From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 2 03:02:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA04165; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 03:00:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 03:00:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199702020800.DAA04155@scholar.cc.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6679 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enugh of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but these difficulties can be overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in the early stages of implementation (our first articles are now ready!), and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 2 13:17:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05703; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:16:36 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:11:08 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Mathematical Error Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1796 TCers -- A minor note to anyone who may have visited my web site in the last 24 hours (the web counter implies that there weren't any, but the support forum at my provider has a complaint from a person who says the counter doesn't work). I posted a couple of new articles yesterday, of which the largest and most important had to do with mathematics and its application to textual criticism. I didn't proofread the article until after I posted it, and it turned out I had made a calculation error at one point. It's now fixed, but if anyone downloaded the article, be sure to get the correct one. (As a bonus, to make up for my error, I added a couple of new sections.) Also, if there are any mathematicians out there, my apologies for all the hand-waving the article contains. I thought I could make such mathematics as is needed for TC come out relatively smoothly. Turns out I couldn't; the result is more rigorous (i.e. complicated) than I had expected, and still glosses over a lot of important material. Sigh. I also eventually had to give up Lynx compatibility. It's a "Netscape or Else" situation. You can't do math without superscripts, subscripts, tables, and graphics! A final note: I just threw in some mathematical topics that occurred to me. I will probably add more later. If anyone has suggestions, let me know. I will try to supply what is needed. (Just don't ask for any non-Euclidean geometry... we never got into 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 Tue Feb 4 16:21:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03422; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:21:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:21:28 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@shemesh To: TC List Subject: TC-list back online 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: 471 The TC-list is up and running again after migration to a new server. As with any major upgrade of this sort, it is possible that it will take a while to work all the bugs out, so if you have any problems with the list, please let me know. 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 Tue Feb 4 16:22:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03441; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:22:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:22:08 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@shemesh To: TC List Subject: IOSCS call for papers (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: 1934 I'm forwarding this message from Leonard Greenspoon 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 <----------------- CALL FOR PAPERS -- JANUARY 1997 The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies will meet this year in San Francisco, CA, in conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion. The meeting dates as 22-27 November 1997. Any IOSCS member interested in presenting a paper should send me a proposal by March 15 at the latest. Your proposal should contain your name, the name of your academic institution, the title of your proposed paper, and a summary or abstract of the paper. The summary should be no more than 300 words in length and must be doubled spaced. In keeping with the description provided by the SBL, your abstract should: "State the problem, the essential background, and your conclusions...Be precise and brief: everyone knows you will provide more detail and a defense of your conclusions at the meeting." Also make sure that it is clear which session you are interested in. SBL members will find the necessary forms and further information in the current SBL Call for Papers. Others can obtain the forms, etc., from the SBL web site or from me. I am confident that we will continue our tradition of presenting a strong and interesting program at each of our meetings. I can be contacted through any of the following means: MAIL: Leonard Jay Greenspoon Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization Creighton University 2500 California Plaza Omaha, Nebraska 68178 USA TELEPHONE: (402) 280-2303/04 FAX: (402) 280-4731 E-MAIL: LJGRN@CREIGHTON.EDU Very sincerely, Leonard Greenspoon From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 4 18:57:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03858; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:57:57 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:56:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970204183135_1246716805@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tape attack/Riplinger Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 861 TC'ers I have not only reviewed Gails book but have spoken to her on several occaisions. I cannot judge her heart but I can (and DO) judge her actions!!! First of all, she DOES NOT READ OR KNOW ANY GREEK! (or Hebrew for that matter). Her methodology is totally incorrect. She gives the appearance of knowing what she is talking about, but if you get to dialogue with her for any period of time, it becoms plainly apparent that she is TOTALLY IGNORANT of NT studies in general and NTTC in particular. (AM I sounding a little heated here? I had thought that this topic [and Gail] had all but disappeared). I would be very interested in seeing this tape though. Please let me know how to get a copy to view. James White has written a book that addresses her work in "The King James Only Controversy" by Bethany House 1995 Rich Elliott General Editor, ENTTC From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 4 19:29:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA03914; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:29:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:26:33 -0500 (EST) From: Julian Goldberg Subject: TANAKH To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.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: 825 The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from: Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5A 1N0. Thanks. From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 5 16:31:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05970; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:31:33 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:34:04 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re Rev. 1:4 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <33709D23E2@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 154 When "John" is capitalized in Rev. 1:4 it is because it is the first word in the text of the book. Verses 1-3 are the book's title. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 5 17:04:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06035; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:04:53 -0500 From: "George Kiraz" Message-Id: <9702051702.ZM11478@atlas.research.bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:02:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" "Re Rev. 1:4" (Feb 5, 1:34pm) References: <33709D23E2@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.1.0 22feb94 MediaMail) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Syriac Quotations Cc: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1204 I have a plan to compile a book of Syriac quotations. Quotations will be taken from Syriac literature, and will be in English translation. If you have published (or in the process of publishing) Syriac texts, homilies, memre, etc. in English translation, I can make use of them. Even works and papers which here and there quote Syriac texts are useful. Please send me references. Beter yet, if you have anything in electronic form, that would be most useful. All translation sources of course will be acknowledged. George Kiraz -- _ _ \\\||/// George Anton Kiraz ___________\||||/___________ Language Modeling Research \___\___\___/ \___/___/___/ Bell Laboratories \___\___\_ ARAM _/___/___/ Room 2D-513 \___\___\_\__/_/___/___/ 700 Mountain Ave \___\___\_||_/___/___/ Murray Hill, NJ 07974 |||| |||| Tel. +1 908 582 4074 |\_//\\_/| Fax. +1 908 582 3306 \_/ \_/ Email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 5 17:14:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06094; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:14:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:14:23 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Re Rev. 1:4 In-Reply-To: <33709D23E2@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1446 On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > When "John" is capitalized in Rev. 1:4 it is because it is the first > word in the text of the book. Verses 1-3 are the book's title. While this might be a possible thought from within a higher-critical perspective, the manuscript evidence demonstrates precisely the opposite (see Hoskier's collation data in vol.2 of his _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_). While the "real" title of the book varies dramatically (Apocalypse / Apoc. of John / Apoc. of John the Theolog / Apoc. of John the Holy Theolog, etc. etc. with many varied forms and expansions), as soon as one hits Apoc.1:1-1:3, the main text reverts back to the "normal" pattern one finds in the main text of any scriptural book, with little variance among the MSS, and _no_ indication that 1:1-3 was specifically considered a title in any normal sense. There is _no_ basis found among the Greek MSS for the capitalization of "JOHN" in 1:4 -- that was purely an individual editor's decision related to printed editions or translations, just as with the inscription on the cross or "MYSTERY: BABYLON THE GREAT" in the KJV. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 5 21:48:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06435; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:48:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:47:55 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Majority mss Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 384 I was cruising the textual criticism web sites today, and I came up with a question that I had been asked last year. How many manuscripts can we say for certain are represented by the Robinson-Pierpont and the Hodges-Farstad texts? -- 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 Feb 5 23:54:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06611; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:54:13 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:53:50 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Majority mss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2644 On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > I was cruising the textual criticism web sites today, and > I came up with a question that I had been asked last year. How many > manuscripts can we say for certain are represented by the > Robinson-Pierpont and the Hodges-Farstad texts? Based upon the data cited by Von Soden regarding his "K" MSS (and eliminating the MSS cited only cursorily) as well as comparing such with the Nestle-Aland "M" data cited in the appendix to the 26th or 27th edition, one could say that a solid "K" or "M" reading generally would reflect a consensus of around 500 or so MSS -- quite sufficient statistically for establishing the dominant Byzantine Textform in most instances. I have an unpublished paper ("How Many MSS are Necessary to Establish the 'Majority Text'?") which was distributed by the Majority Text Society some years back, in which I demonstrated that by using the consensus reading of only 13 MSS randomly selected in a sample chapter one would approach either the Von Soden "K" or the Nestle-Aland "M" with approximately 96% certainty, and that every MS added to such a pool would increase the percentage of agreement in moving towards the desired goal. Statistically I suspect that any random sampling of 100 MSS or more would suffice to produce a strongly Byzantine consensus text which would probably approach "K" or "M" with 98% or more certainty. If approximately 500 MSS were used as the base (i.e., following the data of Von Soden and Nestle-Aland), I suppose 99%+ certainty should be expected in establishing beyond doubt nearly all of the primary readings of the Byzantine Textform (math and statistics majors out there might help me out on that aspect; someone did send me some statistical data on this point after my article was distributed, but I confess an inability to comprehend chi-square and such other niceties which lie outside of my own area of specialization). I should also note that at least in the case of the Robinson-Pierpont edition the _Text und Textwert_ series as well as IGNTP/Luke and the earlier IGNTP/Legg were also consulted. Of these, _Text und Textwert_ of course provides *all* the continuous-text Greek MS data for the variant cited, usually averaging around 500-600 MSS in the portions of Acts, Paul, and the General Epistles so far published. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 6 05:37:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA06807; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 05:37:20 -0500 Message-Id: <9702061136.AA00648@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: strange translation of Greek particle ARA Date: Thu, 6 Feb 97 11:36:47 +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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1291 Hello tc-ers! Here are some more funny features of my Arabic manuscript, Sinai Arabic 71. It's about the way it translates the Greek particle ARA (approx. meaning "thus") in three passages. The ms covers Mt 23 - Lk 5. In all that text, the Greek "ara" comes 4 times (Mt 24.45, Mk 4.41, Mk 11.13 and Lk 1.66). In three of these cases (Mk 11.13 is the exception), my Arabic version translates it by the Arabic verb _r'y_ (akin to the hebrew ra'ah). Mt 24.45 man yara' dhalika 'l-(abd "who sees that servant..." Mk 4.41 man nara' hadha-lladhi 'l-baHr "who do we see this one to whom the see..." Lk 1.66 madha taruna yakun hadha al-Sabiyy "what do you see is this child..." Quite a strange translation! In my opinion, it is motivated by... the phonetic similitude between the Greek particle and the Arabic root! Quite a unique feature, isn't it? And again, it shows our translator wasn't at ease with Greek as he was embarrassed with this quite rare particle. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 6 09:28:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07102; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:28:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:28:13 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@shemesh To: TC List Subject: computer problems with the list Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1153 Since our move to the new computer earlier this week, we have been experiencing occasional problems related to the mailer programs that run this list. Most people seem to be able to post to the list and get messages from the list without any problem, but others have experienced difficulties, ranging from messages being returned with an indication that they have entered an invalid address for the list to receiving error messages from majordomo (our mailer program) that only the listowner ought to be receiving. If you are having any of these problems, try changing the address you use for this list to tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Likewise, send administrative requests to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu These will become the official addresses for the list, although scholar.cc.emory.edu ought to work as an alias. If you are experiencing problems with the list, please write me off list. Thank you. 