:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA25097; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:04:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:04:53 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: TC List membership 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: 1163 After hovering around the 200 mark for the past five or six months, the TC List has increased its membership to about 250 since the beginning of the year. I would like to welcome all the new members and remind everyone that discussions of OT textual criticism are also permissible on the list ;-). For all those who are interested, I will soon post information about the first year of activity with the journal TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. Just so you don't think we're hibernating, a new book review should appear sometime this week, and at least two articles are currently being considered for publication in TC. Let me again invite members of this list to submit articles to me for review by our editorial board. Finally, I believe that a few of you still have book reviews that need to be submitted to our book review editor, Leonard Greenspoon. Please send them in as soon as possible. Thanks! Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List 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 Jan 13 09:42:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27376; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:41:27 -0500 Message-ID: <32DA4487.2860@emory.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:19:51 -0500 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Introduction - Ethiopic texts References: <1.5.4.16.19970111074005.387f4e6c@mail.actcom.co.il> 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: 3650 Magaret, I am very interested in your work with original Ethiopic texts as described in your post to the TC-List. I am the chair of the newly formed SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts, which will be addressing the problems faced by authors and publishers working with biblical language materials. One of the first goals of the seminar is to produce Writing System Declarations, which are formal ways of defining how non-Western characters will be represented in a text. If the standard keyboard lacked the key for "$", the Writing System Declaration could specify that sign would be written as "$" and when the text was processed for printing or display, appropriate software would display the symbol "$". The steering committee will be meeting later this month to decide which biblical languages should be described first and I was wondering if you would be interested in specifying the character set we would need for Ethiopic texts? It is not necessary for you to cast it into the technical form needed for creation of the Writing System Declaration, but such work does require a scholar familiar with the language and script to be described. Each character requires a statement concerning its function in the writing system, drawn from the following list: class -- describes the function of the character using a prescribed classification. Legal values are: lexical -- character is used in writing words (lexical items) of the language (includes members of syllabaries and ideographic systems, as well as composite letter-plus-diacritic combinations) punc -- character is a punctuation mark which does not appear within lexical items lexpunc -- character can appear as a normal punctuation mark, but can also appear within a lexical item (and should usually, when occurring between two lexical characters, be treated as lexical---in English, hyphen and apostrophe are typically treated as members of this class) digit -- character is an Arabic decimal numeral (0, 1, ... 9) (does not include superscript numbers, circled numbers, numeric dingbats, etc.) space -- character represents some form of white space (space character, horizontal or vertical tab, newline, etc.) dl -- character is a diacritic applying to the following lexical character ld -- character is a diacritic applying to the preceding lexical character dia -- character is a diacritic which is explicitly joined to a lexical character by a joiner character joiner -- character is used to join a diacritic to the lexical character to which it applies (in some encoding schemes, the backspace control character may be used as a joiner; in others, a graphic character is used for the same function) other -- character does not fall into any of the other classes (dingbats and other unusual characters fall here) Another issue of concern to the seminar is a listing of abbreviations or other special characters that occur within manuascripts. For each type of manuscript we would like to compile a listing of common abbreviations and provide a means to indicate the presence of such abbreviations in an electronic version of the text. The contribution of scholars who provide the content for the Writing System Declarations is acknowledged in the header of the WSD. I hope that our work will be of interest to you and that you will consider assisting the seminar by sharing your valuable experience in working with Ethiopic texts. Patrick Patrick Durusau Information Technology Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Chair, SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 13 12:41:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29306; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:38:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:38:07 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new review, TC vol. 2 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: 1349 I am pleased to announce the appearance of a new book review in TC. The book is Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, and the reviewer is Johann Cook of the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Languages, University of Stellenbosch. This review is the first item in TC volume 2 (1997). TC 1 (1996) finished with four articles and eight reviews, a very good first year, in my opinion. I hope that 1997 will see even greater success for TC, but that will only be possible with more participation from the community of scholars and students interested in textual criticism, many of whom are on this list. I want to thank everyone who contributed articles or reviews in 1996, as well as those who offered helpful suggestions and encouragement. I especially want to thank the TC editorial board for their willingness to embark in uncharted waters with this electronic journal. In particular, Leonard Greenspoon, the TC book review editor, has been an enormous help and has put in an extraordinary amount of time in the midst of the other responsibilities of his schedule. I look forward to seeing what TC will become in 1997. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 13 16:42:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01979; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:41:38 -0500 X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:39:18 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@alex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: new review, TC vol. 2 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 237 Thanks, Jimmy, for all your hard work. It has benefitted us all. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu Fax (318) 442-4996 Phone (318) 487-7241 From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 14 04:17:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA05569; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 04:16:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:11:59 +0100 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: M.Bakker@let.uva.nl (bakker) Subject: Re: Introduction - Ethiopic texts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1595 On 13/1/97 Patrick Durusau of Information Technology wrote: >Magaret, > >I am very interested in your work with original Ethiopic texts as >described in your post to the TC-List. I am the chair of the newly >formed SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts, >which will be addressing the problems faced by authors and publishers >working with biblical language materials. > >One of the first goals of the seminar is to produce Writing System >Declarations, which are formal ways of defining how non-Western >characters will be represented in a text. If the standard keyboard >lacked the key for "$", the Writing System Declaration could specify >that sign would be written as "$" and when the text was processed >for printing or display, appropriate software would display the symbol >"$". The steering committee will be meeting later this month to decide >which biblical languages should be described first and I was wondering >if you would be interested in specifying the character set we would need >for Ethiopic texts? It is not necessary for you to cast it into the >technical form needed for creation of the Writing System Declaration, >but such work does require a scholar familiar with the language and >script to be described. Dear Patrick, If you need help with the two Old Slavic (or Old Church Slavonic) writing systems, the Glagolitic and the Cyrillic alphabets, please let me know. We have built up quite some experience in encoding and collating Slavic, Greek and even Armenian NT MSS. Michael Bakker Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 14 12:04:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA07945; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:02:14 -0500 Message-ID: <32DBB1A7.FDE@emory.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:17:43 -0500 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Introduction - Ethiopic texts 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: 1227 Dear Michael, Thanks for your message! I had planned a somewhat more formal notice of our activities after the seminar meeting later this month but my mailer failed yesterday and sent that note to the list instead of Margaret. Yes, we would be very interested in assistance with Old Slavic (both alphabets). Not to mention your experience encoding and collating Slavic, Greek and even Armenian NT MSS. Did you have a project manual or other listing of the choices to be made when working with a manuscript? It is one of the areas that needs the most work from an extension of the TEI Guidelines standpoint. I will let you know how we organize the coordination of the various parts of the seminar the week of Feburary 3-7, 1997. Thanks again. Patrick Patrick Durusau Information Technology Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Chair, SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts > If you need help with the two Old Slavic (or Old Church Slavonic) writing > systems, the Glagolitic and the Cyrillic alphabets, please let me know. We > have built up quite some experience in encoding and collating Slavic, Greek > and even Armenian NT MSS. > > Michael Bakker > Slavic Seminar > University of Amsterdam From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 14 16:35:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10755; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:33:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:33:16 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: fonts now display on Windows 95 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: 1095 The problem with some fonts, including the fonts we use in TC articles, not displaying in Netscape for Windows 95 has apparently been solved. If you are a Windows 95 user who has been frustrated because Netscape wouldn't display the Hebrew, Greek, and other fonts used in TC articles, you can now download a beta copy of Netscape 4 (also called Communicator) from the Netscape home page (http://home.netscape.com). Be aware that beta copies of software often contain bugs or incomplete implementations of certain features. Still, I'm glad to see that Netscape has fixed this most distressing problem with its browser. Of course, Windows 95 users can also use Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which has always displayed the fonts properly. If anyone knows of another browser that displays fonts using the FONT FACE tag (on any platform), I would appreciate knowing about it offlist. 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 Jan 14 19:47:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12763; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:46:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:42:12 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: hebrew Subject: three parables about text 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: 4155 I hope that I'm not guilty of indescriminate "spamming," because I'm cross-posting this to both the B-Hebrew and TC lists. I'd like to tell three parables about textual transmission. Perhaps they'd better be called "parallels," because they're not fictional. These are histories of non-sacred texts. You can judge how or whether they're relevant to the histories of the Tanakh and the New Testament. ********************** Parable #1 - Kant Kant wrote his "Critique of Pure Reason" in 1781. When composing it, he freely helped himself to passages of his earlier writings (diaries, letters, etc.). He did this to the extend that researchers have identified individual sentences in the "Critique of Pure Reason" in which the first clause is taken (with exact wording) from one text, and the next clause is taken (again with exact wording) from another text written five years later. Many comentators have noted the very rough seams of this "patched-together" text and how bumpily it tries to flow along. More than one has commented that, if it were not known from recent history, readers might not believe that this one book were composed by one single author! German, like Hebrew and Greek, is a gendered language; most (all?) gendered languages contain a few nouns of variable gender (one finds in German, e.g., both "das Teil" and "der Teil"). Kant freely switches genders with some of his nouns, including some of his most important pieces of technical jargon. These two characteristics of Kantian composition (the "cut-and-paste" method and the varying grammatical genders) lead to interpretive difficulties, including pronouns which have no clear grammatical antecedents, and conjunctions used to link clauses in obscure and unattested ways. The the "Critique of Pure Reason" remains the object of intense study. *********************** Parable #2 - Nietzsche Nietzsche published most of his books during his lifetime, but at least one was unfinished when he went mad and later died. Most of his books consist of aphorisms; the unfinished book did likewise. Nietzsche left behind a collection of aphorisms, along with several different drafts of the order in which they should be grouped and the outline of headings and sub-heading under which they should appear. Several different editors have constructed the book from this material, usually (but not always) under the title "The Will to Power." Different editors chose different outlines and headings, and chose differening groups of aphorisms to appear in the book, leaving out perhaps a paragraph here or there which another editor included, including a paragraph which another editor left out. Thus the book exists in various forms, the forms depending upon the editor, yet each having come from Nietzsche's pen. ************************* Parable #3 - Wittgenstein Wittgenstein published very few works during his life. At his death, he left a large Nachlass. Included were some nearly finished books, and some very rough drafts for books, and large numbers of miscelanious notes. Since his death, many volumes of his writings have appeared. Some have been very artificially constructed by pulling notes from very different parts of the Nachlass and pasting them together. Others are notes from which he lectured, or notes taken by students at his lectures. Other books contain excerpts from letters he wrote. Some of these "books" have gone through several "editions," as editors added a few more aphorisms from his journals which seemed to fit the topic of the book. These books are all from Wittgenstein's pen, yet each has been shaped by its editor. One book, arguably one the more important ones (entitled "Philosophical Investigations") was sent to press shortly before the manuscript disappeared forever. **************************** I have presented these three histories because we often think of textual transmission primarily in regard to sacred texts. I think that we can learn something from the histories of these non-sacred texts, e.g., that the concept of "authorship" is not simple, or that we must be cautious in the conclusions we draw from the state of a text. From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 14 21:05:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA13249; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:04:51 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:02:18 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: three parables about text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4638 ANDREW SMITH wrote; >I hope that I'm not guilty of indescriminate "spamming," because I'm >cross-posting this to both the B-Hebrew and TC lists. > >I'd like to tell three parables about textual transmission. Perhaps they'd >better be called "parallels," because they're not fictional. These are >histories of non-sacred texts. You can judge how or whether they're >relevant to the histories of the Tanakh and the New Testament. > >********************** > >Parable #1 - Kant > >Kant wrote his "Critique of Pure Reason" in 1781. When composing it, he >freely helped himself to passages of his earlier writings (diaries, >letters, etc.). He did this to the extend that researchers have identified >individual sentences in the "Critique of Pure Reason" in which the first >clause is taken (with exact wording) from one text, and the next clause is >taken (again with exact wording) from another text written five years >later. Many comentators have noted the very rough seams of this >"patched-together" text and how bumpily it tries to flow along. More than >one has commented that, if it were not known from recent history, readers >might not believe that this one book were composed by one single author! >German, like Hebrew and Greek, is a gendered language; most (all?) >gendered languages contain a few nouns of variable gender (one finds in >German, e.g., both "das Teil" and "der Teil"). Kant freely switches >genders with some of his nouns, including some of his most important >pieces of technical jargon. These two characteristics of Kantian >composition (the "cut-and-paste" method and the varying grammatical >genders) lead to interpretive difficulties, including pronouns which have >no clear grammatical antecedents, and conjunctions used to link clauses in >obscure and unattested ways. The the "Critique of Pure Reason" remains the >object of intense study. > >*********************** > >Parable #2 - Nietzsche > >Nietzsche published most of his books during his lifetime, but at least >one was unfinished when he went mad and later died. Most of his books >consist of aphorisms; the unfinished book did likewise. Nietzsche left >behind a collection of aphorisms, along with several different drafts of >the order in which they should be grouped and the outline of headings and >sub-heading under which they should appear. Several different editors have >constructed the book from this material, usually (but not always) under >the title "The Will to Power." Different editors chose different outlines >and headings, and chose differening groups of aphorisms to appear in the >book, leaving out perhaps a paragraph here or there which another editor >included, including a paragraph which another editor left out. Thus the >book exists in various forms, the forms depending upon the editor, yet >each having come from Nietzsche's pen. > >************************* > >Parable #3 - Wittgenstein > >Wittgenstein published very few works during his life. At his death, he >left a large Nachlass. Included were some nearly finished books, and some >very rough drafts for books, and large numbers of miscelanious notes. >Since his death, many volumes of his writings have appeared. Some have >been very artificially constructed by pulling notes from very different >parts of the Nachlass and pasting them together. Others are notes from >which he lectured, or notes taken by students at his lectures. Other books >contain excerpts from letters he wrote. Some of these "books" have gone >through several "editions," as editors added a few more aphorisms from his >journals which seemed to fit the topic of the book. These books are all >from Wittgenstein's pen, yet each has been shaped by its editor. One book, >arguably one the more important ones (entitled "Philosophical >Investigations") was sent to press shortly before the manuscript >disappeared forever. > >**************************** > >I have presented these three histories because we often think of textual >transmission primarily in regard to sacred texts. I think that we can >learn something from the histories of these non-sacred texts, e.g., that >the concept of "authorship" is not simple, or that we must be cautious in >the conclusions we draw from the state of a text. This has more to do with textual composition than transmission. Sometimes it is hard to draw the line where composition ends and transmission, but these clearly speak to composition and very little to transmission. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu Fax (318) 442-4996 Phone (318) 487-7241 From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 13:47:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19421; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:46:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:30:32 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970115183926.64b723ae@pop-3.ukonline.co.uk> X-Sender: de.anderson@pop-3.ukonline.co.uk (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: The Andersons Subject: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 809 Greetings from London. I am one of the 'lurkers' on the tc-list. Currently I am in an MPhil/PhD programme, working on a comparison of the methodologies and philosophies employed in Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism. One of the biggest difficulties in this has been trying to pin down how different scholars define the term 'original text'. If I may be so bold, I would be interested in getting your personal thoughts on what the 'original text' is (or 'texts' are). Individual comments will not be included in my thesis; I am primarily interested in a general consensus of thought. If you don't want to clutter up the list, please feel free to send any responses to my personal e-mail. I would appreciate any comments which you might have opportunity to provide. Thanks! Deb Anderson From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 14:25:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19849; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:24:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:03:48 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970115140209.2f179676@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: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 436 At 06:30 PM 1/15/97 +0000, you wrote: > If I may be so bold, I would be >interested in getting your personal thoughts on what the 'original text' is >(or 'texts' are). >Deb Anderson > > The putative "original text" is that text which the author or authors of a Biblical document put to paper (or, more probably, papyrus or vellum). Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 14:43:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20066; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:43:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199701151943.OAA20058@scholar.cc.emory.edu> From: "Jim Mendelson" To: Subject: Behemoth Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:38:50 -0800 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 580 I have been doing a study with my Pastor in Job, and for the first time came accross difference's in termonology. In chapter 40, verse 15 decribes the "Behemoth" which I believe is feminine plural of "Bahemah." Now he ascribes to what most conservative scholars translate it to elephant, hippo, or crocodile. What exactly is the word used in context here, and if it is a dinosaur like I believe, why is this translated singular and not plural? Thanks, In CHRIST, Jim From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 14:46:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20109; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:46:04 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970115183926.64b723ae@pop-3.ukonline.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:44:33 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4296 On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, The Andersons wrote: >Greetings from London. > >I am one of the 'lurkers' on the tc-list. Currently I am in an MPhil/PhD >programme, working on a comparison of the methodologies and philosophies >employed in Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism. One of the >biggest difficulties in this has been trying to pin down how different >scholars define the term 'original text'. If I may be so bold, I would be >interested in getting your personal thoughts on what the 'original text' is >(or 'texts' are). Individual comments will not be included in my thesis; I >am primarily interested in a general consensus of thought. If you don't >want to clutter up the list, please feel free to send any responses to my >personal e-mail. > >I would appreciate any comments which you might have opportunity to provide. >Thanks! Hoo boy, fresh meat! Watch out, we're all going to campaign for our individual viewpoints. The term "original text" is not a problem; everyone (or nearly everyone) will agree that it is the autographs circulated by the authors. (A few might argue for "the text originally promulgated by the church," but -- given that the canon was not even settled by the fourth century -- there probably never was such a text.) So the confusion is not in the meaning of the term "the original text" but in how schoalrs *determine* the original text. There have been all sorts of approaches to this. I will summarize some of them; you will likely hear more detail about them from the scholars involved. Many take a particular text-type and follow it. Westcott and Hort did this with the Alexandrian text; a few scholars such as A.C. Clark adopted the "Western" text; Maurice Robinson would advocate the Byzantine text. Others such as J. Keith Elliot will examine points of variation and choose the most suitable, based on stylistic considerations. The most common school today is the "reasoned eclectic" school, who look to the stylistic considerations and also examine the "value" of the various manuscripts supporting the reading. And then there's the right way. ;-) My approach, which seems to provoke a lot of debate without garnering me much support, is to look at text-types. While internal criteria are not totally to be ignored, in general, the reading with the support of the most text-types is to be considered original. Obviously this means we need to *know* the text-types. I must admit that I don't think this has ever been satisfactorily studied, except perhaps in the Apocalypse. But here's what we know: For the gospels there are apparently four text-types: 1. Alexandrian (possibly two text-types, centered around B and Aleph) 2. "Caesarean" (badly corrupt, and needing restorative work, but probably real) 3. "Western" (not to be confused with the text of D, which is evidently edited; we need to give the Latins more attention!) 4. Byzantine (the Byzantine text is late and should have little weight in making our decisions.) Acts -- I haven't studied this, but I *think* there are the following: 1. Alexandrian 2. Family 1739 (1739 1891 945 630 etc.) 3. Family 2138 (2138 1611 614 2412 1505 2495 hark etc.) 4. "Western" (?) 5. Byzantine (again late, and not to be given much attention) Paul -- 1. Alexandrian (Aleph, A, C, 33, bo, 81, 1175, etc.) 2. p46/B (p46, B, sa, p13) 3. Family 1739 (1739 0243 0121 1881 6 424** etc.) 4. "Western" (D F G 629 OL) 5. Byzantine (as always, late) Catholics -- 1. Alexandrian (Aleph, A, 33, bo, 436, 81) 2. p72/B (may be a subgroup of the Alexandrian) 3. Family 1739 (C, 1241, 1739, 1881, 945, 2298, 424**, etc.) 4. Family 2138 (2138 1611 1505 2495 614 2412 630 1799 etc.) 5. Byzantine (late) Apocalypse (according to J. Schmid) 1. A+C (Alexandrian) 2. p74+Aleph (Alexandrian?) 3. Byzantine/Koine 4. Byzantine/Andreas ** My two cents, multiplied several times over. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 15:42:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20622; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 15:41:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 20:23:21 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970115152145.261fb80e@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: Behemoth Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1172 Jim, At 11:38 AM 1/15/97 -0800, you wrote: >I have been doing a study with my Pastor in Job, >and for the first time came >accross difference's in termonology. In chapter >40, verse 15 decribes the >"Behemoth" which I believe is feminine plural of >"Bahemah." Now he ascribes >to what most conservative scholars translate it >to elephant, hippo, or >crocodile. >What exactly is the word used in context here, >and if it is a dinosaur like I >believe, why is this translated singular and not >plural? Thanks, > > >In CHRIST, > > Jim Well, in short, this kind of question is not really text-critical in nature. The mail-group B-Hebrew might be a better location for the question. Nevertheless, I suggest that you look at the excellent commentary by Marvin Pope (I am pretty sure) in the Anchor Bible series on this text. He is reliable and clear. The short answer is that both of you are mistaken. The beast is simply that, a mythical beast like Leviathan. Yours, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 16:09:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA20941; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:08:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:03:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701152103.QAA24832@aus-a.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1308 I would define "the original text" as synonymous with "the autographs", the writings as first penned by the biblical author (Moses, Isaiah, The four Evangelists, Paul etc.) At 06:30 PM 1/15/97 GMT, you wrote: >Greetings from London. > >I am one of the 'lurkers' on the tc-list. Currently I am in an MPhil/PhD >programme, working on a comparison of the methodologies and philosophies >employed in Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism. One of the >biggest difficulties in this has been trying to pin down how different >scholars define the term 'original text'. If I may be so bold, I would be >interested in getting your personal thoughts on what the 'original text' is >(or 'texts' are). Individual comments will not be included in my thesis; I >am primarily interested in a general consensus of thought. If you don't >want to clutter up the list, please feel free to send any responses to my >personal e-mail. > >I would appreciate any comments which you might have opportunity to provide. >Thanks! > >Deb Anderson > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 16:24:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21177; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:23:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:16:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701152116.QAA25366@aus-a.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: jim_mendelson@eee.org From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Behemoth Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1288 Dear Jim: Actually _behemoth_ is a masculine singular that is derived from behemah a feminine noun. It is apparentlyderived from an intensive plural to designate largeness, or grandeur much like when we capitalize something (e.g. the Beast). Brown,Driver, Briggs suggest that is derived from the Egyptian word _p-ehemau_ meaning "ox of the water" and meaning hippopotamus. At 11:38 AM 1/15/97 -0800, you wrote: >I have been doing a study with my Pastor in Job, >and for the first time came >accross difference's in termonology. In chapter >40, verse 15 decribes the >"Behemoth" which I believe is feminine plural of >"Bahemah." Now he ascribes >to what most conservative scholars translate it >to elephant, hippo, or >crocodile. >What exactly is the word used in context here, >and if it is a dinosaur like I >believe, why is this translated singular and not >plural? Thanks, > > >In CHRIST, > > Jim > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 17:47:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22223; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:44:23 -0500 Message-Id: <9701152339.AA19613@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Original Text Date: Wed, 15 Jan 97 23:39:44 +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: 1061 >If I may be so bold, I would be >interested in getting your personal thoughts on what the 'original text' is >(or 'texts' are). Hmmm... the "original text" is something between a concept and a chimera. In fact, what we're dealing with is a _tradition_. Some people devote their whole life to searching "the ideal woman", and, probably, when we search naively for an "original text" we're doing just the same. In any case, if such a thing ever existed, it is lost and all our reconstructions remain reconstructions. Personally, I find we're on more solid ground when studying the development and diversity of the tradition than when trying to reconstruct a remote original... I must avow my perplexity when facing these questions. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 15 18:39:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA22637; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:38:51 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9701152339.AA19613@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:37:23 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1626 On Wed, 15 Jan 97, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >>If I may be so bold, I would be >>interested in getting your personal thoughts on what the 'original text' is >>(or 'texts' are). > >Hmmm... the "original text" is something between a concept and a chimera. >In fact, what we're dealing with is a _tradition_. Some people devote >their whole life to searching "the ideal woman", and, probably, when we >search naively for an "original text" we're doing just the same. > >In any case, if such a thing ever existed, it is lost and all our >reconstructions remain reconstructions. Personally, I find we're on more >solid ground when studying the development and diversity of the tradition >than when trying to reconstruct a remote original... I must avow my >perplexity when facing these questions. I will concede that finding the *exact* original text is probably beyond our abilities. I will also concede that the seeking is more interesting than the finding (that is, I enjoy studying manuscripts and text-types much more than reading the Greek Bible). But are you saying that seeking the original text is pointless? What, then, are people to do who simply want to read the Bible (or any other classical text)? I agree that there is a place for studying the tradition -- after all, I am a folk musician. There is at least one song ("The Twa Sisters," Child #10) where I sing *four* different versions (think of it as reading the Bible in four different text-types). But surely there is also a place for studying the best possible approximation to the original text! Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 19:58:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA22898; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:57:40 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:53:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970115195215_1343935618@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textual Criticism web sites Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 996 In a message dated 97-01-13 01:38:58 EST, you write: << I have put five very brief articles about various t-c topics on the Web, all accessible from the TC-Links page (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html). The topics addressed are Codex Sinaiticus, the Hexapla, the Muratorian Fragment, the Nash Papyrus, and uncials. These are slightly expanded versions of the articles I have submitted to the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Because of their brevity, they do not contain any earthshattering new information, but they might be useful for someone interested in a quick reference. >> Jimmy and all TCer's, Where these articles, the Eerdmans Dictionary, and others leave off, the Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism will pick up. Yes I'm still here, and I am making slow progress, but alas, it's still progress. More information as it becomes available. Stay tuned! Thanks to all for thir help and support. Rich Elliott General Editor, ENTTC. From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 15 22:47:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA23827; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:45:12 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: mail3.voicenet.com: Host ivyland437.voicenet.com [207.103.7.56] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <32DDA2B9.38B9@voicenet.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:38:33 -0500 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Adobe Greek Fonts 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: 283 Hello All! I have just begun usuing OS/2 and its Netscape browser. Unfortunately, OS/2 Warp ver 3 does not support TrueType font technology. This really messes me up when I go to Perseus, etc. Can you tell me of a source for Greek/Hebrew foints in the ATM format? Thanks, Mark From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 00:47:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA24534; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:46:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:42:30 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Ms half-lives In-Reply-To: <199701150730.CAA15186@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: 3936 I have been away for the last few days, so I have not answered some questions generated by my post concerning ms half-lives. James Adair said that the analogy can't be pushed too far, and that persecutions and technological changes would affect the decay rate. I agree. The 250 year half-life that falls out of the assumption of exponential decay given Duplacy's 4th C. estimate of ms numbers is a first order approximation, and is probably very rough. To answer your question about boundaries, James, I was looking at the times and places where Greek NT mss were produced and used, but mainly at the first few centuries of NT ms production. By the way, I would also like to thank you for the tc list! Larry Hurtado said that economic crunches would have affected things. I agree with that also. Once again, the effect would be to change the decay constant in the exponential equation. So it would no longer be a decay constant like in nuclear decay, but a decay variable that is a function of just about everything imaginable. Bob Waltz said that as numbers are low, the decay curve is not very well modelled by a continuous curve. This is precisely right. But you can do a Monte Carlo simulation of the growth of the number of mss. This is why I want these strange parameters -- so that I can make a better simulation of Greek NT ms copying in the first three centuries. I am glad that Maurice Robinson agrees with the need to come up with some estimate of a ms lifespan. I like his assertion that the scribes who wrote the Greek NT papyri were not necessarily professionals. Two of the more extensive papyri I have looked at are P13 and P46. P13 is written on the back of a roll -- was that something that a professional scribe would do? P46 shows signs of having been written in a controlled environment, perhaps a scriptorium. Zuntz gives some reasons for believing this in his _Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum_ (1946 Schweich lectures, publ. 1953). Mark E. Burrill wrote: > On a related topic and purely as a matter of curiosity on my part, could > anyone happen to tell me what the oldest mss are that are believed to > have existed throughout their lives in the regions west of Palestine and > North of Egypt? That's in the Mediterranean isn't it? Sorry, I couldn't resist that. Off the top of my head, the oldest candidates for being non-Egyptian mss would be the uncial fragments dated to the third C, but I suspect that they are from Egypt. Does anyone know where they were found? Besides them, there are 01 (Codex Sinaiticus) and 03 (Codex Vaticanus). There is evidence to suggest that 01 was made at Caesarea. 03 might also be from there or Southern Italy, but my bet is Egypt. > Given favorable political conditions, what would be the likelihood that > a ms of similar age would have survived near the supposed area of > composition or anywhere in the Asia Minor or Southern Europe area? I would say that the probability of the (papyrus?) autograph of the Gospel of John surviving is about 1 in a zillion. If it lived in Ephesus it would not be in a dry climate, so would be very unlikely to survive. Besides this, it would have been at risk of being pulled to bits to supply holy relics. Everyone would have wanted to touch it and read it. It might have been carried about so that people could compare their copies with it. Other things being equal, of all the mss the autographs would be among the least likely to survive. Of very early non-Egyptian NT mss in general, perhaps someone will find one (carbonised) at Herculaneum or Pompei... > If it were sealed in a jar and put in a cave like the DSS, would it have > survived? If it were kept somewhere extremely dry like the Judean desert or sands of Oxyrhynchus, I would give it a good chance of survival. Best regards, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 01:22:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA24683; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:07 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970115140209.2f179676@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5896 These are the answers I've seen so far. Jim West wrote: > The putative "original text" is that text which the author or authors of a > Biblical document put to paper (or, more probably, papyrus or vellum). Jim gives us a pretty standard answer, but his use of the word "putative" suggests he has reservations that he has not gone into in his post. Next, Robert B. Waltz opined: > The term "original text" is not a problem; everyone (or nearly > everyone) will agree that it is the autographs circulated by the > authors. (A few might argue for "the text originally promulgated > by the church," but -- given that the canon was not even settled > by the fourth century -- there probably never was such a text.) Similarly, Kevin W. Woodruff said: > I would define "the original text" as synonymous with "the autographs", the > writings as first penned by the biblical author (Moses, Isaiah, The four > Evangelists, Paul etc.) Jean VALENTIN, however, clearly has doubts about this definition: > In any case, if such a thing ever existed, it is lost and all our > reconstructions remain reconstructions. Personally, I find we're on more > solid ground when studying the development and diversity of the tradition > than when trying to reconstruct a remote original... I must avow my > perplexity when facing these questions. I would argue for a more nuanced answer to the question, "What is the original text?" Is there always _an_ autograph? For some books, particularly in the NT, I think there is. For example, I suspect that the letters of Paul (probably even the disputed ones) for the most part had one agreed-upon original form. That is, when it came time to copy Galatians, the entire letter, probably written on papyrus, was produced and copied word for word (at least that was the intent). Even with the letters of Paul, though, there is some room for doubt that a _single_ autograph existed. After all, it's well-known that the addressee in the letter to the Ephesians _may_ have been originally left blank, and it has also been suggested that the 16th chapter of Romans was a sort of cover letter to the epistle. Did the "original" include this cover letter? And what about 2 Corinthians? If, as many commentators have suggested, it consists of what were originally two or more independent compositions, what do we mean when we talk about the "original" of this book? We probably mean the state of the text that was actually copied, whether or not there were constituent parts of this "original" that might have circulated independently at some point in time. If the Pauline letters, of which I think it generally makes sense to talk about original texts, raise questions about the actual definition of "original text," what about the Synoptic Gospels? If Mark was really a source for both Matthew and Luke, is it somehow "more" original than these? I would say no, because we have to draw a distinction between literary development and textual transmission. But where does one stop and the other begin? Emanuel Tov discusses this problem in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, and perhaps the problem is clearer in the OT. What do you do with books that don't have a single author? It's probably reasonable to say that the existence of Pentateuchal sources does not interfere with our search for an original text of Genesis, since composition _may_ have been completed before textual transmission began. However, it is not clear that the same can be said of a book like Samuel. In the story of David and Goliath, the MT includes many verses not present in the LXX, detailing things like how David met Saul (he was bringing food to his brothers in the camp) and Saul's question concerning the identity of David. It seems as though one version of the story without these components was already circulating when someone added the additional material, then began circulating that version. Similar comments can be made about Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And what about Daniel and Esther? With many OT books it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a sharp distinction between an author of a work, a reviser of the work, and a copyist of the work (who might also revise it). All this is to say that the term "original text," at least for many biblical books, is not as straightforward as one might imagine. If we are to continue to use the term, I would say that the "original text" (and I would use the quotation marks) means "that state of the text that was the genealogical root of all extant copies" (i.e., the archetype, not necessarily the autograph, although they may be the same in some cases). In those cases where composition overlaps with the beginning of transmission, we have the paradox of more than one "original text." Finally, I would add that I think that the "original text" is a valid goal for the textual critic, but there are other valid goals as well, including (1) a description of the transmission process (as Jean Valentin has noted), (2) the archetype of a particular text-type, (3) the archetype of a particular version, (4) the earliest recoverable form of the text (which may or may not be equivalent to the "original text," as defined above), and (5) the form of the text used in a particular region at a particular time. This is obviously just a representative list, not an exhaustive one. And one last point: I agree with Bob that we need to recognize that our reconstructions are just that; we shouldn't put _too_ much faith in our own creations, since, as Bill Petersen has pointed out before, the data from which we work (not to mention our methodology!) is limited. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 02:16:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA24847; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:16:12 -0500 From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 09:14 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <6882067862972058@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: RE: Re: Original Text 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: 7275 > Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Thu, 16 Jan > 97 08:13:23 +0200 > Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP; > Thu, 16 Jan 1997 8:28:39 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 BAA14673; > Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:18:10 -0500 (EST) > Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id BAA24683; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:12 -0500 > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:07 -0500 (EST) > From: "James R. Adair" > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Original Text > In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970115140209.2f179676@mail.sunbelt.net> > Message-ID: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > > These are the answers I've seen so far. > > Jim West wrote: > > > The putative "original text" is that text which the author or authors of a > > Biblical document put to paper (or, more probably, papyrus or vellum). > > Jim gives us a pretty standard answer, but his use of the word "putative" > suggests he has reservations that he has not gone into in his post. > > Next, Robert B. Waltz opined: > > > The term "original text" is not a problem; everyone (or nearly > > everyone) will agree that it is the autographs circulated by the > > authors. (A few might argue for "the text originally promulgated > > by the church," but -- given that the canon was not even settled > > by the fourth century -- there probably never was such a text.) > > Similarly, Kevin W. Woodruff said: > > > I would define "the original text" as synonymous with "the autographs", the > > writings as first penned by the biblical author (Moses, Isaiah, The four > > Evangelists, Paul etc.) > > Jean VALENTIN, however, clearly has doubts about this definition: > > > In any case, if such a thing ever existed, it is lost and all our > > reconstructions remain reconstructions. Personally, I find we're on more > > solid ground when studying the development and diversity of the tradition > > than when trying to reconstruct a remote original... I must avow my > > perplexity when facing these questions. > > I would argue for a more nuanced answer to the question, "What is the > original text?" Is there always _an_ autograph? For some books, > particularly in the NT, I think there is. For example, I suspect that > the letters of Paul (probably even the disputed ones) for the most part > had one agreed-upon original form. That is, when it came time to copy > Galatians, the entire letter, probably written on papyrus, was produced > and copied word for word (at least that was the intent). Even with the > letters of Paul, though, there is some room for doubt that a _single_ > autograph existed. After all, it's well-known that the addressee in the > letter to the Ephesians _may_ have been originally left blank, and it has > also been suggested that the 16th chapter of Romans was a sort of cover > letter to the epistle. Did the "original" include this cover letter? > And what about 2 Corinthians? If, as many commentators have suggested, > it consists of what were originally two or more independent compositions, > what do we mean when we talk about the "original" of this book? We > probably mean the state of the text that was actually copied, whether or > not there were constituent parts of this "original" that might have > circulated independently at some point in time. > > If the Pauline letters, of which I think it generally makes sense to talk > about original texts, raise questions about the actual definition of > "original text," what about the Synoptic Gospels? If Mark was really a > source for both Matthew and Luke, is it somehow "more" original than > these? I would say no, because we have to draw a distinction between > literary development and textual transmission. > > But where does one stop and the other begin? Emanuel Tov discusses this > problem in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, and perhaps the > problem is clearer in the OT. What do you do with books that don't have a > single author? It's probably reasonable to say that the existence of > Pentateuchal sources does not interfere with our search for an original > text of Genesis, since composition _may_ have been completed before > textual transmission began. However, it is not clear that the same can be > said of a book like Samuel. In the story of David and Goliath, the MT > includes many verses not present in the LXX, detailing things like how > David met Saul (he was bringing food to his brothers in the camp) and > Saul's question concerning the identity of David. It seems as though one > version of the story without these components was already circulating when > someone added the additional material, then began circulating that > version. Similar comments can be made about Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And > what about Daniel and Esther? With many OT books it is difficult, if not > impossible, to make a sharp distinction between an author of a work, a > reviser of the work, and a copyist of the work (who might also revise it). > > All this is to say that the term "original text," at least for many > biblical books, is not as straightforward as one might imagine. If we are > to continue to use the term, I would say that the "original text" (and I > would use the quotation marks) means "that state of the text that was the > genealogical root of all extant copies" (i.e., the archetype, not > necessarily the autograph, although they may be the same in some cases). > In those cases where composition overlaps with the beginning of > transmission, we have the paradox of more than one "original text." > > Finally, I would add that I think that the "original text" is a valid > goal for the textual critic, but there are other valid goals as well, > including (1) a description of the transmission process (as Jean Valentin > has noted), (2) the archetype of a particular text-type, (3) the > archetype of a particular version, (4) the earliest recoverable form of > the text (which may or may not be equivalent to the "original text," as > defined above), and (5) the form of the text used in a particular region > at a particular time. This is obviously just a representative list, not > an exhaustive one. And one last point: I agree with Bob that we need to > recognize that our reconstructions are just that; we shouldn't put _too_ > much faith in our own creations, since, as Bill Petersen has pointed out > before, the data from which we work (not to mention our methodology!) is > limited. > > 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 <----------------- As far as OT/Hebrew Bible textual criticism is concerned I think we should rather talk about "original texts"! Johann Cook Dept of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch South Africa > From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 02:48:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA24930; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:47:34 -0500 From: Tregelles@aol.com Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:43:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970116024327_1476569002@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Beatty and Bodmer Papyri MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit 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: 2542 On 97-01-05 01:18:38 EST Prof. Ron Minton wrote: >> >>Can any one tell me where our library can buy the Beatty and Bodmer Pap= yri >>in the nice multi-volume editions like I used when in Seminary? :) >> >>-- >>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 >> The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri (P45, P46, and P47) were published by Frederic G. Kenyon (London: E. Walker, Ltd.) in=20 P45 The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri II/1: The Gospels and Acts, Text (1933= ) The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri II/2: The Gospels and Acts, Plates (19= 34) P46-P47 The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri III/1: Pauline Epistles and Revelation= , Text (1934) The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri III/2: Revelation, Plates (1936) The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri III/3: (Supplement) Pauline Epistles,T= ext ( 1936) The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri III/4: Pauline Epistles, Plates (1937) The Bodmer Biblical Papyri (P66, P72, P73, P74, and P75) were published by various persons: Victor Martin (Cologny/Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana) in P66 Papyrus Bodmer II: Evangile de Jean, 1-14 (1956) Papyrus Bodmer II: Suppl=E9ment, Evangile de Jean, 14-21 (1958) Papyrus Bodmer II: Suppl=E9ment, Evangile de Jean, 14-21 (1962) P75 Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV, I: XIV: Luc chap. 3-24; II: XV: Jean chap. 1-15 (1= 961) and Michael Testuz in P72 Papyrus Bodmer VII-IX: L'Ep=EEtre de Jude, Les deux Ep=EEtres de Pierre, = Les Psaumes = =20 = 3 3 et 34 (1959) =20 and Rudolf Kasser in P74 Papyrus Bodmer XVII: Actes des Ap=F4tres, Ep=EEtres de Jacques, Pierre, J= ean et Jude (1961) P73 to the best of my knowledge remains unpublished, but please correct me if= I'm wrong. Also (to the best of my knowledge) these are all currently out of print (again, please correct me if I'm wrong). =20 For that reason, my recommendation would be to purchase the forthcoming volume The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, which will be out later this year from Baker Book House in Grand Rapids, MI. Introductions, transcriptions, and photographs of the above papyri (exce= pt for P73 and P74, because of their later date) will be included there in o= ne volume, as will all Biblical Papyri from the first three centuries. Timothy B. Sailors =20 From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 04:13:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA25375; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 04:12:50 -0500 Message-ID: <32DDFE58.42B3@online.no> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:09:28 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: RE `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is God` 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: 941 Hallo! I have a mester`s degree in Semitic languages and am at present working on a Ph.D. thesis presenting a new view of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew. I have taken a 6 month break to write a book about a subject which have interested me for years, namely the role played by theology and bias in Bible translation. Is the reader completely dependent upon the translators` subjective views? Is it possible to make a translation where the reader who does not know the original languages may have a part in the translation process? Texts about Jesus as God are important in the discussion, and I am not sure I am updated textually speaking. Therefore two questions to the experts: (1) Regarding John 1:18, are there any new insights after Finegan `Encountering NT manuscripts?` (2) Regarding Heb 1:8 and Rom 9:5, are there any new insights after Metzger `Textual commentary on the Greek NT`? Rolf Furuli Oslo, Norway From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 05:42:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA25668; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:41:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:37:23 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is God` In-Reply-To: <32DDFE58.42B3@online.no> 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: 1040 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote: > ...the role played by theology > and bias in Bible translation. Is the reader completely > dependent upon the translators` subjective views? Is it > possible to make a translation where the reader who does not > know the original languages may have a part in the > translation process? ********************* The translator must make certain linguistic choices which have theological/spiritual consequences. In English, for example, one capitalizes nouns and pronouns which refer to God. Perhaps more to the point, there arise the occasional ambiguous pronouns in Hebrew which have more than one possible antecedent. It being difficult or impossible to replicate this ambiguity in English, the translator must decided between: "This is the day which the Lord has made, and we will rejoice and be glad in Him." OR ".....in it." The completely "objective" translation is very elusive. To even come close, one would need a large critical apparatus to list alternatives. Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 05:45:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA25701; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:43:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:39:49 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is God` In-Reply-To: <32DDFE58.42B3@online.no> 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: 553 Of coursse, the problems I wrote about (a minute ago) in my previous post replying to this post were about translating into English. I don't know about translating into Norwegian. ***********************************8 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote: > ithe role played by theology > and bias in Bible translation. Is the reader completely > dependent upon the translators` subjective views? Is it > possible to make a translation where the reader who does not > know the original languages may have a part in the > translation process? From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 08:42:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26352; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:41:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 08:34:27 EST From: george howard Subject: Re: Original Text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970115140209.2f179676@mail.sunbelt.net> X-Mailer: MailBook 96.01.000 Message-Id: <970116.083630.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 290 TC-list. However one defines 'original text' it should take into consideration the possibility of more than one draft of a biblical book. E. Tov emphasizes this point in his recent work on textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 08:55:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26428; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:55:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:24:42 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970116082300.26bf70ac@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: `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is God` Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1349 An excellent discussion of the whole issue of translation can be found in Pinchas Lapide's "Ist die Bibel richtig uebersetzt?" 2 vol. Jim At 05:37 AM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote: > >On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote: > >> ...the role played by theology >> and bias in Bible translation. Is the reader completely >> dependent upon the translators` subjective views? Is it >> possible to make a translation where the reader who does not >> know the original languages may have a part in the >> translation process? > >********************* > >The translator must make certain linguistic choices which have >theological/spiritual consequences. In English, for example, one >capitalizes nouns and pronouns which refer to God. > >Perhaps more to the point, there arise the occasional ambiguous pronouns >in Hebrew which have more than one possible antecedent. It being difficult >or impossible to replicate this ambiguity in English, the translator must >decided between: > >"This is the day which the Lord has made, and we will rejoice and be glad >in Him." > >OR > >".....in it." > >The completely "objective" translation is very elusive. To even come >close, one would need a large critical apparatus to list alternatives. > >Andrew C. Smith > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 09:05:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26549; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:05:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 08:51:51 EST From: george howard Subject: Re: Original Text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MailBook 96.01.000 Message-Id: <970116.085648.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 518 TC-list. All the comments about what the 'original text' is have been good. The issue is still difficult. J. Adair writes: 'If we are to continue to use the term, I would say that the 'original text' . . . means 'that state of the text that was the genealogical root of all extant copies.' We need to consider, however, that more than one edition or draft may have influenced the textual transmission of a given biblical book. George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 09:33:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26743; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:32:49 -0500 Message-ID: <32DE494D.4B57@online.no> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:29:17 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: RE: Bible translation and tc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2091 On thu, 16 Jan Andrew Smith wrote: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27137; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:15:17 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970116151016.1be71b10@mail.actcom.co.il> X-Sender: margaret@mail.actcom.co.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:10:16 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Margaret Hayon Subject: B-Hebrew list Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 102 Please can someone give me instructions for subscribing to B-Hebrew list? Thank you. Margaret Hayon From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 10:22:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27212; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:22:22 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199701150730.CAA15186@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:02:41 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Ms half-lives Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1479 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote, in part: >Mark E. Burrill wrote: > >> On a related topic and purely as a matter of curiosity on my part, could >> anyone happen to tell me what the oldest mss are that are believed to >> have existed throughout their lives in the regions west of Palestine and >> North of Egypt? > >That's in the Mediterranean isn't it? Sorry, I couldn't resist that. Off >the top of my head, the oldest candidates for being non-Egyptian mss would >be the uncial fragments dated to the third C, but I suspect that they are >from Egypt. Does anyone know where they were found? Besides them, there >are 01 (Codex Sinaiticus) and 03 (Codex Vaticanus). There is evidence to >suggest that 01 was made at Caesarea. 03 might also be from there or >Southern Italy, but my bet is Egypt. Minor point of information: I believe that the oldest "biblical" manuscript found outside Egypt, apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other OT fragments, is 0212 -- the Diatessaron fragment from Dura. It's dated III. But one uncial -- and it not a true NT fragment -- doesn't tell us much. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 10:55:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27569; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:53:43 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:42:26 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Eugene.C.Ulrich.1@nd.edu (Eugene Ulrich) Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3342 >TC-list. All the comments about what the 'original text' is have been >good. The issue is still difficult. J. Adair writes: 'If we are to >continue to use the term, I would say that the 'original text' . . . >means 'that state of the text that was the genealogical root of all >extant copies.' We need to consider, however, that more than one edition >or draft may have influenced the textual transmission of a given biblical book. > > George Howard > UGA __________________________________________________ George Howard is right on the mark. Our conceptions of "an/the original text" are dependent on earlier views with two limitations: (1) lack of data, and (2)naive assumptions about the single authorship of biblical books. But (1) the scrolls finally give us data about what the scriptural books looked like at the time of the origins of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, and (2)virtually all books of the Heb.Bible as well as the gospels have communal authorship. (1) In a series of articles over the past nine years I have tried to show that we can now document "variant literary editions" for many of the books of the Heb.Bible (Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, parts of Samuel, Jeremiah, Psalms, Daniel, etc). That seems to be due to the fact that -- and coordinate with the results of literary, trad.-hist., and redaction criticism, showing that -- (2) the text of most biblical books is composite. The community in each new generation inherited traditional "sacred literature," some one(s) reworked it in light of contemporary concerns/historical or pastoral needs/possibilities, and a "new edition" of that book was produced. This happened, not once or twice, but habitually; this "revised edition" method was the way the scriptures were composed from beginning of process to -- The process apparently *ended* only in the early second century CE, but there may not have been an end to process except for the double threat (a) of the sobering outcome of the two revolts against the Romans, and (b) of the emerging tensions between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews. The latter tensions apparently gave rise to the need for an agreed-upon fixed text for debate, while Torah-based (replacing Temple-based) Judaism also eventually gave rise to the need for a fixed text. But that's second century CE, and there seems to be no evidence that the texts adopted by each community (even the Samaritans) were adopted according to any textual, critical, or religious criteria. Each seemingly adopted one of the current forms (editions) of the text circulating at the time. Prior to the second century the evidence seems to point to accepted pluriformity in the biblical text tradition. Since the texts were developed organically, and since newer editions were intended to enrich the earlier form of the text, seeking "the original" text may even be a move in the wrong direction. Of course, differences must be made between NT and HB (in addition to classical) textual criticism, but for HB the object of textual ciriticsm -- in my view, which differs from my friend Emanual Tov -- is not the Masoretic Text or even the pure form behind MT or any single text, but rather the developing strata of the HB which was dynamic and pluriform. Eugene Ulrich Univ. Notre Dame From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 11:44:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27924; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:42:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:18:30 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970116111934.284f7c98@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: B-Hebrew list Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 337 At 05:10 PM 1/16/97 +0200, you wrote: >Please can someone give me instructions for subscribing to B-Hebrew list? >Thank you. > >Margaret Hayon > > send a message to majordomo@virginia.edu the message should read subscribe b-hebrew (your email address) Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 11:47:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27970; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:46:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:25:20 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970116112626.284f57de@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: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1160 Nevertheless, we must at some point another presume that someone, somewhere, sat down and wrote something. Paul wrote 2 Cor- perhaps over a period of time (which seems most likely). Yet he did write something. The assumption that manuscripts existed from the very beginning in multiple editions seems truly silly; for someone sat down and wrote something first. Sure there were additions and second editions and so forth- but there had to have been an original! To say that Samuel exists in numerous editions is quite correct; but there had to have been a first edition or there would not have been any subsequent editions. Several years ago a friend of mine presented a paper and was roundly chastised by one audience member for stating that "the original text most likely was..." The complainer went on to state that there was no original text; only editions. So I said, editions of what? My question went (and goes) unanswered by those who, for some reason or another, reject the fact that there was, once upon a time, a text (singular) written by a person (singular). Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 13:49:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA28888; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:46:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199701161842.TAA94668@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 20:54:00 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Original Text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2746 Some (especially from the OT camp) contributing to this discussion raised considerable doubts concerning the "original text". Maybe things look different with respect to the two parts of the Bible. Maybe even within the NT (or the OT) things look different with respect to different books. But at least one thing seems to be beyond dispute: If there is a textual transmission, we can legitimately ask for the archetype of this transmission, which may or may not be the/one autograph of a single (or a group of) author(s). However, the quest for autographs should not be confused with the quest for the archetype of a textual transmission, as James Adair clearly set out. When assessing the archetype of a textual transmission, we usually try to reverse the process of dissemination and corruption making our way back as far as possible. At a certain point we have to stop due to lack of further evidence. And precisely at that point we have to pause in order to outline, first of all, a theory of the archetype, again, not to be confused with the quest for the autograph. The whole matter, simple as it looks like in theory, is complicated by the fact that in Biblical studies we are dealing with collections of books subdivided into various subcollections. As far as I can see, within NT textual transmission we are lacking any substantial MS evidence prior to existing collections. Therefore, to my mind, the first thing we have to do is to work with one of the collections (e.g. the Corpus Paulinum) addressing the question: How far can we go back in identifying further subcollections that are either displayed by textual transmission or to be conjectured in order to make sense of it? With respect to the Corpus Paulinum textual transmission displays two distinct collections of letters: The canonical 14-letter collection and a pre-marcionite 10-letter collection. In order to make sense of the corruption of transmission, I conjecture one further "pre"-pre-marcionite collection: Gal 1/2 Cor Rom of which a defective copy is to blame for a great deal of plunder (ending of Romans). This conjectured collection fits perfectly well to David Trobisch's first edition of Paul's letters. Trobisch assumes that Paul himself made this first edition, and I'm happy with that. By implication we are dealing, thus, with two autographs or two different settings of authorship: the genuine setting of Gal, the Corinthian correspondence, and Rom and the (different, but nevertheless) genuine setting of the edition "all in one". We have every reason to believe that the textual transmission of Gal, 1/2 Cor, Rom ultimately goes back to the latter -and, the latter is an autograph, too. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 14:50:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA29603; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:48:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:48:53 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970116112626.284f57de@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1841 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: > The assumption that manuscripts existed from the very beginning in multiple > editions seems truly silly; for someone sat down and wrote something first. > Sure there were additions and second editions and so forth- but there had to > have been an original! To say that Samuel exists in numerous editions is > quite correct; but there had to have been a first edition or there would not > have been any subsequent editions. I'm not sure that authorship of all books in the Bible, especially the OT, is that straightforward. To use a modern analogy, let's say that someone writing a book writes a first draft, then substantially modifies his own work in subsequent drafts, until he finally has a version that he wants to send to a publisher. Which is the "original text," the first draft or the final, publishable version? In a similar way, if we think in terms of copyist/authors who are transmitting the text, is the real original their _Vorlage_ or their final, substantially modified product? When authorship overlaps with transmission, as in the case of numerous OT books, as Gene Ulrich has noted, the identification of a single "original" does become problematic. This is not to say that many biblical books don't have a single original lying behind them. Some undoubtedly do. In other cases, however, the term "original text" is ambiguous. Gene suggests that OT text critics look for "the developing strata of the HB which was dynamic and pluriform." I think looking for the earliest recoverable form(s) of the text is another interesting possibility for the text critic. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 15:13:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA29844; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:13:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:08:54 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Original Text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 2323 Jim, At 02:48 PM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote: > To use a modern analogy, let's say that someone >writing a book writes a first draft, then substantially modifies his own >work in subsequent drafts, until he finally has a version that he wants to >send to a publisher. Which is the "original text," the first draft or the >final, publishable version? This is a useful analogy where pen, paper, and word processors make it quite inexpensive to toy with a manuscript. But where papyrus could cost an arm and a leg it is not likely that an author would write two or three versions and then decide which one to send in. He would most likely have well in mind exactly what he (or she) wished to say and then it would be written down. At any rate, if an author did write a first draft- it is the first one! Then other editions or drafts were made. And we are back to my original premise that there had to be a first. > In a similar way, if we think in terms of >copyist/authors who are transmitting the text, is the real original their >_Vorlage_ or their final, substantially modified product? Again, this modern editorial methodology simply does not apply to an ancient enviroment where, if mss were corrected or changed, we still today can see that change (as is evident by all the scribal notations, corrections, and erasures we are all very familiar with). For instance, changes were clearly made to the scroll of Isaiah found at Qumran. We can see them clear as day. They are additions or corrections to a document which preceded them. > When authorship >overlaps with transmission, I suppose this is the Achilles heel of the whole situation we are discussing; for what exactly does it mean to say that authorship and transmission overlap? Does it mean that the author with his right hand writes a document and with the left simultaneously copies it? (the good old, redutio ad absurdam- but I fail completely to see how transmission and authorship can overlap at all). >as in the case of numerous OT books, as Gene >Ulrich has noted, the identification of a single "original" does become >problematic. Only if one presupposes (pace Bultmann!) that such an event as transmission/authorship has taken place. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 15:27:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA29937; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:26:46 -0500 Message-Id: <9701162122.AB09356@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Original Text Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 21:22:09 +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: 1673 Another thought about original texts... Some very important religious texts are known as _compilations_ of traditions. Take a look at the talmud, the sunna, the Qoran,... also some biblical books have been analyzed in that way. Some of these "books" took several generations before they were finalized. So, where's the original text? Who decides that, when somebody changes the text, it is a compilation, redaction, recension, revision... When are we still in the elaboration of the text, and when are we in the process of transmission? Sometimes, it's very difficult to say, especially when another phenomenon must be taken into account: that of canonization. Now also, if a tradition has existed before it took the form of a book, which is the original text? What if the tradition continues its development when the book is already circulating, what about the influence of the one upon the other? Where is the original text in all these mutual influences? So these are some reasons why I spoke of a "chimera". Of course, some books, by their nature, seem more likely to have been "written" than "elaborated". Most epistles are probably in this case. The Gospels, or the legal and historical compilations of the OT seem to me much more of a "traditional" nature, and here the idea of an "original text" seems too theoretical to me. _______________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 18:02:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01946; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:01:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199701162256.QAA07032@endeavor> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Original Text Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:55:56 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2218 Jim West opined: > This is a useful analogy where pen, paper, and word processors make it quite > inexpensive to toy with a manuscript. But where papyrus could cost an arm > and a leg it is not likely that an author would write two or three versions > and then decide which one to send in. He would most likely have well in > mind exactly what he (or she) wished to say and then it would be written down. Generally speaking, Graeco-Roman authors did in fact write multiple editions of their ms. They seem to have circulated these editions--sometimes in toto, sometimes in bits and pieces--and invited criticisms, suggestions, and then revised and reworked their ms in the light of the suggestions they received. If this approach was as widely used as I've gathered, it throws the whole question of "original text" (at least for the gospels) into a whole new light: e.g., both the "Western" and the "Alexandrian" texts of Acts may have issued from the pen of a single author, simply two different editions, both of which that author regarded as THE text (as did large communities of Christians), circulated at different times. [Consider: if such is the case, shouldn't the aims of textual criticism be descriptive rather than authoritative (i.e., trying to describe rather than trying to arrive at an "original" text? Ah, I've got a headache!] The Status Quaestionis is described in Harry Gamble, *Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), which I'm about to read for a Ph.D. seminar. The above opinion is gathered from papers I've heard, particularly David Balch's offering at the Southwest Commision on Religious Studies in Dallas last year. If anyone has read Gamble's book, feel free to weigh in. Perry L. Stepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b *********************************************************** From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 18:40:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02317; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:39:28 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701162256.QAA07032@endeavor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:37:56 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2026 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, "Perry L. Stepp" wrote: >Generally speaking, Graeco-Roman authors did in fact write multiple >editions of their ms. They seem to have circulated these >editions--sometimes in toto, sometimes in bits and pieces--and invited >criticisms, suggestions, and then revised and reworked their ms in the >light of the suggestions they received. > >If this approach was as widely used as I've gathered, it throws the whole >question of "original text" (at least for the gospels) into a whole new >light: e.g., both the "Western" and the "Alexandrian" texts of Acts may >have issued from the pen of a single author, simply two different editions, >both of which that author regarded as THE text (as did large communities >of Christians), circulated at different times. > >[Consider: if such is the case, shouldn't the aims of textual criticism be >descriptive rather than authoritative (i.e., trying to describe rather than >trying to arrive at an "original" text? Ah, I've got a headache!] I agree that ancient authors sometimes revised their works. I know that there are even a few cases where different drafts have been preserved (this is common with mediaeval manuscripts; consider Piers Plowman or the visions of Julian of Norwich). Even so, I see two problems with this viewpoint, one general and one specific. The general one: Even if an author published multiple editions, should not the *final* one be considered the authoritative text and followed? The specific: In the case of Acts, the two drafts (Alexandrian and "Western") are at some points contradictory. Would an author have changed the *meaning* of his text in this way? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 20:59:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA03773; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:58:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:54:11 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: The Andersons cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970115183926.64b723ae@pop-3.ukonline.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1168 I do know what the original text is not. 1. It is not Kurt Aland's "original text," ie. the Alexandrian text; though that is no doubt close and, like all other texts and families, exact in most places. This is not to detract from his contributions to textual studies, but I believe his use of the original text was a step below his usual work. 2. It has nothing to do with papyrus or ink. I have had many students think of the original sheets of writing materials when they discussed "the originals" or "the autographs" or "the original writings." My definition of the originals includes the supernatural. The originals are the words chosen or approved by God as he directed and guided the first writers. This would include Luke's research and Baruch's re-writing of Jeremiah's work. Ultimately, the result was the same as the dictation theory (which I see as absurd) produces. I do not have all the answers for even my own views, but they are similar to those of John Gill and Charles Spurgeon. -- 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 Thu Jan 16 21:17:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA04051; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:17:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:12:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Rolf Furuli cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: RE `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is God` In-Reply-To: <32DDFE58.42B3@online.no> 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: 653 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote: ... > Texts about Jesus as God are important in the discussion, > and I am not sure I am updated textually speaking. Therefore > two questions to the experts: > (1) Regarding John 1:18, are there any new insights after > Finegan `Encountering NT manuscripts?` > (2) Regarding Heb 1:8 and Rom 9:5, are there any new > insights after Metzger `Textual commentary on the Greek NT`? Murray's JESUS AS GOD is likely the best summary of all the 10 or 11 passages. -- 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 Thu Jan 16 21:39:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA04356; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:38:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:34:47 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Original Text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970116213541.288f9e32@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 947 >I do know what the original text is not. > >1. It is not Kurt Aland's "original text," ie. the Alexandrian text; >though that is no doubt close and, like all other texts and families, >exact in most places. This is not to detract from his contributions to >textual studies, but I believe his use of the original text was a step >below his usual work. Just as an aside- Kurt Aland was a brilliant critic and more capable than most in the field of textual studies. It is currently the vogue to deride his incredible contributions; but his work has stood, and will continue to stand, the test of time. The works of others will come and go, but Kurt will be around for a long, long while. The Alexandrian text type is excellent. If there is any demonstrable proof that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to appear to this point. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 21:42:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA04412; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:42:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:37:58 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Original Text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970116213853.288f8748@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 552 I apologize to the list for my constant references to Herrn Aland; but when I was a ThM student he was gracious enough to help me (via mail) with my ThM thesis. It is unbecoming of biblical scholars to denigrate his work with slights and asides. I realize that this is rather personal, but he was a kind and generous scholar who stooped down to help an ignoramus like myself and I cannot but say something on his behalf now that he is no longer able to speak for himself. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 22:56:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05267; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:55:39 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:53:20 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 787 Jim wrote; >Just as an aside- Kurt Aland was a brilliant critic and more capable than >most in the field of textual studies. It is currently the vogue to deride >his incredible contributions; but his work has stood, and will continue to >stand, the test of time. The works of others will come and go, but Kurt >will be around for a long, long while. > >The Alexandrian text type is excellent. If there is any demonstrable proof >that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to >appear to this point. > Oh Jim, I'm afraid you've thrown the gauntlet! I tend to agree with you though. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu Fax (318) 442-4996 Phone (318) 487-7241 From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 02:56:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA06715; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 02:55:23 -0500 Message-Id: <9701170750.AA16750@lagonda> X-Sender: hoffmann@mail.wsl.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:50:01 +0100 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Christian Hoffmann Subject: Re: B-Hebrew list Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 444 At 17:10 1997.01.16 +0200, you wrote: >Please can someone give me instructions for subscribing to B-Hebrew list? >Thank you. > >Margaret Hayon > To: MAJORDOMO@VIRGINIA.EDU Subject: Message: SUBSCRIBE B-HEBREW _NO_ signature!! Good luck Christian Hoffmann Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland phone: ++41-1-739 22 77 fax : ++41-1-739 22 15 e-mail: hoffmann@wsl.ch From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 04:45:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA07493; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 04:44:19 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:39:26 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Original Text Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <2AB123122F@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 542 In these discussions about the process(es) involved in composing & copying ancient texts, I rather have the feeling that we all need to acquire a better grasp of ancient realia involved. Can I recommend that we all start by reading something like Harry Gamble's new book: _Books and Readers in the Early CHurch: A History of Early Christian Texts_ (Yale Univ Press, 1995)? L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 05:27:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07704; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:26:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:22:02 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 883 > > To use a modern analogy, let's say that someone > >writing a book writes a first draft, then substantially modifies his own > >work in subsequent drafts, until he finally has a version that he wants to > >send to a publisher. Which is the "original text," the first draft or the > >final, publishable version? *************** Consider even an ancient analogy. It has been recognized that much of what we have of "Aristotle's Works" are actually the notes from which he lectured, with an expansion added here or there by his students. What's the original text? Or, (as I mentioned in an earlier posting) what would be the original text in one of Wittgenstein's books, a book which was pasted together by some editor out of bits and pieces of lecture notes, letters, diaries, etc. from his Nachlass? Could not the Pentateuch also have been composed out of Moses' Nachlass? From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 05:40:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07749; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:39:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:34:52 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970116213853.288f8748@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 841 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: > I apologize to the list for my constant references to Herrn Aland; but when > I was a ThM student he was gracious enough to help me (via mail) with my ThM > thesis. It is unbecoming of biblical scholars to denigrate his work with > slights and asides. > I realize that this is rather personal, but he was a kind and generous > scholar who stooped down to help an ignoramus like myself and I cannot but > say something on his behalf now that he is no longer able to speak for himself. *********************** I would agree that we ought to show respect for Aland, and I agree that much of his work was a positive contribution to the field; yet I'm sure that Aland himself would encourage scholarly discussion which might lead to some of his work being questioned - we can respectfully disagree. From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 10:16:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA10188; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:15:10 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970116213541.288f9e32@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:27:34 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2223 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: >Just as an aside- Kurt Aland was a brilliant critic and more capable than >most in the field of textual studies. It is currently the vogue to deride >his incredible contributions; but his work has stood, and will continue to >stand, the test of time. The works of others will come and go, but Kurt >will be around for a long, long while. > >The Alexandrian text type is excellent. If there is any demonstrable proof >that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to >appear to this point. I think (as is so often the case) that this needs to be clarified. Kurt Aland was, of course, a great worker in this field, who has probably made more information available about NT manuscripts than anyone since Gregory. He founded an Institute which is the strongest single force in TC today. He took the Nestle text and, for the first time, gave it an apparatus which can be reliably used to infer the readings of a number of important manuscripts (especially among the minuscules). We should be incredibly grateful for his efforts. That is, however, not the same as being a great textual theorist. In my opinion, Aland was *not* a great theorist. He focus on manuscripts is right, but his *use* of manucripts was not especially effective. So, for example, I would agree that the Alexandrian text is the best in the Gospels (though not in Paul; I would rate both 1739 and p46/B higher). But that doesn't mean it can be relied on absolutely. To repeat an analogy I've used before: Tischendorf and Hort were both great names in TC. But they were great for different reasons: Tischendorf for his work with manuscripts, and Hort for his theoretical work. Aland was another Tischendorf: He did great work with manuscripts. But I do not think his textual theories will stand. He was not a Hort. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 10:17:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA10249; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:17:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:17:11 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text 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 Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Even if an author published multiple editions, should > not the *final* one be considered the authoritative text and followed? Of course, it depends on what is meant by "authoritative" here. When dealing with the New Testament, one's view of the authority of scripture will certainly affect his or her text-critical goals. However, if, as I suspect, Bob is referring to the text which is officially promulgated by the author, and so is _author_itative in that sense, if a second, substantially different, version is also circulated and copied, I would think that either would be valid targets of text-critical effort. The relationship between the two "original" texts would be the provenance of the literary critic, not the text critic. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 10:25:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA10398; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:24:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199701171519.JAA16799@endeavor> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Original Text Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:13:26 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2566 In response to my observation, Robert Waltz observed: > On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, "Perry L. Stepp" wrote: > > >Generally speaking, Graeco-Roman authors did in fact write multiple > >editions of their ms. They seem to have circulated these > >editions--sometimes in toto, sometimes in bits and pieces--and invited > >criticisms, suggestions, and then revised and reworked their ms in the > >light of the suggestions they received. > I agree that ancient authors sometimes revised their works. I know > that there are even a few cases where different drafts have been > preserved (this is common with mediaeval manuscripts; consider > Piers Plowman or the visions of Julian of Norwich). Even so, I > see two problems with this viewpoint, one general and one specific. > > The general one: Even if an author published multiple editions, should > not the *final* one be considered the authoritative text and followed? > > The specific: In the case of Acts, the two drafts (Alexandrian and > "Western") are at some points contradictory. Would an author have > changed the *meaning* of his text in this way? I have no real response to your general objection, other than to note that--if in fact books were written as I've suggested above--this probably remains an open and thorny question, involving faith questions (i.e., the doctrine and authority of scripture, the nature of inspiration and canon) as well as historical questions. The fact would remain that significant groups of Christians spent decades/centuries/millenia regarding the earlier editions as authoritative bases for practice and faith. To your specific objection, however--haven't you ever rewritten something in a way that took an entirely different tack than what you'd originally written? The appeal to contradiction as a general rule (to wit, "no author would write something that contradicted what he/she'd written before") doesn't stand up, I think. We'd be better off (and certainly within the provenance of this forum) to consider specific contradictions between D et. al. and the other texts, rather than appealing to general rules, wouldn't we? PLStepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b *********************************************************** From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 11:19:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA11177; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:18:35 -0500 Message-ID: <32DFA7B4.322E@accesscomm.net> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:24:20 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@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: 1321 Jim West wrote: > > Jim, > At 02:48 PM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote: > > To use a modern analogy, let's say that someone > >writing a book writes a first draft, then substantially modifies his own > >work in subsequent drafts, until he finally has a version that he wants to > >send to a publisher. Which is the "original text," the first draft or the > >final, publishable version? > > This is a useful analogy where pen, paper, and word processors make it quite > inexpensive to toy with a manuscript. But where papyrus could cost an arm > and a leg it is not likely that an author would write two or three versions > and then decide which one to send in. He would most likely have well in > mind exactly what he (or she) wished to say and then it would be written down. I think the GJohn is a good example for this issue. It is one of the most glossed, edited, interpolated and restructured books of the NT and had at least 4, and probably more, redactional strata between it's "autograph" and the form now extant. Speculating the probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the goal for recovery by textual criticism? Jack Kilmon jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 11:57:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA11821; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:56:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:52:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Original Text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970117115316.266f3644@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 1288 Jack, > I think the GJohn is a good example for this issue. It is >one of the most glossed, edited, interpolated and restructured books >of the NT and had at least 4, and probably more, redactional strata >between it's "autograph" and the form now extant. Speculating the >probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee >and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd >century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the >goal for recovery by textual criticism? > >Jack Kilmon There are, without a doubt, layers in this Gospel. The goal of text criticism here, as everywhere, is to recover the oldest layer; from there the glosses and additions can be ascertained and analyzed. But now we have left text criticism and wandered down the "Hauptstrasse" of redaction criticism. In its purest form, text criticism assembles all available manuscripts and versions (yes, I have been converted from my former "non version" error, thanks to DC Parker's remarks on the subject). Once these mss are collated they can be examined. We cannot, after all, practice text criticism on a hypothetical reconstruction for which we have no physical evidence. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 13:55:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13314; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:53:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:48:55 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Original Text In-Reply-To: <32DFA7B4.322E@accesscomm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 828 When we use the analogy of editions, we can distinguish between two different types of edition: Many national magazines and newspapers publish four parallel editions (east coast, deep south, mid-west and west, west coast). Each would be equally authoritative as an edition. Books go through successive editions: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Generally (although certainly not always), the last edition is regarded as the most authoritative - this is common practice with textbooks, grammars, dictionaries, etc. I find it hard to imagine that many of the New Testament books went through autograph editions of either kind; maybe the Gospels and Acts, perhaps Revelation - but not epistles: they're too short. On the other hand, I can readily imagine that some of the Old Testament books went through editions: Proverbs, for example. From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 14:05:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13539; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:04:33 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32DFA7B4.322E@accesscomm.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:29:50 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1428 On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > I think the GJohn is a good example for this issue. It is >one of the most glossed, edited, interpolated and restructured books >of the NT and had at least 4, and probably more, redactional strata >between it's "autograph" and the form now extant. Speculating the >probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee >and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd >century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the >goal for recovery by textual criticism? This viewpoint troubles me. Given that John has suffered some editing (Chapter 21 being the obvious example), I don't believe there will ever be consensus reached on *how many* hands contributed which parts. Given that there was clearly a final edition of John (including chapter 21) which circulated to the church, that and only that is a legitimate object of textual criticism. The rest is for literary critics. (Assuming the matter needs to be studied at all, which I consider questionable.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 14:05:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13538; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:04:33 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:23:07 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1637 On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, "James R. Adair" wrote: >> Even if an author published multiple editions, should >> not the *final* one be considered the authoritative text and followed? > >Of course, it depends on what is meant by "authoritative" here. When >dealing with the New Testament, one's view of the authority of scripture >will certainly affect his or her text-critical goals. However, if, as I >suspect, Bob is referring to the text which is officially promulgated by >the author, and so is _author_itative in that sense, if a second, >substantially different, version is also circulated and copied, I would >think that either would be valid targets of text-critical effort. The >relationship between the two "original" texts would be the provenance of >the literary critic, not the text critic. This is a good point; there can be multiple "official" versions of a text. Jerome's work in the Psalms is an example, with three versions eventually in circulation. These three versions all need separate textual investigation. But I still think that, out of respect for the author, we owe it to him/her to treat the final version as "the last word." The others should be studied more from the standpoint of development of the aiuthor's viewpoint. IMHO. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 14:40:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13962; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:39:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text 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: 1812 On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > >Speculating the > >probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee > >and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd > >century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the > >goal for recovery by textual criticism? > > ... > > Given that there was clearly a final edition of John (including > chapter 21) which circulated to the church, that and only that is > a legitimate object of textual criticism. The rest is for > literary critics. (Assuming the matter needs to be studied at > all, which I consider questionable.) I agree with Bob on this point. Text critics are only interested in the form of the text that circulated, not earlier forms that did not (or of which we have no extant evidence of circulation). When two (or more) distinct forms circulated (e.g., Acts, Samuel), then both are legitimate object of text-critical study. If we can ever arrive at an acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, most of these issues will be solved. Then people will be able to choose which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT or NT) (Emanuel Tov). In addition, the process of transmission itself will have been mapped (Jean Valentin). Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 16:55:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA16094; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:54:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:53:25 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Original Text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970117155130.0b5737c8@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 1290 Jimmy, At 02:39 PM 1/17/97 -0500, you wrote: > If we can ever arrive at an >acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, >most of these issues will be solved. I think that this statement is right on the mark. The question is, what criteria can be used to develop such a consensus? >Then people will be able to choose >which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the >earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of >the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies >behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT >or NT) (Emanuel Tov). These three positions seem to be the major ones with minor variations tucked alongside. Is there any possibility that these three perspectives can be harmonized? (or should I boldly, though jokingly say, is there any possibility that the adherents of the other two views will come to recognize that I am right?) :) > In addition, the process of transmission itself >will have been mapped (Jean Valentin). > Which could and would serve a very useful "church history" function- as Bart Ehrman has brilliantly shown. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 17:16:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA16345; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:15:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199701172211.RAA32410@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:11:43 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: "Original" text??? Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4963 There are two issues which, although they may have been addressed in passing, deserve more careful consideration in this discussion, IMHO. First: it is an empirical fact that not only the canon itself, but also the books in the NT and HB canon, underwent revisions. Some of these revisions may have been long after the "author[s?]" of the original work was [were] dead; others may have been made during the lifetime of the author, but unknown to him (i.e., happening in one geographic/linguistic region); still others, perhaps, know to him. Here is the crux: while we have textual evidence for many of these, I know of no method by which on can determine what the "official" or "last" edition of a particular author was. And while I can numerically determine that "this" (and not "that") text was "the text that lies behind the *dominant* textual tradition" (to quote Jimmy Adair), we all know that the *dominant* text may be a bad, corrupt text (Byzantiners would say this of the Alexandrian text in the fourth and fifth century; Westcott-Horters would say this of the Byzantine text in the twelfth cent.). The problem which we need to confront is this: that the *process* of textual evolution was continuous, diverse, and sometimes very subtle. (And it continues today: see the examples in a review in the _Journal of Religion_ 74 [1994], 562-564.) While we can indeed distinguish between suspected redactional changes for which there is NO textual evidence (the grounds are solely literary, etc.), there are still many changes where there IS textual evidence--but deciding where that line in the sand lies is well nigh impossible. (Cp. my "What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach?" in _New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History. A Discussion of Methods_, edd. B. Aland and J. Delobel. Kampen (the Netherlands): Kok/Pharos, 1994, pp. 136-152; specific examples are provided there.) Second: The more one reaches outside the "provincial" apparatus of the "hand" editions of the NT, the more complex the picture becomes, and the more difficult it is to make reasonable deductions. It is here that the versions/patristic sources/apocrypha come into play, for they often provide important TEXTUAL support for very early readings. Look at the evidence in Bellinzoni's _The Sayings of Jesus in the writings of Justin Martyr_, and you will quickly see how complex the matter is. An example is the "full" citation of Ps. 2.7 in Luke 3.22 (+ "this day I have begotten/generated you"). The "long" version of the text is know to and quoted by Justin (who apparently regards it as the "standard" text of his day)--and he is our earliest independent source for this text. The same, long version is also in Bezae, a goodly number of the Vetus Latina MSS, Clement of Alexandria, etc., etc. (Cp. the IGNT, Luke, vol. I, p. 68-69; cf. Bart Ehrman's _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, pp. 62-67.) In short, this is the earliest, most widely attested version of what is said by the "voice from heaven." It has even been adopted as the "standard" text by the Huck-Greeven _Synopsis_ and the _New Jerusalem Bible_. On the other hand, Kurt Aland explained why the UBS committee had--despite this early and widespread evidence--decided against it for the UBS/NA text: "perfect" LXX citations were rejected as later "improvements" in the text, and the "non-standard" citations were, therefore, preferred as earlier. (What is odd in Aland's reasoning is that the "short" reading is also a "perfect" LXX citation--it is just a shorter, abbreviated citation...) To say that this is simply a "later" interpolation, made by "adoptionists" ignores the facts that (1) Justin was not an adoptionist (he writes glowingly of the virgin birth) and (2) he is early--in fact he is the *earliest* citation of this passage. Can anyone come up with an "earlier" source than Justin which quotes this passage? I suspect not... OK: what, then, did "Luke" write? What text of "Luke" was known to Justin in the mid-second century, and to Clement a few decades later? The longer text. What edition of "Luke" was considered "authoritative," as the "latest thing," by Justin, Clement, and others? The edition with the longer text. Gee..., in that case, why don't we all have the longer text as the standard text in our editions? The answer is not hard to come by. The longer text is not rejected because it lacks early and authoritative textual support, becuase it does. The reason it has not been adopted as the standard text is because it was not in Erasmus's edition, it was not in the TR, and does not agree with Christian theology since, oh, say, 300 CE or so... Theology and the influence of the "authoritative" editions (Vulgate, Erasmus, TR, etc.)--regardless of their merits--are more determinative than the evidence. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's be up front about it. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 17:44:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA16619; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:43:36 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970117155130.0b5737c8@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:41:22 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2813 On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: >> If we can ever arrive at an >>acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, >>most of these issues will be solved. > >I think that this statement is right on the mark. The question is, what >criteria can be used to develop such a consensus? First I think we need to make sure we agree on our definitions. :-) By "textual history," do we mean "the history of redactions" or "the evolution of text-types"? The answer to that question may help imply the answer to the other. >>Then people will be able to choose >>which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the >>earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of >>the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies >>behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT >>or NT) (Emanuel Tov). > >These three positions seem to be the major ones with minor variations tucked >alongside. Is there any possibility that these three perspectives can be >harmonized? (or should I boldly, though jokingly say, is there any >possibility that the adherents of the other two views will come to recognize >that I am right?) :) As I read the first post, I thought about adding another clarication. Now I *know* I will. I don't think we can entirely separate these processes. The reason is the different textual histories of the books. For John, there is only *one* official edition (as best we can tell), and that is the final 21-chapter form. Therefore that is what we reconstruct. But, for Samuel, say, there is an official church version (the MT). And it's very bad. It seems to me that, for Samuel, we want the intermediate version -- not the "Court History of King David," which is lost, but the final Deuteronomic version (or whatever you want to call it). By that I mean the edition which *precedes* the MT corruption. I think a lot of it is preserved in the Greek, but that's another matter. Then there's Jeremiah, and the divergent LXX/MT versions. Which do we reconstruct? The original of the MT? The original of LXX? Something that predates both? Note that, to answer this question, we have to determine the history of the text *first*. It's a complicated situation when scribes become editors. (As witness all the disputes about Bezae; compare also Colwell's assessment of p45.) I think we have to treat individual cases. >> In addition, the process of transmission itself >>will have been mapped (Jean Valentin). >> > >Which could and would serve a very useful "church history" function- as Bart >Ehrman has brilliantly shown. > > >Jim > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Petros TN > >jwest@sunbelt.net Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 21:41:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA18141; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:40:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:36:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Jim West cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970116213541.288f9e32@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1024 On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: > > Just as an aside- Kurt Aland was a brilliant critic and more capable than > most in the field of textual studies. It is currently the vogue to deride > his incredible contributions; but his work has stood, and will continue to > stand, the test of time. The works of others will come and go, but Kurt > will be around for a long, long while. > > The Alexandrian text type is excellent. If there is any demonstrable proof > that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to > appear to this point. Jim, I agree that he was capable. I depend on him often. Sorry if you were offended :) I did give him due credit. As for "excellent," I prefer other more objective terms like very old and valuable. Aland's work has shown enough diversity in the best Alex mss to make me avoid terms like excellent. -- 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 Sat Jan 18 16:14:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA23354; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:12:42 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:08:32 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Original" text??? In-Reply-To: <199701172211.RAA32410@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1637 On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, William Petersen wrote: > while > I can numerically determine that "this" (and not "that") text was "the text > that lies behind the *dominant* textual tradition" (to quote Jimmy Adair), > we all know that the *dominant* text may be a bad, corrupt text (Byzantiners > would say this of the Alexandrian text in the fourth and fifth century; > Westcott-Horters would say this of the Byzantine text in the twelfth cent.). Just a minor correction (since I am otherwise staying out of the debate over trying to define "original text"): Those who would favor Byzantine-priority would _not_ claim that "the Alexandrian text in the fourth and fifth centuries" was "dominant", save only in a localized sense. The status of dominancy (were evidence available and preserved from the _entire_ Greek-speaking region of the Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries) would still be claimed by us to be the basic Byzantine Textform -- not only in that era but also in the earlier periods as well as those which followed. I know that Dr. Petersen will sharply differ from this perspective and speak once more about _ex silentio_ arguements, etc. as previously, but it nevertheless _is_ proper to state the position of an opposing side in a form which the advocates of that opposing side would accept; hence the clarification. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 19 01:52:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA25803; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:51:09 -0500 Message-ID: <32E1D7DC.75BE@cobweb.com.au> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:14:20 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: punctuation etc in early manuscripts 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: 1178 Tc-ers, The great uncials have no punctuation or spaces or paragraphing or much else except continuous script. What do the other significant manuscripts and papyri have? Are they all continous script? Would anyone like to speculate on what format the originals were in? Would they have been continuous script as well? cheers, Andrew +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer | & Theology Student (MA) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 | fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cobweb.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 Sun Jan 19 18:10:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29187; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:07:47 -0500 Message-ID: <32E2B632.4D22@online.no> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:03:58 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: RE: Massorets and pointing 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: 1145 The pointing of the Massoretes are generally believed to be reliable - they followed closely what they heard in the synagogue. But is this true also for shewa and patah? Some writers claim that shewa often was pronounced by an a-sound. If this is true, the very existence of the consecutive forms is threatened. The differences between consecutive forms and I. and P. proper are the position of the accent and patah versus shewa.There is no orthographic difference between imperfect and perfect proper and consecutive I. and P., except that consecutive I. often is apocopated. This means that in unpointed manuscripts there is no difference between the consecutive forms and I. and P proper. And neither is there any difference in the Hexapla. So there is the possibility, which I think is quite likely,that the consecutive forms do not exist as separate semantic entities, but simply are innovations of the Massoretes. (1) Does anybody have any views or data on patah/shewa and the Massoretes? (2) Are there any errors due to dictation at Qumran or elsewhere throwing light on the pronunciation of enclitic waw of verbs? Rolf Furuli Oslo From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 01:06:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA01685; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:05:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:05:42 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Original" text??? In-Reply-To: <199701172211.RAA32410@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3884 On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, William Petersen wrote: > Here is the crux: while we have textual > evidence for many of these, I know of no method by which on can determine > what the "official" or "last" edition of a particular author was. And while > I can numerically determine that "this" (and not "that") text was "the text > that lies behind the *dominant* textual tradition" (to quote Jimmy Adair), > we all know that the *dominant* text may be a bad, corrupt text I wasn't specific enough on what I meant by the "dominant textual tradition." When two (or more) significantly different forms of the text exist (e.g., Samuel MT and LXX, Jeremiah MT and LXX, the two versions of Acts, Daniel MT and LXX/Th, Esther MT and LXX), the dominant tradition is that which was most widely accepted (of course, in the case of Daniel and Esther, it depends on church/synagogue affiliation). Maybe the term "dominant text-form" would better express what I meant. I don't consider the Byzantine text to be a different textual tradition (text-form) from the Alexandrian, despite their numerous differences, since I don't see any evidence of extensive, systematic revision--and I wouldn't consider recensional activity to be the same as a revision aimed at supplementing (or correcting) the text. Of course, the lines can be hard to draw at times, but my impression is that Jeremiah MT represents an intentional updating of the Hebrew Vorlage that lies behind the LXX, whereas the Byzantine text-type in the NT reflects more of a natural development, with perhaps some recensional activity as well. Another point: I just suggested that the Vorlage of the dominant textual tradition was _one_ possible goal of t-c. The non-dominant traditions could just as readily be investigated. > ...[discussion of Luke 3:22] > The answer is not hard to come by. The longer text is not rejected because > it lacks early and authoritative textual support, becuase it does. The > reason it has not been adopted as the standard text is because it was not in > Erasmus's edition, it was not in the TR, and does not agree with Christian > theology since, oh, say, 300 CE or so... Theology and the influence of the > "authoritative" editions (Vulgate, Erasmus, TR, etc.)--regardless of their > merits--are more determinative than the evidence. There's nothing wrong > with that, but let's be up front about it. Now this is an interesting claim. I suspect that most eclectics would dispute the claim that the longer reading ("today I have begotten you") has _authoritative_ textual support, since D is the only Greek witness. Do you think, Bill, that theology (and authoritative editions) comes into play on a case by case basis, or does it rather manifest itself in the overall theory used by most eclectics (e.g., the preference for a Greek witness over a versional or patristic witness, no matter how early)? If the latter were the case, one could argue that, generally speaking, more "orthodox" readings are present in Greek mss than in the versions or Fathers because, since Greek continuous-text mss were the textual basis for the doctrine of the church, the Greek mss were more consistently revised toward the beliefs of the leaders of "orthodoxy" than were the other witnesses. I would like to see more evidence that specific textual decisions are made on the basis of currently acceptable theological positions, at least a list of passages to consider. By the way, in addition to the New Jerusalem Bible, both Moffatt and Goodspeed (apparently) adopt the longer reading, although Goodspeed softens the adoptionistic language with his translation, "You are my Chosen!" 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 Jan 20 01:36:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA01832; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:35:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:31:25 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Probabilistic view of original In-Reply-To: <199701182115.QAA23385@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: 2847 I like to take a probabilistic view of the original text. It is the closest approximation to what was originally written (if only one text was originally written, which I would say is the most simple hypothesis to explain the current situation for everything except, perhaps, Luke and Acts). Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be demonstrated to give rise to the others. The second point is a restatement of the local genealogical method, but should take account of weighty manuscript groups, to the extent that these point to pre-300 AD archetypes. There is a big problem with this method, though -- it depends on the person making the judgement as to which explains the other to a large degree. In order to make it less subjective, it should reflect actual probabilities of particular tendencies as found in the manuscripts we have. E.g. The probability of making a change of this kind is such and such. At the moment I think of the NT text as like a sponge. It has a certain original form but gets bits and pieces added and taken away at different times and places, reflecting local conditions of doctrine, practice and tradition. The task of NT text critics is twofold -- descriptive and inferential, just like statistics. The presentation of words in the text should reflect this. If they are certain they are printed. If they vary, but one reading can be shown to give rise to the others, mindful of how copying errors actually behave, then it is given a high certainty. Readings which are evenly divided get another status, etc. In fact, this is what the UBS text does with its A, B, C, and D ratings of readings. Only the rating is based on the editorial committee's extent of agreement rather than the extent to which mss show the kind of copying errors the secondary readings display (but the editors were probably basing their decisions on these kinds of considerations). Given the capabilities of hypertext, we should begin to consider producing a New Testament text of this kind. Perhaps words could be colour coded. Black = no variation, grey = very certain, outline = uncertain. The grey and outline words could be clicked on to see which other readings exist and their support. On a different point, I would like to agree with Jim West in saying that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Prof. Kurt Aland. We should remember that the _Text of the New Testament_ that he co-authored with Profn. Barbara Aland was an introduction to the use of the UBS and NA texts and was not his final statement on textual matters. finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 02:49:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA02276; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 02:48:01 -0500 From: "Mirkovic, Alexander" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: The Original Text Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:45:37 -0500 (EST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.0.9 X-Authentication: none 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: 3215 Dear List, It has been a real pleasure to read all your comments and discussions. In light of the recent discussion on the "original text" I've decided to write something of my own. I am a Ph. D. student at Vanderbilt in New Testament with a strong interest, aside from my major area, in Classical Studies. My interests are in Johannine studies and Gospel studies in general, Gnosticism, Hellenistic Literature, Religion, and Culture, and, of course, Greek language and textual criticism. Following on the previous discussion, I believe that it is not wise to make a very sharp distinction between literary and textual criticism. John is a good example, as well as, Romans, Mark, etc. John 7:53-11 is not part of many manuscripts. Is it a part of the "original text?" The dilemma is: to print it, or not to print it? NA is wise in this regard, because it chooses to put it in brackets. The same holds for the endings of Mark. The interpretation changes, if these passages are included and it changes substantially. It is necessary to have all the available data in front of us and read the text in many possible ways. If it is in the manuscript tradition, somebody thought that this is meaningful. We have to have the opportunity to cut both ways! Some post-modern theory (deconstruction) might be useful here. There is no original text! Every text is "intertextual." Think of Derrida and the idea of logocentrism! Authorial intention (a logocentric idea) and the "original text" are connected: they are our idealizations. Writing dissertations and academic papers comes to mind. When I write, I usually have several versions in the computer. Which one is the "original version." Probably, the one that I have submitted. This means that the "original text" is "proclaimed" by an outside authority, not the author. New Testament texts are products of their authors and their readers, early Christians. Early Christian communities have decided for us which are the "original texts," but they have also produced many "original texts." I write in plural, because all of the variants were "original" for somebody, somewhere, at some point in time. Reception of the text is as much important as the author. What was the "original text" of John for one community, must not have been the "original" for another community. Therefore, I would define TC as a study of the manuscript tradition which aims to establish relationships between variant readings. If the study shows that all the variant stem from one single manuscript, that is fine. But this is not the "original," just the earliest version available. I am not an "eclectic" and I am for constructing the stem for the manuscripts if this is possible, but we should be aware that the stem speaks more about relationships, than about the "original." I wish that we could deconstruct this cold weather as well! Greetings! Alexander ************************************************* Alexander Mirkovic Senior Teaching Fellow for Koine Greek Vanderbilt University Graduate Department of Religion Email: mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Phone: (615) 421-8331 ************************************************* From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 04:44:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA02828; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 04:43:41 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:38:38 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Original Text Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <72B05D5673@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2831 With regard the "original text" question being dicussed, one of our list wrote: > Some post-modern theory (deconstruction) might be > useful here. There is no original text! Every text is > "intertextual." Think of Derrida and the idea of > logocentrism! Authorial intention (a logocentric idea) and > the "original text" are connected: they are our > idealizations. Writing dissertations and academic papers > comes to mind. When I write, I usually have several > versions in the computer. Which one is the "original > version." Probably, the one that I have submitted. This > means that the "original text" is "proclaimed" by an > outside authority, not the author. I think we'd all better take a deep breath, count to 10, and be *very* careful before we follow Derrida, et al. down that "deconstructionist" road. There lies madness! The very example our writer cites shows this: If *he* chooses which version of his paper to submit, then it is *he* who has decided which to make public, thus making it the "official" version--not some other authority. >New Testament texts are > products of their authors and their readers, early > Christians. Early Christian communities have decided for us > which are the "original texts," but they have also > produced many "original texts." Yes, of course, if the question is which books became canonical, and which versions of these books were circulated at any point among Christians as the text of this or that book, then many more than the original author were involved--copyists, readers, etc. But none of these data in any way logically or historically falsifies the fact that each book was written before it was copied, or modified, or edited. And the person(s) who wrote the text was/were the "author", with real *authorial intentions*, however much the transmission and reading process makes it difficult for such intentions to come to realization clearly. The communication process is complicated, to be sure, whether in writing or oral speech, but this in no way justifies the "postmodernist" disdain of the genuine human process involved in communication--which properly involves *two* principals, not just one: *both* the speaker/writer and the hearer/reader. Radical postmodernist views of texts/communication does to the process what auto-eroticism is to real sex, reducing it to readers playing with themselves instead of the much more exciting adventure of exploring and getting to enjoy another! Now, can we get on/back to textual criticism and other historical questions that are not the anti-human/humane dead-ends that deconstructionism represents? L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 06:00:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA02966; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:57:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:53:28 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc Subject: original ? 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: 533 If one makes the argument that "a word which is in every manuscript will be taken as having been in the original," one is dealing with the arbitrary and contingent fact that one has discovered some manuscripts and not others. One would have to revise whenever a new MS was unearthed (which is good), but one runs the danger and the probability that some MSS will never be unearthed (and thus one will not be able to revise according to them). Must we resign ourselves to the capriciousness of the selection of MSS available to us? From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 06:03:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA02987; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 06:02:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:57:53 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc cc: hebrew Subject: Gothic OT Vorlage Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 643 For a while, it was a hot topic, whether Wulfia had used the Greek or the Latin NT as his Vorlage when preparing his Gothic NT. That debate seems to have been settled - that he used the Greek, but was under the influence of having read the Latin. My question is: what did he use as an OT Vorlage? Here he had at least three major options: Hebrew, LXX, or Latin. (It would be highly unlikely that he would use a Targum). Has any work been done on this? The Gothic scriptures have the value that, as early versions, they record the state of the text at a time from which we don't always have texts in the original language. Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 07:38:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03351; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:37:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199701201233.NAA59526@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 14:44:53 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: The Original Text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 276 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Alexander Mirkovic wrote (inter alia): >John is a good >example, as well as, Romans, Mark, etc. John 7:53-11 is not >part of many manuscripts. Quite to the contrary, John 7,53-8,11 is part of the overwelming majority of MSS. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 09:49:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03920; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:48:22 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:47:18 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: The Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3880 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, "Mirkovic, Alexander" wrote: [ ... ] Let me second Hurtado's comment in response to this letter: We need to take a deep breath before responding. But, having done that, and read the rest of my mail, I *still* feel the need to respond. > Following on the previous discussion, I believe >that it is not wise to make a very sharp distinction >between literary and textual criticism. This statement I simply cannot accept. There is an unequivocal and undeniable distinction between the two. Textual criticism is one of the few Biblical disciplines based upon FACTS -- the facts being the readings of the manuscripts. We may disagree about the significance and interpretation of these facts, but the facts themselves do not change. Literary criticism, on the other hand, is purely interpretation. There is no objective way to tell it from idle speculation. You may, if you wish, bring textual criticism into literary criticism. But if you bring literary criticism into textual criticism, you inevitable move from the realm of the objective into the realm of the subjective. Don't do it! The goal should be to make textual criticism more objective, not less. [ ... ] > Some post-modern theory (deconstruction) might be >useful here. There is no original text! Surely you do not mean this. There was an original text (possibly, in a few cases, multiple original texts. But always a finite set). That original text *has not survived* in any known manuscript. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. >Every text is >"intertextual." Think of Derrida and the idea of >logocentrism! Authorial intention (a logocentric idea) and >the "original text" are connected: they are our >idealizations. Writing dissertations and academic papers >comes to mind. When I write, I usually have several >versions in the computer. Which one is the "original >version." Probably, the one that I have submitted. This >means that the "original text" is "proclaimed" by an >outside authority, not the author. You mean *I'm* allowed to tell you which is the correct version of your dissertation? Somehow I doubt you'd be happy if I were to do so.... >New Testament texts are >products of their authors and their readers, early >Christians. Early Christian communities have decided for us >which are the "original texts," but they have also >produced many "original texts." I write in plural, because >all of the variants were "original" for somebody, >somewhere, at some point in time. Reception of the text is >as much important as the author. What was the "original >text" of John for one community, must not have been the >"original" for another community. Have you considered the implications of this? What you are saying is that -- any time *anyone* makes a copying error, it is scripture. If I were to copy a Biblical passage and write into it, "God is an illusion of inferior minds," would you accept that as scripture? Surely not! > Therefore, I would define TC as a study of the >manuscript tradition which aims to establish relationships >between variant readings. If the study shows that all the >variant stem from one single manuscript, that is fine. >But this is not the "original," just the earliest version >available. I am not an "eclectic" and I am for >constructing the stem for the manuscripts if this is >possible, but we should be aware that the stem speaks more >about relationships, than about the "original." I agree, in the sense that we can never be sure of the original text. I cannot take this view that we therefore *give up.* Even if we cannot be sure we have the original text, we can certainly seek for the earliest surviving text. My apologies to the rest of the list for this rant-and-rave. The physicist in me strikes again, no doubt. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 10:12:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04123; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:11:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:07:22 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The Original Text 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: 1580 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, "Mirkovic, Alexander" > wrote: > > > Following on the previous discussion, I believe > >that it is not wise to make a very sharp distinction > >between literary and textual criticism. > > This statement I simply cannot accept. There is an unequivocal > and undeniable distinction between the two. > Textual criticism is one of the few Biblical disciplines based > upon FACTS -- the facts being the readings of the manuscripts. > We may disagree about the significance and interpretation of > these facts, but the facts themselves do not change. > Literary criticism, on the other hand, is purely interpretation. > There is no objective way to tell it from idle speculation. Another way to express the difference between TC and LC is that TC is ultimately about physical reality - ink on paper, an archeological fact. LC is about mental realities - ideas and thoughts. This is true even when TC and LC are being used and applied in non-religous arenas: Shakespearean and Aristotelian texts, for example. > > Some post-modern theory (deconstruction) might be > >useful here. There is no original text! > > Surely you do not mean this. There was an original text (possibly, > in a few cases, multiple original texts. But always a finite set). > That original text *has not survived* in any known manuscript. > But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have serious reservations about how it would ever be possible to find Derida, his thoughts, or his works "useful." From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 10:21:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04175; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:20:49 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199701182115.QAA23385@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:04:35 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Probabilistic view of original Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3147 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: >I like to take a probabilistic view of the original text. It is the >closest approximation to what was originally written (if only one text >was originally written, which I would say is the most simple hypothesis >to explain the current situation for everything except, perhaps, Luke >and Acts). > >Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is >original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular >reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be >demonstrated to give rise to the others. > >The second point is a restatement of the local genealogical method, but >should take account of weighty manuscript groups, to the extent that these >point to pre-300 AD archetypes. There is a big problem with this method, >though -- it depends on the person making the judgement as to which >explains the other to a large degree. This is why I think the identification of text-types is *so* important. The main problem with the picture of two text-types, Alexandrian and "Western" (apart from the fact that it's wrong) is that it means that, when they divide, we are always deciding more or less arbitrarily between them. But if there are three or more text-types, we are much more likely to find ourselves in a position of being able to follow the majority. (In Paul, where I perceive four early text-types, I averaged only about three readings per chapter where we had a two- against-two division of text-types.) If there are three or more readings, it is usually possible to find -- and follow -- the middle reading. [ ... ] >At the moment I think of the NT text as like a sponge. It has a certain >original form but gets bits and pieces added and taken away at different >times and places, reflecting local conditions of doctrine, practice and >tradition. I like this analogy. It fits in another way, too: Barring continuous effort to keep the sponge clean, it is likely to get dirtier and dirtier as time passes. :-) [ ... ] >Given the capabilities of hypertext, we should begin to consider >producing a New Testament text of this kind. Perhaps words could be >colour coded. Black = no variation, grey = very certain, outline = >uncertain. The grey and outline words could be clicked on to see which >other readings exist and their support. In a very limited way, I did this in my "edition" of Paul. Places where the text is invariant are shown in plain text. Boldface marks a point of variation. In the apparatus, places where I consider it reasonably possible that the variant text is original, I put an obelus by those variants which I consider possible. (This is roughly equivalent to the UBS "C" level -- except that my way shows which variants are and are not reasonable.) For readings where I consider the text highly uncertain (the three or so readings per chapter I mentioned above, equivalent to UBS "D" readings), I put down a double obelus. This isn't as good as Tim's way -- but you can carry my edition into a church service. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 10:53:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04378; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:52:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:48:06 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: The Original Text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970120104853.277fd156@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 628 Bob Waltz, At 08:47 AM 1/20/97 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, "Mirkovic, Alexander" >wrote: > >Let me second Hurtado's comment in response to this letter: We need to >take a deep breath before responding. But, having done that, and read >the rest of my mail, I *still* feel the need to respond. > Bob is absolutely correct here. Derrida and his egomaniacal views have rightly been abandoned by everyone but grad students. To imply that his work is useful for text criticism is really unfortunate. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 11:06:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04521; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:04:46 -0500 Message-ID: <32E398EC.4F03@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:10:20 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@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: 2942 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > I think the GJohn is a good example for this issue. It is > >one of the most glossed, edited, interpolated and restructured books > >of the NT and had at least 4, and probably more, redactional strata > >between it's "autograph" and the form now extant. Speculating the > >probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee > >and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd > >century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the > >goal for recovery by textual criticism? > > This viewpoint troubles me. Given that John has suffered some > editing (Chapter 21 being the obvious example), I don't believe > there will ever be consensus reached on *how many* hands contributed > which parts. > > Given that there was clearly a final edition of John (including > chapter 21) which circulated to the church, that and only that is > a legitimate object of textual criticism. The rest is for > literary critics. (Assuming the matter needs to be studied at > all, which I consider questionable.) Then you are saying an attempt to reconstruct the original autograph of the GJohn is not a legitimate object of textual criticism and, in fact, is a questionable matter not worthy of study? The object of my message was the interpretation of "original text" as defined in TC. James R. Adair wrote: > I agree with Bob on this point. Text critics are only interested in the > form of the text that circulated, not earlier forms that did not (or of > which we have no extant evidence of circulation). When two (or > more) distinct forms circulated (e.g., Acts, Samuel), then both are > legitimate object of text-critical study. If we can ever arrive at an > acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, > most of these issues will be solved. Then people will be able to choose > which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the > earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of > the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies > behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT > or NT) (Emanuel Tov). In addition, the process of transmission itself > will have been mapped (Jean Valentin). But I interpret Bob's response that the "earliest form of the text" (the autograph) is not important to study. If text critics are only interested in the final edition that circulated, in the case of GJohn at the beginning of the 2nd century, this does not tell us much about the theological and christological developments textually interpolated between the mid 1st century and the early 2nd century. I'm not debating the point, I am merely trying to get a handle on the textual critic's "official" definition of "original text." Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 11:55:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05015; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:54:26 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32E398EC.4F03@accesscomm.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:53:40 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3268 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote, quoting me: [ ... ] >> Given that there was clearly a final edition of John (including >> chapter 21) which circulated to the church, that and only that is >> a legitimate object of textual criticism. The rest is for >> literary critics. (Assuming the matter needs to be studied at >> all, which I consider questionable.) > > Then you are saying an attempt to reconstruct the original >autograph of the GJohn is not a legitimate object of textual criticism >and, in fact, is a questionable matter not worthy of study? The >object of my message was the interpretation of "original text" as >defined in TC. Reconstructing the "original autograph" of John may be interesting as a literary exercise (it's of little interest to me, but that's my personal pejudice). But the only thing we as *textual* scholars can do is reconstruct the published version. Including chapter 21. To the best of my knowledge, there are *no* copies of John in existence which omit Chapter 21. Therefore we cannot as textual scholars work on such an edition -- let alone work on strata found within the first twenty chapters. Please, don't confuse speculative criticism -- of any sort -- with textual criticism. If you want to discuss a version of Romans without chapter 16, that's fine; 1506 omits the chapter. If you want to look at Mark without 16:9-20, that's even better, since B and Aleph omit. But don't work on John without chapter 21! >James R. Adair wrote: > > >> I agree with Bob on this point. Text critics are only interested in the >> form of the text that circulated, not earlier forms that did not (or of >> which we have no extant evidence of circulation). When two (or >> more) distinct forms circulated (e.g., Acts, Samuel), then both are >> legitimate object of text-critical study. If we can ever arrive at an >> acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, >> most of these issues will be solved. Then people will be able to choose >> which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the >> earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of >> the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies >> behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT >> or NT) (Emanuel Tov). In addition, the process of transmission itself >> will have been mapped (Jean Valentin). > > But I interpret Bob's response that the "earliest form of >the text" (the autograph) is not important to study. Question: If you believe that John went through four or five stages of redaction, which is "the autograph"? It would appear that all manuscripts of John go back to a single manuscript. That is the manuscript I seek to reconstruct. >If text critics >are only interested in the final edition that circulated, in the >case of GJohn at the beginning of the 2nd century, this does >not tell us much about the theological and christological developments >textually interpolated between the mid 1st century and the early >2nd century. Conceded -- but this is not the task of the textual critic. In fact, I think textual critics should not study such things. It can lead to bias. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 14:30:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA08079; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:28:32 -0500 Message-ID: <32E3C8B2.1D21@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:34:10 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@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: 3799 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > Reconstructing the "original autograph" of John may be interesting > as a literary exercise (it's of little interest to me, but that's > my personal pejudice). That's understandable. > > But the only thing we as *textual* scholars can do is reconstruct > the published version. Including chapter 21. To the best of my > knowledge, there are *no* copies of John in existence which omit > Chapter 21. Therefore we cannot as textual scholars work on > such an edition -- let alone work on strata found within the > first twenty chapters. Now I see what you mean. When and IF an early form of John is found (perhaps a complete Egerton) without the appendage of 21, THEN it becomes a tool of the textual critic. TC's work only with what is extant. Would you recognize, however, that the absence of GJohn 7:53-8:11 from all texts earlier than Bezae constitutes more than speculation that it was not part of the autograph? It is here, I assume, we drift to the camp of the literary critic. > > Please, don't confuse speculative criticism -- of any sort -- > with textual criticism. Gotcha Bob..if'n it aint ink of paper... :) > > If you want to discuss a version of Romans without chapter 16, that's > fine; 1506 omits the chapter. If you want to look at Mark without > 16:9-20, that's even better, since B and Aleph omit. But don't > work on John without chapter 21! Until we find a 1st century copy of John...gotcha! > > >James R. Adair wrote: > > > > > >> I agree with Bob on this point. Text critics are only interested in the > >> form of the text that circulated, not earlier forms that did not (or of > >> which we have no extant evidence of circulation). When two (or > >> more) distinct forms circulated (e.g., Acts, Samuel), then both are > >> legitimate object of text-critical study. If we can ever arrive at an > >> acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, > >> most of these issues will be solved. Then people will be able to choose > >> which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the > >> earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of > >> the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies > >> behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT > >> or NT) (Emanuel Tov). In addition, the process of transmission itself > >> will have been mapped (Jean Valentin). > > > > But I interpret Bob's response that the "earliest form of > >the text" (the autograph) is not important to study. > > Question: If you believe that John went through four or five stages > of redaction, which is "the autograph"? An early Aramaic narrative written by Johnny Zeb himself and still embedded in the GJohn in Greek translation. > > It would appear that all manuscripts of John go back to a single > manuscript. That is the manuscript I seek to reconstruct. But only as far as the existing textual witnesses take you which is no earlier than Bodmer? The single manuscript from which all mss of John arose, penned in Palestine, lies unreachable for the TC but possible for the LC. I take it the TC's cannot leave Asia Minor. > > >If text critics > >are only interested in the final edition that circulated, in the > >case of GJohn at the beginning of the 2nd century, this does > >not tell us much about the theological and christological developments > >textually interpolated between the mid 1st century and the early > >2nd century. > > Conceded -- but this is not the task of the textual critic. In fact, > I think textual critics should not study such things. It can lead > to bias. I get your point, Bob. It's gotta be on papyrus. ATINA EAN GRAFHTAI KAQ EN....... Jack Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 15:39:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA08715; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:37:47 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32E3C8B2.1D21@accesscomm.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:36:02 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4651 I fear this discussion is going downhill, so I will try to clarify anything that needs clarifying and then get off the topic.... On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: >> But the only thing we as *textual* scholars can do is reconstruct >> the published version. Including chapter 21. To the best of my >> knowledge, there are *no* copies of John in existence which omit >> Chapter 21. Therefore we cannot as textual scholars work on >> such an edition -- let alone work on strata found within the >> first twenty chapters. > > Now I see what you mean. When and IF an early form of John >is found (perhaps a complete Egerton) without the appendage of 21, >THEN it becomes a tool of the textual critic. TC's work only with >what is extant. Would you recognize, however, that the absence of >GJohn 7:53-8:11 from all texts earlier than Bezae constitutes more >than speculation that it was not part of the autograph? It is here, >I assume, we drift to the camp of the literary critic. I'm not sure I see the point. I *don't* consider it part of the autograph -- but I say so on the basis of manuscripts. Literary criticism plays no part. I suppose you could argue that those who reject Mark 16:9-20 do so on literary grounds ("it doesn't match Mark's style"). I suppose even I am influenced by that... but I *also* note that it is omitted by the earliest Alexandrians, is marked with doubts in the best "Caesareans" (fam 1), and is not found in the two most important "Westerns" (k sin). >> If you want to discuss a version of Romans without chapter 16, that's >> fine; 1506 omits the chapter. If you want to look at Mark without >> 16:9-20, that's even better, since B and Aleph omit. But don't >> work on John without chapter 21! > > Until we find a 1st century copy of John...gotcha! I detect sarcasm here. (Obviously it's not too hard to spot.) I fail to see why. Why *should* textual critics step outside their discipline? Would you want me, as a physicist and/or a folk musician, to lecture you about theology? I assume not. Why, then, would you want a literary critic telling you how to conduct textual criticism? [ ... ] >> > But I interpret Bob's response that the "earliest form of >> >the text" (the autograph) is not important to study. >> >> Question: If you believe that John went through four or five stages >> of redaction, which is "the autograph"? > > An early Aramaic narrative written by Johnny Zeb himself and >still embedded in the GJohn in Greek translation. All right. It's not *my* viewpoint, but it can certainly be argued for. What value, if any, would you place on the further stages of the redaction? And what is the value of the final recension from which all manuscripts are derived? Is there one? Does the fact that the church placed its faith in the final product have any influence? And, as you work to reconstruct this hypothetical autograph, what role do you want textual critics to play? I confess to being utterly confused. >> >> It would appear that all manuscripts of John go back to a single >> manuscript. That is the manuscript I seek to reconstruct. > > But only as far as the existing textual witnesses take you >which is no earlier than Bodmer? The single manuscript from which >all mss of John arose, penned in Palestine, lies unreachable for >the TC but possible for the LC. I take it the TC's cannot leave >Asia Minor. Who says the earliest witness is Bodmer? The earliest witness is probably Ignatius. Then p52, and Justin Martyr, and p66 and Irenaeus and.... Some of these are easier to use than others -- but they are all *witnesses*. But why do you say that "single manuscript" (and I'm not sure whether you mean here the Aramaic or the Greek) is any more accessible to the literary than the textual critic? >> >> >If text critics >> >are only interested in the final edition that circulated, in the >> >case of GJohn at the beginning of the 2nd century, this does >> >not tell us much about the theological and christological developments >> >textually interpolated between the mid 1st century and the early >> >2nd century. >> >> Conceded -- but this is not the task of the textual critic. In fact, >> I think textual critics should not study such things. It can lead >> to bias. > > I get your point, Bob. It's gotta be on papyrus. Or parchment, or paper -- or ostraca for that matter. I'm not built to play speculative games. And my apologies to the folks who think this discussion is getting really bullheaded. You're right; it is. When I hear this kind of talk, my scientific side tends to take over.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 16:41:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09424; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:40:12 -0500 Message-ID: <32E3E794.14E5@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:45:57 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@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: 5968 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > I fear this discussion is going downhill, so I will try to clarify > anything that needs clarifying and then get off the topic.... Why is it going downhill? I have gained some insight from it. > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > >> But the only thing we as *textual* scholars can do is reconstruct > >> the published version. Including chapter 21. To the best of my > >> knowledge, there are *no* copies of John in existence which omit > >> Chapter 21. Therefore we cannot as textual scholars work on > >> such an edition -- let alone work on strata found within the > >> first twenty chapters. > > > > Now I see what you mean. When and IF an early form of John > >is found (perhaps a complete Egerton) without the appendage of 21, > >THEN it becomes a tool of the textual critic. TC's work only with > >what is extant. Would you recognize, however, that the absence of > >GJohn 7:53-8:11 from all texts earlier than Bezae constitutes more > >than speculation that it was not part of the autograph? It is here, > >I assume, we drift to the camp of the literary critic. > > I'm not sure I see the point. I *don't* consider it part of the > autograph -- but I say so on the basis of manuscripts. Literary > criticism plays no part. I was looking for the level at which textual criticism ends and literary criticism begins. > > I suppose you could argue that those who reject Mark 16:9-20 > do so on literary grounds ("it doesn't match Mark's style"). > I suppose even I am influenced by that... but I *also* note > that it is omitted by the earliest Alexandrians, is marked > with doubts in the best "Caesareans" (fam 1), and is not found > in the two most important "Westerns" (k sin). > > >> If you want to discuss a version of Romans without chapter 16, that's > >> fine; 1506 omits the chapter. If you want to look at Mark without > >> 16:9-20, that's even better, since B and Aleph omit. But don't > >> work on John without chapter 21! > > > > Until we find a 1st century copy of John...gotcha! > > I detect sarcasm here. (Obviously it's not too hard to spot.) > I fail to see why. Why *should* textual critics step outside > their discipline? Not a BIT of sarcasm. I am merely qualifying that TC's work with the factual and extant texts. Why are you looking for an attitude that does not exist? > > Would you want me, as a physicist and/or a folk musician, to lecture > you about theology? I assume not. Why, then, would you want a literary > critic telling you how to conduct textual criticism? I wouldn't, Bob...I am defining, for my own edification, the boundaries of textual criticism vs literary criticism from your perspective. Why does that offend you? > > >> > But I interpret Bob's response that the "earliest form of > >> >the text" (the autograph) is not important to study. > >> > >> Question: If you believe that John went through four or five stages > >> of redaction, which is "the autograph"? > > > > An early Aramaic narrative written by Johnny Zeb himself and > >still embedded in the GJohn in Greek translation. > > All right. It's not *my* viewpoint, but it can certainly be argued > for. What value, if any, would you place on the further stages of > the redaction? And what is the value of the final recension from > which all manuscripts are derived? Is there one? Does the fact > that the church placed its faith in the final product have any > influence? The value I place on it is the understanding how theology and christology developed between the "original text" and the final product. > > And, as you work to reconstruct this hypothetical autograph, > what role do you want textual critics to play? I confess to being > utterly confused. > > >> > >> It would appear that all manuscripts of John go back to a single > >> manuscript. That is the manuscript I seek to reconstruct. > > > > But only as far as the existing textual witnesses take you > >which is no earlier than Bodmer? The single manuscript from which > >all mss of John arose, penned in Palestine, lies unreachable for > >the TC but possible for the LC. I take it the TC's cannot leave > >Asia Minor. > > Who says the earliest witness is Bodmer? The earliest witness is > probably Ignatius. Then p52, and Justin Martyr, and p66 and > Irenaeus and.... Some of these are easier to use than others -- > but they are all *witnesses*. I understand that, Bob...but P52 is just a scrap. > > But why do you say that "single manuscript" (and I'm not sure whether > you mean here the Aramaic or the Greek) is any more accessible to the > literary than the textual critic? You made it clear that Textual critics work only with the existing manuscripts. An Aramaic reconstruction of "proto-John" does not exist, therefore it lies within the realm of speculation from a literary standpoint. > >> >If text critics > >> >are only interested in the final edition that circulated, in the > >> >case of GJohn at the beginning of the 2nd century, this does > >> >not tell us much about the theological and christological developments > >> >textually interpolated between the mid 1st century and the early > >> >2nd century. > >> > >> Conceded -- but this is not the task of the textual critic. In fact, > >> I think textual critics should not study such things. It can lead > >> to bias. > > > > I get your point, Bob. It's gotta be on papyrus. > > Or parchment, or paper -- or ostraca for that matter. I'm not built > to play speculative games. > > And my apologies to the folks who think this discussion is getting > really bullheaded. You're right; it is. When I hear this kind of > talk, my scientific side tends to take over.... Bob, I am also a scientist...you are taking offense and reading "bullheadedness" where it does not exist. I was looking for illumination from the TC's viewpoint, not argument. Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 16:57:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09574; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:56:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:52:03 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Probabilistic view of original 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: 1549 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: > Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is > original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular > reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be > demonstrated to give rise to the others. Here Timothy and I concur. These are two very significant points which need to be taken into account at any point of textual restoration. I suspect however that most people simply do not try to calculate out the various inverse proportions in relation to the probabilities in point #2. > Given the capabilities of hypertext, we should begin to consider > producing a New Testament text of this kind. Perhaps words could be > colour coded. Black = no variation, grey = very certain, outline = > uncertain. The grey and outline words could be clicked on to see which > other readings exist and their support. Interestingly, Kenneth W. Clark proposed to me long ago the idea of publishing a Greek NT with all the unquestioned words in black and only those with serious sensible difference among editors' preferences in red in order that everyone could see at a glance how minute the problems of NT textual criticism really were. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 17:02:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09718; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:01:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:57:31 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc Subject: Re: original ? 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: 1465 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > If one makes the argument that "a word which is in every manuscript will > be taken as having been in the original," one is dealing with the > arbitrary and contingent fact that one has discovered some manuscripts and > not others. One would have to revise whenever a new MS was unearthed > (which is good), but one runs the danger and the probability that some MSS > will never be unearthed (and thus one will not be able to revise according > to them). Must we resign ourselves to the capriciousness of the selection > of MSS available to us? And where would this line of thought then take us if strictly applied? That nothing is certain, and we therefore might well declare to be the "original text" words and phrases which have never appeared in any known MS? I certainly would hope not. Far better is it to recognize that statistically the representative sample of antiquity which we possess in our extant MSS (of all eras and of all texttypes) _do_ provide sufficient and adequate information so as to proclaim "autograph certainty" at least for those portions where all or virtually all such witnesses concur. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 18:02:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA10397; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:01:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:56:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199701202256.QAA00724@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: Original Text and Limits of TC Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3722 Re the ongoing thread about the meaning of an "autograph" and the goals or objectives of TC, etc.: in view of what I wrote (in a deliberately polemical and provocative style) in my essay in the Metzger festschrift Bart Ehrman and I edited (see The Text of The NT in Contemporary Research, pp. 353-354), I am glad to see discussion of just what it is we are trying to recover as textual critics. Permit me to toss out two opinions on points that have arisen lately. 1) Literary criticism and textual criticism are inescapably inter-related. To be sure, the MSS provide, in a very concrete way, data (or, to use Waltz's term, FACTS), but facts do not exist in a vacuum, and their interpretation certainly does not. That is, *all* interpretation takes place within some kind of theoretical framework, and in the case of textual criticism, that interpretative framework is "often" (I should probably insert a stronger term) influenced or provided by aspects of literary criticism. This is esp. the case when we begin to discuss what it is that we have reconstructed by means of TC. E.g, suppose that there is a concensus that all surviving copies of a document are descended from X. What we then choose to call X--autograph? archetype? edited edition of earlier documents?--is sharply affected by literary-critical kinds of decisions and judgments. Tov (whom I was glad to see referenced in the early stages of this thread) has brought this out clearly with regard to the OT; his work has, as some have noticed, implications for NT work. The current thread is a good start in developing them, but only a start. Moreover, textual critics have tended to be rather naive/silent/unaware/??? regarding the philisophical underpinings or implications of how they conceive of what it is they are trying to recover. See further my essay, p. 353 note83. (Yes, the interaction between lit criticism and TC is certainly a two-way street. More than a few literary theories collapse in the face of the historical realia of surviving MSS. But that is not the point at the moment, and I leave it aside). 2) Textual criticism is not limited to what now survives in the form of ink on writing material. Paul Maas laid out clearly the four aspects of TC: recensio, selectio, examinatio, and divinatio. The first is an investigative and taxonomic process that examines surviving MSS in order to discover (a) a surviving witness that is the source of all others, (b) a reconstructable archetype, or (c) a split tradition consisting of two or more MSS or archetypes. If (a) or (b), one proceeds directly to examinatio; if (c), to selectio--choosing between competing variants--and then to examinatio, the testing of the earliest recoverable stage of the tradition for soundness. If defects are detected in the earliest recoverable stage of the tradition, then one proceeds to divinatio, i.e., emendation. This last stage--which on methodological grounds is an essential ppart of the text-critical process--no longer involves what survives in ink on writing material, but has to do with the thoughts and ideas of the author (once again, literary criticism comes into play in the practice of TC). E.g., to give just a single example, take 1 Cor 6:5, "to judge between his brother" (cf. Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, p. 15) Is there someone who wishes to defend the view that Paul wrote/dictated precisely this, rather than "to judge between a brother and his brother"? (I can almost hear the noise as the guns are being brought to bear on the suggestion that emendation has role to play in NT TC. Please, before anyone starts blasting, please read the relevant parts of my essay, 347-349, first?) Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 19:48:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA11152; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:46:33 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32E3E794.14E5@accesscomm.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:44:57 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Apologies (Was: Re: Original Text) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 672 To save wear and tear on your monitors, I won't quote much of Jack Kilmon's letter. I thought he was pounding a point home by repetition. I see that he was just seeking clarity. My apologies for my misinterpretation. If there are any other questions about what I said, I will try to answer politely. Sorry about all that. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 19:59:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA11232; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:58:31 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701202256.QAA00724@homer.bethel.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:57:48 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Original Text and Limits of TC Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1555 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu wrote, in part: > (I can almost hear the noise as the guns are being brought to bear >on the suggestion that emendation has role to play in NT TC. Please, before >anyone starts blasting, please read the relevant parts of my essay, 347-349, >first?) Just a quick comment before I wander off.... I have no problem with the *idea* that the NT text may need conjectural emendation. It stands to reason: Many of the extant documents derive entirely from copies of the original. That is, the stemma is not autograph | ---------------- | | | Text Text Text Type Type Type #1 #2 #3 but rather autograph | first generation copy | ---------------- | | | Text Text Text Type Type Type #1 #2 #3 This means that any errors which occur in the first generation copy will be preserved forever unless corrected by scribes by conjectural emendation. The problem, to me, is not the idea that there are readings which need emendation, but determining *which* readings they are. Given that no one has agreed on that to this point, I don't see why they should start now. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 21 00:43:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12410; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:42:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:42:31 -0500 From: owner-tc-list Message-Id: <199701210542.AAA12410@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 1956 We had an extended discussion of the need for emendation of the NT text, either theoretically or in actual practice, last April, and newcomers to the list who want to see that discussion can send the message Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu get tc-list tc-list.9604 to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu. DON'T SEND IT TO THE LIST ITSELF! I continue to believe, in agreement with Mike Holmes, that emendation has a vital role to play in the NT textual criticism, even if 99.9% of all the original readings are preserved somewhere in the manuscript tradition. Westcott and Hort's list of suspected readings--i.e., those readings which they thought probably contained some "primitive error"--is a good place to start. For those who don't have access to this list, I will list the passages below (maybe some enterprising person would like to enter the actual suspected readings and share them with the list): Matt 15:30; 21:28-31; 28:7 Mark 4:28 Luke 11:35 John 4:1; 6:4; (8:9) Acts 4:25; 7:46; 12:25; 13:32, 42; 16:12; 19:40; 20:28; 25:13; 26:28 1 Pet 1:7; 3:21 2 Pet 3:10, 12 1 John 5:10 Jude 1, 5, 22-23 Rom 1:32; 4:12; 5:6; 8:2; 13:3; 15:32 1 Cor 12:2 2 Cor 3:3, 17; 7:8; 12:7 Gal 4:31-5:1 Col 2:2, 18 (bis), 23 2 Thes 1:10 Heb 4:2; 10:1; 11:4, 37; 12:11; 13:21 1 Tim 4:3; 6:7 2 Tim 1:13 Phlm 9 Rev 1:20; 2:12; 3:1, 7, 13, 14; 9:10; 11:3; 13:10, 15, 16; 18:12; 19:13 I think the model of OT textual critics, who routinely consider the possibility of primitive corruption and thus the need for conjectural emendation, can inform NT critics, even if we allow for the substantial differences in the quality of the data available to OT and NT critics, respectively. 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 Jan 21 00:50:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12490; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:50:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:50:13 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: clarification 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: 544 The mailer program garbled the first part of my message to the list, so let me repeat that information. If you want to see the discussion of textual emendation from the tc-list archives (April 1996), send the message: g*et tc-list tc-list.9604 [without the *] to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu [NOT tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu!] 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 Jan 21 08:22:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14471; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:20:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199701211316.NAA60485@smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer (Green Edition Rel 2.0) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:14:48 EST From: Kent Smith Subject: Re: Adobe Greek Fonts Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 675 Addressed to: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu ** Reply to note from "L. Mark Bruffey" Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:38:33 -0500 Another OS/2er on the TC list??? A quick reply -- Warp 3 can use True Type, check help or a book on how. Warp 4 does so natively (w/o effort). OS/2 also does Unicode (which supports all character sets). I use the Greek and Hebrew fonts that came with Bible Works for Windows (which just show up in all my OS/2 font menus, I didn't have to register them). P.S. don't up grade Warp 4 until you check with me. Ksmit04@IBM.NET Kent Smith. West Side Presbyterian Church. Ridgewood, NJ From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 21 12:06:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17042; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:04:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199701211658.RAA33238@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 19:10:16 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Original Text and Limits of TC To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199701202256.QAA00724@homer.bethel.edu> 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: 4225 On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Mike Holmes wrote: >1) Literary criticism and textual criticism are inescapably inter-related. >To be sure, the MSS provide, in a very concrete way, data (or, to use >Waltz's term, FACTS), but facts do not exist in a vacuum, and their >interpretation certainly does not. That is, *all* interpretation takes >place within some kind of theoretical framework, and in the case of textual >criticism, that interpretative framework is "often" (I should probably >insert a stronger term) influenced or provided by aspects of literary >criticism. This is esp. the case when we begin to discuss what it is that >we have reconstructed by means of TC. E.g, suppose that there is a >concensus that all surviving copies of a document are descended from X. >What we then choose to call X--autograph? archetype? edited edition of >earlier documents?--is sharply affected by literary-critical kinds of >decisions and judgments. Generally I agree with this assessment. However, I do not think that we have too much lit critical kinds of decisions and judgments to opt for in reality. That is, when looking for possible candidates for X our "interpretative framework" has, first of all, to do justice to textual tradition otherwise it's not TC. By this I mean, we have to adjust our framework to the requirements of the realia, and not to literary critical guesswork either ignorant of or even (un)conciously violating realia. Of course, from a literary critical standpoint one can still maintain a late 2nd century date for the final redaction of GJohn, as, e.g., Walter Schmitthals who tries to downplay the evidence of P 52 by either questioning its date or assuming it representing an earlier draft of GJohn. Now to my mind one of the most powerful tools in science comes into play, Occam's razor: non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem. As far as I can see, the "necessitas" for TC is *not* to localize GJohn or some allegedly theologically or lit critically identified layers within the first two centuries. We have to identify and, if possible, localize the archetype of a textual transmission. [Now repeting what I recently stated:] When assessing the archetype of a textual transmission, we usually try to reverse the process of dissemination and corruption making our way back as far as possible. At a certain point we have to stop due to lack of further evidence. And precisely at that point we have to pause in order to outline, first of all, a theory of the archetype, again, not to be confused with the quest for the autograph. The whole matter, simple as it looks like in theory, is complicated by the fact that in Biblical studies we are dealing with collections of books subdivided into various subcollections. As far as I can see, within NT textual transmission we are lacking any substantial MS evidence prior to existing collections. Therefore, to my mind, the first thing we have to do is to work with one of the collections (e.g. the Corpus Paulinum) addressing the question: How far can we go back in identifying further subcollections that are either displayed by textual transmission or to be conjectured in order to make sense of it? The task of TC is to make sense of textual transmission. If it makes more sense to conjecture pre-GJohn, I am happy. But this should be handled as *ultima ratio* and not as starting point. We should not, somehow intimidated by or humbly devoted to any mainstream or *hot* literary theories, borrow our starting points elsewhere, but from the very heart of our discipline: the "necessitas" of textual transmission. As Mike Holmes pointed out: > (Yes, the interaction between lit criticism and TC is certainly a >two-way street. More than a few literary theories collapse in the face of >the historical realia of surviving MSS. To finally add some more fuel to the fire: I would like to develop a literary theory that fits the requirements of textual transmission, but I fear we are subconciously marred with all sorts of literary theories alien to it. Otherwise, I suspect, we would have been able to trouble our fellow literary critics much more than the other way round. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 21 12:53:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17573; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:53:22 -0500 From: de.anderson@ukonline.co.uk Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 17:48:32 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970121174545.1c8f63b0@pop-3.ukonline.co.uk> X-Sender: de.anderson@pop-3.ukonline.co.uk (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 Subject: Original Text Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 248 Greetings again from London. Just a note to thank you for your most interesting and informative comments regarding the definition of 'original text'. You've furnished me with some good ideas and further food for thought. Thanks! Deb Anderson From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 21 13:18:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17898; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:16:14 -0500 Message-ID: <32E4CFAF.3043@emory.edu> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:16:15 -0500 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu CC: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Original Text References: <72B05D5673@div.ed.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3491 Actually I counted to something higher than 10 before deciding to reply briefly to Hurtado's comments on deconstructionism. A sampling of his remarks is enough to reveal the tone of his post: > > I think we'd all better take a deep breath, count to 10, and be > *very* careful before we follow Derrida, et al. down that > "deconstructionist" road. There lies madness! > Radical > postmodernist views of texts/communication does to the process what > auto-eroticism is to real sex, reducing it to readers playing with > themselves instead of the much more exciting adventure of exploring > and getting to enjoy another! One of the literary critics who I assume Hurtado would include in his et. al. is Stanley Fish. Interested text critics might want to read his _Is There a Text in This Class_ and _Doing What Comes Naturally_ before accepting these remarks as reasons to dismiss deconstructionism as unworthy of their attention. Hurtado also says: > But none of > these data in any way logically or historically falsifies the fact > that each book was written before it was copied, or modified, or > edited. And the person(s) who wrote the text was/were the "author", > with real *authorial intentions*, however much the transmission and > reading process makes it difficult for such intentions to come to > realization clearly. I have not read any postmodernist critic that denies that books are indeed written by authors. It is the leap from this physical "fact" to a reading of the text that claims to have the same epistemological class as the fact of writing that causes concern. The "text" as artifact is different from the "text" as read. One is simply a question of the existence of some type of writing material with certain marks on it, a determination that can be made without regard to the ability to read the message. The other is a question of interpreting the marks that appear on the writing material and what epistemological claims can be made for those interpretations. (Yes, I would argue that there are no readings that are not interpretations within "interpretive communities." See the works cited above by Stanley Fish. The notion that some readings are self-evident or resisted simply by those who refuse to see the clear evidence seeks to avoid an examination of underlying epistemology of the claimant.) > Now, can we get on/back to textual criticism and other historical > questions that are not the anti-human/humane dead-ends that > deconstructionism represents? I do not think that textual criticism can claim to be a "historical question" unless text critics are simply concerned with "texts" as artifacts. (I am ignoring for this discussion the abandonment of the "history as given" model by historians.) Most of the text critics on this list are concerned with not only the "text" as artifact but also with its relationship to other texts and ultimately, an interpretation of the text. Postmodernist literary criticism does not mean that text critics must/should abandon their favorite techniques or methods. It does mean that textual critics should examine the epistemology that underlies claims to know the meaning of a text when it was written, considering that the text was written in a 2nd language of the critic, some 1900 years more or less ago, in completely different social and cultural settings and preserved only in incomplete copies. Patrick Patrick Durusau Information Technology Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 21 15:05:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA19444; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:04:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:59:36 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <32E4CFAF.3043@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: 1251 Let me just say that I find P. Durusau's comments, personally, convincing (on literary theory and post-modernist approaches to texts), and not at *all* off-topic with respect to textual criticism. As it turns out, I have found Stanley Fish's work in particular to be completely germane to the sorts of things we do in the field (which involves, among other things, determining not only what writers wrote but also what readers read), and used it explicitly, in fact, as the theoretical framework within which to situate my study _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_. The point I tried to make there is that every rereading of a text is a rewriting of the text, and what the scribes did when they literally rewrote the text is analogous, in significant ways, with what each of us does (whether we choose to acknowledge it or not) every time we read a text. (To my knowledge, every textual specialist who has reviewed the book has overlooked this theoretical placement of its analysis.) I've been tempted to write a short paper entitled "When Stanley Fish Met Constantine von Tischendorf" to play this out a bit, but haven't gotten around to it. At least I have a title... -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 21 15:56:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20243; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:56:15 -0500 Message-ID: <32E52EC5.7269@accesscomm.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:01:57 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Original Text and Limits of TC References: <199701211658.RAA33238@mail.uni-muenster.de> 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: 5033 Ulrich Schmid wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Mike Holmes wrote: > > >1) Literary criticism and textual criticism are inescapably inter-related. > >To be sure, the MSS provide, in a very concrete way, data (or, to use > >Waltz's term, FACTS), but facts do not exist in a vacuum, and their > >interpretation certainly does not. That is, *all* interpretation takes > >place within some kind of theoretical framework, and in the case of textual > >criticism, that interpretative framework is "often" (I should probably > >insert a stronger term) influenced or provided by aspects of literary > >criticism. This is esp. the case when we begin to discuss what it is that > >we have reconstructed by means of TC. E.g, suppose that there is a > >concensus that all surviving copies of a document are descended from X. > >What we then choose to call X--autograph? archetype? edited edition of > >earlier documents?--is sharply affected by literary-critical kinds of > >decisions and judgments. > > Generally I agree with this assessment. However, I do not think that we have too > much lit critical kinds of decisions and judgments to opt for in reality. That > is, when looking for possible candidates for X our "interpretative framework" > has, first of all, to do justice to textual tradition otherwise it's not TC. By > this I mean, we have to adjust our framework to the requirements of the realia, > and not to literary critical guesswork either ignorant of or even (un)conciously > violating realia. Of course, from a literary critical standpoint one can still > maintain a late 2nd century date for the final redaction of GJohn, as, e.g., > Walter Schmitthals who tries to downplay the evidence of P 52 by either > questioning its date or assuming it representing an earlier draft of GJohn. Now > to my mind one of the most powerful tools in science comes into play, Occam's > razor: non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem. As far as I can see, > the "necessitas" for TC is *not* to localize GJohn or some allegedly > theologically or lit critically identified layers within the first two > centuries. We have to identify and, if possible, localize the archetype of a > textual transmission. [Now repeting what I recently stated:] When assessing the > archetype of a textual transmission, we usually try to > reverse the process of dissemination and corruption making our way back as far > as possible. At a certain point we have to stop due to lack of further evidence. > And precisely at that point we have to pause in order to outline, first of all, > a theory of the archetype, again, not to be confused with the quest for the > autograph. The whole matter, simple as it looks like in theory, is complicated > by the fact that in Biblical studies we are dealing with collections of books > subdivided into various subcollections. As far as I can see, within NT textual > transmission we are lacking any substantial MS evidence prior to existing > collections. Therefore, to my mind, the first thing we have to do is to work > with one of the collections (e.g. the Corpus Paulinum) addressing the question: > How far can we go back in identifying further subcollections that are either > displayed by textual transmission or to be conjectured in order to make sense of > it? > The task of TC is to make sense of textual transmission. If it makes more sense > to conjecture pre-GJohn, I am happy. But this should be handled as *ultima > ratio* and not as starting point. This is exactly the type of information I had in mind when my original post started this thread, essentially what role TC plays in my interest in a "pre-archetypal proto-John." In the case of the GJohn, an underlying "hyper-archetype" working back from the realia is much more difficult (given the redactional history) than some of the Pauline Corpus which may have less distance between the autograph and the archetype. This thread has been very useful to me in defining the parameters of TC with the existing manuscripts vs the more conjectural aspects (hopefully well reasoned) of literary criticism in attempting to reconstruct the autograph. The search for the autograph is always enticing and TC offers a "starting point" at the best rescension. I realize, however, that earlier reconstruction goes beyond the evidence into the gray erea of reasoned conjecture. I'll continue to work on my "proto-John," however, because it's fun! I thank all of you for your input. I learned much from it. > To finally add some more fuel to the fire: I would like to develop a literary > theory that fits the requirements of textual transmission, but I fear we are > subconciously marred with all sorts of literary theories alien to it. Otherwise, > I suspect, we would have been able to trouble our fellow literary critics much > more than the other way round. > My impression is that such a "unified field" theory is going to be very difficult but I sure will be interested when you get it polished. Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 04:43:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA25559; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 04:42:43 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:37:34 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal References: <32E4CFAF.3043@emory.edu> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <11C40F26DB@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1167 Bart and I seem to have different appraisals of the value and even the import of radical "post-modernist" theory. Of course, every reader has no choice but to decide what a text means, and in that sense is terribly important in the reading/interpreting process. And, of course, when texts are copied by hand, this "reading" will also affect the copying/transmission. But the point Bart seems to be missing about radical postmodernist theory (e.g., Fish, Lyotard, et alia), is that in their view *you can't really criticize any reading as to whether it is more or less correct, for there is no standard theoretical or otherwise by which to talk about "correct"*. That is, Bart, your term "orthodox *corruption*" is out of bounds on postmodernist terms--there can be no "corruption" for there is no standard by which to make such judgments, or else *all* reading/copying is "corruption" so what's the big deal? Do you really want to embrace this approach to our field, Bart? Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 05:04:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA25657; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 05:03:16 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:58:06 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Original Text Priority: normal In-reply-to: <32E4CFAF.3043@emory.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <121B884294@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4512 Patrick Durusau responds to my post about postmodernist theory & TC in part: > One of the literary critics who I assume Hurtado would include in his > et. al. is Stanley Fish. Interested text critics might want to read his > _Is There a Text in This Class_ and _Doing What Comes Naturally_ before > accepting these remarks as reasons to dismiss deconstructionism as > unworthy of their attention. Yup. I agree. Fish gave lectures at the U of Manitoba during my tenure there, and so I think I have some idea of his views, and I stand by my statements. I have not "dismissed deconstructionism as unworthy", but have warned about embracing the approach uncritically. Deconstructionists and other "postmodernists" rightly point to the complicated process involved in reading, and rightly emphasize the role of readers and reading communities--no problem there. But the more radical theorists celebrate this difficulty and effectively deny any relevance or possibility of attempting to gain access to the author(s) of a text, thus effectively denying the huuman communiction process that lies at the basis of all humane sciences. If students of this strand of theory haven't picked this up, I beg to suggest further reading. > > Hurtado also says: D. continues: > I have not read any postmodernist critic that denies that books are > indeed written by authors. It is the leap from this physical "fact" to > a reading of the text that claims to have the same epistemological class > as the fact of writing that causes concern. And I know of no responsible interpreter who would make the same epistemological claim for his/her interpretation as he/she would for the existence of the text! Let's not erect straw men. My point was that authors and speakers use language (and written language signs) to *communicate meaning*, and any theoretical construct that denies or disdains this is both misguided and anti-human. I am by no means the only (or best read) person to make basically the same criticism about the solipsistic tendency of radical postmodernist theory. > I do not think that textual criticism can claim to be a "historical > question" unless text critics are simply concerned with "texts" as > artifacts. But reconstructing the text-as-artefact is *exactly* a key aim of textual criticism: i.e. the aim of reconstructing the text of the 4th century (ala Hort) or the 2nd cent, or the "autograph"--these are all this kind of text-as-artefact question. > (I am ignoring for this discussion the abandonment of the > "history as given" model by historians.) If D. here alludes to a 19th cent. von Rankian view of history, this is another straw man, which I am glad he chooses not to employ. >Most of the text critics on > this list are concerned with not only the "text" as artifact but also > with its relationship to other texts and ultimately, an interpretation > of the text. Postmodernist literary criticism does not mean that text > critics must/should abandon their favorite techniques or methods. It > does mean that textual critics should examine the epistemology that > underlies claims to know the meaning of a text when it was written, > considering that the text was written in a 2nd language of the critic, > some 1900 years more or less ago, in completely different social and > cultural settings and preserved only in incomplete copies. Yes, of course! We all need to be continually urged to humility in our claims to understand (a good Christian virtue!). And all the specific difficulties D. mentions are evident. But these in no way justify the *theoretical* construct that denies the *validity* of the attempt to wrestle with these difficulties and (with all due humility for each attempt) seek to overcome them to some degree in the effort to understand something or someone, and not simply offer "interpretations" whose only claim to value (a la Fish) can be that they are entertaining or innovative. There is a *serious* leap in logic here, if real difficulties involved in reading/understanding an ancient text (e.g., cultural and linguistic distance, uncertainty of the textual reading, etc.) are taken as a basis for disdain toward the approach to texts as vehicles of meanings that can come *to* us and not simply *from* us. Selah, Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 07:54:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA26781; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:54:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:49:41 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login2.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <11C40F26DB@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2420 It seems to me that what you're giving is a *caricature* of postmodernist approaches to texts. Where, Larry, did you get the idea that postmodernists have no theoretical grounds on which to evaluate different readings of a text??? (Not from Fish, I can assure you!) (You should reread him!) (Actually, everyone should reread him, in my opinion) One point at issue may simply be rather banal, viz., what you mean by a "correct" reading. I should also say that there are not many folk working in the biblical field who are intimately familiar with postmodernist discourse from the *inside* (as opposed to the dilletantes, who will always, I'm afraid to say, be with us) -- i.e. people who actually read this stuff on its own terms and for its own merit rather than simply seeing how they can come up with a different approach to interpreting Mark, or whatever. The ones in this small crowd who have talked to me about "Orthodox Corruption" have actually *liked* its approach to textual criticism (well ... they _said_ they did :-)). And they seem to be the ones who have appreciated the full ironies of the title. -- Bart On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > Bart and I seem to have different appraisals of the value and even > the import of radical "post-modernist" theory. Of course, every > reader has no choice but to decide what a text means, and in that > sense is terribly important in the reading/interpreting process. > And, of course, when texts are copied by hand, this "reading" will > also affect the copying/transmission. > But the point Bart seems to be missing about radical postmodernist > theory (e.g., Fish, Lyotard, et alia), is that in their view *you > can't really criticize any reading as to whether it is more or less > correct, for there is no standard theoretical or otherwise by which > to talk about "correct"*. That is, Bart, your term "orthodox > *corruption*" is out of bounds on postmodernist terms--there can be > no "corruption" for there is no standard by which to make such > judgments, or else *all* reading/copying is "corruption" so what's > the big deal? Do you really want to embrace this approach to our > field, Bart? > > Larry Hurtado > > L. W. Hurtado > University of Edinburgh, > New College > Mound Place > Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX > Phone: 0131-650-8920 > Fax: 0131-650-6579 > E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk > From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 09:42:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27885; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:41:06 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:35:59 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal References: <11C40F26DB@div.ed.ac.uk> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <16BDEC2A36@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3865 Bart Ehrman writes to me: > It seems to me that what you're giving is a *caricature* of > postmodernist approaches to texts. Where, Larry, did you get the idea > that postmodernists have no theoretical grounds on which to evaluate > different readings of a text??? (Not from Fish, I can assure you!) (You > should reread him!) (Actually, everyone should reread him, in my opinion) I got the idea from Fish and from others. E.g., when asked why he should get a handsome salary for interpreting English Lit., if there was no real possibility of talking about validity in interpretation, and when someone else might do the job cheaper, he responded by saying "Because I can make it entertaining". "Postmodernist" should probably always be put into quote marks because it represents a diversity of theoretists, and because all sorts of people claim to embrace the term who then use it to represent quite a wide assortment of views & approaches. I've referre here to what I term "radical" examples/versions, in which it is simply so that the theoretical aim of trying compare interpetations in light of what might be argued to be more or less probably a meaning intended by an author--any such aim is thrown out of court at the outset. "Historical" readings of texts on this sort of view are thus "useful" readings--i.e., readings that accord with a current interest or agenda--and this is asserted as the only valid criterion for assessing readings (examples can be supplied). > > One point at issue may simply be rather banal, viz., what you mean by > a "correct" reading. Bart--My point was that it is legitimate to try to determine what may be more or less "correct" readings, as distinguished from the view that there is no theoretical basis for even entertaining the question. I wish to assert that it is not a waste of time for us to argue over readings as to whether they are more or less "correct" and to argue over what "correct" means. > > I should also say that there are not many folk working in the biblical > field who are intimately familiar with postmodernist discourse from the > *inside* (as opposed to the dilletantes, who will always, I'm afraid to > say, be with us) -- i.e. people who actually read this stuff on its own > terms and for its own merit rather than simply seeing how they can come up > with a different approach to interpreting Mark, or whatever. Well, I for one freely admit to not being a specialist and expert in the burgeoning "postmodernist" literature. I do, however, base my statements and attempted characterizations on real statements from advocates of "postmodernist" approaches, and from expositions of such theorists by colleagues in various places who *do* make it part of their professional expertise to master this material. But then, on what basis would anyone say that my interpretation of postmodernist theories is a "caricature", unless it is theoretically possible to argue about such things as the relation of texts to the intended meanings/ideas/theories of the authors of these texts (e.g., Fish's writings!), and about something being "correct" or not? >The ones in > this small crowd who have talked to me about "Orthodox Corruption" have > actually *liked* its approach to textual criticism (well ... they _said_ > they did :-)). And they seem to be the ones who have appreciated the full > ironies of the title. Bart, Count me among those who appreciate the book (though not an uncritical appreciation, as I know you would appreciate), and among those who detect the irony (and slight mischief?) *intended* (!) in the title. I was being ironic myself! Cheers, Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 10:25:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28420; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:25:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:19:58 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <16BDEC2A36@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1260 On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > Bart--My point was that it is legitimate to try to determine what may > be more or less "correct" readings, as distinguished from the view > that there is no theoretical basis for even entertaining the > question. I wish to assert that it is not a waste of time for us to > argue over readings as to whether they are more or less "correct" and > to argue over what "correct" means. > Of course we can argue over readings. What else do you imagine postmodernist interpreters *do*? Fish, after all, is a *Milton* scholar, and his readings of Milton might strike you as remarkably traditional. But you still haven't answered my question concerning what you think a "correct" reading is. (I should point out, by the way, that a more or less correct reading, to use your phrase, is also more or less incorrect; and if all we can do is give readings that are more or less correct, then our readings always, inevitably, more or less incorrect. I.e., we inevitably corrupt the text. This is quite apart from the question of what you imagine this "correct" reading to be, which we appear to be able only more or less to approximate.) -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 10:47:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28674; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:46:22 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <16BDEC2A36@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:44:54 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2200 On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: >On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: >> >> Bart--My point was that it is legitimate to try to determine what may >> be more or less "correct" readings, as distinguished from the view >> that there is no theoretical basis for even entertaining the >> question. I wish to assert that it is not a waste of time for us to >> argue over readings as to whether they are more or less "correct" and >> to argue over what "correct" means. >> > Of course we can argue over readings. What else do you imagine >postmodernist interpreters *do*? Fish, after all, is a *Milton* scholar, >and his readings of Milton might strike you as remarkably traditional. But >you still haven't answered my question concerning what you think a >"correct" reading is. (I should point out, by the way, that a more or >less correct reading, to use your phrase, is also more or less incorrect; >and if all we can do is give readings that are more or less correct, then >our readings always, inevitably, more or less incorrect. I.e., we >inevitably corrupt the text. This is quite apart from the question of >what you imagine this "correct" reading to be, which we appear to be able >only more or less to approximate.) OK, I'll play the straight man (booby, whatever). Is not the "correct" reading "the original reading of whatever document you are trying to reconstruct"? This might not be the autograph, and it may be that we cannot find that reading. But surely that is what we are looking for! If not, what is the point of the exercise? If I've missed something here (I've never been too interested in modern forms of destructive literary criticism; indeed, I almost never read post-18th century literature, other than -- I will admit -- science fiction), I hope someone will explain. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 11:23:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29013; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 11:23:18 -0500 Message-ID: <32E63DC0.37A1@concentric.net> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:18:08 -0800 From: Kenneth Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism 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: 2006 I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree with Bart on his appraisal of what *some* writers are saying (if that's not an oxymoron from a post-modcernist, especially deconstructinist perspective -- by Derrida's own assertions, he can't say what he means and we can't understand it anyway). I've read Fish and company, along with Barthes, Kristeva and others. I wouldn't claim to be an expert (again, can a post-modernist persepctive allow for such a notion as being anexpert at what a post-modenist is saying??) but it's fairly clear to me that Derrida, Kristeva, and others (no claim that all say this) explicitly dismiss the author and have no interest in an author. All that is left is everyone reading what is right in their own eyes, with NO reading being privileged. Under those terms, textual criticism seems impossible to me. If we have no author, indeed, not even a subject-text (though Kristeva at least says there is a subject), how can it be asked "what would Paul likely have written here?" There's no longer an author. The text has been liberated from any such constraining notion as an author or an intent. So we can never do anything but count MSS. As Larry pointd out quite adeqautely, there are no more copyist errors. When one scribe (I forget which MS) in Luke 3 apparently went across the columns instead of down, making for a very interestng geneaology, that's not an error. It's another, equally valid reading. I see no way under this construct to even defend the idea of doing textual criticism. How can you possibly attempt to get to an autograph, if you can not ask about intent or context to help determine what is or is not a "good" reading? Just so you don't wonder, I just spent the last semester working through some of these authors and have spent the January break reading Thiselton's New Horizons in Hermeneutics. He seems to show, at a much more erudite level than I can, that my appraisals are not far from the mark. Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 12:00:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29550; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 11:58:53 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:53:53 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal References: <16BDEC2A36@div.ed.ac.uk> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <190A315B1A@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3149 Bart Ehrman writes to me: > Of course we can argue over readings. What else do you imagine > postmodernist interpreters *do*? Yes, postmodernists argue over readings, but not at all necessarily about whether any reading approximates anything like a first meaning such as might have been intended by the author or understood by first readers. For the postmodernists I dissent from reject any such interest, and indeed regard any such thing as chimerical. I though I had made this point fairly clearly. The issue is not whether postmodernist argue (they're human aren't they?), but whether they grant any basis for an argument such as historians normally carry on (Stanley Fish quote during his Manitoba visit: "All historians are brain-dead".) > But > you still haven't answered my question concerning what you think a > "correct" reading is. (I should point out, by the way, that a more or > less correct reading, to use your phrase, is also more or less incorrect; > and if all we can do is give readings that are more or less correct, then > our readings always, inevitably, more or less incorrect. I.e., we > inevitably corrupt the text. This is quite apart from the question of > what you imagine this "correct" reading to be, which we appear to be able > only more or less to approximate.) Oh indeed so! My careful way of stating the issue ("more or less 'correct'") was intended precisely to indicate the provisional and thus corrigible nature of any particular interpretative claim. We surely don't have to choose between saying that a reading is either *nothing but* the whims of the interpreter (with no possibility of seeking the meaning of another such as the author) or must claim to be perfectly that author or past event "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist". In some cases we may be able to say with very high assurance that this or that interpretation of data is so very improbable as to be almost certainly "incorrect". In other cases, we may only be able to say that this or that interpretation seems to be highly probable as to being "correct", or may be judged at least partially "correct". By "correct", I mean the attempt achieve some accuracy, completeness and faithfulness in understanding something (*under*-standing, with the interpreter *seving* the thing to be interpreted, not lording it over the thing, as in the will-to-power approach advocated in at least some postmodernist theory). But perhaps this thread of discussion is now too extended and too restricted to Bart and me for this particular list. I do not cherish the hope of securing Bart's assent to anything on the basis of these brief interchanges. I seek only to make somewhat clear (!; i.e., as clear as this medium and format, and my limited powers of expression enable) reasons to distinguish between copyists and authors for historical purposes--i.e., copyists copy and/or amend texts which have previously been composed. Cheers. Larry H. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 12:41:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29996; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:40:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:33:37 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970122123421.1997a330@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 1781 At 08:18 AM 1/22/97 -0800, you wrote: > There's no longer an author. The text has >been liberated from any such constraining notion as an author or an >intent. In fact the text has not been liberated at all by this method- it has been brought into the bondage of the reader who may understand absolutely nothing of what the author intended. And, by the by, to suggest that an author intends nothing is the purest folly. What fun Erasmus and Hutten would have had with deconstructionists! Would that their mighty spirits arise from the netherworld and put to right what has been so wrongly asserted. >So we can never do anything but count MSS. As Larry pointd out >quite adeqautely, there are no more copyist errors. It is impossible for anyone who has ever graded a students paper to actually believe this nonsense. >When one scribe (I >forget which MS) in Luke 3 apparently went across the columns instead of >down, making for a very interestng geneaology, that's not an error. >It's another, equally valid reading. I see no way under this construct >to even defend the idea of doing textual criticism. True enough. Thats why no one of a deconstructionist bent does text criticism. To your tents, O Israel! >How can you >possibly attempt to get to an autograph, if you can not ask about intent >or context to help determine what is or is not a "good" reading? Just >so you don't wonder, I just spent the last semester working through some >of these authors and have spent the January break reading Thiselton's >New Horizons in Hermeneutics. He seems to show, at a much more erudite >level than I can, that my appraisals are not far from the mark. > >Ken Litwak Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 13:40:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00869; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:40:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:36:07 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism 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: 229 On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > It seems to me that what you're giving is a *caricature* of > postmodernist approaches to texts. ********************* Isn't postmodernism the most cruel "caricature" of itself? From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 13:40:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00862; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:40:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:36:02 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970122123421.1997a330@mail.sunbelt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1136 Jim West wrote: >Ken Litwak wrote: > > [...etc...] > >So we can never do anything but count MSS. As Larry pointd out > >quite adeqautely, there are no more copyist errors. > It is impossible for anyone who has ever graded a students paper to actually > believe this nonsense. Jim, I will try not to be unkind, but exactly this appeal to "postmodernism" is a point Ken has returned to repeatedly. He's obviously free to do as he pleases in this regard. However, it's very difficult not to read his (repeated) postings on these topics as anything other than an effort to perform an "end run" around those results of Biblical scholarship which he apparently finds so unappealing. (For exmple, on a related topic, this is all certainly cut from the same cloth as his attacks on evolutionary science. I.e. once his "scientific" arguments were shown to be without merit he retreated to the stock "postmodern" refrain of "all knowledge is subjective, therefore we can't _really_ know anything, therefore...") In short, as Prof Ehrman pointed out earlier, caricatures of postmodern criticism exist on both sides of the fence. N From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 14:24:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01236; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:22:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:18:49 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism 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: 498 On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > > It seems to me that what you're giving is a *caricature* of > > postmodernist approaches to texts. > ********************* > Isn't postmodernism the most cruel "caricature" of itself? ;-) While I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment, a more generous (and perhaps more accurate) phrasing might be: "Isn't what is called postmodernism by some of its wielder the most crual "caricature" of itself?" N From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 14:45:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01531; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:44:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:39:53 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <190A315B1A@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3546 Larry, I *think* I know what you *mean*. :-) Bart P.S. (But I stand by my claim that you're still caricaturing the people you're taking on! Fish and co. have a *lot* to teach us unreconstructed modernists) On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > Bart Ehrman writes to me: > > > Of course we can argue over readings. What else do you imagine > > postmodernist interpreters *do*? > Yes, postmodernists argue over readings, but not at all necessarily > about whether any reading approximates anything like a first meaning > such as might have been intended by the author or understood by first > readers. For the postmodernists I dissent from reject any such > interest, and indeed regard any such thing as chimerical. I though I > had made this point fairly clearly. The issue is not whether > postmodernist argue (they're human aren't they?), but whether they > grant any basis for an argument such as historians normally carry on > (Stanley Fish quote during his Manitoba visit: "All historians are > brain-dead".) > > > But > > you still haven't answered my question concerning what you think a > > "correct" reading is. (I should point out, by the way, that a more or > > less correct reading, to use your phrase, is also more or less incorrect; > > and if all we can do is give readings that are more or less correct, then > > our readings always, inevitably, more or less incorrect. I.e., we > > inevitably corrupt the text. This is quite apart from the question of > > what you imagine this "correct" reading to be, which we appear to be able > > only more or less to approximate.) > > Oh indeed so! My careful way of stating the issue ("more or less > 'correct'") was intended precisely to indicate the provisional and > thus corrigible nature of any particular interpretative claim. We > surely don't have to choose between saying that a reading is either > *nothing but* the whims of the interpreter (with no possibility of > seeking the meaning of another such as the author) or must claim to > be perfectly that author or past event "wie es eigentlich gewesen > ist". > In some cases we may be able to say with very high assurance that > this or that interpretation of data is so very improbable as to be > almost certainly "incorrect". In other cases, we may only be able to > say that this or that interpretation seems to be highly probable as > to being "correct", or may be judged at least partially "correct". > By "correct", I mean the attempt achieve some accuracy, completeness > and faithfulness in understanding something (*under*-standing, with > the interpreter *seving* the thing to be interpreted, not lording it > over the thing, as in the will-to-power approach advocated in at > least some postmodernist theory). > But perhaps this thread of discussion is now too extended and too > restricted to Bart and me for this particular list. I do not cherish > the hope of securing Bart's assent to anything on the basis of these > brief interchanges. I seek only to make somewhat clear (!; i.e., as > clear as this medium and format, and my limited powers of expression > enable) reasons to distinguish between copyists and authors for > historical purposes--i.e., copyists copy and/or amend texts which > have previously been composed. > > Cheers. Larry H. > L. W. Hurtado > University of Edinburgh, > New College > Mound Place > Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX > Phone: 0131-650-8920 > Fax: 0131-650-6579 > E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk > From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 15:59:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02373; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:58:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:12:21 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc Subject: Post-modernism... 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: 685 Having made a negative comment about postmodernism, I'll now do an about face and happily criticize modernism, too. Modernism is characterized by two radical extremes, either DesCartes or Hume, both of which make fine theory, but as an ultimate underpinning for TC work leave much to be desired - one need only consider what conclusions either of the two above-named men would reach, were they employed as TC professors. Having shot in both directions, I'll cast my lot with that which I might call pre-modernism (which shares some charactereistics of both modernism and postmodernism). To this era belong both Erasmus and Luther, whose philological sensitivity remains exemplary. From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 22 21:20:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05348; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:20:03 -0500 Message-ID: <32E6C7EA.127@concentric.net> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:07:38 -0800 From: Kenneth Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism 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: 617 Perhaps N would like to show in what I have caricatured specific authors I mentioned. If N wuold like it, I will refer to specific pages in Derrida, etc. It's easy to attack someone for a "caricature" if you don't have to prove it. That's one of the theings that give "rhetoric" a bad name. What's worse, N has clearly not understood what I have written to him about scientific method, and evidently knows little about what recent philosphers of science have to say about how one itnerprets data, which as a matter of fact applies to TC as well. His attack is itself an unsupported caricature. "K" From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 04:47:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA07253; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 04:45:39 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:40:52 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal References: <190A315B1A@div.ed.ac.uk> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <29D34A5AD7@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1762 Bart Ehrman writes: > Larry, I *think* I know what you *mean*. > > :-) Bart > > P.S. (But I stand by my claim that you're still caricaturing the people > you're taking on! Fish and co. have a *lot* to teach us unreconstructed > modernists) Bart, I certainly *intend* no caricature, but state what I have formed as understandings of what thorough-going postmodernist theorists say, and have been assured in my understandings by specialists, such as my colleague Kevin VanHoozer, et alia. But it's still possible that my understanding is *incorrect*, or only partially (i.e., "more or less") correct. And, for what it's worth, pa-leese don't number me among "unreconsructed modernists"--never have been one, couldn't be one. Actually, both the latter and radical "postmodernists" seem to me to share a common anthropo-centric hubris, though manifesting itself in varying ways. I have deeply held epistemological and theological bases for rejecting both positions as untenable--though, to be sure, learning much from both (and other) positions. As is so often the case, in my view, rejecting a position doesn't mean it's worthless, just inadequate as a resting place or premise. Many of the positions I'd reject (in TC work, for example, radical eclecticism such as advocated by Kilpatrick & my friend Keith Elliott) I deem very instructive in their respective subject matters--I just find reasons to go on to some other position. As we seem to be winding down this set-to, my thanks for the patience of the TC list in this by-path into epistemology, etc. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 07:08:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA07652; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:07:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:03:09 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <29D34A5AD7@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2671 Well, maybe "unreconstructed modernist" sounds like a dirty epithet that you simply don't want to embrace. Because based on what does seem to be your assumptions about the hegemony of "correct" understandings of the "original" meanings of "texts," that somehow we can have access to (if we just work hard enough at it and apply the right methods), I'd judge that postmodernist discourse has created only a negative and reactive response, rather than a rethinking and reformulation of any of your basic epistemological positions. I.e., your approach to texts is clearly modernist, and it doesn't appear to be a modernism affected by anything resembling poststructuralist theory. If that's not an unreconstructed modernism, then I'll eat my Fish. :-) Bart On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > > Bart Ehrman writes: > > > Larry, I *think* I know what you *mean*. > > > > :-) Bart > > > > P.S. (But I stand by my claim that you're still caricaturing the people > > you're taking on! Fish and co. have a *lot* to teach us unreconstructed > > modernists) > > Bart, > I certainly *intend* no caricature, but state what I have formed as > understandings of what thorough-going postmodernist theorists say, > and have been assured in my understandings by specialists, such as my > colleague Kevin VanHoozer, et alia. But it's still possible that my > understanding is *incorrect*, or only partially (i.e., "more or > less") correct. > And, for what it's worth, pa-leese don't number me among > "unreconsructed modernists"--never have been one, couldn't be one. > Actually, both the latter and radical "postmodernists" seem to me to > share a common anthropo-centric hubris, though manifesting itself in > varying ways. I have deeply held epistemological and theological > bases for rejecting both positions as untenable--though, to be sure, > learning much from both (and other) positions. As is so often the > case, in my view, rejecting a position doesn't mean it's worthless, > just inadequate as a resting place or premise. Many of the positions > I'd reject (in TC work, for example, radical eclecticism such as > advocated by Kilpatrick & my friend Keith Elliott) I deem very > instructive in their respective subject matters--I just find reasons > to go on to some other position. > As we seem to be winding down this set-to, my thanks for the patience > of the TC list in this by-path into epistemology, etc. > Larry Hurtado > > L. W. Hurtado > University of Edinburgh, > New College > Mound Place > Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX > Phone: 0131-650-8920 > Fax: 0131-650-6579 > E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk > From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 08:28:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08038; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:28:21 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:23:34 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal References: <29D34A5AD7@div.ed.ac.uk> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <2D89302D07@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4814 Bart Ehrman writes to/of me: > Well, maybe "unreconstructed modernist" sounds like a dirty epithet > that you simply don't want to embrace. Because based on what does seem to > be your assumptions about the hegemony of "correct" understandings of the > "original" meanings of "texts," that somehow we can have access to (if we > just work hard enough at it and apply the right methods), I'd judge that > postmodernist discourse has created only a negative and reactive response, > rather than a rethinking and reformulation of any of your basic > epistemological positions. I.e., your approach to texts is clearly > modernist, and it doesn't appear to be a modernism affected by anything > resembling poststructuralist theory. If that's not an unreconstructed > modernism, then I'll eat my Fish. > > :-) Bart Well, I must grant that I didn't have to wait for Fish etc. to criticize enlightenment/"modernist" approaches to knowledge to see the problems involved--so in that sense at least I guess I haven't been all that re-shaped as to problematics of "modernism" by this particular theoretical wave. But I do sincerely grant that "poststructuralist/postmodernist" theoreticians have pointed to real difficulties in interpretation, real logical issues invovled for all of us, and that we can thus learn--even if we do not become disciples. I utterly reject the term "hegemony" to describe my approach. I do not advocate any group controlling anything; I do not advocate some particular view being considered binding by any force other than its power to gain assent through powers of reasoning-persuasion. This term "hegemony" has become an epithet of no meaning any more, rather like "fascist" was in my grad student days--meaning merely anyone I want to label as not falling into line with me & my drinking buddies. Can we lay off such useless kidney punches, Bart? I do advocate the reasonableness of the idea that scholars in a particular body of inquiry *can* attempt to evaluate the comparitive validity and adequacy of theories, interpretations etc., and can/should attempt to do so by attempting to develop and use bases other than mere social coercion. I do think that in TC and other subjects these bases include legitimately the idea of an author or artist or copyist or group (as the case may be) and that it is these others whom we can attempt to engage via what they say/have said, written, constructed, etc. And I hold that we can try to develop means of assessing interpretations as to how well they help us engage these others via the texts or other relevant items being interpreted. How can I help but react with some considerable negativity to some forms of postmodernist theory if I find the positions illogical in some vital ways, and the aims anti-human and inimical to the nourishment of humane learning? But not all aspects or examples of "postmodernist" advocacy seem to me so, and even misguided ideas can clarify our own thinking. I do not hold, and have not stated here, that we can gain access to some single "correct" and hegemonically-enforced interpretation "if we just work hard and apply the right methods". I have advocated the view that it is not unreasonable to use the notions of "correct" and "incorrect" as theoretical concepts, and that we should/can try to develop appropriate means of seeking to do *justice* to the subject matters we study (and those who produced the subject matter we study), while granting freely that any attempt must also be critically examined on the assumption that it is corrigible and, the effort difficult, the more where there is distance twixt us and the item being studied (such as linguistic, cultural, social, gender etc. distances). Indeed, I do *not* harbor the notion that by trying very hard we can arrive at a final statement of things "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist": When have I said otherwise? SO, Bart. If we are to continue this discussion, here or (lest we tax overmuch the patience of others) elsewhere, let us attempt to understand each other carefully, and resist distorting what each other is saying. You don't like my reaction to some forms of modern theory--fair enough. But try to understand what I'm saying, and listen when I tell you that your characterizations seem to me distorting rhetoric rather than accurate reflections. (And I hope we know each other well enough for you to know, Bart, that my direct manner of expression here in *no* way indicates any personal hostility. I say this here for the benefit of other readers on whom this missive is inflicted.) Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 10:55:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09480; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:54:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:49:51 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login3.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <2D89302D07@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7742 Larry, I suppose we're getting to the point where everyone else can start ignoring us, what with our kidneys getting punched and our knees getting jerked (and our noses getting tweaked). I want only to say that what I *meant* (! even a close reading evidently didn't reveal it, cause there it was in black and white!) (well, the text actually *does* come in different colors these days...) (my view, of course, is that it always has) is that the *readings* you posit (which are, I would maintain, "constructed" rather than "discovered" in the text; this I think we would agree, is at the heart of our disagreement) are hegemonic, not that you are. Once you introduce "correctness" into the equation, there's no backing out. Of course, given your complaint that I'm not listening to you -- which I heard, by the way -- this misconstrual strikes me as a shade ironic. But if you want to raise the point, I'm happy to pursue it: weren't *you* the one who started this strand by urging us to avoid deconstruction because that leads us down a deadly path? (Wish I had save the original message to quote the words, but it's off in the ionosphere). That strikes *me* as an attempt at control. Quite apart from all that, given your postings, I think there's no point at all in denying that you believe there are such things as "texts" that have "meanings" that are there to be discovered, that the ways to discover these "correct" readings involve applying proper methods of interpretation, intelligence, and effort, and that those who apply "improper" methods, or who are wanting in intelligence or effort, are not likely to discover the correct meanings. If that isn't modernism in its most naked form, then I'd like you to tell me what is. And if you didn't have to wait for Fish to learn about the problems of this modernist view, then I'd like you to tell me in clear terms what you think these problems *are*. Let me end for anyone else who hasn't had the good sense simply to delete these little tirades back and forth by saying that Larry and I are indeed friends and are probably having a good time (though it is starting to heat up in here). Moreover, this conversation is not at *ALL* unrelated to textual criticism. If this discipline is involved in reconstructing *texts* then it makes some sense to figure out what it is that we think we're *doing*. For example, the question of what a text *is* is not unproblematic. And the questino of whether scribes who reconstructed the text were doing something different from what we all do every time we read a text strikes me as particularly germane. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > Bart Ehrman writes to/of me: > > > Well, maybe "unreconstructed modernist" sounds like a dirty epithet > > that you simply don't want to embrace. Because based on what does seem to > > be your assumptions about the hegemony of "correct" understandings of the > > "original" meanings of "texts," that somehow we can have access to (if we > > just work hard enough at it and apply the right methods), I'd judge that > > postmodernist discourse has created only a negative and reactive response, > > rather than a rethinking and reformulation of any of your basic > > epistemological positions. I.e., your approach to texts is clearly > > modernist, and it doesn't appear to be a modernism affected by anything > > resembling poststructuralist theory. If that's not an unreconstructed > > modernism, then I'll eat my Fish. > > > > :-) Bart > > Well, I must grant that I didn't have to wait for Fish etc. to > criticize enlightenment/"modernist" approaches to knowledge to see > the problems involved--so in that sense at least I guess I haven't > been all that re-shaped as to problematics of "modernism" by this > particular theoretical wave. But I do sincerely grant that > "poststructuralist/postmodernist" theoreticians have pointed to real > difficulties in interpretation, real logical issues invovled for all > of us, and that we can thus learn--even if we do not become > disciples. > I utterly reject the term "hegemony" to describe my approach. I > do not advocate any group controlling anything; I do not advocate > some particular view being considered binding by any force other than > its power to gain assent through powers of reasoning-persuasion. > This term "hegemony" has become an epithet of no meaning any more, > rather like "fascist" was in my grad student days--meaning merely > anyone I want to label as not falling into line with me & my drinking > buddies. Can we lay off such useless kidney punches, Bart? > I do advocate the reasonableness of the idea that scholars in a > particular body of inquiry *can* attempt to evaluate the comparitive > validity and adequacy of theories, interpretations etc., and > can/should attempt to do so by attempting to develop and use bases > other than mere social coercion. I do think that in TC and other > subjects these bases include legitimately the idea of an author or > artist or copyist or group (as the case may be) and that it is these > others whom we can attempt to engage via what they say/have said, > written, constructed, etc. And I hold that we can try to develop > means of assessing interpretations as to how well they help us engage > these others via the texts or other relevant items being interpreted. > How can I help but react with some considerable negativity to some > forms of postmodernist theory if I find the positions illogical in > some vital ways, and the aims anti-human and inimical to the > nourishment of humane learning? But not all aspects or examples of > "postmodernist" advocacy seem to me so, and even misguided ideas can > clarify our own thinking. > I do not hold, and have not stated here, that we can gain access to > some single "correct" and hegemonically-enforced interpretation "if > we just work hard and apply the right methods". I have advocated the > view that it is not unreasonable to use the notions of "correct" and > "incorrect" as theoretical concepts, and that we should/can try to > develop appropriate means of seeking to do *justice* to the subject > matters we study (and those who produced the subject matter we > study), while granting freely that any attempt must also be > critically examined on the assumption that it is corrigible and, > the effort difficult, the more where there is distance twixt us and > the item being studied (such as linguistic, cultural, social, gender > etc. distances). Indeed, I do *not* harbor the notion that by trying > very hard we can arrive at a final statement of things "wie es > eigentlich gewesen ist": When have I said otherwise? > SO, Bart. If we are to continue this discussion, here or (lest we > tax overmuch the patience of others) elsewhere, let us attempt to > understand each other carefully, and resist distorting what each > other is saying. You don't like my reaction to some forms of modern > theory--fair enough. But try to understand what I'm saying, and > listen when I tell you that your characterizations seem to me > distorting rhetoric rather than accurate reflections. (And I hope we > know each other well enough for you to know, Bart, that my direct > manner of expression here in *no* way indicates any personal > hostility. I say this here for the benefit of other readers on whom > this missive is inflicted.) > Larry Hurtado > > > L. W. Hurtado > University of Edinburgh, > New College > Mound Place > Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX > Phone: 0131-650-8920 > Fax: 0131-650-6579 > E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk > From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 11:22:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09786; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:21:59 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:17:17 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: textual criticism Priority: normal References: <2D89302D07@div.ed.ac.uk> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <306EE4453B@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2033 As the change in subject heading indicates, I seek (with Bart, I think) to turn back to textual criticism (yup, there I am being directive ["control" freak that I allegedly am] again). If Bart wants to label as "modernist" anyone who thinks there are such things as texts with relations to authors as well as readers, and that not all readings are equally valid, then we can't stop him, can we (nor should we, except by force of reason). But I would have thought these sorts of ideas, for holding which I must plead guilty, were much too old to be thought "modernist". But I digress. The actions of scribes do seem to have overlapped those of readers, though not always and not one-to-one. When a scribe mis-spells a word but it's clear enough what the word is, and that the word is what likely lay in the exemplar, this is a bit different from a scribe making a deliberate alteration in the interests of "clarifying" a passage or removing embarrassing statements or such. In such cases, in fact, we may have a scribe quite clearly reading the meaning of his exemplar and not liking what he reads, and/or worrying what others might make of the reading. This is different still from a reader understanding a text so poorly that he/she seriously misconstrues it (e.g., as in allegations of "caricature" which we've all had experience of on this list in recent exchanges). Unless, I suppose, one were able to establish that a reader has *deliberately* mis-represented the meaning of a text, in which case we are able to (1) establish a "ocrrect" meaning, and (2) establish the intention of a reader. So, I'm not entirely convinced that literary-critical theories of reading/interpretation (even if accepted as valid and accurate for that activity) are fully adequate for the text-critical questions of how texts have been copied. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 11:44:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA10107; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:43:58 -0500 Message-ID: <32E79419.7BF0@concentric.net> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:38:49 -0800 From: Kenneth Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Use of versions in OT TC References: <2D89302D07@div.ed.ac.uk> <306EE4453B@div.ed.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 743 When I was first introduced to TC in the OT, I was told about the relative value of various versions, e.g., latin, Syriac, Armenian, etc. Now that I've read more widely, like Tov, McCarter and Klein, it seems to me that one's assessment of the value of an early version for determining the reading which is most likely "original", depends in large part upon how closely said version adheres to either the MT or the OG,and one's judgment about which of those two traditions is closer to the original. What I'd like to know is this: are there any features of the ancient versions, independent of their proximity in readings to the MT or OG, which indicate they are more or less reliable witnesses to the "original" text? Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 12:01:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10426; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:00:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199701231655.RAA97886@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 19:07:09 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1137 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: [snip] > Let me end for anyone else who hasn't had the good sense simply to >delete these little tirades back and forth by saying that Larry and I are >Yindeed friends and are probably having a good time (though it is starting >to heat up in here). Moreover, this conversation is not at *ALL* unrelated >to textual criticism. If this discipline is involved in reconstructing >*texts* then it makes some sense to figure out what it is that we think >we're *doing*. For example, the question of what a text *is* is not >unproblematic. Give it a try, Bart. What *is* a text? Suggestions without * * are particularly welcome. >And the questino of whether scribes who reconstructed the >text were doing something different from what we all do every time we read >a text strikes me as particularly germane. There is at least one difference at first sight. Reading a text includes some interest in the interplay of signs, while copying can be done by mechanically drawing horizontal and vertical lines in exactly the same way as they were found in a source copy. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 12:34:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10893; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:33:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:28:31 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <199701231655.RAA97886@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2124 > Give it a try, Bart. What *is* a text? Suggestions without * * are > particularly welcome. OK, I'll give it a try, but you're really tying my hands by ruling my asterisks out of court; and I want to have the rights to provisional claims, since I'm extremely rushed right now, don't have time for this, and should instead be trying to find my desk, which, by all reports, is somewhere in my office. But off the top of my head, I guess I think a "written" text (is this what you wanted?) is a concatenation of symbols on a page that is socially constructed to convey meaning. How am I doing? (I think, by the way, that any conceivable concatenation of symbols is in fact able to be construed as meaningful) (I'd love to hear alternative constructions, by the way) > > >And the questino of whether scribes who reconstructed the > >text were doing something different from what we all do every time we read > >a text strikes me as particularly germane. > > There is at least one difference at first sight. Reading a text includes > some interest in the interplay of signs, while copying can be done by > mechanically drawing horizontal and vertical lines in exactly the same > way as they were found in a source copy. > Now see, by forsaking asterisks you've limited yourself. I'd say that "copying *can* be done" this way. And it probably *is* (sorry) done that way by scribes who can't read the language they are transcribing (I suppose Codex Theta could be an example?), and possibly by scribes who "space out" in the course of their labors. But then again, a lot of us space out when we read, with the letters making some kind of presentation to our eyes but not to our heads, so I'm not sure the processes are all that different. I guess maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?) able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars, whereas readers, I would maintain, can never reproduce exactly the meanings either of the author or of any other readers. > Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 13:08:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11333; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:08:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:04:04 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Use of versions in OT TC In-Reply-To: <32E79419.7BF0@concentric.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 654 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Kenneth Litwak wrote: > are there any features of > the ancient versions, independent of their proximity in readings to the > MT or OG, which indicate they are more or less reliable witnesses to the > "original" text? ********************* One feature worth considering is whether an ancient version gives evidence of a "slavish" translation, e.g., retaining a Hebrew word-order which is not native to the target language, or literal renderings of idioms which don't make sense in the target language. A version with these features is likely to be more "faithful" to the "original" text (whatever "original text" might be!). From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 14:31:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12177; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:30:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:30:18 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Use of versions in OT TC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3523 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Kenneth Litwak wrote: >=20 > > are there any features of=20 > > the ancient versions, independent of their proximity in readings to the= =20 > > MT or OG, which indicate they are more or less reliable witnesses to th= e=20 > > "original" text? >=20 > ********************* >=20 > One feature worth considering is whether an ancient version gives evidenc= e > of a "slavish" translation, e.g., retaining a Hebrew word-order which is > not native to the target language, or literal renderings of idioms which > don't make sense in the target language. A version with these features is > likely to be more "faithful" to the "original" text (whatever "original > text" might be!). James Barr, in _The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations= _, identifies the following criteria for determining whether or not a given=20 translation unit is literal (20): (1)=CAdivision of the text into elements = or=20 segments, and the sequence in which they are represented;=20 (2)=CAquantitative addition or omission of elements; (3)=CAconsistency in= =20 rendering lexical data; (4)=CAaccuracy and level of semantic information,= =20 especially when dealing with figurative language; (5)=CAetymological=20 renderings; and (6)=CAlevel of text and level of analysis. The last three items are unquantifiable and so of less value in any kind=20 of concrete analysis of translations. The first category can be split=20 into two: segmentation (the rendering of one item in the source language=20 with one item in the target language) and word order. Tov, in his _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical=20 Research_ (54-60), offers a similar list: lexical consistency, segmentation= ,=20 word order, quantitative representation, and linguistic adequacy of the=20 renderings. He notes, however, that the last is subjective and difficult t= o=20 quantify. Building on these ideas (and some of my own), I would suggest the=20 following quantifiable criteria for measuring the relative literalness of= =20 certain aspects of a translation: (1) lexical consistency, (2)=20 consistency in the use of word classes (e.g., participles rendered by=20 participles), (3) grammatical consistency, (4) segmentation, (5) word=20 order, and (6) quantitative representation (i.e., additions and=20 omissions). Finally, I would also note that a translation can be quite=20 literal in certain aspects of its rendering (and thus more useful for=20 reconstructing the apparent Vorlage) and freer in other aspects. For=20 example, in Samuel (and I suspect elsewhere) Jerome is quite literal in=20 rendering the Hebrew word order but extremely free in his choice of=20 conjunctions with which to render Hebrew conjunctions. Rather than=20 saying that a particular version is useful for text-critical purposes=20 (i.e., it is a literal version), we should instead say that the=20 translation is literal with respect to word order and lexical=20 consistency, fairly literal with respect to segmentation and grammatical=20 consistency, and free with respect to quantitative representation. Of=20 course, it must also be remembered that a translation might not be=20 consistent throughout, so each book, for example, might need to be=20 checked individually. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 14:47:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12384; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:47:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:42:34 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: textual criticism list Subject: Re: The function of TC Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2332 Ken, Thanks for the serious engagement. Let me say that (1) I think you are misreading Fish rather seriously (or creatively constructing a misreading!) if you thknin that he allows for an infinite stream of equally valid deconstructionist readings of a text; I have to say that this way of putting it makes me suspect strongly that either you haven't actually read Fish or overlooked (or disputed?) the parts where he explicitly states otherwise. I don't have time to track down chapter and verse just now, especially since someone ran off with my copy!, but he deals with all this in several of the later essays in _Is There a Text in the Class_ and, I believe, in some of the _What Comes Naturally_ essays; Apart from that (2) I'm afraid that I don't understand what your question is when you ask what the *purpose* of studying texts would be. (I'm a bit confused becuase if someone asked me what the purposes of my playing raquetball, following the Tar Heels -- a misguided venture these days, I might add, and listening to Mozart were, I'm not sure I'd know what to say....). Maybe I would be helped if you would tell me what your own "purposes" for studying texts are, so I could respond. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Kenneth Litwak wrote: > > Dear Bart: > > Serious question: if we grant reades a fully creative role, as Fish > does (in my reading of him, at laest), and grant an infinite stream of > euqally valid, deconstructed readings, and don't posit a meaning in a > text (as Eco would), what wuold be the purpose of studying texts? From > my readings of certain post-modernist writers (and clearly one cannot > say what all PM thinkers beliee, because there is a lot of variation), > the whole notion of arguing for anything about a text in a book, > article, email or whatever, is clearly inappropriate. Texts don't have > meanings. Readers create texts and meanings. Therefore, there is > really no reason why anyone should be interested in anyone else's > equally valid reading of a "text". So why would you want to bother with > TC or biblical interpretation at all, since it's not possible to > interpret the biblical text as such if you're a deconstructionist? Or > am I missing something? > > > Ken Litwak > From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 15:11:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12712; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:10:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199701232006.VAA38986@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 22:17:53 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2610 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > But off the top of my head, I guess I think a "written" text (is this >what you wanted?) is a concatenation of symbols on a page that is socially >constructed to convey meaning. How am I doing? Oh, you are doing fine. If I understand you correctly, (a) meaning is socially constructed, too; (b) "to convey" does not rule out the fact that an individual creating a written text may have his/her own intended meaning he/she likes to communicate. No problems with that. >(I think, by the way, >that any conceivable concatenation of symbols is in fact able to be >construed as meaningful) Now, what does this passive voice construction imply when compared to your definition? Any restrictions with respect to either (a) or (b)? [Schmid] >> There is at least one difference at first sight. Reading a text includes >> some interest in the interplay of signs, while copying can be done by >> mechanically drawing horizontal and vertical lines in exactly the same >> way as they were found in a source copy. >> > Now see, by forsaking asterisks you've limited yourself. I'd say that >"copying *can* be done" this way. And it probably *is* (sorry) done that >way by scribes who can't read the language they are transcribing (I >suppose Codex Theta could be an example?), and possibly by scribes who >"space out" in the course of their labors. But then again, a lot of us >space out when we read, with the letters making some kind of presentation >to our eyes but not to our heads, so I'm not sure the processes are all >that different. Now, that's fine. You conceded my example to be theoretically possible, in fact, you even added some evidence (Codex Theta) that it may have happened practically. > I guess maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?) >able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars, whereas >readers, I would maintain, can never reproduce exactly the meanings either >of the author or of any other readers. I wish I could do the same with respect to your example. I have no problems conceding theoretically that "scribes _are_ able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars". However, I fail to add any evidence that this has happened practically. Now, if something seems theoretically plausible (exact copy) that has, as far as I know, not been practically achieved until the invention of printing, why should it be theoretically implausible to assume exact reproduction of meaning? To my mind, the crucial term in your example is "exactly". Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 15:14:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12779; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:14:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:09:25 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: The function of TC X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970123151007.2e9f372a@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 918 Bart, At 02:42 PM 1/23/97 -0500, you wrote: > >(I'm a bit confused becuase if someone asked me what the purposes of my >playing raquetball, following the Tar Heels -- a misguided venture these >days, I might add, The one consolation is that at least Duke is doing much better this year than last!!! For that we can all be grateful. > and listening to Mozart Because when one listen's to Mozart, one is hearing the Voice of God sans words. The purpose of TC is the same as (interestingly) following a great basketball team like Duke or listening to the wondrous music of little Wolfgang. One does such things for the pure pleasure of discovery and the enjoyment of the very important work of others. TC is, when done right, as exciting as a double overtime or a Mozart overture. >-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 04:56:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA17217; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 04:47:58 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:43:03 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal References: <199701231655.RAA97886@mail.uni-muenster.de> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <41DD261C1B@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1180 In replying to Ulrich Schmid, Bart Ehrman writes in part: > I guess maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?) > able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars, whereas > readers, I would maintain, can never reproduce exactly the meanings either > of the author or of any other readers. One tiny quibble (which I probably shouldn't allow myself in view of the cyber-space I've already taken up here, but, hey, it's Friday): Although I think it's an extremely rare happening, if at all, I'd want to leave open the theoretical possibility of a person understanding another rather well, perhaps even "exactly". Indeed, one sometimes here's excited cries from a speaker or writer to a hearer or conversation partner or even a reader such as "*Exactly*! You've caught my point clearly! Wonderful!". Whether, of course, this sort of cry actually reflects some truth depends upon the speaker or writer accurately enough understanding the hearer or reader! Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 05:45:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA17314; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 05:44:30 -0500 From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 10:16 +0200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <2712086547779575@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: RE: Re: The function of TC 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: 2127 > Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Thu, 23 Jan > 97 22:00:16 +0200 > Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP; > Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:16:20 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 PAA19148; > Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:09:51 -0500 (EST) > Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id PAA12779; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:14:11 -0500 > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:09:25 -0500 (EST) > Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net > From: Jim West > Subject: Re: The function of TC > X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970123151007.2e9f372a@mail.sunbelt.net> > MIME-version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) > 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 > > Bart, > At 02:42 PM 1/23/97 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >(I'm a bit confused becuase if someone asked me what the purposes of my > >playing raquetball, following the Tar Heels -- a misguided venture these > >days, I might add, > > The one consolation is that at least Duke is doing much better this year > than last!!! > For that we can all be grateful. > > > and listening to Mozart > > Because when one listen's to Mozart, one is hearing the Voice of God sans > words. > > The purpose of TC is the same as (interestingly) following a great > basketball team like Duke or listening to the wondrous music of little > Wolfgang. One does such things for the pure pleasure of discovery and the > enjoyment of the very important work of others. TC is, when done right, as > exciting as a double overtime or a Mozart overture. > > > >-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West > > jwest@sunbelt.net I am in total agreement!! TC is after all PARTLY an art!! Johann Cook > From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 06:09:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA17373; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 06:07:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 06:03:13 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: The function of TC In-Reply-To: <2712086547779575@maties.sun.ac.za> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1039 As much as many practitioners of TC might want to classify it as a scholarly, scientific, or academic pursuit, I would argue that it remains primarily a religious enterprise. (I duck as bricks are thrown.) To support this statement, I point to the lack of TC activity on non-religious texts. For example, the Diels-Kranz collection of pre-Socratic fragments presents us with many interesting textual questions; yet only a handful of researchers here and there are working on these projects. Compare this to the thousands who are working on NT textual concerns, and the thousands who analyze the MT of the Tanakh, and one can only conclude that they are religiously motivated, even though they might not be aware of this motivation. (Who's more interesting: Jesus or Thales.) This includes a large number whose religious motivation is to "un-do" or "un-ravel" a given religion: an anti-religious motivation is still a religious motivation. Again, the comparison to TC work on non-religious texts hightlights this point. Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 06:36:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA17458; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 06:35:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199701241131.MAA123762@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 13:43:07 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: The function of TC To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 979 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Andrew C. Smith wrote: >As much as many practitioners of TC might want to classify it as a >scholarly, scientific, or academic pursuit, I would argue that it remains >primarily a religious enterprise. (I duck as bricks are thrown.) >To support this statement, I point to the lack of TC activity on >non-religious texts. For example, the Diels-Kranz collection of >pre-Socratic fragments presents us with many interesting textual >questions; yet only a handful of researchers here and there are working on >these projects. Compare this to the thousands who are working on NT >textual concerns, and the thousands who analyze the MT of the Tanakh, and >one can only conclude that they are religiously motivated, even though >they might not be aware of this motivation. (Who's more interesting: Jesus >or Thales.) Andrew, I suspect you referred to the numbers off the top of your head. Could you, please, substantiate your claims. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 09:07:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18197; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:06:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:01:25 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <199701232006.VAA38986@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 4105 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > > > I guess maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?) > >able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars, whereas > >readers, I would maintain, can never reproduce exactly the meanings either > >of the author or of any other readers. > > I wish I could do the same with respect to your example. I have no > problems conceding theoretically that "scribes _are_ able to reproduce > exactly what they inherit in their exemplars". However, I fail to add > any evidence that this has happened practically. Now, if something seems > theoretically plausible (exact copy) that has, as far as I know, not > been practically achieved until the invention of printing, why should it > be theoretically implausible to assume exact reproduction of meaning? To > my mind, the crucial term in your example is "exactly". I'd say that your statement about scribes is categorically false. There were hundreds and hundreds of scribes who copied John 1:1, to pick an example, *exactly* as they found it in their exemplar. They may have messed up later on (and some other scribes messed up at 1:1), but they reproduced precisely the words of this verse. I would maintain, however, that none of them did, or could, exactly reproduce the meaning of the verse as it was "intended" by its author. We don't _have_ the author, we just have his text. Frankly, I can conceive of no way to reach an author's intentions except by guesswork (only a couple of my students have guessed my intentions for starting this strand; and even they were only approximately right. And they know me and how I think. Which of us is a personal friend of any of the authors of the New Testament?) EVen if we did know the author, I would maintain that we couldn't know exactly what he meant, down to the slightest nuances. The reason I think this has to do with the way language seems to work. On the simple level, we learn the meanings of words through usage -- i.e., through our experience of words, spoken and written. Every time we hear or read a word, it registers with us as appropriate (or not, sometimes) in the particular context in which it has been expereinced, and these contexts in which we hear words used (starting with when we are babies) then influence the way we use the words ourselves, as we imitate their use by others. Words mean what they do, of course, only within a context; when you change the context of a word, it can come to mean something completely different, sometimes opposite. All of these contextually based linguistic experiences provide us with a comfortable range of meaning for a word. Now the problem is that none of us has experienced the words we've heard in different contexts; necessarily, since meaning is context-generated (or at least, I should think everyone would agree, context-related), words sometimes mean radically different meanings to different people; but even common words mean *slightly* different things (extremely finely shaded nuances) to everyone, because everyone has had different experiences of them. When it comes to John 1:1, it can be shown with absolutely no difficulty that intelligent well-meaning readers, even with similar cultural, historical, and religious backgrounds, interpret the words differently. They hear the words differently, even though they are the same words. And even those who hear the words pretty similarly, can't possibly hear them identically. And frankly, without the author around to query for a few years about what he "meant" I should think we could all agree that we are probably never really going to agree. (I would argue that even if he *were* around to query, we still wouldn't agree; even more, that even then we couldn't really *know*, since the words he *spoke* to us would have, necessarily, the same problems as the words he *wrote*. THey would have to be construed, and each of us would understand them in slightly -- sometimes very slightly -- different ways.) -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 09:18:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18291; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:16:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:12:40 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The function of TC In-Reply-To: <199701241131.MAA123762@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 711 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > Andrew, I suspect you referred to the numbers off the top of your head. Could > you, please, substantiate your claims. ******************** Zugegeben! Yes, I was making a generalization, not attempting to give specific statistics. One could cite the circulation numbers of various periodicals and journals devoted to the respective topics - or the numbers of such journals themselves. Further, one could examine the number and size of university and seminary departments devoted to the respective disciplines. I'll stand by the generalization that more scholars are involved with TC regarding sacred texts than are involved with TC regarding non-sacred texts. From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 09:21:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18325; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:20:06 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2712086547779575@maties.sun.ac.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:10:56 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Art/Science (Was: Re: The function of TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1353 Someone (whose name defeated my e-mail program's attempts to find it) wrote: >> The purpose of TC is the same as (interestingly) following a great >> basketball team like Duke or listening to the wondrous music of little >> Wolfgang. One does such things for the pure pleasure of discovery and the >> enjoyment of the very important work of others. TC is, when done right, as >> exciting as a double overtime or a Mozart overture. >> >> >> >-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill >> > >> >> Jim >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Jim West >> >> jwest@sunbelt.net > >I am in total agreement!! TC is after all PARTLY an art!! Yes, but what makes TC fun is the fact that it's also part science. It's the science that's fun and easy -- art just makes things harder. In my humble opinion, of course. :-) It can hardly be argued, however, that the fact that TC is partly art that causes us to argue so much. If it were purely science, we wouldn't have these problems. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 09:21:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18324; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:20:05 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <2712086547779575@maties.sun.ac.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:19:20 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: The function of TC Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2687 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: >As much as many practitioners of TC might want to classify it as a >scholarly, scientific, or academic pursuit, I would argue that it remains >primarily a religious enterprise. (I duck as bricks are thrown.) > >To support this statement, I point to the lack of TC activity on >non-religious texts. For example, the Diels-Kranz collection of >pre-Socratic fragments presents us with many interesting textual >questions; yet only a handful of researchers here and there are working on >these projects. Compare this to the thousands who are working on NT >textual concerns, and the thousands who analyze the MT of the Tanakh, and >one can only conclude that they are religiously motivated, even though >they might not be aware of this motivation. (Who's more interesting: Jesus >or Thales.) This includes a large number whose religious motivation is to >"un-do" or "un-ravel" a given religion: an anti-religious motivation is >still a religious motivation. Again, the comparison to TC work on >non-religious texts hightlights this point. Are we talking about the same subject? Textual criticism applies to *all* ancient texts, though the form is different. E.g. Beowulf and Tacitus exist only in single manuscripts (there are actually two mss. of Tacitus, but they don't overlap). Obviously there TC consists only of looking for aberrant readings and attempting to emend them. But TC, as applied to the NT, also applies to works like the Iliad (which exists in hundreds of manuscripts). And I have, on my shelf, a critical text of Josephus. Consider, too, that one of the most-quoted thinkers in the history of TC was A.E. Housman, who worked on classical texts. For that matter, I might point out that I was not brought up Christian, and have at times practiced New Testament TC from the agnostic's standpoint. You don't have to be Christian to enjoy TC; it merely gives you more motivation (and, arguably, distorts your viewpoint on some issues. IMHO, TC should be approached without a religious bias). As for who is a better writer -- if you've ever read Suetonius, you'll realize that he's a lot better read than the Vulgate. It may just be gossip -- certainly I won't claim it's Higher Truth -- but at least it's not boring. Now you can all go after *me*. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 09:25:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18366; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:24:54 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199701232006.VAA38986@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:24:17 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1252 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: [ ... ] > EVen if we did know the author, I would maintain that we couldn't know >exactly what he meant, down to the slightest nuances. The reason I think >this has to do with the way language seems to work. I think that this proves Bart Ehrman's point: None of us can figure out what he's saying, or why. Therefore language has no meaning. :-) Q.E.D. Seriously, folks, while it's true that people interpret words differently, there is at least enough common ground that we generally manage to communicate. Is there *really* anyone out there who doesn't know what "Jesus wept" means? We may disagree about why, but surely we all agree that tears were coming out of his eyes. Or maybe not. I'm trained in math; maybe I have this strange tendency to believe that the world makes sense. It's not always good sense, but it's sense. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 10:47:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19012; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:47:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199701241542.QAA45342@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 17:54:32 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2589 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: [Ehrmann] >> > I guess maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?) >> >able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars, whereas >> >readers, I would maintain, can never reproduce exactly the meanings either >> >of the author or of any other readers. >[Schmid] >> I wish I could do the same with respect to your example. I have no >> problems conceding theoretically that "scribes _are_ able to reproduce >> exactly what they inherit in their exemplars". However, I fail to add >> any evidence that this has happened practically. Now, if something seems >> theoretically plausible (exact copy) that has, as far as I know, not >> been practically achieved until the invention of printing, why should it >> be theoretically implausible to assume exact reproduction of meaning? To >> my mind, the crucial term in your example is "exactly". [Ehrman] > I'd say that your statement about scribes is categorically false. >There were hundreds and hundreds of scribes who copied John 1:1, to pick >an example, *exactly* as they found it in their exemplar. If someone can give evidence that there once existed an "exemplar" that solely "inherited" John 1:1, I would agree. The point is that when talking about "scribes" and "what they inherit in their exemplars" we are dealing with physical evidence. As long as we focus on physical evidence, we have to say that there is no indisputable evidence that GJohn ever was "reconstructed" in bits and pieces by scribes. Or to put it the other way, scribes who had to copy John 1:1 usually copied John 1:2ff too. And, if they did, they for sure would have altered the text they had to copy sooner or later. This is due to human nature and, as far as I can see, the main reason for the existence of TC, and it does not affect the theoretical assumption of the one perfect scribe, who not only resisted to add further errors to the text, but also refused to correct the errors of his forerunner(s) ending up with "reproducing exactly what he/she inherited in his/her exemplar". Now, everyone, of course, is free to isolate any concatenation of symbols (e.g., John 1:1) out of a much larger concatenation of symbols (John 1:1-21:25) claiming both to be "texts" (plural). But this enterprise can not be paralleled with what real scribes did when they copied real texts. Therefore, I find John 1:1 as counter-example to real scibal activities not very compelling. Quite to the contrary, I suspect therein some categorical confusion. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 12:03:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19625; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:01:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:55:58 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login2.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism In-Reply-To: <199701241542.QAA45342@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2547 Well, of course it's simply not true that there were never "real" scribes who simply copied one verse here or there rather than an entire manuscript. Any church father quoting a solitary verse or two did precisely this -- and sometimes, as we have reason to believe, they actually consulted an exemplar before doing so; moreover, there were amulets, etc. with very small portions of scripture on them, copied just for the purpose. So I'm not sure that I see your point. Of course it's not absolutely impossible for a scribe to reproduce a text accurately; it's just extremely difficult for long texts. BTW, are you saying that John 1:1 by itself is not a "real" text? If so, then I'd like to know what you yourself understand a text to be. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > [Ehrman] > > I'd say that your statement about scribes is categorically false. > >There were hundreds and hundreds of scribes who copied John 1:1, to pick > >an example, *exactly* as they found it in their exemplar. > > If someone can give evidence that there once existed an "exemplar" that solely > "inherited" John 1:1, I would agree. The point is that when talking about > "scribes" and "what they inherit in their exemplars" we are dealing with > physical evidence. As long as we focus on physical evidence, we have to say that > there is no indisputable evidence that GJohn ever was "reconstructed" in bits > and pieces by scribes. Or to put it the other way, scribes who had to copy John > 1:1 usually copied John 1:2ff too. And, if they did, they for sure would have > altered the text they had to copy sooner or later. This is due to human nature > and, as far as I can see, the main reason for the existence of TC, and it does > not affect the theoretical assumption of the one perfect scribe, who not only > resisted to add further errors to the text, but also refused to correct the > errors of his forerunner(s) ending up with "reproducing exactly what he/she > inherited in his/her exemplar". > > Now, everyone, of course, is free to isolate any concatenation > of symbols (e.g., John 1:1) out of a much larger concatenation of > symbols (John 1:1-21:25) claiming both to be "texts" (plural). But this > enterprise can not be paralleled with what real scribes did when they > copied real texts. Therefore, I find John 1:1 as counter-example to real > scibal activities not very compelling. Quite to the contrary, I suspect > therein some categorical confusion. > > Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 12:33:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19916; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:30:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199701241726.SAA36826@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 19:38:03 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: The function of TC To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3027 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Andrew Smith wrote: [Schmid] >> Andrew, I suspect you referred to the numbers off the top of your head. Could >> you, please, substantiate your claims. >******************** >Zugegeben! Yes, I was making a generalization, not attempting to give >specific statistics. One could cite the circulation numbers of various >periodicals and journals devoted to the respective topics - or the numbers >of such journals themselves. Further, one could examine the number and >size of university and seminary departments devoted to the respective >disciplines. I'll stand by the generalization that more scholars are >involved with TC regarding sacred texts than are involved with TC >regarding non-sacred texts. I would be really interested in some hard evidence, i.e. statistics. I will add some evidence from Germany. As far as I know, in Germany we have three departments dealing with "sacred texts'" TC, the Muenster Institute, the Vetus Latina Institute (Beuron), and the Goettinger Septuaginte Institute. The only periodicals I know are the "Arbeitsberichte" or "Rechenschaftsberichte" of these institutions, mostly devoted to (promote) their own publications. Now turning to "non-sacred texts'" TC to which I am no real expert: There is at least one majour journal (also partly covering, but not especially devoted to sacred texts), _Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigraphik_. Here in Muenster Prof. Baltes and his collaborators edit the fragments of Platonists. In Munich they recently established a interdisciplinarily working "Forschungskolleg Textkritik" with no sacred texts involved. In Hamburg they established a "Forschungskolleg: Griechische und Byzantinische Textueberlieferung - Wissenschaftsgeschichte - Humanismus und Neulatein". The mentioned "Forschungskollegien" are designed to produce an output of 16 dissertations each and are related to existing projects. The Germanists constantly produce editions of previously unpublished texts and new editions of already published texts, among them the very ambitious and eagerly expected new Hoelderlin edition. A lot of people are engaged in editing music of the past. E.g., a Japanese working in Germany for around 20 years on Bach's sometimes competing autographs (yes, in music we sometimes face a not clear cut single archetype situation) finally able to figure out what Bach himself wrote and what was the hand of his second wife. I personally happen to know a guy who worked on some 300 previously unpublished symphonies of the 18th century (to be honest, most of them had been originally composed in France, Italy, and Austria). It should be emphasized that I just randomly collected these examples off the top of my head. I am sure that I missed a lot of exciting and important work done in the field of "non-sacred texts'" TC. Maybe it's totally different in the US. But what does this mean? That US scholars are more religious? That quantity counts? (Sorry, I couldn't resist) Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 13:28:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20431; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:26:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:22:18 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The function of TC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2313 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Are we talking about the same subject? Textual criticism applies to > *all* ancient texts, though the form is different. E.g. Beowulf > and Tacitus exist only in single manuscripts (there are actually two mss. > of Tacitus, but they don't overlap). Obviously there TC consists only > of looking for aberrant readings and attempting to emend them. I agree: TC is for all texts - and that's my point - why is such a large proportion of TC devoted to religious texts? > But TC, as applied to the NT, also applies to works like the Iliad > (which exists in hundreds of manuscripts). And I have, on my > shelf, a critical text of Josephus. If one compares the volume of work being done on the Iliad vs. the amount of TC being done on the NT - say, by strolling through a university library, or by comparing the number of scholars employed in the respective endevours - the asymetry becomes apparent. > Consider, too, that one of the most-quoted thinkers in the history > of TC was A.E. Housman, who worked on classical texts. Happily granted > For that matter, I might point out that I was not brought up > Christian, and have at times practiced New Testament TC from > the agnostic's standpoint. You don't have to be Christian to > enjoy TC; it merely gives you more motivation (and, arguably, > distorts your viewpoint on some issues. IMHO, TC should be > approached without a religious bias). Is there a difference between a "religious bias" and a "religious motivation"? By choosing a text as an object of study, one makes the judgement that this text is worth studying. Many TC scholars offer a distinctly anti-Christian perspective on the NT - but that's still a religious perspective. I agree, TC should be done without "bias." > As for who is a better writer -- if you've ever read > Suetonius, you'll realize that he's a lot better read > than the Vulgate. It may just be gossip -- certainly > I won't claim it's Higher Truth -- but at least it's > not boring. Perhaps I didn't express myself well. I was attempting to say that most TC scholars are interested in religion (although they don't realize this fact), because they choose to work on sacred texts (note: not limited to Christianity) and ignore other equally interesting non-religious texts. From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 13:43:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20587; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:42:54 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:47:30 GMT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2165 Jim West wrote: > What fun Erasmus and Hutten would have hadwith deconstructionists! Would that their mighty spirits arise from the netherworld and put to right what has been so wrongly asserted. Actually, I rather suspect that Erasmus might be the sort of chap to enjoy playing with texts post-modernistically. He wasn't altogether conformist in his day, and anybody who created his own 'original Greek' (in Rev 22) would surely appreciate the ironies. More seriously, I have reached the conclusion that the value for text. crit. of the concept of an 'original text' produced by an 'author' is dependent on several issues: 1. The type of text. You can't establish a definitive text of a folk song. 2. The intention of the possible author. If Matthew changed Mark, is it not reasonable to assume that he accepted the possibility/probability that someone else would change his version, and so considered his production to be susceptible to change, and thus ephemeral? Relation of oral to written tradition fits in here. On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume that one could try to establish what Paul posted to Rome, _except_ for the problem of circular letters, multiple destinations, and questions of the role of the scribe. 3. The character of the transmission. A freely transmitted text may need to be treated differently from a more fixed one (and of course a text may be transmitted in different ways at different times). With the exceptionally free early text of the Gospels, combined with the issue mentioned in (2), it seems to me that there are good historical grounds for questioning the concept of an original authoritative text. Post-modernism makes it easier to raise these questions, and whether you like it or not, textual criticism will 'never be the same again'. Minimally, it shows that the real text critic is far more interested in the history of the text than in finding an original text. I've been enjoying the exchange between Larry and Bart - thanks to both of you. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 15:14:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21530; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:12:51 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701241726.SAA36826@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:48:00 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5212 If it is true that there are more people practicing Biblical than classical textual criticism (and I honestly don't know), I think it's easy to see the reason: Demand. There is a large demand for a "Better Bible." For the most part that expresses itself in a call for new translations, but it also fuels a demand for texts. By contrast, there is little demand for texts of, say, the Iliad. Yes, there are thousands of copies sold each year, but they pay little attention to textual issues. Of the three modern translations of the Iliad in my library, one doesn't even say which edition it's translated from and the other two are both from the Oxford text. Neither shows real interest in textual criticism (one lists the places where it differs from the Oxford text; there are eight of them. That is all it says about textual issues). It could also be argued that NT TC is *easier* than classical TC. Despite all we hear on this list about literary criticism and the like, NT scholars for the most part just adopt readings found in their favorite manuscripts. Only when those manuscripts divide do they have to really *think*. Now I have no objection to not having to think; my method of textual criticism is perhaps the most mechanical on the list. But even I will concede that you can't practice mechanical textual criticism on Beowulf, or Tacitus, or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, or The Seven Against Thebes, all of which are extant only in single copies. (And in the case of Beowulf, even the single copy is now almost unreadable....) In this instances one has to sit down, study the text, look for problems, and then find useful solutions. It's not easy.... Ulrich Schmid brings up another interesting point when he mentions symphonies. I don't think classical music is the best example of this, but folk music is. There are a lot of songs which were originally published as what we know in the ballad trade as "broadside ballads." (The name has to do with the appearance of the publication.) Often the originals of these have been lost, and they exist only in later broadsides or in songs sung in oral tradition. Ballad scholars often try to reconstruct these texts -- and, since there are millions of people around the world who listen to traditional folk music, and thousands of people who sing it, that means that there are thousands of people trying to find the original texts of those broadsides. Their numbers, arguably, exceed those of practicing textual critics. For that matter, some of us (me, to be specific :-) practice both. (BTW -- I see that DC Parker has also mentioned folk songs. As you can probably tell, I disagree with him slightly on this point. For most songs you cannot establish a definitive traditional text, but for some -- e.g. those where we know there was an official original publication, even if we don't have the broadsheet -- you can do so.) Andrew Smith wrote specifically: >Is there a difference between a "religious bias" and a "religious >motivation"? By choosing a text as an object of study, one makes the >judgement that this text is worth studying. Many TC scholars offer a >distinctly anti-Christian perspective on the NT - but that's still a >religious perspective. I agree, TC should be done without "bias." Given the immense theological importance of some NT variants, I think that there *is* a difference. When one deals with a literature one considers "inspired," one always tries to make it as "true" as possible, even if the evidence is against you. Case in point: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (concerning women being silent in church). These verses are embarrassing to moderns, since they are so obviously sexist. We'd like to be rid of them. And, indeed, we see Gordon D. Fee (I think it was) arguing to omit them, simply because they are found after verse 40 in D F G it. If it weren't for the fact that we dislike the verses so much, no one would argue for their removal. I'm sure other examples could be found. Smith again: >Perhaps I didn't express myself well. I was attempting to say that most TC >scholars are interested in religion (although they don't realize this >fact), because they choose to work on sacred texts (note: not limited to >Christianity) and ignore other equally interesting non-religious texts. OK, I'll buy that -- but I, at least, practice textual criticism in any arena where it's interesting. That includes NTTC, folk music TC, and anything else where I can get my hands on the resources (e.g. I *do* have a text-critical edition of "Beowulf," and also one of "The Dream of the Rood"). I do this for no other reason than the joy of it; I have no expectation of getting anything published in the area of NTTC, and my work in folk music, while it's published on the Internet (and not by me!), will likely never see its way to print. Blatant self-promotional mode off. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 17:34:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22936; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:32:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:52:01 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970124155242.192f2176@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 1235 Bob, At 01:48 PM 1/24/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Case in point: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (concerning women being silent in >church). These verses are embarrassing to moderns, since they are >so obviously sexist. We'd like to be rid of them. > Just as an aside- women are urged to be silent (only at Corinth, where trouble was aplenty) because they were disrupting the service by asking questions of their husbands (who sat across the aisle from them and thus not exactly within whispering proximity)- Thus Paul urges them to ask questions at home and not disrupt the speaker. This is, then, not an injunction for women not to speak in church; rather it is an injunction to act in an orderly fashion. Therefore efforts to expunge the text are undertaken simply because the "Sitz im Leben" has been forgotten by some interpreters. >And, indeed, we see Gordon D. Fee (I think it was) arguing to >omit them, simply because they are found after verse 40 in D F G it. >If it weren't for the fact that we dislike the verses so much, >no one would argue for their removal. > I have no trouble with it. Those who dislike it simply do not perceive the purpose for which it was written. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 18:47:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA23411; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 18:45:54 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970124155242.192f2176@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:45:10 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2209 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote, quoting me: >>Case in point: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (concerning women being silent in >>church). These verses are embarrassing to moderns, since they are >>so obviously sexist. We'd like to be rid of them. >> > >Just as an aside- women are urged to be silent (only at Corinth, where >trouble was aplenty) because they were disrupting the service by asking >questions of their husbands (who sat across the aisle from them and thus not >exactly within whispering proximity)- Thus Paul urges them to ask questions >at home and not disrupt the speaker. This is, then, not an injunction for >women not to speak in church; rather it is an injunction to act in an >orderly fashion. Therefore efforts to expunge the text are undertaken >simply because the "Sitz im Leben" has been forgotten by some interpreters. > >>And, indeed, we see Gordon D. Fee (I think it was) arguing to >>omit them, simply because they are found after verse 40 in D F G it. >>If it weren't for the fact that we dislike the verses so much, >>no one would argue for their removal. >> >I have no trouble with it. Those who dislike it simply do not perceive the >purpose for which it was written. The fact that you can explain this away isn't relevant to my point. The relevant datum is that Fee tried to set the verses aside. His reasons were textually inadequate; he wanted to eliminate a sexist reading. Which is, I'm sure, good theology, but it isn't good TC. You may try to explain this passage away (I've tried to explain away the passage, too -- though my explanation differs slightly from yours). It doesn't affect my point -- which is that people's theological and personal biases will affect the texts they produce. Which may be an argument for community editing of texts, since no two people will have *quite* the same prejudices. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 19:33:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23741; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:32:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:28:17 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970124192848.280f9918@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 1724 Bob, At 05:45 PM 1/24/97 -0700, you wrote: >The fact that you can explain this away isn't relevant to my point. True, you were not discussing the meaning of the text, which is why I began with "just as an aside". Further, exegesis is not a simple "explaining away" as you suggest; rather, it is an effort to allow the text to speak for itself in its own time, its own situation in life. >The relevant datum is that Fee tried to set the verses aside. His >reasons were textually inadequate; he wanted to eliminate a sexist >reading. Which is, I'm sure, good theology, but it isn't good TC. > It is neither good theology nor good tc. >You may try to explain this passage away (I've tried to explain away >the passage, too -- though my explanation differs slightly from yours) And what exactly is the basis of your presumption that I have either tried to dismiss the passage or that my explanation is inadequate? >It doesn't affect my point -- which is that people's theological >and personal biases will affect the texts they produce. > And the fact is that a person without theological commitment is likewise deterred from a clear understanding of the purpose of the text and its preservation. The suggestion that people of faith are somehow crippled by it as far as scholarly investigation is concerned is as ridiculous as saying that a person with no faith commitment cannot rightly understand the text or its transmission. >Which may be an argument for community editing of texts, since no two >people will have *quite* the same prejudices. > I recommend for your perusal Rudolf Bultmann's essay, "Is Presuppositionless Exegesis Possible?" Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 25 08:18:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26743; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:17:57 -0500 Message-ID: <32EA1B76.6C7F@cobweb.com.au> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 23:40:54 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) References: <1.5.4.16.19970124155242.192f2176@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: 1519 Jim West wrote: > > Bob, > At 01:48 PM 1/24/97 -0700, you wrote: > > > >Case in point: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (concerning women being silent in > >church). These verses are embarrassing to moderns, since they are > >so obviously sexist. We'd like to be rid of them. > > > > Just as an aside- women are urged to be silent (only at Corinth, where > trouble was aplenty) because they were disrupting the service by asking > questions of their husbands > Actually a similar command was given to Timothy who was in Ephesus (1 Tim 2:11-12). -- cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cobweb.com.au | | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5948/hermeneutics.htm | | 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 Sat Jan 25 08:37:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26860; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:37:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:32:33 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970125083023.0a473e06@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 761 Andrew, At 11:40 PM 1/25/97 +0900, you wrote: > >Actually a similar command was given to Timothy who was in Ephesus (1 >Tim 2:11-12). > This example, unlike the Corinthian case, does belong to an anti-woman mentality. The author of the Pastorals (not Paul!) had a gnostic bent which spewed forth in his recommendation that women not be allowed to have any authority over men. Thus it is in no case "similar". Which brings up an interesting point regarding Fee- why did he not attempt to eliminate this verse on shaky text critical grounds as he did the passage in Corinthians? >-- >cheers, >Andrew Jim Old Bultmannian and friend of D.F. Strauss (not alive then, of course!) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 25 09:39:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27100; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:38:50 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970125083023.0a473e06@mail.sunbelt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:38:11 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1551 On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote: [ ... ] >>Actually a similar command was given to Timothy who was in Ephesus (1 >>Tim 2:11-12). [ ... ] >Which brings up an interesting point regarding Fee- why did he not attempt >to eliminate this verse on shaky text critical grounds as he did the passage >in Corinthians? Well... shaky text critical grounds are not the same as *no* text-critical grounds. At least the verse in Corinthians was transposed by a whole text-type (the "Western"). As Aland has noted, such large changes often indicate a confused text. Not confused enough to justify eliminating the verses, of course.... :-) But let's assume that there were some such evidence for eliminating the passage in 1 Timothy. This might be another case where personal bias comes in. An editor might think (I know *I* might -- one reason why I try to have a fixed method) "This isn't by Paul; it's a fake. And an editor might say anything; why should I consider *him* inspired." Sigh. BTW -- Fee's attempt to set these verses aside occurs in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. I don't have the commentary myself, but the footnotes in Ehrman & Holmes locate the remarks on pp. 699-708. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 25 13:10:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27913; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:09:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199701251805.TAA107264@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 25 Jan 97 20:17:21 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu 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: 2536 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > Well, of course it's simply not true that there were never "real" >scribes who simply copied one verse here or there rather than an entire >manuscript. Any church father quoting a solitary verse or two did >precisely this -- and sometimes, as we have reason to believe, they >actually consulted an exemplar before doing so; moreover, there were >amulets, etc. with very small portions of scripture on them, copied just >for the purpose. So I'm not sure that I see your point. Well, the point is that I'm still thinking about one of your initial statements in the light of my own experience with MSS and scribal activities: "I guess maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?) able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars..." (Bart Ehrman). Therefore, I'm particularly happy to subscribe to the following: >Of course it's not absolutely impossible for a scribe to reproduce a text >accurately; it's just extremely difficult for long texts. In fact, I never "met" a scribe who, after testing his product over a span of lets say three or four pages, did not produce some results presumably not to the credit of the exemplar he reproduced (orthographicals, itacisms, slips, etc.). For what ever reason (regional dialects, lack of vigorous orthographical standards, etc.), apart from majour textual variant readings, no scribe seemed to have "reproduced exactly what he inherited in his exemplar". These are the facts as I'm familiar with them, still waiting for counter-examples from real scribes producing real MSS copies. Now, why the emphasis on REAL scribes and copies? I still maintain the difference between copying texts and writing new texts. Copying texts includes at least the intention of reproducing given textual units without conciously altering their shape so that the copy can virtually replace the exemplar that it was copied from. Therfore, "scribes who simply copied one verse here or there rather than an entire manuscript" are writing new texts, IMHO. The same goes for "any church father quoting a solitary verse or two", "amulets, etc." > BTW, are you saying that John 1:1 by itself is not a "real" text? If >so, then I'd like to know what you yourself understand a text to be. Well, John 1:1 is at least part of a "real" text. I was just wondering if it belongs to the same categories of "real" texts, i.e. subjected to the same aspects of copying as outlined above. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 26 00:33:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA01112; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:30:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199701260526.VAA11957@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:27:56 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199701251805.TAA107264@mail.uni-muenster.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 841 On 25 Jan 97 at 20:17, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > In fact, I never "met" a scribe who, after testing his product over > a span of lets say three or four pages, did not produce some results > presumably not to the credit of the exemplar he reproduced > (orthographicals, itacisms, slips, etc.). For what ever reason > (regional dialects, lack of vigorous orthographical standards, > etc.), apart from majour textual variant readings, no scribe seemed > to have "reproduced exactly what he inherited in his exemplar". > These are the facts as I'm familiar with them, still waiting for > counter-examples from real scribes producing real MSS copies. I think a counter-example might be provided by the traditional scribes who for the past thousand years and more have produced Torah scrolls for use in synagogues. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 26 04:20:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA01841; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 04:19:36 -0500 Message-ID: <32EB352F.3729@cobweb.com.au> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:42:55 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC) References: <1.5.4.16.19970125083023.0a473e06@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: 3900 Jim West wrote: > > Andrew, > At 11:40 PM 1/25/97 +0900, you wrote: > > > > >Actually a similar command was given to Timothy who was in Ephesus (1 > >Tim 2:11-12). > > > > This example, unlike the Corinthian case, does belong to an anti-woman > mentality. The author of the Pastorals (not Paul!) had a gnostic bent which > spewed forth in his recommendation that women not be allowed to have any > authority over men. > Thus it is in no case "similar". > Sigh. Another example of historical criticism making absolutely rediculous claims with no real historical evidence to support them - forcing a passage to fit a particular interpreter's *theological* presuppositions (and I emphasize theological - because they are certainly not historical!). You interpretation of the 1 Cor. passage is right but with 1 Tim 2 - I think you're off the planet! If you read the passage in 1 Tim the reason given (by PAUL!!! - try reading 1 Tim 1:1) for prohibiting women taking on authority is the order of creation. Gnosticism? Are you for real? The claim that Paul did not write 1 Tim is based on the acceptance of pseudonimity. There are a number of ethical and historical problems with this view which are well articulated by the likes of FF Bruce, D Guthrie, JI Packer and BM Metzger. To apply pseudonimity to the New Testament you would have to show 1. That it was actually practised and 2. That the New Testament writers practised it - something which has been affirmed by many critics with not a drop of evidence, only subjective and selective interpretation of the evidence or lack of it. The Bible has shown itself to be historically accurate time and again so if 1 Tim 1:1 says Paul was the author it only sensible to accept it as so unless there is real evidence indicating otherwise. IN this case there isn't. The early church fathers not only didn't tolerate any hint of pseudonimity (which is at best dishonest and at worst blatant deception!) they actively and emphatically attacked it. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusibius Pamphilius 6.12) > Which brings up an interesting point regarding Fee- why did he not attempt > to eliminate this verse on shaky text critical grounds as he did the passage > in Corinthians? > > >-- > >cheers, > >Andrew > > Jim > Old Bultmannian and friend of D.F. Strauss > (not alive then, of course!) > While Bultmann has contributed a little insight to NT study, there has been many scholars who have shown his arguments to be illogical and his historical claims to be nothing more than optimistic affirmations. The majority of his work is pretty much worthless! I am surprised that any thinking person would still go along with anything he has said. Although this has got a bit off topic, one lesson we can learn by all this, is not to come up with theories that are devoid of evidence. Even worse, is when we actually work to one of these theories! (like pseudonimity!). cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cobweb.com.au | | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5948/hermeneutics.htm | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Ch From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 27 13:28:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11525; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:24:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:24:49 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list technical problems 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: 871 The tc-list experienced technical difficulties Sunday morning (6:00 a.m. EST U.S.), with the result that everyone was deleted from the list (this did not affect those subscribed to the digest form of the list). I have now recreated the list, but it's possible that some people who had unsubscribed in the past now find themselves back on the list. If that is the case, please unsubscribe again. If any lists members hear of anyone who is no longer receiving message, please ask them to resubscribe. I will resend the two messages that most list members (except those subscribed to the digest) missed. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List 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 Jan 27 13:43:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11735; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:40:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:40:41 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: What this list is about (Was: Re: Who practices TC, etc.) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2306 This is the first of two messages that I am forwarding to the list. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 09:02:19 -0700 From: Robert B. Waltz To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: What this list is about (Was: Re: Who practices TC, etc.) On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: >Sigh. Another example of historical criticism making absolutely >rediculous claims with no real historical evidence to support them - >forcing a passage to fit a particular interpreter's *theological* >presuppositions (and I emphasize theological - because they are >certainly not historical!). [ ... ] >The claim that Paul did not write 1 Tim is based on the acceptance of >pseudonimity. [ etc... ] Please... let's not get into interpretation here. This group is for textual criticism, *not* literary criticism. Any opinions on theological or literary matters should be accepted here -- particularly if, as in this case, the theology has no effect on the reading of the text. This isn't just pettiness; by ignoring theology, we are better able to work together. Very few people on this list are of my rather radical theological stripe -- but I can learn from them, and they from me, as long as we stick to textual matters. If we started talking about theology, the fights would never stop.... Besides, prove to me that the attribution to Paul in 1 Timothy 1:1 is not a corruption. :-) But let me be monotonous and repeat my main point: This list is for textual criticism. There are other lists, and even newsgroups, for literary, theological, and other "higher critical" matters. If you must write on these matters, either do it privately or do it there.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 27 13:43:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11760; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:41:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:41:13 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: RE: Art/Science (Was: Re: The function of TC) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3180 This is the second of two messages that I am forwarding to the list. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 07:58 +0200 From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: RE: Art/Science (Was: Re: The function of TC) > Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Fri, 24 Jan > 97 16:06:10 +0200 > Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP; > Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:22:09 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 JAA15600; > Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:16:37 -0500 (EST) > Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id JAA18325; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:20:06 -0500 > X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com > Message-Id: > In-Reply-To: <2712086547779575@maties.sun.ac.za> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:10:56 -0700 > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > From: "Robert B. Waltz" > Subject: Art/Science (Was: Re: The function of TC) > Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > > Someone (whose name defeated my e-mail program's attempts to find it) wrote: > > >> The purpose of TC is the same as (interestingly) following a great > >> basketball team like Duke or listening to the wondrous music of little > >> Wolfgang. One does such things for the pure pleasure of discovery and the > >> enjoyment of the very important work of others. TC is, when done right, > as > >> exciting as a double overtime or a Mozart overture. > >> > >> > >> >-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > >> > > >> > >> Jim > >> > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> Jim West > >> > >> jwest@sunbelt.net > > > >I am in total agreement!! TC is after all PARTLY an art!! > > Yes, but what makes TC fun is the fact that it's also part science. > It's the science that's fun and easy -- art just makes things harder. > > In my humble opinion, of course. :-) > > It can hardly be argued, however, that the fact that TC is partly > art that causes us to argue so much. If it were purely science, > we wouldn't have these problems. :-) > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) > Argueing that TC is partly an art logically holds in store that there is also another part. That part certainly entails rigid scientific methodology!! Johann Cook Dept of Ancient Near Eastern STudies University of Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA > From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 27 20:05:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15593; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:04:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:00:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: TC List Subject: 7Q5 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: 414 Someone brought up the O'Callahan theory that ms 7Q5 dates to the first century and is from the Gospels. What have papyrologists concluded on this in the last few years? What do some you you who have studied this issue say? Thanks ahead of time for the info . -- 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 Mon Jan 27 20:09:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15637; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:08:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:04:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Syr Peshita 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: 333 I am no expert on the ancient versions. I have read a little as to whether the date of the Peshita is c.175 or 425. Everyone seems to disagree. Can someone help me in this matter? -- 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 Mon Jan 27 21:55:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16225; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:54:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:50:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: tape attack 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: 1307 I received an unsolicited video tape of Gail Riplinger on the KJV. I only mention it to this group because she mocks Bruce Metzger and fabricates about Westcott and Hort and she does other text-critical gymnastics. In March 96 I published an unfavorable book review of her NEW AGE VERSIONS. In the tape, the moderator calls for me to be fired from my teaching position. The tape is full of grossly misleading claims. I do want to ask two things of the list. She claims that some ancient papyri, including P66 as I recall, often have two dots (diacritical marks) to tell the next copier to omit these words in his copy. I hate to seem ignorant (unlearned) here, but I don't want to criticize her work on this point if it is true, and I was not aware of the practice if it ever existed. Can someone explain what she means and if there is any truth to it. She also claims that the papyri agree with the TR 75% and with W-H only 15%. I know this is wrong, but can someone tell me where she gets this kind of data? There must be a pseudo-scholar out there somewhere who feeds this false data to her type; it is causing me some headaches. -- 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 Mon Jan 27 21:55:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16218; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:54:09 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:52:34 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: 7Q5 Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 997 At 7:00 PM 1/27/97, Ronald L. Minton wrote: >Someone brought up the O'Callahan theory that ms 7Q5 dates to the first >century and is from the Gospels. What have papyrologists concluded on >this in the last few years? What do some you you who have studied this >issue say? Thanks ahead of time for the info . Ron For a good --and easily accessible-- discussion of 7Q5 and why O'Callaghan's identification is almost certainly not correct, see the disucssion in Graham Stanton's _Gospel Truth?: New light on Jesus and the Gospels_ (Trinity, 1995). I think it's safe to say that Stanton's (negative) appraisal is in agreement with the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion on the topic. (Stanton also published an article in Bible Review about the time the book was published that cover much of the same material.) Cheers Nichael __ nichael@sover.net Be as passersby -- IC http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 27 22:01:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16314; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:01:24 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970128025818.29afaed6@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:58:18 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, TC List From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: What this list is about (Was: Re: Who practices TC, etc.) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 926 At 01:40 1/27/97 -0500, James R. Adair forwarded: >From: Robert B. Waltz >On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: >>The claim that Paul did not write 1 Tim is based on the acceptance of >>pseudonimity. > >Please... let's not get into interpretation here. This group is >for textual criticism, *not* literary criticism. Any opinions on >theological or literary matters should be accepted here -- >particularly if, as in this case, the theology has no effect on >the reading of the text. But doesn't textual criticism shed some light, however dim, on the literary question? What is the value of the evidence of P46, Tatian, Basilides, and Marcion? 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 Jan 27 22:15:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16452; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:15:22 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970128031223.29af9b2e@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:23 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: 7Q5 Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1515 At 09:52 1/27/97 -0500, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: >At 7:00 PM 1/27/97, Ronald L. Minton wrote: >>Someone brought up the O'Callahan theory that ms 7Q5 dates to the first >>century and is from the Gospels. What have papyrologists concluded on >>this in the last few years? What do some you you who have studied this >>issue say? Thanks ahead of time for the info . > >For a good --and easily accessible-- discussion of 7Q5 and why >O'Callaghan's identification is almost certainly not correct, see the >disucssion in Graham Stanton's _Gospel Truth?: New light on Jesus and the >Gospels_ (Trinity, 1995). Thiede, the leading champion now of the 7Q5 identification, has answered some of Stanton's criticisms in a popularized book with Matthew D'Ancona, EYEWITNESS TO JESUS: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels (Doubleday, 1996). The last plate before page 81 is a picture of the fragment. >I think it's safe to say that Stanton's (negative) appraisal is in >agreement with the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion on the topic. The biggest problem with the 7Q5 identification is that the scrap contains a spelling error and a hitherto unknown textual variant in the space of about a dozen identifiable letters but only one certain word, KAI ("and"). 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 Jan 27 22:23:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16504; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:23:31 -0500 Message-ID: <32ED7023.561D@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:18:59 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: 7Q5 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: 2319 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > Someone brought up the O'Callahan theory that ms 7Q5 dates to the first > century and is from the Gospels. What have papyrologists concluded on > this in the last few years? What do some you you who have studied this > issue say? Thanks ahead of time for the info . > As you know, J. O'Callaghan identifies a few of the Greek papyrus fragments from Cave 7 as New Testament writings. Cave 7 is somewhat unique from the other caves in that it was a cave of occupation. He published his findings "Papiros Neotestamentarios en la Cueva 7 de Qumran" in Biblica 53, 1972, Pp 91-100. He identified 7Q5 as Mark 6:52-53. Many scholars disputed his findings and indeed mostof the fragments are very questionable. By the end of the 70's the concensus of scholarly opinion was negative. In 1984, interest was again stimulated for this 3.9 by 2.7 cm fragment by the eminent literary critic, Carsten Peter Thiede. See Thiede's"7Q-Eine Ruckkehr zu den neutestamentlichen Papyrusfragmente in der siebten Hohle von Qumran' Biblica 65, 1984, 538-559; 66, 1985, 21f. In an attempt to settle such an important issue, scientists from various disciplines met in Eichstatt in 1991. Coming down on the side of 7Q5 as a fragment of Mark was Thiede, Herbert Hunger of Vienna, Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, Harold Risenfeld and Eugen Ruckstuhl. New Testament Scholar Bernhard Mayer has edited and published the symposium, "Christen und Christliches in Qumran?" Eichstatter Studien, Neue Folge 32, Regensburg 192. Arguments against the fragment as Markan settles on some disputed consonants. Thiede was able to Make more consonants visible by further forensicexamination in a crime lab in Israel in 1992. His analysis supports O'Callaghan. The reconstructed Greek Text of 7Q5 is thus (reconstructions in brackets): [SUNHKAN] E[PI TOIS ARTOIS] [ALLHN A]UTWN H [XARDIA PEPWRW-] [MEN]H KAI TI[APERASANTES] [HLQON EIS GE]NNHS[ARET KAI] PROSWRMIS]ZHSA[N KAI EXEL-] 7Q5 is written in Herodian decorated style which places it to 50 CE and before. I have no problem with this since I believe the first autograph of Mark was written in the 40's. The best that can be said is that the identification of 7Q5 as Mark is uncertain but possible. Hope that helps. Jack Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 27 23:06:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16770; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:05:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:00:58 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: The most likely original reading In-Reply-To: <199701270730.CAA07048@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: 2386 I have realised that point 2 of what I suggested as a probabilistic method for establishing the original text (i.e. what is most likely to have been written in the thing from which the mss we now have descended) was in error: > Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is > original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular > reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be > demonstrated to give rise to the others. It should have read, 2) if there is variation, then the certainty of any particular reading is directly proportional to the extent to which it can be demonstrated to give rise to the others. The interesting thing is that Bob Waltz and Maurice Robinson both seem to have known what I meant and replied accordingly, possibly without realising that what was written was incorrect. Yesterday I had the embarrassing experience of laughing at a joke that a friend told me even though he told it wrong: Why _didn't_ the bigamist cross the road? Because he didn't want to see the other side. Another friend said that she didn't get it, so we told her to ask her husband to explain it. Imagine how foolish I felt when the first friend realised that it should have been Why didn't the bigot cross the road? Then my other friend asked me why I laughed the first time. Um ah... Well, it was partly because he was a friend and partly because his jokes are usually funny. So my response was conditioned by what had gone before. There is something there for us who try to unravel what the scribes have consciously and unconsciously done to the text. On art and science in textual criticism, I would just like to add this by Zuntz (_Text of the Epistles_, 13): The convergence of arguments drawn from the distribution of the evidence, the dependence of one reading upon the other, the known habits and typical faults of scribes, the characteristic proclivities of interpolators, the development of the language, the stylistic peculiarities of the writer, the context of the passage in question -- these, and still other, factors combined can yield a certainty which is no whit inferior to that of the conclusions drawn from a Euclidean axiom. Best regards, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 07:43:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA18740; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 07:41:34 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970128123007.376f4522@nd.edu> X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 07:30:07 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: tape attack Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2079 Without additional information it is difficult to address Riplinger's remarks about diacritical notations. In the Dead Sea Scrolls occasionally a word or a short phrase is set off by a small dot on either side of the text to be deleted. More often there is a dot placed above and/or below each letter to be expunged, even if several words are to be omitted. The latter practice is more common among New Testament papyri. Otherwise, Philip Payne suggested that occurrences of two dots in Codex Vaticanus indicated textual variation (omission in particular). In general he is correct although the dot are from the 16th century and not the fourth, probably introduced by Sepulveda around 1530. Curt Niccum At 08:50 PM 1/27/97 -0600, you wrote: >I received an unsolicited video tape of Gail Riplinger on the KJV. I >only mention it to this group because she mocks Bruce Metzger and >fabricates about Westcott and Hort and she does other text-critical >gymnastics. In March 96 I published an >unfavorable book review of her NEW AGE VERSIONS. In the tape, the >moderator calls for me to be fired from my teaching position. The tape >is full of grossly misleading claims. I do want to ask two things of the >list. She claims that some ancient papyri, including P66 as I recall, >often have two dots (diacritical marks) to tell the next copier to omit >these words in his copy. I hate to seem ignorant (unlearned) here, but I >don't want to criticize her work on this point if it is true, and I was >not aware of the practice if it ever existed. Can someone explain what she >means and if there is any truth to it. >She also claims that the papyri agree with the TR 75% and with W-H only >15%. I know this is wrong, but can someone tell me where she gets this >kind of data? There must be a pseudo-scholar out there somewhere who >feeds this false data to her type; it is causing me some headaches. > > >-- >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 Tue Jan 28 08:32:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18949; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:31:31 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:26:40 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tape attack Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 531 For information on scribal marks in P66, see V. Martin's edition, _Papyrus Bodmer II: Evangile de Jean chap. 1-14_(Cologny-Geneve: Bibliotheque Bodmer, 1956), and for discussion of scribal corrections in P66, see G. D. Fee's monograph, _Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics_ (Salt Lake City: Univ of Utah Press, 1968). L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 09:45:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA19643; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:44:50 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970128025818.29afaed6@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:18:19 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: What this list is about (Was: Re: Who practices TC, etc.) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1566 On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote: >But doesn't textual criticism shed some light, however dim, on the >literary question? What is the value of the evidence of P46, Tatian, >Basilides, and Marcion? Of course TC sheds light on other disciplines -- but those discussions should be held on other lists, making references to our results. And I know that there are times where literary criteria will be applied to textual criticism. (I try to avoid that, but others don't share my textual theories.) But that's not my point. What I'm getting at is that we should not let other forms of criticism dominate the list. Even those of us who agree very closely on textual matters may have very diverse opinions on other matters. If we let the other matters dominate the list, then we'll never get our basic work done. If we have to discuss literary matters, we should confine the discussion to the textual point at hand. Surely this is obvious; we don't *really* want to re-fight the question of whether Paul wrote the Pastorals, or how many people added to Isaiah, or how the books of Ezra and Nehemiah came to exchange chapters. At least, *I* don't want to fight over it.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 10:16:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19930; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:15:57 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:06:42 GMT Subject: Re: tape attack Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 731 With regard to P66: This is untrue: what is true is 1. the scribe occasionally corrects his own error by placing dots over a word which he'd included, as at 2.11 _proten_. 2. he uses diaeresis/trema over initial iota in e.g. _ioudaios - a widespread practice. Maybe someone who knows nothing has misunderstood one or other or both of these facts. With regard to % agreements of 'the papyri': this claim is meaningless. P75, as we all know, has a text very similar to that found later in B, the MS which WH preferred most frequently. Other papyri are quite different. There is no pattern. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 10:46:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20242; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:46:17 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199701281544.IAA01927@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:40:00 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tape attack 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: 689 > For information on scribal marks in P66, see V. Martin's edition, > _Papyrus Bodmer II: Evangile de Jean chap. 1-14_(Cologny-Geneve: > Bibliotheque Bodmer, 1956), and for discussion of scribal > corrections in P66, see G. D. Fee's monograph, _Papyrus Bodmer II > (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics_ (Salt > Lake City: Univ of Utah Press, 1968). Some of us live out in the wild country and don't have access to such stuff. Can you give a quick summary? Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "One of the things I've learned during my short sojourn on this planet is that I am underqualified to stay serious very long." -Phil Callaway From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 11:01:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20388; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:00:47 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:59:13 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: 7Q5 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1877 Jack Kilmon wrote: > In an attempt to settle such an important issue, scientists from >various disciplines met in Eichstatt in 1991. [...] > Arguments against the fragment as Markan settles on some disputed >consonants. [...] > The reconstructed Greek Text of 7Q5 is thus (reconstructions in >brackets): > [SUNHKAN] E[PI TOIS ARTOIS] > [ALLHN A]UTWN H [XARDIA PEPWRW-] > [MEN]H KAI TI[APERASANTES] > [HLQON EIS GE]NNHS[ARET KAI] > PROSWRMIS]ZHSA[N KAI EXEL-] ^ (I believe this should be "W") A couple of points need to be made with respect to the above: 1] The "reconstructed Greek Text of 7Q5" should more properly be described as O'Callaghan's conjectured reconstruction. For example S.R. Pickering and R.R.E. Cook read the fragments as follows: ].[ ]. TWI {A}.[ ]{H} KAI T.[ ]{N}N H.[ ]{W}H..[ (Where "." indicates an unknown letter and uncertainly letters are enclosed in curly brackets.) 2] Of particular importance is the N/I difference in the second line. Looking at photos of 7Q5, it is very difficult to see how a Nu could be made to fit at that point on the line. And without it, it is all but impossible to see how O'Callaghan's identification can stand. 3] As Jack points out, any conjectured reading depends on the reconstruction of uncertain letters (both _vowels_ and consonants). However it is worth noting that W. Slaby demonstrated in a paper presented to the Eichstatt conference to which Jack refers, that --based only on the 10 _sure_ letters of 7Q5, the only possible identification is with Luke 3:19-21! (See, for example, n17 of Chap 3 of the Stanton book to which I refered earlier.) Nichael __ nichael@sover.net Be as passersby -- IC http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 11:16:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20569; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:16:15 -0500 Date: 28 Jan 1997 16:11:32 -0000 Message-ID: <19970128161132.1677.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: (rminton@mail.orion.org) Subject: Re: Syr Peshita Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1224 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > whether the date of the Peshita is c.175 or 425. The earliest manuscripts of the peshitta are early fifth century. The earliest translation into Syriac might have been second century, though the gospels were generally read in the diatessaron and not M+M+L+J. Comparison of the Old Syriac and the Peshitta with patristic quotations suggest that the Old Syriac translation(s) were the earlier form of NT text. The discussion in Metzger's book on the versions is quite good, except that it seems clear that we don't have a satisfying explanation of how the Peshitta came to be. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMu4k5WCU4mTNq7IdAQFa2AQAvpi/Bh+YzFTip6FfMJ1DmWPwac8HWR6e gXzGGMEqBo99t4HFUls8v9mzMfkP6NYa245TlCKsXcu7BKx7uJMBMfoou1ZU6pq6 noeHt5ZDscZwg4Mo/7PR93L6qPbDI5f/Xgb3wV2IeHt+2UxlPEApF7hpxNc8kJ9/ hw8PHJMo9dc= =naDI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 11:22:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20694; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:22:07 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:16:29 GMT Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 876 The first date given, 175, is an approximate date for the completion of the OT Peshitta (although different books / groups of books were translated by different people at different dates) and 425 is an approximate date for the completion of the NT Peshitta. You might want to look at: P.B. Dirksen, "The OT Peshitta", in M.J. Mulder, ed 'Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible', 1988 pp.255-97. B.M. Metzger, 'The Early Versions of the New Testament' (Oxford 1977) pp.48-63. Yours, David Taylor ********************************************************************* Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. ********************************************************************* From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 11:43:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA21002; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:43:11 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:41:28 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2217 On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, "David G.K. Taylor" wrote: >The first date given, 175, is an approximate date for the completion of >the OT Peshitta (although different books / groups of books were >translated by different people at different dates) and 425 is an >approximate date for the completion of the NT Peshitta. Just to play devil's advocate here, I think we need to take this as slightly less than certain. I'd like to ask a few questions, since the date of the Peshitta could affect our assessment of the Byzantine text. It's clear that the Peshitta can't be much later than 425, since both halves of the Syriac church (which split not long after that) used it. The same is implied by the fact that the Peshitta omits the shorter Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, which were more and more widely accepted as the fifth century proceeded. But, in fact, that latter argument would imply a date somewhat earlier for the NT Peshitta. By 425, the current canon seems to have been universally accepted; the only questions lay about a few apocryphal works such as Barnabas and Hermas. It's true that scholars such as Ephraim did not use the Peshitta -- but they didn't always use the Old Syriac, either, and we *know* that was in existence by their time. All the evidence of Ephraim shows is that the Peshitta had not overtaken the Diatessaron by his time. So what firm evidence is there that the Peshitta is from the early fifth century? The fact that the "manuscript trail" begins then? That's hardly proof -- our earliest manuscript of the letters to Timothy is fourth century, but no one that I know of would say they were written then! Is there any evidence, other than that of text-type and manuscripts, to date the Peshitta to the fifth century? (And is the evidence such that someone who has no syriac can understand it? :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 11:44:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA21009; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:43:43 -0500 Date: 28 Jan 1997 16:38:58 -0000 Message-ID: <19970128163858.1696.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from ANDREW SMITH on Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:57:53 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: Gothic OT Vorlage Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1792 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- smitha@scnc.aaps.k12.mi.us asked: > ...whether Wulfia had used the Greek or the > Latin NT as his Vorlage when preparing his Gothic NT. > ...what did he use as an OT Vorlage? Streitberg in "Die Gotische Bibel" discusses the Vorlage of the OT in detail. It is clear that Wulfilas translated the NT from Greek and Nehemiah from the LXX. After some detailed analysis aided by a cleaning of the Nehemiah MS, scholars conclude that he used a Lucianic MS of the LXX, which is not surprising considering Wulfilas' roots in Constantinople. The Latin influences in the Gothic version are, according to Streitberg (and I think Friedrichsen too), due to copying of the version's MSS in a Latin environment. All the Gothic language materials aside from Argenteus are connected to Latin documents, as palimpsests, bilinguals, or as marginalia. (the skeireins, too?). And of course, by the sixth century the Goths had moved to Italy. Streitberg's reconstructed Greek Vorlage reflects this theory in that he tries to remove the Latin intrusions into the text that he detects, to make the text conform better to the version's known Byzantine relatives. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMu4rX2CU4mTNq7IdAQGFIAP/dfzDf47cmTolaZwlQLiEr5ytRjvknaHY O3a0m7RyTQV4kCKmC77cb6mXnTApoLx6MKDAZwhyAEN4EhrRalsNNZO0vQ/0ZNTC rKeP6xOFHNfaja09JUZ3P+qoqMxd6Dd6dUvl3QQGPtr+hGBwjWbCchv2MMRRZyrT 8/me4CMdaog= =cXWf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 12:20:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21540; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:19:42 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970128091729.0068735c@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 4 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:17:33 -0800 To: TC-LIST@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: tape attack 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: 2257 Ronald L. Minton wrote: >I received an unsolicited video tape of Gail Riplinger on the KJV. I >only mention it to this group because she mocks Bruce Metzger and >fabricates about Westcott and Hort and she does other text-critical >gymnastics. In March 96 I published an >unfavorable book review of her NEW AGE VERSIONS. In the tape, the >moderator calls for me to be fired from my teaching position. The tape >is full of grossly misleading claims. I do want to ask two things of the >list. She claims that some ancient papyri, including P66 as I recall, >often have two dots (diacritical marks) to tell the next copier to omit >these words in his copy. I hate to seem ignorant (unlearned) here, but I >don't want to criticize her work on this point if it is true, and I was >not aware of the practice if it ever existed. Can someone explain what she >means and if there is any truth to it. >She also claims that the papyri agree with the TR 75% and with W-H only >15%. I know this is wrong, but can someone tell me where she gets this >kind of data? There must be a pseudo-scholar out there somewhere who >feeds this false data to her type; it is causing me some headaches. > Ron: I think you are correct that she is getting her info from someone else; I talked to someone at SBL who had "debated" her and was shocked to find out upon meeting her that her two masters degrees and college teaching experience was in **Home Economics** and that for all intents and purposes, she could not even read the Greek text he put in front of her. I, for one, am sad to see that this nonsense is continuing; I thought that her book and her personally had been so roundly debunked that she had thought better of the situation and retired back to teaching Home Ec, rather than continuing to embarass herself to such an extent...I guess not !! XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 12:29:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21603; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:29:28 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:24:35 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tape attack Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199701281544.IAA01927@wavecom.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 254 I presume that even in the "wild country" of wherever, inter-library loans can be arranged. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 12:31:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21622; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <32EE36C9.38C0@accesscomm.net> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:26:33 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: 7Q5 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: 4135 Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > > Jack Kilmon wrote: > > In an attempt to settle such an important issue, scientists from > >various disciplines met in Eichstatt in 1991. [...] > > Arguments against the fragment as Markan settles on some disputed > >consonants. [...] > > The reconstructed Greek Text of 7Q5 is thus (reconstructions in > >brackets): > > [SUNHKAN] E[PI TOIS ARTOIS] > > [ALLHN A]UTWN H [XARDIA PEPWRW-] > > [MEN]H KAI TI[APERASANTES] > > [HLQON EIS GE]NNHS[ARET KAI] > > PROSWRMIS]ZHSA[N KAI EXEL-] > ^ > (I believe this should be "W") oooops! > > A couple of points need to be made with respect to the above: > > 1] The "reconstructed Greek Text of 7Q5" should more properly be described > as O'Callaghan's conjectured reconstruction. For example S.R. Pickering > and R.R.E. Cook read the fragments as follows: > > ].[ > ]. TWI {A}.[ > ]{H} KAI T.[ > ]{N}N H.[ > ]{W}H..[ > > (Where "." indicates an unknown letter and uncertainly letters are enclosed > in curly brackets.) > > 2] Of particular importance is the N/I difference in the second line. > Looking at photos of 7Q5, it is very difficult to see how a Nu could be > made to fit at that point on the line. And without it, it is all but > impossible to see how O'Callaghan's identification can stand. It was my understanding that the analysis performed by Thiede at the Israeli police laboratory in April, 1992 supported the consonant as a nu but I have not yet read the publication on it to review the methodology..so best to reserve judgement. > > 3] As Jack points out, any conjectured reading depends on the > reconstruction of uncertain letters (both _vowels_ and consonants). > > However it is worth noting that W. Slaby demonstrated in a paper presented > to the Eichstatt conference to which Jack refers, that --based only on the > 10 _sure_ letters of 7Q5, the only possible identification is with Luke > 3:19-21! > (See, for example, n17 of Chap 3 of the Stanton book to which I refered > earlier.) I'll check that out. Did Stanton use Ibycus? The issue of 7Q5 as either Mark OR Luke lies at the heart of popular "hopes" for the DSS that early Christian writings would be found. Some of O'Callaghan's original assignments for fragments seem anachronistic to me. It may be that the Greek fragments of Cave 7 were not part of the DSS corpus but had another source of deposition. Obviously, this in association with the scholarly "bogarting" of the DSS has lead to all types of conjecture about "conspiracies." In my humble, amateur opinion, the search for "hidden" NT writings in the DSS cache is great fodder for the popular press and conspiracy books but entirely anachronistic. This does not say that there was no close association between the early Nazarenes and the Assaya/Essaioi but any writings held in esteem by the Yeshuine Jews, other than the "sayings sources," which were not represented, would be indistinguishable as "Christian" writings over Jewish writings. A search for (..and even the word "Christian" would be anachronistic at this time) Jesus movement writing in the DSS corpus would be best focussed on the Testimonies of the Patriarchs and such Wisdom writings as the Wisdom of Solomon. How one would assign them to a Jesus movement library over the DSS library is beyond me. The possibilities for 7Q5 are: 1. It is a small fragment of an early Mark and later copies and redactions are variant. 2. It is a fragment of a "source" writing used later by Mark 3. The epigraphy is too sparse to be statistically related to Mark by Ibycus or any other search program. 4. It's wishful thinking. Unless and until a more extensive exemplar of a NT witness is discovered from the 1st century, it lies outside of the boundaries of textual criticism. I am sure there is not a TC on this list who does not dream of an autograph Mark, or John. 7Q5 cannot be said to be Mark with scientific certainty and our less than scientific intrigue must be satisfied with the "maybe." Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 12:47:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21946; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:46:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:42:42 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Gothic OT Vorlage In-Reply-To: <19970128163858.1696.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 361 On 28 Jan 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > All the Gothic language materials aside from > Argenteus are connected to Latin documents, as palimpsests, bilinguals, > or as marginalia. (the skeireins, too?). ********************* I thought the Skeireins had a Greek Vorlage. Didn't William Bennett, a Gothic expert, argue for a Greek Vorlage for the Skeireins? From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 12:59:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22158; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:59:02 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199701281757.KAA06841@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:52:43 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tape attack 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: 690 > I presume that even in the "wild country" of wherever, inter-library > loans can be arranged. I'm in rural Wyoming, USA. And yes, we can do ILL. But it usually takes over a month. To get this type of material it is also frequently difficult to find a library willing to part with it for a time. It took my library 3 months to find a library that would give me a recent volume of DJD. So I repeat: can you give a brief summary of the material? If you don't want to, just say so. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "One of the things I've learned during my short sojourn on this planet is that I am underqualified to stay serious very long." -Phil Callaway From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 13:12:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA22446; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:12:13 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199701281810.LAA07639@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:05:55 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta 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: 1345 Robert Waltz wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, "David G.K. Taylor" wrote: > > >The first date given, 175, is an approximate date for the completion of > >the OT Peshitta (although different books / groups of books were > >translated by different people at different dates) and 425 is an > >approximate date for the completion of the NT Peshitta. > > Just to play devil's advocate here, I think we need to take this as > slightly less than certain. I'd like to ask a few questions, since > the date of the Peshitta could affect our assessment of the Byzantine > text. [snip] It's my understanding from reading Metzger and several others that the Byzantine character of the Peshitta is the main reason eclectics concluded it couldn't be second century (I know this is grossly oversimplified). As I recall, and somebody correct me if necessary, during the WH age Burgon and others pointed to the Peshitta as evidence that the "Syrian" text couldn't be as late and secondary as WH said it was, and within about 20 years the Peshitta had been redated to the 5th century. That has always kinda made me wonder... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "One of the things I've learned during my short sojourn on this planet is that I am underqualified to stay serious very long." -Phil Callaway From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 13:52:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA23156; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:51:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:46:31 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: The most likely original reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 930 On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: > > Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is > > original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular > > reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be > > demonstrated to give rise to the others. > > It should have read, 2) if there is variation, then the certainty of any > particular reading is directly proportional to the extent to which it can > be demonstrated to give rise to the others. > > The interesting thing is that Bob Waltz and Maurice Robinson both seem to > have known what I meant and replied accordingly, possibly without > realising that what was written was incorrect. That I did indeed. Obviously a case of scribal parablepsis and memtally seeing the correct reading even in the presence of an incorrect one. :-) Just don't ask why the textual critic crossed the road..... From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 14:29:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA23601; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:28:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199701281924.OAA107200@f01n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:24:10 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: Syr Peshita Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2842 On the date of the Peshitta, see: A. Voeoebus, _Early Versions of the NT_, PETSE 6 (Stockholm 1954), pp. 88-104, or his article "Investigations into the Text of the NT Used by Rabbula," in _Contributions of Baltic University_ (sic!), 59 (1947), pp. 1-39. Voeoebus was the modern master of the Syriac versions. (Rabbula figures large in this issue, for Burkitt suggested that Rabbula translated the Peshitta--a view which is now rejected, because of the empirical textual evidence in Rabbula's own writings, and in his biography [see below].) See also Tj. Baarda, "The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula," _VigChr_ 14 (1960), pp. 102-127 (also in his first collection of collected articles, _Early Transmission of the Words of Jesus_, pp. 11-36). Using Baarda's textual leg-work, M. Black wrote a good over-view of the Syriac versions in K. Aland's _Die alten Uebersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenvaeterzitate und Lektionare_ , ANTT 5 (1972), pp. 120-159. Metzger's _The Early Versions of the NT_ gives a (second-hand) summary of findings, as of the date of that book (1977). B. Aland and the team working on _Das neue Testament in syrischer Ueberlieferung_ have, in the second volume especially, come to conclusions about the genesis of the Peshitta (II. Die Paulinischen Briefe, Teil 1... [1991]): see pp. 48-52. (I summarized the findings in my review of the volume in JBL 111 [1992], pp. 555-558: the Peshitta of the Paulines does not seem to have gone through [the usual, expected] period of development normally associated with a version; there is a high degree of uniformity among the MSS; the form of the Peshitta was settled in the beginning of the fifth century). Baarda's findings generally corroborate these results: in Rabbula's biography (mid-fifth cent. [probably between 436 and 457]), the author used a text which was NOT the Peshitta. Baarda concludes, therefore, that "the Peshitta was not the official text of Edessa before the end of the fifth century" (p. 34 in the book version of the piece). The actual date of translation is unknown. As some other list member noted, the Diatessaron (c. 172) is generally accepted as the first translation of the gospels into Syriac; the two Old Syriac MSS seem to represent two separate attempts to render the separate gospels in Syriac; the Peshitta was a still later attempt (which built on these earlier translations), and is often called the Syriac Vulgate. --Petersen, Penn State University. >I am no expert on the ancient versions. I have read a little as to whether >the date of the Peshita is c.175 or 425. Everyone seems to disagree. >Can someone help me in this matter? > > >-- >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 Tue Jan 28 14:53:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA23930; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:53:16 -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, 28 Jan 1997 13:48:02 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: The most likely original reading Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1997 Maurice Robinson replied to, and quoted, Tim Finney: >> > Here it is: 1) If there is no variation of a word in any ms, then that is >> > original. 2) If there is variation, then the certainty of any particular >> > reading is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be >> > demonstrated to give rise to the others. >> >> It should have read, 2) if there is variation, then the certainty of any >> particular reading is directly proportional to the extent to which it can >> be demonstrated to give rise to the others. >> >> The interesting thing is that Bob Waltz and Maurice Robinson both seem to >> have known what I meant and replied accordingly, possibly without >> realising that what was written was incorrect. > >That I did indeed. Obviously a case of scribal parablepsis and memtally >seeing the correct reading even in the presence of an incorrect one. :-) Shows how deeply some of the canons of criticism are driven into our heads. Since "That reading is best which best explains the others" is the *only* internal criterion I accept, naturally I read that into any statement about readings giving rise to other readings. BTW -- before anyone says anything, I maintain that all other internal criteria derive from the one rule. So I'm not saying the others are false; they just aren't primary. Now that I've actually thought about what Tim says, though, it gets me thinking about whether one can actually define a mathematical function for this. But don't worry; I won't inflict that on you. :-) >Just don't ask why the textual critic crossed the road..... Oh, that's obvious: To investigate an older manuscript. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 15:06:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA24113; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:06:02 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701281924.OAA107200@f01n05.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:04:49 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1350 William Petersen (wlp1@psu.edu) gave a useful summary of literature on the date of the Peshitta, but I don't see how it helps much. None of it gives us any evidence that we didn't already have: That the version was in existence in the fifth century, and that there don't seem to have been any traces of it (for the NT, anyway) before that. This seems to put us in the situation of the Oxford Debate of a century ago, where the question of Byzantine authority rested largely on the date of the Peshitta -- placed c. 175 by some and c. 425 by others. To me, this is a fairly crucial question -- if good grounds can be adduced for an early date for the Peshitta, then the question of the Byzantine text of the gospels will need to be seriously rethought. (It won't affect, say, the Paulines as much, since there the Peshitta is not as heavily Byzantine.) So I would ask again: Is there any evidence available which actually fixes the date of the Peshitta, other than the date of the earliest manuscripts? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 15:28:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA24324; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:27:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:22:49 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970128152014.27672ee0@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 592 At 02:04 PM 1/28/97 -0700, you wrote: > >So I would ask again: Is there any evidence available which actually >fixes the date of the Peshitta, other than the date of the earliest >manuscripts? > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com The obvious answer is no. But this is true of any manuscript and any reading; the earliest evidence is the manuscript or the reading itself. What lay behind it or from whence it sprang is always and only hypothetical. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 16:02:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24757; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:00:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:56:21 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc Subject: Tape Attack 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: 153 Somebody said that these video tapes were being mailed out unsolicited. Does anybody know how I can get my hands on one of these videos? Andrew Smith From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 16:20:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24944; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:20:11 -0500 Message-ID: <32EE6BAF.8A65056@repurk.mw.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:12:15 -0800 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tape Attack 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: 257 ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > Somebody said that these video tapes were being mailed out unsolicited. > Does anybody know how I can get my hands on one of these videos? > > Andrew Smith I think you could get one by taking a course in home economics .... -lars From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 16:21:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24943; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:20:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:10:22 -0800 (PST) From: Michael D Hildenbrand To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: tape attack In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970128091729.0068735c@mail.teleport.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 732 Comments below... On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: [snip] > Ron: [snip] > am sad to see that this nonsense is continuing; I thought that her book and > her personally had been so roundly debunked that she had thought better of > the situation and retired back to teaching Home Ec, rather than continuing > to embarass herself to such an extent...I guess not !! I thought that the publisher had become so embarrassed by the attacks on the book that they withdrew it. This book has caused no end of problems inchurches among people that don't know better. The book cost $25 and a friend of mine bought 4 copies! She lent a copy to me and I was astonished that such trash could be published. Under His Mercy, Michael From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 16:47:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25283; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:45:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:40:00 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Tape Attack X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970128164021.27bf4d20@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 407 At 01:12 PM 1/28/97 -0800, you wrote: >ANDREW SMITH wrote: >> >> Somebody said that these video tapes were being mailed out unsolicited. >> Does anybody know how I can get my hands on one of these videos? >> >> Andrew Smith > >I think you could get one by taking a course in home economics .... >-lars > Thanks! I laughed at this one!!! Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 17:10:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25610; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:08:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199701282204.RAA93870@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:04:33 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: Syr Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2095 A quick reply to Waltz's question about: >So I would ask again: Is there any evidence available which actually >fixes the date of the Peshitta, other than the date of the earliest >manuscripts? Yes, there is, and it is in the Patristic citations: who presents and who does not present citations in the sometimes unique form of the Peshitta. See the articles on Rabbula's text and the text of his bio, and the volumes in the Aland series (Das NT in syrischer Ueber...). I know of no evidence (but then my knowledge is very limited...) of clear use of "the" Peshitta prior to the fifth century. Aphrahat does not cite its text, nor does Ephrem. Where apparently "Peshitta" readings crop up in earlier works, we must remember two things. First, even the Peshitta's text agrees, at points, with the (apparently older) Diatessaron and Vetus Syra. Therefore, what might mistakenly be taken for "Peshitta" readings in, say, Ephrem, must always be compared with the Diatessaron and the Vetus Syra. If one of them has the same reading, then nothing can be proven regarding the Peshitta. Second, the tendency always and everywhere has been to revise the texts one is copying in the direction of the text "standard" in one's own time. Therefore, we cannot be sure that Eprhem's text--even in his Commentary--has been transmitted as he wrote it. Copyists may have removed the "Old Syriac" or "Diatessaron" reading, and substituted a Peshitta reading. (Baumstark, in fact, adduced points where he thought the disagreement of the Arabic Diatessaron from Ephrem established that Ephrem's text, or the Diatessaron Ephrem was commenting upon, had been revised away from the Diatessaron text, for Baumstark found the Arabic in agreement with other Diatessaronic witnesses--but Ephrem giving some other reading. See his "Zur Geschichte des Tatianstextes vor Aphrem," OrChr 36 [= III.14] [1941], pp. 1-12.) The best tool for studying the Peshitta is clearly the Muenster volumes (title in my prev. post), which present the entire textual history of the Syriac versions. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 18:00:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26151; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:59:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:54:16 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: tape attack 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: 670 On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Michael D Hildenbrand wrote: > I thought that the publisher had become so embarrassed by the attacks on > the book that they withdrew it. This book has caused no end of problems > inchurches among people that don't know better. The book cost $25 and a > friend of mine bought 4 copies! She lent a copy to me and I was > astonished that such trash could be published. The book is self-published by Riplinger's own "AV Publications" company, and it claims to have now sold over 70,000 copies. Even allowing a modest $5 per copy profit on such an item, I think I know how to finance my retirement by selling to the faithful on the fringe..... From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 20:14:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27364; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:13:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:09:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: ANDREW SMITH cc: tc Subject: Re: Tape Attack 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: 298 On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > Somebody said that these video tapes were being mailed out unsolicited. > Does anybody know how I can get my hands on one of these videos? > Andrew Smith Write to Dr. Mickey Carter Landmark Baptist Church 2020 East Hinson Ave. Haines City, FL 33844 From owner-tc-list Tue Jan 28 20:17:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27397; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:17:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:12:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Michael D Hildenbrand cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: tape attack 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: 713 On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Michael D Hildenbrand wrote: > I thought that the publisher had become so embarrassed by the attacks on > the book that they withdrew it. This book has caused no end of problems > in churches among people that don't know better. The book cost $25 and a > friend of mine bought 4 copies! She lent a copy to me and I was > astonished that such trash could be published. > > Under His Mercy, > Michael It is self published (AV Publications) and she has sold 100,000 copies. It is the worse book I have ever read, and I have read some duzies. -- 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 Tue Jan 28 20:29:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27478; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:28:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:24:11 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Latin Qui 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: 360 How should we translate the Latin Qui at the 1Tim.3:16 variant? that thing that (Wycliffe) or which (Rheims) or "he who"? Also, can not ms "D" be properly rendered "he who" or just "he"? Thanks ahead of time. -- 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 Tue Jan 28 20:53:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27677; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:52:31 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970129014932.3e2f11ae@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: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:49:32 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: 7Q5 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1566 At 11:26 1/28/97 -0600, Jack Kilmon wrote: >Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: >> ].[ >> ]. TWI {A}.[ >> ]{H} KAI T.[ >> ]{N}N H.[ >> ]{W}H..[ >> >> (Where "." indicates an unknown letter and uncertainly letters are enclosed >> in curly brackets.) >> >> 2] Of particular importance is the N/I difference in the second line. >> Looking at photos of 7Q5, it is very difficult to see how a Nu could be >> made to fit at that point on the line. And without it, it is all but >> impossible to see how O'Callaghan's identification can stand. > > It was my understanding that the analysis performed by >Thiede at the Israeli police laboratory in April, 1992 supported >the consonant as a nu but I have not yet read the publication >on it to review the methodology..so best to reserve judgement. I think this argument of Thiede's was repeated in his popular book on pages 41-43 and it is convincing enough (the size of the etas are not consistent either). Another argument against the iota identification is that the iota adscript, required by the letters of the word TWI, ceased to be written around 100 BCE [Smyth, sect. 5]. Are there any paleographers on this list who can verify this statement? Again, the best that can be said for Thiede/O'Callaghan is that the identification is just barely possible, but still extremely unlikely. 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 Tue Jan 28 23:15:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA28525; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:13:43 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:12:09 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: 7Q5 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1166 At 8:49 PM 1/28/97, Stephen C. Carlson wrote: >>Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: >>> [...] >>> 2] Of particular importance is the N/I difference in the second line. >I think this argument of Thiede's was repeated in his popular book >on pages 41-43 and it is convincing enough (the size of the etas are >not consistent either). Two brief comments: There are only two certain etas in the manuscript (setting aside momentarily the conjectural readings). Their shapes --and in particular their widths-- appear to be very similar in the available photographs. > ... Another argument against the iota identification >is that the iota adscript, required by the letters of the word TWI, >ceased to be written around 100 BCE [Smyth, sect. 5]. I'm not sure anyone has argued strongly for the word "TWI" at this location; only for the sequence of letters "TWI". >Again, the best that can be said for Thiede/O'Callaghan is that the >identification is just barely possible, but still extremely unlikely. Agreed. Nichael __ nichael@sover.net Be as passersby -- IC http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 29 00:32:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA29014; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:32:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:31:56 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: 7Q5 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: 489 Readers of this thread might be interested in looking at an online interview with Jose O'Callaghan (in Spanish), in which he defends his position and talks a little bit about his rationale for coming to his conclusions. The URL is http://users.aol.com/vemultimed/ocal7q5.htm. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 29 07:23:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA00342; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:23:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:18:55 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Latin Qui X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970129071614.241f3a7a@mail.sunbelt.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 705 At 07:24 PM 1/28/97 -0600, you wrote: >How should we translate the Latin Qui at the 1Tim.3:16 variant? >that thing that (Wycliffe) or which (Rheims) or "he who"? > Most likely "which" is the best translation in this context (for, as we all know, words don't have meaning, they have usage- always determined only by context). >Also, can not ms "D" be properly rendered "he who" or just "he"? > Probably not. "Which" seems best in context. >Thanks ahead of time. > -- >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 > > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 29 09:10:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00841; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:10:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:05:26 -0500 (EST) From: Abigail Ann Young To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: tape attack 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: 874 I am not so sure about generalizing about the practice in Greek MSS (whether of the NT or of other texts), but expunction (deletion by the use of little dots, usually under the letters/graphs used to spell or abbreviate the word(s) in question) is a very common practice in Latin MSS throughout the late ancient and mediaeval period. It's not confined to MSS of the Latin Bible. There are other conventional signs used for cancellation, as well as analogous uses of conventional signs for other corrections, such as transposition, but I think expunction is one of the most widespread. A. Dr Abigail Ann Young, Records of Early English Drama| young@chass.| Victoria College, University of Toronto | utoronto.ca | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html | REED's Home Page | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html|Our New Theatre Resource Page | From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 29 09:16:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00911; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:16:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:11:46 -0500 (EST) From: Abigail Ann Young To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Latin Qui 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: 867 Well, it depends, as always, on what you think the antecedent is! That is, any relative pron in Latin can be either a subordinating pron or a connecting pron, depending on (as someone else observed) the context, so either 'He who' or 'That which' is possible if we think it comes at the beginning of a new sentence. But choosing between those two is more a matter of syntax than context! 'qui' can refer back to any masculine noun, not just a male person/being; what are the grammatical possiblities here? (I don't have anything but a Vulg without apparatus here in my office!) A. Dr Abigail Ann Young, Records of Early English Drama| young@chass.| Victoria College, University of Toronto | utoronto.ca | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html | REED's Home Page | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html|Our New Theatre Resource Page | From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 29 09:40:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01313; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:39:54 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:34:51 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tape attack Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199701281757.KAA06841@wavecom.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 548 The request to which I was responding had to do with scribal dots placed over certain characters in P66. Dr. Parker has already given a fully adequate response on this matter. In the books I mentioned (V. Martin, G.D. Fee) there is much more on P66 than could be summarized here. I simply refer to these works for those on the net who seriously want to investigate the question. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 29 09:59:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01547; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:58:14 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:19:40 GMT Subject: Re: Birmingham Colloquium Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1350 The First Birmingham Colloquium on the textual criticism of the New Testament is to be held 14-17 April this year. If you have not received information, and would like to come, then there are still places. For general information, I give a list of the speakers, with an indication of their theme: Main papers J.N. Birdsall, Recent developments in the t.c. of Homer and their significance for NT t.c. L.W. Hurtado, The present state and directions of NT t.c. G. Childers, The Georgian versions of the NT D.G.K. Taylor, Pre-Peshitta Citations in the Syriac corpus of Basil of Caesarea Shorter papers T. Baarda, Lk 6.21b in the Diatessaron K. Clarke, Letter-Ratings of v.ll. in UBS WJ. Elliott, Tachygraphy and Nomina Sacra G. Farthing, Using Probability Theory as a key to unlock textual history E. Guting, Literary and t.c., in relation to Synoptic traditions of John the Baptist J.L. North, The Oxford Debate on NT t.c. of 1897 C.D. Osburn, Text of Acts in the Greek lectionaries S. Pickering, The significance of non-continuous NT materials in papyri J. Read-Heimerdinger, An aspect of discourse analysis in relation to the D text of Acts J. Rius-Camps, Prophetic quotations in the texts of Acts David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list Wed Jan 29 23:44:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA08985; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 23:43:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:39:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Rev. 22:19 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: 351 I am trying to find the earliest date that "tree of life" would have been available in a GREEK ms to any 16th century or 17th century English Bible translator? Any help on this matter is appreciated. -- 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 Wed Jan 29 23:51:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA09095; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 23:50:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:46:26 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Rev. 1:4 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: 436 A missionary from Hong Kong asked me tonight why the name JOHN is capitalized in the KJV at Rev. 1:4. I checked eight copies from different publishers and only two of eight did capitalize the all four letters. Is there any Byz or other text reason for this. I have never heard of any. -- 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 Thu Jan 30 09:25:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11064; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:24:26 -0500 From: "John C. Hurd" Message-Id: <199701301419.JAA16360@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: 7Q5 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:19:43 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Ronald L. Minton" at Jan 29, 97 10:46:26 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 712 I am not sure that I have seen all the 7Q5 postings, but so far I have not seen any suggestion that one should scan the LXX for a match for the agreed characters. That would seem to me the obvious place to look for a match (or matches?). If it seems useful, I'll give it a try. What range of characters would you-all suggest for the MS line length? -- John ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Prof. John C. Hurd Internet: hurd@chass.utoronto.ca :: :: 49 Wanless Ave. Office tel.: (416) 485-2429 :: :: Toronto, Ont. M4N 1V5 Office fax: (416) 485-7320 :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 30 10:58:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12052; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:57:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:57:09 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev. 1:4 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: 949 On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > A missionary from Hong Kong asked me tonight why the name JOHN is > capitalized in the KJV at Rev. 1:4. I checked eight copies from different > publishers and only two of eight did capitalize the all four letters. > Is there any Byz or other text reason for this. I have never heard of any. My copy of the RV here at the office also capitalizes the name. There is no textual reason for this that I know of. I imagine that the editors of the various editions are trying to indicate by using all caps that this verse is the beginning of a major section in the book, similar to the way in which each book (in these editions) begins with one or two words in all caps (or small caps). Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 30 11:09:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12158; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:09:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:04:59 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: hurd@chass.utoronto.ca Subject: Re: 7Q5 In-Reply-To: <199701301419.JAA16360@chass.utoronto.ca> 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: 608 John C. Hurd wrote: > I am not sure that I have seen all the 7Q5 postings, but so far I have not > seen any suggestion that one should scan the LXX for a match for the > agreed characters. That would seem to me the obvious place to look for a > match (or matches?). If it seems useful, I'll give it a try. What range > of characters would you-all suggest for the MS line length? -- John I'm pretty sure this has already been done, not only in the LXX but also on a much broader scale; e.g. across the full TLG database. (Again, see the dicussion in the Stanton book and article mentioned earlier.) N From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 30 12:17:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13030; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:16:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:10:44 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <73750.2016@compuserve.com> Subject: 7Q5 To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199701301211_MC2-1075-5409@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 430 John Hurd suggested checking the OG for a possible match. Victoria Spottorno has tried this and came up with the suggestion Zech 7:4-5 with a textual reading from the Lucianic recension. The article, "Una nueva posible identification de 7Q5," appeared in _Sefarad_ 52(1992):541-543. The suggestion is not totally convincing, but I think it is much more plausible than Mark 6. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies New York From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 30 12:33:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13225; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:32:34 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199701301731.KAA02779@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:26:04 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: 7Q5 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: 1178 > I am not sure that I have seen all the 7Q5 postings, but so far I have not > seen any suggestion that one should scan the LXX for a match for the > agreed characters. That would seem to me the obvious place to look for a > match (or matches?). If it seems useful, I'll give it a try. What range > of characters would you-all suggest for the MS line length? -- John This was done in the original DJD publication (or in preparation for it - I forget exactly) and nothing seemed to match well. The key letter sequence was NNHS, and the DJD volume suggests that it is a fragment of EGENNHSEN and hence part of a genealogy somewhere. But none of the biblical genealogies fit. O'Callaghan got the idea that it might instead be part of "Gennesaret" and this led him to the Markan identification. I haven't tried all the LXX places myself, so I can't say for sure that none of them fit. But this description is approximately how we got where things are at the moment. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "One of the things I've learned during my short sojourn on this planet is that I am underqualified to stay serious very long." -Phil Callaway From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 30 22:18:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA17917; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:16:15 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:11:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970130183129_1760490167@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev. 1:4 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 958 In a message dated 97-01-30 02:22:44 EST, you write: << A missionary from Hong Kong asked me tonight why the name JOHN is capitalized in the KJV at Rev. 1:4. I checked eight copies from different publishers and only two of eight did capitalize all four letters. Is there any Byz or other text reason for this. I have never heard of any. >> The capitalization of JOHN in Rev 1:4 does not occur in the REAL KJV 1611 edition, nor in any of the earlier English versions. However, it is found in a pre-1769 edition, along with capitalizing the first word of every chapter. So Benjamin Blayney cannot be blamed. Some intervening editorial committee must have decided on that feature for their style sheet. As for the first word of a chapter this is understandable, but even though in Rev 1:4, JOHN is the first word in a new section, that convention does not seem to be consistently followed at the beginning of new sections elsewhere. James D. Price From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 31 05:35:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA19559; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 05:33:34 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:28:23 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: 7Q5 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 343 I found G. D. Fee's article responding to O'Callighan very persuasive: G. D. Fee in JBL 92(1973): 109-12. More recently, see E. Puech's essay in Revue Biblique 102(1995): 570- 84. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 31 10:08:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20764; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:07:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:07:30 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list down time 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: 531 The tc-list will be taken down on Monday morning (U.S. Eastern time) and will be down for about a day or so. We are transferring our files to a new computer, and messages sent to the list during that time will be bounced back to the senders. I will let you know when the list is available again. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------