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 Thu Feb 6 09:38:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07144; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:38:55 -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, 6 Feb 1997 08:40:36 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Majority mss Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3809 On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > >> I was cruising the textual criticism web sites today, and >> I came up with a question that I had been asked last year. How many >> manuscripts can we say for certain are represented by the >> Robinson-Pierpont and the Hodges-Farstad texts? > >Based upon the data cited by Von Soden regarding his "K" MSS (and >eliminating the MSS cited only cursorily) as well as comparing such with >the Nestle-Aland "M" data cited in the appendix to the 26th or 27th >edition, one could say that a solid "K" or "M" reading generally would >reflect a consensus of around 500 or so MSS -- quite sufficient >statistically for establishing the dominant Byzantine Textform in most >instances. > >I have an unpublished paper ("How Many MSS are Necessary to Establish the >'Majority Text'?") which was distributed by the Majority Text Society some >years back, in which I demonstrated that by using the consensus reading of >only 13 MSS randomly selected in a sample chapter one would approach >either the Von Soden "K" or the Nestle-Aland "M" with approximately 96% >certainty, and that every MS added to such a pool would increase the >percentage of agreement in moving towards the desired goal. While I don't consider this to be proved mathematically, I believe Robinson is right. A dozen or so properly selected manuscripts could represent the range of the Byzantine text so well that no more would be needed in the vast majority of cases. >Statistically I suspect that any random sampling of 100 MSS or more would >suffice to produce a strongly Byzantine consensus text which would >probably approach "K" or "M" with 98% or more certainty. If approximately >500 MSS were used as the base (i.e., following the data of Von Soden and >Nestle-Aland), I suppose 99%+ certainty should be expected in establishing >beyond doubt nearly all of the primary readings of the Byzantine Textform >(math and statistics majors out there might help me out on that aspect; >someone did send me some statistical data on this point after my article >was distributed, but I confess an inability to comprehend chi-square and >such other niceties which lie outside of my own area of specialization). Again, based on my work, I generally agree. In fact, I think an edition based on fifty well-selected manuscripts would be sufficient (because of the uniform nature of the Byzantine text). This does not, of course, mean that anyone has ever prepared an edition on such a basis. Also, care needs to be taken to get manuscripts from all Byzantine subgroups (Kx, Kr, faly Pi, M, etc.) >I should also note that at least in the case of the Robinson-Pierpont >edition the _Text und Textwert_ series as well as IGNTP/Luke and the >earlier IGNTP/Legg were also consulted. Of these, _Text und Textwert_ of >course provides *all* the continuous-text Greek MS data for the variant >cited, usually averaging around 500-600 MSS in the portions of Acts, Paul, >and the General Epistles so far published. Just a note: This is not *quite* true. There are a few, generally minor, manuscripts omitted from T&T. I observe, for instance, that the collations for Paul omit 1799 and 1960 (even though collations of both have been published!). I suppose 1799 may have been omitted because it appears to have been derived from a lectionary text, but I have no idea why 1960 was omitted. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 6 12:02:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA07625; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:02:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199702061702.MAA07620@shemesh.> From: "Jim Mendelson" To: Subject: Re: computer problems with the list Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:32:57 -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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 371 > Since our move to the new computer earlier this week, we have been > experiencing occasional problems related to the mailer programs that run > this list. James--The "unsubscribe" is also not working for either server. I need to unsubscribe for awhile, but majordomo is unwilling. Thanks, Jim From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 05:41:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA08854; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:41:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:40:54 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Syriac Quotations In-Reply-To: <9702051702.ZM11478@atlas.research.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 691 On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, George Kiraz wrote: > I have a plan to compile a book of Syriac quotations. > Please send me references. ********************* TITLE: The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life DATE: 1987 PLACE: Kalamazoo, Michigan PUBLISHER: Cistercian Publications EDITOR: Sebastian Brock TITLE: Daily Readings with St. Isaac of Syria DATE: 1989 / 1990 PLACE: London / Springfield, Illinois PUBLISHER: Templegate Publishers / Darton, Longman, and Todd Ltd. EDITOR: A.M. Allchin and Sebastian Brock TITLE: Voices in the Wilderness: an Anthology of Patristic Prayers DATE: 1988 PLACE: Brookline, MA PUBLISHER: Holy Cross Orthodox Press EDITOR: Nikolaos S. Hatzinikolaou From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 07:10:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA08919; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:10:12 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:15:29 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: habas@netvision.net.il (Dr. E. Habas) Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 806 >On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman 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. ....... Does your experience include professional Torah-writers (=SOFREI STM)? Thank you, E. Habas Dept of History Ben Gurion University Be'er Sheva, Israel From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 07:28:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA08976; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:28:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:28:10 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1138 Dr. Habas, The words you've attributed to me were written _to_ me (not by me). I personally think it is possible for scribes to reproduce their examplars exactly. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Dr. E. Habas wrote: > > >On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman 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. > > ....... > > Does your experience include professional Torah-writers (=SOFREI STM)? > > Thank you, > > E. Habas > > Dept of History > Ben Gurion University > Be'er Sheva, Israel > > From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 17:00:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA10990; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:00:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:59:38 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: P45 at John 11:20 In-Reply-To: <970204183135_1246716805@emout02.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 458 Swanson's NEW TESTAMENT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS - JOHN seems to accidently omit P45 at John 11:20b-21a. Can someone give me the text of P45 from MARIA of verse 20 through the first words of vs. 21. If you are certain that it reads the same as P75 here, that will be sufficient information. 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 Fri Feb 7 17:36:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11038; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:36:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:36:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Equidistant letters Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 576 Is anyone familiar with an article in Statistical Science (Aug 94) or in Bible Review (Oct 95) or The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 152:1, 1988)? I have received claims that amazing statistical sequences in the Hebrew proves (even supernaturally so) the accuracy of the Masoretic text and/or certain translations. This seems mystical to me, but I have not seen the arguments. Has anyone evaluated such claims? -- 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 Feb 7 18:32:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11108; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:32:55 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:35:13 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: re: Rev. 1:4 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <6576AF6CF8@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 987 When I said that Rev 1:1-3 was the title of the book, I was not referring to a title supplied by an editor. The book of Revelation is in the form of a letter, with the usual kind of salutation, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia. Grace be unto you" (compare "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad. Greeting"; or "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colossae. Grace be unto you"). The letter also has the usual close (22:21), "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all" (compare Galatians 6:18, "Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit"). Rev. 1:1-3 are a title supplied by the writer, not an editor, which is why these verses are the same in all the manuscripts, and why, when the fact is recognized, "John" is sometimes capitalized in vs. 4. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 18:34:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11124; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:34:10 -0500 Message-ID: <32FC50A9.5C06@sn.no> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 02:08:41 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: P45 at John 11:20 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 536 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > Swanson's NEW TESTAMENT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS - JOHN seems to accidently omit > P45 at John 11:20b-21a. Can someone give me the text of P45 from MARIA > of verse 20 through the first words of vs. 21. If you are certain > that it reads the same as P75 here, that will be sufficient information. > Thanks ahead of time. Dear Mr. Minton, The exact wording of P45 in the text you requested is as follows: "maria de en toi oik.. ekathezeto eipen oun marth.. pros tov ih ke ei hs...." -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 18:45:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11165; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:45:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:41:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702072341.SAA01423@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1187 Professor Minton: Dr. James D. Price of Temple Baptist Seminary has done some work on the subject. The claims that the advocates are outlandish. I suggest for more details you contact Dr. Price at: drjdprice@aol.com Kevin W. Woodruff At 04:36 PM 2/7/97 -0600, you wrote: >Is anyone familiar with an article in Statistical Science (Aug 94) or in >Bible Review (Oct 95) or The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society >152:1, 1988)? I have received claims that amazing statistical sequences >in the Hebrew proves (even supernaturally so) the accuracy of the Masoretic >text and/or certain translations. This seems mystical to me, but I have >not seen the arguments. Has anyone evaluated such claims? > >-- >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 > > > 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 (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 20:42:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA11356; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:42:10 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:41:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207134141_-1509434001@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tape attack Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 632 In a message dated 97-01-28 16:22:14 EST, you write: << 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 truth be known, the (so-called) publisher of "New Age Bible Versions" is AV Publications. This is Gail Ripliger herself, probably out of her garage. The AV she says is "Authorized Version." Need I say more? Rich Elliott ENTTC From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 7 22:21:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA11440; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:21:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:20:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Mark_O'Brien@DTS.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 322 For James Adair, Every time I post to the tc list, I get two messages returned undeliverable that were sent to Mark_O'Brien@DTS.edu Is this a problem with my program or his? -- 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 Feb 8 02:01:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA11695; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:01:09 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:00:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970208020042_-1777285062@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark_O'Brien@DTS.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 72 I've had the same exact problem a few times myself. Rich Elliott ENTTC From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 02:59:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA11725; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:59:26 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:59:05 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: re: Rev. 1:4 In-Reply-To: <6576AF6CF8@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 684 On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > When I said that Rev 1:1-3 was the title of the book, I was not > referring to a title supplied by an editor. Granted. However, since not even all KJV editions capitalize PAUL or PETER at the initial words of their epistles, this situation at Apoc.1:4 is still a purely editorial decision on the part of some printers or editors. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 03:03:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA11744; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 03:03:11 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 03:02:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207134240_-1743826960@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tape Attack Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 417 In a message dated 97-01-28 17:17:48 EST, you write: << > > 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 >> Gail, help. My Alexandrian rugs are clashing with my Byzantine curtains, what shall I do?? :-} LOL RE Elliott From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 05:12:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA11839; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:33 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207134252_104794224@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tape Attack/Better tapes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 548 TC'ers There are a set of tapes that are much better than the "Riplinger ramblings". The John Ankerberg show produced a two tape (~4-6 hours) of a debate that included much discussion about Riplinger ,her book, claims, etc. It has hosted by Ankerberg and included: Dr. Kenneth Barker (NIV), James White, Dr. Art Farstad (NKJV, MT), Dr. Don Wilkins (NASB) and Dr. Dan Wallace vs Dr. Samual Gipp, and two others whose names escape me now, all three are KJV only. If you are interested in this contact the John Ankerberg Show. Rich Elliott ENTTC From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 06:37:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA11891; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:37:49 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:37:29 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tape Attack/Better tapes In-Reply-To: <970207134252_104794224@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 247 O.K., I'll bite: what does "AV" stand for, if not "authorized version"? The last I heard, the KJV had never been "authorized" by anybody for any purpose. King James himself merely contracted for it to be produced, but he didn't "authorize" it. From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 07:16:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA11927; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:16:56 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:16:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970208071635_1546924697@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1027 Ron Minton: You wrote: << Is anyone familiar with an article in Statistical Science (Aug 94) or in Bible Review (Oct 95) or The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 152:1, 1988)? I have received claims that amazing statistical sequences in the Hebrew proves (even supernaturally so) the accuracy of the Masoretic text and/or certain translations. This seems mystical to me, but I have not seen the arguments. Has anyone evaluated such claims? >> Yes. I have the article and other literature on the subject. I am in the process of evaluating the article by replicating the data and software. I am in contact with others who are working with me. There is a lot of wild stuff going on as a result of this article, most of which has no statistical validity. James D. Price ==================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ==================================================== From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 07:41:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA11959; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:41:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199702081241.NAA97710@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 08 Feb 97 14:53:29 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1156 >>On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman 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. ....... >Does your experience include professional Torah-writers (=SOFREI STM)? >Thank you, >E. Habas >Dept of History >Ben Gurion University >Be'er Sheva, Israel The broad statement is mine. I should have said "...no scribe reproducing Greek NT MSS...". Dr. Habas, the answer to your question is no. (* In fact, I had a closer look at one scroll of Genesis, but experts confirmed that this piece of writing from the 13th century doesn't meet professional standards.) Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 07:47:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA11985; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:47:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199702081247.NAA69200@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 08 Feb 97 14:59:47 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: strange translation of Greek particle ARA To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9702061136.AA00648@iris.arcadis.be> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 657 On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Jean Valentin wrote: >Hello tc-ers! >Here are some more funny features of my Arabic manuscript, Sinai Arabic >71. It's about the way it translates the Greek particle ARA (approx. >meaning "thus") in three passages. >The ms covers Mt 23 - Lk 5. In all that text, the Greek "ara" comes 4 >times (Mt 24.45, Mk 4.41, Mk 11.13 and Lk 1.66). In three of these cases >(Mk 11.13 is the exception), my Arabic version translates it by the >Arabic verb _r'y_ (akin to the hebrew ra'ah). In conversation with Dr. Andreas Juckel he points to the transliteration of Greek ARA in the Harclensis (Syriac ara = _'r'_). Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 08:27:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12016; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:27:41 -0500 Message-Id: <199702081327.FAA28615@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:27:55 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 828 On 7 Feb 97 at 16:36, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > Is anyone familiar with an article in Statistical Science (Aug 94) or in > Bible Review (Oct 95) or The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society > 152:1, 1988)? I have received claims that amazing statistical sequences > in the Hebrew proves (even supernaturally so) the accuracy of the Masoretic > text and/or certain translations. I have read the Bible Review article and it seems an intelligent summary of what was done along with a good layman's discussion of some of the statistical issues. Of course, all statistics can do, in effect, is make statements on the likelihood that a particular result could be obtained by pure chance. What conclusions one draws from those statistical results are beyond the realm of statistics. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 13:41:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA12235; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:41:19 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:43:51 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2059 Lewis Reich wrote: >Ronald L. Minton wrote: >> Is anyone familiar with an article in Statistical Science (Aug 94) or in >> Bible Review (Oct 95) or The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society >> 152:1, 1988)? I have received claims that amazing statistical sequences >> in the Hebrew proves (even supernaturally so) the accuracy of the Masoretic >> text and/or certain translations. >I have read the Bible Review article and it seems an intelligent >summary of what was done along with a good layman's discussion of >some of the statistical issues. Of course, all statistics can do, >in effect, is make statements on the likelihood that a particular >result could be obtained by pure chance. What conclusions one draws >from those statistical results are beyond the realm of statistics. I think I'll have to respectfully disagree with Lewis on this. Whatever the validity of the original claims, the BR article presented only the must cursory and "hand-waving" description of what the original authors claimed and virtually no discussion whatsoever of the statistical issues involved. It was very hard to come away from the article with any real understanding of what was going on. Rather the author, Jeffrey R. Satinover (a family therapist and mystery novelist) did not even even attempt to appear to present a critical examination --or indeed even a serious discussion-- of the authors' claims. Rather he accepted the claims at full face value and presented them as simple, given fact. (A final note: Those who look up the article in BR may also want to read the letters column the Feb 1996 issue. In that issue Marvin F. Cain, Director of the Mid-Columbia Center for Theological Studies in Pasco Washington reports that he applied the so-called "Equidistant Letter Technique" to the opening sentences of Satinover's article. The resulting message: "No, No, No, A Lie!" ;-) Nichael __ nichael@sover.net Be as passersby -- IC http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 15:39:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12338; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 15:39:33 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 15:39:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970208153912_2093368862@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2081 Nichael wrote: << Whatever the validity of the original claims, the BR article presented only the must cursory and "hand-waving" description of what the original authors claimed and virtually no discussion whatsoever of the statistical issues involved. It was very hard to come away from the article with any real understanding of what was going on. Rather the author, Jeffrey R. Satinover (a family therapist and mystery novelist) did not even even attempt to appear to present a critical examination --or indeed even a serious discussion-- of the authors' claims. Rather he accepted the claims at full face value and presented them as simple, given fact. >> I have read and studied the original article in the journal STATISTICAL SCIENCE, the most prestigious journal serving the top academic statisticians. The article underwent the most strenuous peer review before publication, and no one found any flaws in it. Since its publication some critiques have been circulated, but no refutation of the article has appeared in a professional journal. The conclusion of the authors was "We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the Book of Genesis in not due to chance." This is supported by impressive data that rank the phenomenon in Genesis 5th among 1,000,000 samples in the control group. The SS experiment has been taken seriously by many well informed people, and unfortunately many uninformed people have jumped on this band waggon to promote all kinds of wild agendas. I am very skeptical of the experiment, and am working with several professionals to test its validity. We should warn people to procede verycausiously with this, but it should be taken seriously. It is not something that can be passed off lightly. I subscribe to a list that discusses this topic daily. Some subscribers are wholly convinced that the ELS codes are of God, and are attempting to use them for apologetic purposes. In my opinion that is totally unjustified. Others, like myself, are examining it technically with a fine-toothed comb. James D. Price From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 16:47:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA12424; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:47:37 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970208153912_2093368862@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 15:50:08 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1971 On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, DrJDPrice@AOL.COM wrote: > Nichael wrote: > ><< Whatever the validity of the original claims, the BR article presented >only > the must cursory and "hand-waving" description of what the original authors > claimed and virtually no discussion whatsoever of the statistical issues > involved. It was very hard to come away from the article with any real > understanding of what was going on. > > Rather the author, Jeffrey R. Satinover (a family therapist and mystery > novelist) did not even even attempt to appear to present a critical > examination --or indeed even a serious discussion-- of the authors' claims. > Rather he accepted the claims at full face value and presented them as > simple, given fact. >> > >I have read and studied the original article in the journal STATISTICAL >SCIENCE, the most prestigious journal serving the top academic statisticians. >The article underwent the most strenuous peer review before publication, and >no one found any flaws in it. Since its publication some critiques have been >circulated, but no refutation of the article has appeared in a professional >journal. The conclusion of the authors was "We conclude that the proximity of >ELS's with related meanings in the Book of Genesis in not due to chance." >This is supported by impressive data that rank the phenomenon in Genesis 5th >among 1,000,000 samples in the control group. Before incivility breaks out, we should perhaps note that two different journals are being referred to here. But this still doesn't address the point that some of us are still wondering about. That point being, "What did the articles claim?" If it is claimed that the MT is very uniform, and seems to have been copied with extreme fidelity from generation to generation -- well, that is no surprise. I haven't heard anyone deny it. The effort made by the scribes was immense. But so what? I hope someone can offer some elucidation. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 17:55:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12471; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 17:55:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199702082254.OAA26725@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 17:55:35 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2032 On 8 Feb 97 at 13:43, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > I think I'll have to respectfully disagree with Lewis on this. > > Whatever the validity of the original claims, the BR article > presented only the must cursory and "hand-waving" description of > what the original authors claimed and virtually no discussion > whatsoever of the statistical issues involved. It was very hard to > come away from the article with any real understanding of what was > going on. Nichael is right; I had misremembered the author's response to various letters to the editor (BR Feb. 1996) as if it were part of the original article. In that response he provides more information about the procedure than he does in the original article. However, I'm not sure that what I regard as a "layman's description" would necessarily be immune to a charge of "cursory hand-waving". On 8 Feb 97 at 15:50, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > But this still doesn't address the point that some of us are still wondering > about. That point being, "What did the articles claim?" The Bible Review article stated the conclusion of the JRS article was that "words [were] encoded into the Hebrew text that could have not been accidental - nor placed there by human hand". This rather unfortunate slant extends to the title of the BR article: "Divine Authorship? Computer reveals startling word patterns". The subsequent SS article is described as yielding "results [that] do not reveal any secret messages encoded in the Bible, but they do demonstrate certain sequences of letters forming words that cannot be the result of chance." The BR article quotes the editor of SS as saying: "Our referees were baffled: their prior beliefs made them think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful references to modern day individuals, yet when the authors carried out additional analyses and checks the effect persisted. The paper is thus offered to *Statistical Science* readers as a challenging puzzle." Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 18:30:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12517; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:30:27 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199702082254.OAA26725@m8.sprynet.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 17:14:19 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1628 On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, "Lewis Reich" wrote, in part: >The Bible Review article stated the conclusion of the JRS article was >that "words [were] encoded into the Hebrew text that could have not >been accidental - nor placed there by human hand". Which is, of course, not true. It is the nature of coincidences that *they happen*. Note that I don't say this is false -- merely that it is meaningless. >This rather >unfortunate slant extends to the title of the BR article: "Divine >Authorship? Computer reveals startling word patterns". The >subsequent SS article is described as yielding "results [that] do not >reveal any secret messages encoded in the Bible, but they do >demonstrate certain sequences of letters forming words that cannot be >the result of chance." The BR article quotes the editor of SS as >saying: "Our referees were baffled: their prior beliefs made them >think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful >references to modern day individuals, yet when the authors carried >out additional analyses and checks the effect persisted. The paper >is thus offered to *Statistical Science* readers as a challenging >puzzle." Ouch. I'll believe *this* when I see some real evidence. Thanks for the explanation. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 8 18:32:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12532; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:32:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199702082331.SAA47362@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 18:31:13 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: A query on von Soden's "mu-5" group Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 497 Can anyone supply me with a list of the MSS which von Soden included in his mu5 group? (Read as: Greek "mu" with a superscript "5"--it is a subset of his "K" group.) If you have v.S., you can find the discussion in Teil I.2, pp. 739ff., but nowhere--and I have consulted F. Krueger's "Schluessel zu von Soden's 'Die Schriften...'"--have I been able to find the MSS he includes in that group (or, for that matter, in his mu1 through mu7 groups. Thanks in advance. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 8 22:06:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA12733; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 22:06:15 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 21:05:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: ANDREW SMITH cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tape Attack/Better tapes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 626 On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > The last I heard, the KJV had never been "authorized" by anybody for any > purpose. King James himself merely contracted for it to be produced, but > he didn't "authorize" it. Actually, the KJV probably was authorized. However, no such authorization by the king or pr. council is extant. In the days of early English Bibles, authorized meant appointed for use in Anglican churches. I do not know that it meant any more than that. -- 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 Feb 8 22:09:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA12754; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 22:09:42 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 21:09:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: DrJDPrice@aol.com cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant letters In-Reply-To: <970208071635_1546924697@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 638 On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 DrJDPrice@aol.com wrote: > > Yes. I have the article and other literature on the subject. I am in the > process of evaluating the article by replicating the data and software. I am > in contact with others who are working with me. There is a lot of wild stuff > going on as a result of this article, most of which has no statistical > validity. > James D. Price Thanks, and I await your results. DR. Riplinger uses it to prove the M.T. and KJV are supernatural :) -- 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 Feb 9 00:18:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12930; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:18:02 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:22:56 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: habas@netvision.net.il (Dr. E. Habas) Subject: professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1249 Dr. Schmid's revised statement as to scribes' practices is very interesting. If indeed "...no scribe reproducing Greek NT MSS..." has managed to produce a perfect (or close to it) manuscript (and yet the chronological boundaries of this are not clear to me), than either there is a marked difference in the professional level between these scribes and those copying Hebrew OT texts for use in Jewish communities, which would seem odd, or one could suggest a marked difference in the *attitude* of the former and the latter scribes to the texts that they were copying. Could that be the case? I wonder... Maybe a different solution has escaped me - I don't know enough about Greek NT scribes. Effie Habas > In fact, I had a closer look at >one scroll of Genesis, but experts confirmed that this piece of writing >from >the >13th century doesn't meet professional standards.) Again, you gave no details, but normally any OT text which is not perfect (namely, contains a mistake) would be put aside and never used, though such texts would not be thrown away in the usual manner (luckily for anyone using material from the Cairo Geniza). So we *do* have many examples of imperfect texts, but we know they were not used. sincerely, Effie Habas From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 9 00:26:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12953; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:26:27 -0500 Message-ID: <32FD742F.447F@cobweb.com.au> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 15:52:31 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: professional scribes References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2625 Dr. E. Habas wrote: > > Dr. Schmid's revised statement as to scribes' practices is very > interesting. If indeed "...no scribe reproducing Greek > NT MSS..." has managed to produce a perfect (or close to it) manuscript > (and yet the chronological boundaries of this are not clear to me), than > either there is a marked difference in the professional level between these > scribes and those copying Hebrew OT texts for use in Jewish communities, > which would seem odd, or one could suggest a marked difference in the > *attitude* of the former and the latter scribes to the texts that they were > copying. Could that be the case? I wonder... Maybe a different solution has > escaped me - I don't know enough about Greek NT scribes. > > Effie Habas > > > In fact, I had a closer look at > >one scroll of Genesis, but experts confirmed that this piece of writing > >from >the > >13th century doesn't meet professional standards.) > > Again, you gave no details, but normally any OT text which is not perfect > (namely, contains a mistake) would be put aside and never used, though such > texts would not be thrown away in the usual manner (luckily for anyone > using material from the Cairo Geniza). So we *do* have many examples of > imperfect texts, but we know they were not used. > > sincerely, > > Effie Habas I believe there were a lot of differences between NT scribes and OT scribes. Initially they were copied in scriptoriums by paid scribes and many manuscripts were most probably copied in a hurry to get them circulating. Anyway I suggest Metzger's book, "The Text of the NT" which has a chapter on such considerations. 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 Sun Feb 9 09:09:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13166; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:09:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199702091409.PAA48074@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 09 Feb 97 16:21:51 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: professional scribes To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3399 On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Effie Habas wrote: >Dr. Schmid's revised statement as to scribes' practices is very >interesting. If indeed "...no scribe reproducing Greek >NT MSS..." has managed to produce a perfect (or close to it) manuscript >(and yet the chronological boundaries of this are not clear to me), than >either there is a marked difference in the professional level between these >scribes and those copying Hebrew OT texts for use in Jewish communities, >which would seem odd, or one could suggest a marked difference in the >*attitude* of the former and the latter scribes to the texts that they were >copying. Could that be the case? I wonder... Maybe a different solution has >escaped me - I don't know enough about Greek NT scribes. It might be interesting to discuss the meaning of the term "to produce a perfect (or close to it) manuscript". If we rerfer to the standards put forth by the masoretics, most likely no scribe reproducing Greek NT MSS can compete. Maybe "professional levels" were different, maybe "a marked difference in the *attitude*" is detectable. However, I suspect most of the differences are due to features transcendending the attitudes or professional levels of individuals (scribes). As far as I know the masoretic standards include counting letters and various systems of punctuation which help counting and prevent from *correcting* sensless words or word forms (e.g., ketif/qere). This type of standardisation has been adopted and became part of professional skills all over the *world* for this body of literature. As far as I can see no such strict rules existed in Greek or Latin writing transcendending regional and/or chronological boundaries (for whatever body of literature?). At some point in time Biblical Hebrew became some kind of *artificial* liturgical language separated from the influence of linguistic changes through everyday use of a *living* language. As far as I can see for a considerable span of time the transmission of Greek and Latin texts has been embedded in *living* linguistic surroundings with various points of contact and change (at least within the realms of orthography). BTW --- From the Qumran scrolls we know analogous phenomena for Hebrew OT texts. [quoting Schmid:] >> In fact, I had a closer look at >>one scroll of Genesis, but experts confirmed that this piece of writing >>from >the >>13th century doesn't meet professional standards.) >Again, you gave no details, but normally any OT text which is not perfect >(namely, contains a mistake) would be put aside and never used, though such >texts would not be thrown away in the usual manner (luckily for anyone >using material from the Cairo Geniza). So we *do* have many examples of >imperfect texts, but we know they were not used. A rabbi looking at the mentioned scroll judged it to be put aside because of irregularities within the *lay-out* (line lenght) and because of some wiping and reparing. The latter may or may not indicate *incorrect* correction of faults. >From the rabbi we learned that here in Germany a newly written OT scroll containing more than three faults had to be sent to a kind of approving committee in Cologne that makes a final decision. I would be interested in hearing more about this type of *technical* features that seem to guarantee a maximum of *correct* textual transmission. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 9 09:33:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13193; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:33:16 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:35:52 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1206 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > [...] DR. Riplinger uses it to prove the >M.T. and KJV are supernatural :) This, of course, is one on main issues surrounding these claims; it is certainly the the thrust of the BR article. But since this is being discussed on a list devoted to Textual Criticism perhaps we should focus on aspects of this controversy at least related to that topic. For example: Let us assume for the sake of argument that such sequences of letters really exist and all that Dr Riplinger and the author of the BR article claim them to be. In that case, what are we to make of those unfortunate souls who happened to have lived during those centuries before the MT took its final --and presumably divinely authorized-- form? To name one such group: the members of the early Christian church and, in particular the writers of the NT. Setting aside the fact that they primarily used the LXX, are we not then forced to accept that these writers didn't even have _access_ to an authentic, inspired text of the Hebrew Scriptures? Nichael __ nichael@sover.net Be as passersby -- IC http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 9 12:26:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13352; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:26:39 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199702091409.PAA48074@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:28:49 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1283 On Sun, 09 Feb 97, schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) wrote, in part: >It might be interesting to discuss the meaning of the term "to produce a perfect >(or close to it) manuscript". If we rerfer to the standards put forth by the >masoretics, most likely no scribe reproducing Greek NT MSS can compete. Maybe >"professional levels" were different, maybe "a marked difference in the >*attitude*" is detectable. However, I suspect most of the differences are due to >features transcendending the attitudes or professional levels of individuals >(scribes). I think this is a good question. What is a "perfect" copy? One which exactly reproduces its exemplar, or one which exactly reproduces the original text? Or, perhaps, one which perfectly reproduces an intermediate copy (for example, the ancestor of family 1). Unless we are prepared to give an answer to that question, we cannot very well say what we expect of scribes! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Feb 9 12:26:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13366; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:26:41 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:23:00 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1505 On Sun, 9 Feb 199, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote: [ ... ] >For example: Let us assume for the sake of argument that such sequences of >letters really exist and all that Dr Riplinger and the author of the BR >article claim them to be. In that case, what are we to make of those >unfortunate souls who happened to have lived during those centuries before >the MT took its final --and presumably divinely authorized-- form? > >To name one such group: the members of the early Christian church and, in >particular the writers of the NT. Setting aside the fact that they >primarily used the LXX, are we not then forced to accept that these writers >didn't even have _access_ to an authentic, inspired text of the Hebrew >Scriptures? It seems to me that, *if* one accepts that assumption, then the conclusion is obvious: The MT is *the* divinely inspired text, and so presumably the original text. Divergences from it, as found e.g. in LXX, are errors. A secondary conclusion, it seems to me, is that Judaism is the divinely inspired religion, rather than Christianity. But, of course, this still ignores the other possibility: Coincidence. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Feb 9 15:56:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13501; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:56:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:55 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant letters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1322 On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > [...] DR. Riplinger uses it to prove the > For example: Let us assume for the sake of argument that such sequences of > letters really exist and all that Dr Riplinger and the author of the BR Before any more of this "Dr Riplinger" nonsense gets out of hand, let me remind the entire group that Gail Riplinger only has an earned Master's degree in Interior Design, and is **NOT** a "Dr" in any legitimate sense of the word, let alone any type of authority in fields of textual criticism or statistical analysis. It is true that the ultra-fundamentalist and KJV-Only pastor Jack Hyles (who runs an unaccredited fundamentalist bible college in Hammond, Indiana) DID "award" her an "Honorary Doctorate" (a Th.D. I believe!) for having written the ridiculous _New Age Bible Versions_ book, but this is a FAR cry from any reason to make this woman academically into something she most clearly and obviously is not in the current discussions. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 9 16:09:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13536; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:09:57 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:12:33 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 376 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >It seems to me that, *if* one accepts that assumption, [...] >A secondary conclusion, it seems to me, is that Judaism is the >divinely inspired religion, rather than Christianity. And more to the point, a latter more developed Judaism in which the MT arose. >But, of course, this still ignores the other possibility: Coincidence. Exactly so. N From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 9 16:17:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13563; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:17:22 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:17:00 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Birmingham Colloquium In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1190 On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, DC PARKER wrote: > The First Birmingham Colloquium on the textual criticism of the New > Testament is to be held 14-17 April this year. Since I will not be able to travel to such a conference, I wonder whether I might be able to obtain a copy of the papers below once it has been completed. I suspect I would have to obtain addresses (email if possible) of the following presenters to see whether this might be possible, but I would be especially interested in the following: > 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. > K. Clarke, Letter-Ratings of v.ll. in UBS > G. Farthing, Using Probability Theory as a key to unlock textual history > J.L. North, The Oxford Debate on NT t.c. of 1897 > C.D. Osburn, Text of Acts in the Greek lectionaries _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 9 16:22:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13586; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:22:25 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:25:01 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 567 Maurice Robinson wrote: >Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: >> Ronald L. Minton wrote: >> > [...] DR. Riplinger uses it to prove the [...] >> [...] all that Dr Riplinger and the author of the BR >Before any more of this "Dr Riplinger" nonsense gets out of hand, let me >remind the entire group that Gail Riplinger only has an earned Master's >degree in Interior Design, and is **NOT** a "Dr" in any legitimate sense >of the word, let alone any type of authority in fields of textual >criticism or statistical analysis. [...] Dr Robinson Thank you for the correction. N From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 07:52:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA14354; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 07:52:21 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970210125401.4b1f81f2@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: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 07:54:01 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1272 At some point, the two questions currently circulating converge, and the point of convergence is apparently rather late. The equidistant letter theory only works if the form of the MT published in BHS is viewed as miraculously preserved. With regard to the Massoretes, they certainly predate Codex Leningradensis, but "perfect" conformity seems to be a modern requirement. If these questions are pushed forward in time, they take on a different character. Any change in orthography or morphology in Genesis (both of which are inconsistent in the text of Leningradensis itself) would destroy the equidistant letter theory. This touches somewhat upon the scribal practices in the history of the Hebrew Bible. The evidence from Qumran is certainly enlightening (multiple text forms, widely divergent orthography and morphology). For those who wish to dismiss it, however, the Amoraim set an acceptable margin of error for their copies of scripture and the presence of kethib/qere readings also attests to a tacit acceptance (though in an unusual form) of textual error. I have no doubt, however, that the proponents of this equidistant letter theory will choose to employ it to "purify" the text which is where this really intersects with textual criticism. Curt Niccum From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 10:05:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14668; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:05:22 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:04:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970210095802_949754301@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1104 Curt Niccum wrote: << At some point, the two questions currently circulating converge, and the point of convergence is apparently rather late. The equidistant letter theory only works if the form of the MT published in BHS is viewed as miraculously preserved. With regard to the Massoretes, they certainly predate Codex Leningradensis, but "perfect" conformity seems to be a modern requirement. >> The text used by the ELS [Equidistant Letter Spacing] theory is not the BHS text but the Koren text. This text differs from the BHS text in about 142 places with respect to the consonants. The electronic Koren text is purported to be the exact replication of the official text used in synagogs throughout the world. <> << I have no doubt, however, that the proponents of this equidistant letter theory will choose to employ it to "purify" the text which is where this really intersects with textual criticism. >> This is not likely so, because the Orthodox Jewish community regards the Koren (synagog) text to be perfectly preserved from the hand of Moses. Sincerely, James D. Price From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 13:08:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15165; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:08:23 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970210100248.00691680@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 12 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:02:48 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Koren vs BHS text Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1048 James D. Price wrote: >The text used by the ELS [Equidistant Letter Spacing] theory is not the BHS >text but the Koren text. This text differs from the BHS text in about 142 >places with respect to the consonants. The electronic Koren text is purported >to be the exact replication of the official text used in synagogs throughout >the world. I've been trying to track down a listing of the differences between the Koren text and the BHS for the work I'm doing on the MorphHeb text (the text is BHS but the lemmatization is based mostly on Even-Shoshan, who follows Koren). Where can I get my hands on a list of those 142 differences ? Thanks... XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 13:13:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15187; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:13:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:12:31 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: Klutznick Symposium on the Hebrew Bible, revised Call for Papers Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2179 Below is a revised Call for Papers for the upcoming Klutznick Symposium. We have extended the deadline for submission of papers...I hope that some of you will respond, thank you--leonard *************CALL FOR PAPERS*********** The Tenth Annual Klutznick Symposium: September 14-15, 1997 Sacred Text, Secular Times: The Hebrew Bible in the Modern World Creighton University's Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization and Center for the Study of Religion and Society will host the Tenth Annual Klutznick Symposium to take place in Omaha, Nebraska on Sunday, September 14, and Monday, September 15, 1997. The theme of the Symposium will be *Sacred Text, Secular Times: The Hebrew Bible in the Modern World.* The Program Committee seeks proposals for presentations on the impact of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh on art, literature, philosophy, religion, and other areas of the humanities or sciences over the past two centuries or so. Papers on textual studies of the Hebrew Bible are also appropriate if accessible to the Symposium's target audience (see below). Those chosen to participate in the symposium will be expected to make twenty minute presentations of their papers in a manner suitable to an audience composed of the general public and scholars. Participants must submit their papers in a scholarly format; those papers will be published in a collected volume. Please note that the reading of papers as submitted for publication would not be appropriate to this audience. Audio/visual aids are encouraged. Some support for the presenter's costs of transportation and accommodation will be provided. For further information contact Leonard Jay Greenspoon, Chairholder of the Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization (ljgrn@creighton.edu or phone 402-280-2304), or Bryan Le Beau, Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society (blbeau@creighton.edu or phone 402-280-2562) at Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska 68178. One page abstracts and vitae should be submitted to either Dr. Greenspoon or Dr. Le Beau by March 15, 1997. *************************************************** From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 13:27:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15232; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:27:11 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970210101918.00691680@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 12 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:19:18 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: professional scribes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1383 Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: >I believe there were a lot of differences between NT scribes and OT scribes. >Initially they were copied in scriptoriums by paid scribes and many manuscripts >were most probably copied in a hurry to get them circulating. This statement raises a question for me, which I poses to the members of the list: I wonder if we can really say that "NT scribes...copied in scriptoriums" and that they were "...paid scribes" and that certain Jewish scruples and practices concerning the copying of the text did not become part of the NT transmission method (by Jewish converts to Christianity). We can evidently say these things of the early Alexandrian scribes, but since we possess no early Byz mss, can we really demonstrate that what was occurring in the Egyptian church was happening universally. I don't know if we've ever had a discussion of this on list, but I'd be very interested in hearing if any research has gone on/is going on related to this issue. XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 13:39:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15276; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:39:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199702101839.NAA41600@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:39:05 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: Repeat post: A query on von Soden's "mu-5" group Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 792 While I hesitate disrupting discussions about home-ec majors making videos, and statistics [which prove Genesis--but not the NT--to be divinely inspired ;-) ], permit me to once again issue this cry for help: >Can anyone supply me with a list of the MSS which von Soden included in his >mu5 group? (Read as: Greek "mu" with a superscript "5"--it is a subset of >his "K" group.) If you have v.S., you can find the discussion in Teil I.2, >pp. 739ff., but nowhere--and I have consulted F. Krueger's "Schluessel zu >von Soden's 'Die Schriften...'"--have I been able to find the MSS he >includes in that group (or, for that matter, in his mu1 through mu7 groups. > >Thanks in advance. > >--Petersen, Penn State Univ. > Once again, my thanks in advance for any assistance. --Petersen, PSU. From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 16:34:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15741; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:34:03 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:33:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970210161355_916235847@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7021 Dale M. Wheeler: You wrote << I've been trying to track down a listing of the differences between the Koren text and the BHS for the work I'm doing on the MorphHeb text (the text is BHS but the lemmatization is based mostly on Even-Shoshan, who follows Koren). Where can I get my hands on a list of those 142 differences ? Thanks... >> I ran a computer collation of the Koren text with the BHS text I have on my system [Torah only]. Most of the differfences are due to (a) different uses of the Matres Lexiones [vowel letters W and Y]; and (2) Koren's failure to use Maqqeph [dash], particularly in a compound name; (3) different spelling convention of the pronoun HW) vs HY) [by the way, this latter difference is limited to the Torah]. The following is a list of the variants between the texts: At Gen 4:13-- BHS: MN$) Koren: MN$W) At Gen 7:11-- BHS: M(YNT Koren: M(YNWT At Gen 8:20-- BHS: H+HWRH Koren: H+HRH At Gen 8:20-- BHS: H+HR Koren: H+HWR At Gen 9:29-- BHS: WYHYW Koren: WYHY At Gen 13:8-- BHS: WBYNYK Koren: WBYNK At Gen 14:17-- BHS: KDR L(MR Koren: KDRL(MR At Gen 14:22-- BHS: HRYMTY Koren: HRMTY At Gen 19:16-- BHS: WYXZQW Koren: WYXZYQW At Gen 19:20-- BHS: WHY) Koren: WHW) At Gen 25:3-- BHS: WL+W$YM Koren: WL+W$M At Gen 26:7-- BHS: HY) Koren: HW) At Gen 27:31-- BHS: B(BWR Koren: B(BR At Gen 35:5-- BHS: SBYBTYHM Koren: SBYBWTYHM At Gen 35:23-- BHS: WZBWLN Koren: WZBLWN At Gen 40:10-- BHS: WHY) Koren: WHW) At Gen 41:35-- BHS: H+BT Koren: H+BWT At Gen 45:15-- BHS: (LYHM Koren: (LHM At Gen 46:9-- BHS: WXCRWN Koren: WXCRN At Gen 46:12-- BHS: XCRWN Koren: XCRN At Gen 46:13-- BHS: W$MRWN Koren: W$MRN At Gen 46:14-- BHS: ZBWLN Koren: ZBLWN At Gen 49:13-- BHS: )NYWT Koren: )NYT At Exod 1:16-- BHS: HY) Koren: HW) At Exod 4:3-- BHS: WY$LYKHW Koren: WY$LKHW At Exod 6:14-- BHS: XCRWN Koren: XCRN At Exod 8:15-- BHS: HXR+MYM Koren: HXR+MM At Exod 10:25-- BHS: W(LWT Koren: W(LT At Exod 12:4-- BHS: MHYT Koren: MHYWT At Exod 14:13-- BHS: TSYPW Koren: TSPW At Exod 14:14-- BHS: TXRY$WN Koren: TXR$WN At Exod 14:22-- BHS: XMH Koren: XWMH At Exod 19:11-- BHS: H$LY$Y Koren: H$L$Y At Exod 19:19-- BHS: H$WPR Koren: H$PR At Exod 23:22-- BHS: $M( Koren: $MW( At Exod 25:22-- BHS: )RN Koren: )RWN At Exod 25:31-- BHS: T($H Koren: TY($H At Exod 26:24-- BHS: T)MYM Koren: T)MM At Exod 28:26-- BHS: H)PD Koren: H)PWD At Exod 28:28-- BHS: H)PD Koren: H)PWD At Exod 29:22-- BHS: (LHN Koren: (LYHN At Exod 29:40-- BHS: RB(YT Koren: RBY(T At Exod 32:34-- BHS: (LYHM Koren: (LHM At Exod 34:24-- BHS: GBWLK Koren: GBLK At Exod 36:13-- BHS: HYR(T Koren: HYRY(T At Exod 36:19-- BHS: )LYM Koren: )YLM At Exod 37:3-- BHS: +B(WT Koren: +B(T At Exod 38:10-- BHS: H(MDYM Koren: H(MWDYM At Exod 39:13-- BHS: M$BCWT Koren: M$BCT At Exod 39:35-- BHS: )RN Koren: )RWN At Lev 5:11-- BHS: HY) Koren: HW) At Lev 10:1-- BHS: WYQRBW Koren: WYQRYBW At Lev 10:13-- BHS: QD$ Koren: QDW$ At Lev 11:4-- BHS: WMMPRYSY Koren: WMMPRSY At Lev 13:6-- BHS: HY) Koren: HW) At Lev 14:10-- BHS: TMYMYM Koren: TMYMM At Lev 16:8-- BHS: GWRLWT Koren: GRLWT At Lev 18:29-- BHS: HTW(BWT Koren: HTW(BT At Lev 19:4-- BHS: H)LYLYM Koren: H)LYLM At Lev 20:6-- BHS: LZNWT Koren: LZNT At Lev 20:18-- BHS: WHY) Koren: WHW) At Lev 23:20-- BHS: HBKWRYM Koren: HBKRYM At Lev 23:38-- BHS: NDBWTYKM Koren: NDBTYKM At Lev 26:45-- BHS: LHYT Koren: LHYWT At Num 2:12-- BHS: CWRY $DY Koren: CWRY$DY At Num 3:2-- BHS: HBKWR Koren: HBKR At Num 3:42-- BHS: BKR Koren: BKWR At Num 3:43-- BHS: $MWT Koren: $MT At Num 7:7-- BHS: H(GLT Koren: H(GLWT At Num 7:23-- BHS: (TWDYM Koren: (TDYM At Num 7:54-- BHS: PDH CWR Koren: PDHCWR At Num 7:59-- BHS: PDH CWR Koren: PDHCWR At Num 9:3-- BHS: BMW(DW Koren: BM(DW At Num 9:7-- BHS: HQRB Koren: HQRYB At Num 9:17-- BHS: H(LT Koren: H(LWT At Num 10:9-- BHS: BXCCRWT Koren: BXCCRT At Num 10:10-- BHS: XD$YKM Koren: XD$KM At Num 10:16-- BHS: XLWN Koren: XLN At Num 10:19-- BHS: CWRY $DY Koren: CWRY$DY At Num 10:23-- BHS: PDH CWR Koren: PDHCWR At Num 10:25-- BHS: (MY $DY Koren: (MY$DY At Num 11:26-- BHS: (LYHM Koren: (LHM At Num 13:26-- BHS: )WTM Koren: )TM At Num 13:29-- BHS: Y$B Koren: YW$B At Num 13:32-- BHS: WYWCY)W Koren: WYCY)W At Num 15:39-- BHS: TTRW Koren: TTWRW At Num 19:7-- BHS: YBW) Koren: YB) At Num 20:17-- BHS: GBWLK Koren: GBLK At Num 21:13-- BHS: MGBWL Koren: MGBL At Num 21:30-- BHS: DYBWN Koren: DYBN At Num 22:38-- BHS: HYKWL Koren: HYKL At Num 23:29-- BHS: )YLYM Koren: )YLM At Num 26:24-- BHS: HY$WBY Koren: HY$BY At Num 31:32-- BHS: WXM$T Koren: WXM$T At Num 32:22-- BHS: NQYYM Koren: NQYM At Num 33:35-- BHS: B(CYWN Koren: B(CYN At Num 33:36-- BHS: M(CYWN Koren: M(CYN At Num 33:52-- BHS: BMTM Koren: BMWTM At Num 34:11-- BHS: HGBWL Koren: HGBL At Num 35:19-- BHS: YMYTNW Koren: YMTNW At Deut 1:15-- BHS: )TM Koren: )WTM At Deut 2:23-- BHS: MKPTWR Koren: MKPTR At Deut 3:5-- BHS: BCRWT Koren: BCRT At Deut 3:25-- BHS: WHLBNWN Koren: WHLBNN At Deut 4:3-- BHS: HR)T Koren: HR)WT At Deut 4:42-- BHS: MTMWL Koren: MTML At Deut 4:42-- BHS: $L$WM Koren: $L$M At Deut 6:9-- BHS: MZWZT Koren: MZZWT At Deut 6:21-- BHS: WYWCY)NW Koren: WYCY)NW At Deut 7:16-- BHS: TXS Koren: TXWS At Deut 8:2-- BHS: HLYKK Koren: HWLYKK At Deut 8:3-- BHS: HWD(K Koren: HWDY(K At Deut 8:12-- BHS: +WBYM Koren: +BYM At Deut 9:15-- BHS: LXT Koren: LWXT At Deut 10:11-- BHS: WYR$W Koren: WYYR$W At Deut 12:20-- BHS: GBWLK Koren: GBLK At Deut 18:22-- BHS: YBW) Koren: YB) At Deut 20:1-- BHS: )YBYK Koren: )YBK At Deut 21:15-- BHS: HBKWR Koren: HBKR At Deut 22:14-- BHS: WHWCY) Koren: WHWC) At Deut 23:2-- BHS: DK) Koren: DKH At Deut 24:13-- BHS: KB) Koren: KBW) At Deut 25:7-- BHS: M)YN Koren: M)N At Deut 28:18-- BHS: W($TRWT Koren: W($TRT At Deut 28:49-- BHS: MRXWQ Koren: MRXQ At Deut 28:52-- BHS: HGBHWT Koren: HGBHT At Deut 28:58-- BHS: HKTWBYM Koren: HKTBYM At Deut 28:59-- BHS: GDLWT Koren: GDLT At Deut 30:9-- BHS: L+WBH Koren: L+BH At Deut 30:18-- BHS: LB) Koren: LBW) At Deut 30:19-- BHS: H(YDTY Koren: H(DTY At Deut 32:6-- BHS: H LYHWH Koren: HLYHWH At Deut 32:7-- BHS: DWR Koren: DR At Deut 32:7-- BHS: WDWR Koren: WDR At Deut 32:24-- BHS: BHMWT Koren: BHMT At Deut 32:27-- BHS: YDYNW Koren: YDNW At Deut 32:34-- BHS: XTM Koren: XTWM At Deut 33:12-- BHS: KTYPYW Koren: KTPYW At Deut 33:19-- BHS: W$PWNY Koren: W$PNY At Deut 33:25-- BHS: MN(LYK Koren: MN(LK At Deut 34:11-- BHS: H)TWT Koren: H)TT End of list. This amounts to the following number of differences by book: Gen 23 Exod 27 Lev 14 Num 36 Deut 41 Total= 141 Blessings, James D. Price From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 10 21:28:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16081; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:28:31 -0500 Message-ID: <33006E23.5571@sn.no> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:03:31 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: ETS e-mail address Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 153 Dear friends, Can anyone give me the e-mail address to the Evangelical Theological Society, if they indeed have such?? Thanks -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 00:30:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16297; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:30:59 -0500 X-Sender: habas@netvision.net.il (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:36:32 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: habas@netvision.net.il (Dr. E. Habas) Subject: Re: professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1199 >I believe there were a lot of differences between NT scribes and OT >scribes. >Initially they were copied in scriptoriums by paid scribes and many >manuscripts >were most probably copied in a hurry to get them circulating. > >cheers, >Andrew I confess to knowing very little about the practices of NT scribes. Is there much "hard evidence" for the practices described above? In any case, the Jewish *attitude* is completely different. The written text itself is considered to be holy to a certain degree, and there are therefore rather rigid rules to be followed. As noted by a list-member, such rules still apply, and have done so for millenea. As for the period I understand most of us are concerned with, there is quite a lot evidence. Just to give two examples: Prof. Emmanuel Tov has been studying scribal practices in Qumran with interesting results. Also, there is much information in the Talmudic literature about practices of Rabbi Meir, who was a professional scribe (actually, this could be of interest to NT scholars, since it is said that in his scrolls a couple of changes were found, which happen to agree with Christian interpretations of a couple of places in the OT). Effie From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 07:59:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16596; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:59:45 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:58:35 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: professional scribes Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19970210101918.00691680@mail.teleport.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <14004F6611@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1030 Once again, recent discussions here lead me to point the listmembers to an important recent book I've mentioned before here: Harry W. Gamble, _Books & Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts_ (Yale Univ. Press, 1995). It might be a *very* useful exercise to have a number of scholars study the book and then engage one another on this list on the relevant topics: such as the use of scriptoria, scribal training/abilities, etc. On the question of NT vs. Jewish scribal practices, it is just a bit anachronistic to compare Massoretic scribal discipline with what might have been going on in the first two centuries CE. Here E. Tov's work (e.g., _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_) is useful, in drawing upon early evidence (esp. Qumran) about the relatively greater fluidity/variety of the text of the OT in this early period. 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 Feb 11 09:57:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16961; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:57:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199702111457.GAA14914@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:57:27 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: professional scribes Priority: normal References: <3.0.1.32.19970210101918.00691680@mail.teleport.com> In-reply-to: <14004F6611@div.ed.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 691 On 11 Feb 97 at 12:58, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > On the question of NT vs. Jewish scribal practices, it is just a bit > anachronistic to compare Massoretic scribal discipline with what > might have been going on in the first two centuries CE. Here E. > Tov's work (e.g., _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_) is useful, > in drawing upon early evidence (esp. Qumran) about the relatively > greater fluidity/variety of the text of the OT in this early period. Isn't the question of the variety of versions of the the text at that point a different question from whether the different versions were being accurately reproduced and transmitted? Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 12:48:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17356; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:48:24 -0500 Date: 11 Feb 1997 17:47:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19970211174752.1373.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <199702101839.NAA41600@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> (wlp1@psu.edu) Subject: Re: Repeat post: A query on von Soden's "mu-5" group Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 938 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Can anyone supply me with a list of the MSS which von Soden included in his >mu5 group? (Read as: Greek "mu" with a superscript "5"--it is a subset of >his "K" group.) I don't have v.S., but I believe the moichalis manuscript groups are listed in the intro to the Hodges-Farstad NT text. 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 iQCVAwUBMwCwrmCU4mTNq7IdAQFd3gQAwtSCVloQsHE5R8OkANvpOlBdRPvucL0W 8WGHIJzoHHyjf/Yzb9znBDD++jsEZi0d5aYu/BGmnDFFMuodMQb2xEK40AKXplqs V6l+hJlCuoTNxE23r29PSt6EpU1nw+jXlFaS5UP+5/m7QqqjbdW79ldKm5mana9v wRfCUTWCan0= =e1Jv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 13:08:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17393; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:08:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:06:59 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Koren vs BHS text To: TC-List Message-ID: <199702111307_MC2-1118-DBD1@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2526 In addition to the valuable resource list shared by Price, some (most?) editions of the Koren Tanakh include a list of differences between their edition and other editions. Their list does not include matres lectionis differences; thus for the Torah only Gen 9:29 and Deut 23:2 are listed. Further, the list is not necessarily a comparison with BHS. My guess is that it is a comparison with the second Rabbinic Bible. We now have a new Tanakh, just published in a Hebrew-English diglot "Stone" edition by Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY. It will be interesting to see how well this Hebrew text is received in the Jewish religious community as something of a rival to the well-received Koren edition. As far as the text is concerned, in a very preliminary check I have spotted a few readings in Stone which agree with L (via BHS?) but it generally agrees with Koren. All this suggests the need for a careful electronic comparison of the major editions and manuscripts along the lines already undertaken by Price. The electronic status of the different texts is not well documented. This would, of course, be a major first step. My understanding of the situation is as follows: BHS (extremely close to L): the Westminster-CCAT file in its most recent release(s) should be considered the authority for this file. It should be noted, however, that the Westminster morph version includes some changes not introduced in to the latest printed edition of BHS (1990). Many of these changes will be introduced into the next printing of BHS (probably 1997). Note that practically all of the 1990 and upcoming 1997 changes are teamim. The revised edition of BHS, tentatively designated BHQ (Quinta), should advance the accuracy of the electronic file even further. Ultimately, these files will be available for academic research. Koren: Is the electronic file available for research? Aleppo: currently appearing in print (for the extant portions of the ms) in several editions: HUBP: Isaiah, Jeremiah forthcoming Bar Ilan Miqraot Gedolot: Joshua - Isaiah Breuer edition (Jerusalem: Kook, 1989), but I have detected a number of examples where it does not totally conform to the ms. Does anybody know if there is an electronic file for Aleppo? Davka CD-ROM, "The Holy Scriptures" and "Bar Ilan Judaic Library" CD-ROM: I am under the impression that these files are essentially related to the Rabbinic Bible. Does anyone have more information? Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 16:18:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17822; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:18:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:17:47 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: hebrew cc: tc Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 180 At one time, some scholars thought that some books of the NT represented Greek translations of Hebrew original documents. Is this view still considered tenable? Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 17:27:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17962; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:27:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:26:54 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970211172630.1f478b5a@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 355 At 04:17 PM 2/11/97 -0500, you wrote: > >At one time, some scholars thought that some books of the NT represented >Greek translations of Hebrew original documents. Is this view still >considered tenable? > >Andrew C. Smith > > No. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 19:35:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA18131; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:35:08 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:34:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970211192501_-2010511372@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1088 Harold P. Scanlin asked: << Koren: Is the electronic file available for research? >> I acquired my copy [Torah only] as part of the software accompanying the book COMPUTORAH, by Dr. Moshe Katz (Jerusalem: Achdut Printing, 1996). Supposedly this text has been collated with the official Torah text used in synagogues throughout the world. It is available through: Spielberg Consulting "Torah Soft" Jerusalem Books P.O.B. 61419, 9 Hanetziv St. Jerusalem, 94311 Israel Phone: 972-26250-958 Fax: 972-26242-891 e-mail: 100274.1002@compuserve.com According to Dr. Harrold Haralick: "The Torah texts that are read in the orthodox synagogues today world-wide are suppose to be identical. The accepted text can be found in a book called a Tikun Sefer. All Hebrew book stores carry them. Any difference a Torah scroll has from the Tikun Sefer would invalidate the Torah scroll from being read in the synagogue." I have not yet examined a Tikun Sefer. Does anyone know anything more about it. Supposedly the electronic Koren text has been collated with that text. Sincerely, James D. Price From owner-tc-list Tue Feb 11 21:38:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA18228; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:38:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199702120238.SAA04666@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:38:29 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Priority: normal In-reply-to: <970211192501_-2010511372@emout12.mail.aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1168 On 11 Feb 97 at 19:34, DrJDPrice@aol.com wrote: > According to Dr. Harrold Haralick: > "The Torah texts that are read in the orthodox synagogues today world-wide > are suppose to be identical. The accepted text can be found in a book called > a Tikun Sefer....." > > I have not yet examined a Tikun Sefer. Does anyone know anything more about > it. Supposedly the electronic Koren text has been collated with that text. It sounds to me as if Dr. Haralick is referring to a "Tikun LaKor'im", which is an aid used by many "ba'ale kriah" (those who read from the Torah in the synagogue during services) to learn the proper cantillation and pronunciation, since Torah scrolls include neither vowel and diacritical markings for pronunciation or cantillation signs ("t'amim") for the accent and melody. A Tikun consists simply of the text of the Torah printed in two parallel columns on each page; one column shows the text as it appears in the Torah scroll (in the formal script and without the additional markings ) and the other with the pronunciation and melody markings. There are a number put out by different publishers. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 02:08:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA18529; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:08:47 -0500 Message-Id: <9702120808.AB29497@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 08:08:40 +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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1376 To add to the very interesting list of differences between Qoren and BHS that Dr Prince provided, there's a study about textual differences between the three main masoretic mss, the Leningrad, Aleppo and Cairo codices. Philippe Cassuto, Masoretic Lists and Matres Lectionis, in VIII International Congress of the International Organization for masoretic Studies - edited by E.J. Revell - Masoretic Studies 6 - Scholars Press, 1988 - pp. 1-30 It shows that these three mss disagree in many instances, specially when it comes to matres lectionis. And, of course, this raises the inevitable remark that this theory of equidistant letters works only with one text. I met here several people who were enthusiastic about this theory, but of course they were totally unaware of the fact that such questions could even be asked and were unable to answer me :-) In fact, when we cumulate this study and the list of Dr Prince, this gives the impression that the fixity of the hebrew MT has something of a myth. But this is probably an overstatement. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 12 04:12:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA18626; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:12:52 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:11:40 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Repeat post: A query on von Soden's "mu-5" group Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19970211174752.1373.qmail@np.nosc.mil> References: <199702101839.NAA41600@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> (wlp1@psu.edu) X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <28394F3917@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 498 I've not worked much with von Soden myself, but I note a brief discussion of the "Mu" groups in Frederik Wisse, _The Profile Method for Classifying & Evaluating Manuscript Evidence_ (SD 44; Eerdmans, 1982), p. 100, which also gives citation of the pages in von Soden's _Die Schriften_ (1/2, 1142-47) where the Mu group is described. 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 Feb 12 07:07:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA18737; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:07:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:07:00 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: A query on von Soden's "mu-5" group In-Reply-To: <28394F3917@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1399 On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > I've not worked much with von Soden myself, but I note a brief > discussion of the "Mu" groups in Frederik Wisse, _The Profile Method > for Classifying & Evaluating Manuscript Evidence_ (SD 44; Eerdmans, > 1982), p. 100, which also gives citation of the pages in von Soden's > _Die Schriften_ (1/2, 1142-47) where the Mu group is described. To insert a brief word into this discussion (originally raised by Wm. Petersen): I admit being in just as much of a quandry regarding the specific MSS comprising the various mu-groups as anyone else. Von Soden was long on describing the groups and group characteristics and his theory of the Ur-text and stemmatics of the Pericope Adultera, but he did not give any details regarding the MSS which comprise each group discussed. My opinion is that Von Soden's work and theorizing regarding the Pericope Adultera needs to be _completely_ retraced, beginning with fresh collation data which will remain a component part of any published results and not merely summarized by group designators. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 08:32:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18788; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:32:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199702121332.FAA08487@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:31:49 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Priority: normal In-reply-to: <9702120808.AB29497@iris.arcadis.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 789 On 12 Feb 97 at 8:08, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > It shows that these three mss disagree in many instances, specially when > it comes to matres lectionis. And, of course, this raises the inevitable > remark that this theory of equidistant letters works only with one text. I wonder if it is appropriate to describe the equidistant letters matter as a theory, since what is being reported is a result, and as far as I know, no particular theory was advanced in the statistical articles to account for the result. The fact that results of this kind are obtainable only with one text is not an objection to the results, in effect it is a confirmation of the statistical analysis that the effects are such that could not have resulted from mere chance. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 09:21:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18850; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:21:08 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199702121332.FAA08487@m8.sprynet.com> References: <9702120808.AB29497@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:25:02 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: What is a theory (Was: Re: Koren vs BHS text) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2685 On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, "Lewis Reich" wrote: >On 12 Feb 97 at 8:08, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > >> It shows that these three mss disagree in many instances, specially when >> it comes to matres lectionis. And, of course, this raises the inevitable >> remark that this theory of equidistant letters works only with one text. > >I wonder if it is appropriate to describe the equidistant letters >matter as a theory, since what is being reported is a result, and as >far as I know, no particular theory was advanced in the statistical >articles to account for the result. > >The fact that results of this kind are obtainable only with one text >is not an objection to the results, in effect it is a confirmation of >the statistical analysis that the effects are such that could not >have resulted from mere chance. Let's get our terminology straight. (This is not a criticism of anyone; just a matter of getting things straight.) 1. Facts. Facts can only be determined by direct and repeatable observation. So the readings of a particular manuscript (at least where it can be clearly read) are facts. 2. Statistical models. Statistical models are *not* facts, even if they embrace all the data. (I don't know if this "equidistant letters" item uses all the data -- but I doubt it.) The same data is subject to all sorts of statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is repeatable, but that does not make it fact in its own right. Moreover, statistical analyses can be flawed. 3. Theory. *Anything* not falling under the above heads is theory. All interpretation is theory. A theory may have strong backing, but it cannot be proved. You cannot prove an interpretation; you can only *dis*prove it. (You disprove it by providing a counterexample.) So, in the case of the "equidistant letters" thing, the facts are the readings of the manuscripts. Whatever examination the researchers did is a statistical analysis. Their conclusions are a theory. And *any* results they derive *could* be coincidence. We can *never* say that coincidence is "impossible"; merely highly unlikely. Be it noted that I still have not seen the paper, so I cannot make any judgment on the value of its conclusions -- or even its underlying facts. But please, let's use our scientific terminology correctly. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 12 10:31:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19160; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:31:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:31:20 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: professional scribes In-Reply-To: <199702111457.GAA14914@m8.sprynet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1930 On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote: > On 11 Feb 97 at 12:58, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > > On the question of NT vs. Jewish scribal practices, it is just a bit > > anachronistic to compare Massoretic scribal discipline with what > > might have been going on in the first two centuries CE. Here E. > > Tov's work (e.g., _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_) is useful, > > in drawing upon early evidence (esp. Qumran) about the relatively > > greater fluidity/variety of the text of the OT in this early period. > > Isn't the question of the variety of versions of the the text at that > point a different question from whether the different versions were > being accurately reproduced and transmitted? One question that Tov's analysis of the Qumran material raises is, When did the meticulous attention to detail that characterized the Masoretes' work with the text begin? Since there are so many different forms of the Hebrew text present at Qumran, I think we can at least say that extreme attention to detail did not characterize the transmission of the entirety of the Hebrew ms tradition during or slightly before the first century C.E. An interesting question to ask concerning scribes transmitting both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek NT is, What factors influenced scribes to begin to regard attention to even the minutia of the text (e.g., spelling) as an essential part of their jobs? Some possibilities spring to mind: an increased regard for the importance of the biblical text, the increasingly important role of the text in the social or religious fabric of the community, doctrinal controversies with rival groups, growth of mystical traditions, rivalries among scribal groups. 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 Feb 12 11:01:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA19308; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:01:42 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970212075618.006a3be8@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 12 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:56:18 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 595 > I ran a computer collation of the Koren text with the BHS text I have on my >system [Torah only]. Where did you get an electronic version of the Koren text ?? I'd dearly love to get my hands on that... *********************************************************************** 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 Wed Feb 12 11:15:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA19371; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:15:53 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970212081039.00691a50@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 12 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:10:39 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1460 James Price wrote: > I ran a computer collation of the Koren text with the BHS text I have on my >system [Torah only]. Most of the differfences are due to (a) different uses >of the Matres Lexiones [vowel letters W and Y]; and (2) Koren's failure to >use Maqqeph [dash], particularly in a compound name; (3) different spelling >convention of the pronoun HW) vs HY) [by the way, this latter difference is >limited to the Torah]. The following is a list of the variants between the >texts: You can obviously ignore my immediately prior message; I got so excited that I sent the response without reading the rest of the digest...oops... I really appreciate the time you put in sending me that list. The areas you observed are exactly the the areas I've observed consistently when comparing BHS/MorphHeb with Even-Shoshan; the issue of the maters has no doubt led E-S to put maters into his lexeme (or should that be concordanceme ?) whenever possible, even when the word never occurs with a mater in the text; BDB, KB2, and KBS are considerably more reluctant to do that. *********************************************************************** 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 Wed Feb 12 13:11:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19553; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:11:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:10:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702121810.MAA10586@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman) Subject: Re: Equidistant letters To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2453 I have read with interest/amusement the discussion of ELS here. Usually these discussions divide between 'Biblical scholars' on one side who discount the results totally and 'religious' people on the other who use it to support all manner of beliefs. It is quite rare that anyone will appear who has the background in Mathematics to insert some sense into these discussions. First, as of yet from all the results, which are non-trivial, the implications are not certain. For example, does it prove or disprove DH? The answer is really we don't know. Most Biblical scholars will discount it immediatly on the assumption that it does (and hence must be quackery). However the facts are the opposite. If the results would disprove DH, then the believers in DH would be relegated to a classification similar to the flat earth society. As far as I know there has yet to be any analysis as to whether these results would span through sections the DH assigns to P and J or any other divisions. Should such a result exist, then we would have to look upon it much as we look on Carbon 14 dating of manuscripts and other scientific data. Scientific data represents facts, theories must conform to the facts, facts are not rejected because they do not conform to theory. (Anyone who wants to argue the opposite would be advised to look into the history of Ptolemian astronomy.) The only study I have seen that has a textual significance was one dealing with a few verses in Leveticus here the MT and Samaritan texts differ. The MT had a significant result that was not found in the Samaritan. With that said, we have to look at it at this time as follows. It does seem to indicate that the MT is superior (something that most have agreed with anyway), and also that the DH may not be a good explanation of the present text. One should neither discount, nor overplay the results. -- | | | mshulman@ix.netcom.com | ------_________________________------ | | ....... ......... ....... | | | | ....... ......... ....... | | | | ....... ......... ....... | | | | _________________________ | | ------ ------ | | | | From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 14:26:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19696; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:26:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:26:18 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant letters In-Reply-To: <199702121810.MAA10586@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1533 Moshe Shulman wrote: > ... It is quite rare that anyone will appear who has the > background in Mathematics to insert some sense into these discussions. ... Speaking of which, does anyone actually have a copy of the paper, in particular one that they'd be willing to share? ( I've been having trouble finding a copy.) For that matter, is it on-line anywhere? > ... For example, does it prove or disprove DH? The answer is really > we don't know. Most Biblical scholars will discount it immediatly on the > assumption that it does (and hence must be quackery). Well, to be fair, I don't know of anyone who has called into question the claim of the EDLs on the basis of any adverse effects that might have on the DH. That would surely be one of the most minor of its effects. Rather, this a bit like claiming that physicists cling to the model of Quantum Mechanics because otherwise light bulbs wouldn't work the way they do. ;-) > ... Scientific data > represents facts, theories must conform to the facts, facts are not rejected > because they do not conform to theory. True enough. But --to repeat a point that bears frequent repetition in this discussion-- the "facts" here are yet to be established. > ... (Anyone who wants to argue the opposite > would be advised to look into the history of Ptolemian astronomy.) We must also bear in mind, of course, another model. Namely that of Velikhovskian Astronomy. Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 14:44:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19740; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:40 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: What is a theory (Was: Re: Koren vs BHS text) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1002 On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > 3. Theory. *Anything* not falling under the above heads is theory. > All interpretation is theory. A theory may have strong backing, > but it cannot be proved. You cannot prove an interpretation; you > can only *dis*prove it. (You disprove it by providing a > counterexample.) Well, perhaps I'm picking nits (we're certainly getting off topic) but to state this prehaps another way: Probably the closest synonym we have to the term "Theory" is the word "Model". I.e. a Model that attempts to exaplain and/or systematize a broad range of data. For example, we observe how small particles interact and behave. These are our data. From this we develop a model (Quantum Theory) that attempts to explain why these particles behave in the way that they do. Likewise we observe the subsequent replacement of species over the lifetime of the Earth. From this we develop a model (Evolutionary Theory) that attempts to explain these facts. N From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 14:47:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19763; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:47:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:46:56 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text In-Reply-To: <199702121332.FAA08487@m8.sprynet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 713 On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote: > I wonder if it is appropriate to describe the equidistant letters > matter as a theory, since what is being reported is a result, and as > far as I know, no particular theory was advanced in the statistical > articles to account for the result. > > The fact that results of this kind are obtainable only with one text > is not an objection to the results, in effect it is a confirmation of > the statistical analysis that the effects are such that could not > have resulted from mere chance. While it is certainly true that "theory" is not the correct term to use in this case, it is equally true that the "fact" of these claims has yet to be established. N From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 15:02:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA19847; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:02:54 -0500 Date: 12 Feb 1997 20:01:51 -0000 Message-ID: <19970212200151.1484.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <19970211174752.1373.qmail@np.nosc.mil> (message from Vincent Broman on 11 Feb 1997 17:47:52 -0000) Subject: Re: Repeat post: A query on von Soden's "mu-5" group Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 797 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Woops, memory fooled me. The Hodges-Farstad tables of MS groups were for the apocalypse, and nothing similar was supplied for the pericope adulterae. 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 iQCVAwUBMwIhpGCU4mTNq7IdAQFqbAQAvs3wdklWZ8oM6tV/84XIppz/6Ld7ozV3 mrxEPBXGKhH9CEMyMbMMxFlRPXJsul9pCW/evneORuJsjlzJY3Jm8fiiA2fNiT+9 KRh2urItkkfmSzLkyORgKqwQptxVF5JTiMOBldhi/T5hva7NKzW+HGeHjI/hHkWG ZLuYKJpu5Sc= =Uiab -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 15:23:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA19935; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:23:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:23:40 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant letters In-Reply-To: <199702121810.MAA10586@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2236 On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Moshe Shulman wrote: > Most Biblical scholars will discount it [ELS] immediatly on the > assumption that it does [disprove the Documentary Hypothesis] (and hence > must be quackery). However the facts are > the opposite. If the results would disprove DH, then the believers in DH would > be relegated to a classification similar to the flat earth society. > > As far as I know there has yet to be any analysis as to whether these results > would span through sections the DH assigns to P and J or any other divisions. > Should such a result exist, then we would have to look upon it much as we look > on Carbon 14 dating of manuscripts and other scientific data. Scientific data > represents facts, theories must conform to the facts, facts are not rejected > because they do not conform to theory. I don't see how any result from ELS could either prove or disprove the DH. The ease with which matres lectiones can be inserted into or deleted from words would rather indicate that any scribe could artifically manipulate the Hebrew text to generate interesting (i.e., hidden, esoteric) results, accessible only to those "in the know." However, it seems almost certain that, if such a thing did happen, it would have to have been _after the widespread use of matres lectiones in medial positions developed_ (i.e., after the fourth/third century B.C.E.? [my dates may be wrong here])! Thus, arguments for or against the DH are completely unaffected by ELS. The aspect of this discussion that focuses on whether hidden meanings are present in the MT (whichever variant form of it) reminds me of a person I knew who tried to convince me that Mikhael Gorbachev was the anti-Christ because the letters of his name added up to 666. Of course, that was only true if you used a rather idiosyncratic conversion from the Cyrillic alphabet to the Roman. In other words, if a hidden message is present in the text, it may be there because someone (either the reader or some previous copyist) wants it to be. 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 Feb 12 16:39:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA20031; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:39:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199702111317.OAA57716@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 14:40:32 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Repeat post: A query on von Soden's "mu-5" group To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199702101839.NAA41600@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1401 On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Bill Petersen wrote: >While I hesitate disrupting discussions about home-ec majors making videos, >and statistics [which prove Genesis--but not the NT--to be divinely inspired >;-) ], permit me to once again issue this cry for help: >>Can anyone supply me with a list of the MSS which von Soden included in his >>mu5 group? (Read as: Greek "mu" with a superscript "5"--it is a subset of >>his "K" group.) If you have v.S., you can find the discussion in Teil I.2, >>pp. 739ff., but nowhere--and I have consulted F. Krueger's "Schluessel zu >>von Soden's 'Die Schriften...'"--have I been able to find the MSS he >>includes in that group (or, for that matter, in his mu1 through mu7 groups. >> >>Thanks in advance. >> >>--Petersen, Penn State Univ. > >Once again, my thanks in advance for any assistance. >--Petersen, PSU. I didn't have access to v. Soden's vol. I over the week-end. It was hidden somewhere... As far as I can see, there is no positive list of v. Soden's mu-5 group. For further "information" you might consult vol. I,1, pp. 486-524 (Die Textgeschichte der Perikope von der Ehebrecherin) and Hans Lietzmann, Hans von Sodens Ausgabe des Neuen Testaments; I. Die Perikope von der Ehebrecherin; in: ZNW 8 (1907) 34-47 = Lietzmann, Kleine Schriften (ed. Kurt Aland), vol II: Studien zum Neuen Testament (TU 68, 1958), pp. 220ff. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 18:11:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20256; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:11:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:59:15 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Equidistant Letters To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199702121811_MC2-1127-7EEF@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 522 If I recall, the elusive article mentioned early in the current thread appeared in _Statistical Science_, by Witztum, et al., 9(1994):429-438. This article, along with a number of other items on ELS, is available at http://www.opendoor.com/HigherGround/proof.html This site illustrates a problem of mutually contradictory "proofs" derived from ELS. Some find that Yeshua is revealed as the Messiah in the Torah, while others find evidence for Orthodox Jewish teaching. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 18:16:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20275; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:16:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:04:44 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Another von Soden dead end To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199702121815_MC2-1127-7F2D@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 184 To save the trouble of chasing down another dead end, Benedikt Kraft, _Die Zeichen . . . _, 3rd ed., p. 19, doesn't specify any mss, either. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 18:33:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20316; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:33:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:33:41 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: TC-LIST Subject: Re: Equidistant Letters In-Reply-To: <199702121811_MC2-1127-7EEF@compuserve.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 876 Harold P. Scanlin wrote: > If I recall, the elusive article mentioned early in the current thread > appeared in _Statistical Science_, by Witztum, et al., 9(1994):429-438. > This article, along with a number of other items on ELS, is available at > http://www.opendoor.com/HigherGround/proof.html Harold Thank you for the pointer. I believe, however there is a typo in the above. The correct URL is: http://www.opendoor.com/higher.ground/proof.html ^ BTW, the text of the paper: "Equidistant Letter Sequences in theBook of Genesis" by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg (Statistical Science 1994, Vol. 9, No. 3, 429-438) Can be found at: http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/genesis.html Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 18:54:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20344; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:54:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:53:52 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant Letters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1382 Nichael Cramer wrote: > BTW, the text of the paper: > > "Equidistant Letter Sequences in theBook of Genesis" > by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg > (Statistical Science 1994, Vol. 9, No. 3, 429-438) > > Can be found at: > http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/genesis.html After a poking around a bit more, I came up with the following URL: http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/torah-bdm.html Which contains the paper: Some comments on "Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis", by Doron Witztum, Eliya Rips and Yaacov Rosenberg. Statistical Science, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1994) 429-438. Brendan McKay, Australian National University Edition: May 7, 1996. Which forms something of a rebuttal to (or at least a critcial examination of) the original paper. Also, the "parent page" to both the pages above: http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/ Contains a section containing a number of pointers related to this topic. Probably the most interesting is: http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/tcoderes.html which contains the "Internet Resources" page for a mailing list devoted to this very topic. Enjoy Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 22:47:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20578; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:47:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:46:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Mark 2:15 In-Reply-To: <28394F3917@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 369 I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat." Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text? I have four editions of the TR and none read that way. 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 Wed Feb 12 23:09:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA20606; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:09:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199702130408.UAA09751@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:08:51 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Priority: normal References: <199702121332.FAA08487@m8.sprynet.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1671 On 12 Feb 97 at 14:46, Nichael Cramer wrote: > On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote: > > I wonder if it is appropriate to describe the equidistant letters > > matter as a theory, since what is being reported is a result, and as > > far as I know, no particular theory was advanced in the statistical > > articles to account for the result. > While it is certainly true that "theory" is not the correct term to use > in this case, it is equally true that the "fact" of these claims has yet > to be established. Part of my point was that as far as I can tell from the secondary accounts I have read of the statistical articles, no claims have been made. An algorithm has been run on a text in a manner reasonably easily reproducible and has yielded certain results. Those results should be easy to verify by anyone who cares to reproduce the experiment. Statistical analysis was then performed to test the likelihood that the results could have been obtained by chance. In the social sciences, null hypotheses generally are accepted if the likelihood the results could have been obtained by chance is less than 5%. In the reported instances, the likelihood of the results being due to chance was several orders of magnitude lower than that. The statistical analysis was subject to the rigorous scrutiny applied in all cases to reputable refereed journals. These are indeed facts. The claims reported to have been made in the statistical articles do not go beyond what I have stated above. If those secondary accounts are accurate, I think it is quite safe to say that those claims have been established. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Wed Feb 12 23:38:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA20634; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:38:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199702130438.UAA12204@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:38:23 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: professional scribes Priority: normal References: <199702111457.GAA14914@m8.sprynet.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 970 On 12 Feb 97 at 10:31, James R. Adair wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote: > > Isn't the question of the variety of versions of the the text at that > > point a different question from whether the different versions were > > being accurately reproduced and transmitted? > One question that Tov's analysis of the Qumran material raises is, When > did the meticulous attention to detail that characterized the Masoretes' > work with the text begin? Since there are so many different forms of the > Hebrew text present at Qumran, I think we can at least say that extreme > attention to detail did not characterize the transmission of the entirety > of the Hebrew ms tradition during or slightly before the first century > C.E. I'm not convinced that a variety of forms necessarily means that transmission was inaccurate at that time. It could mean that different versions had been accurately transmitted, could it not? Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 02:32:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA20876; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:32:58 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:32:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970213023242_1962597440@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Parchment & papyrus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 136 TC'ers Can anyone please confirm or deny that parchment replaced papyrus near the end of the second century. Thanks Rich Elliott, ENTTC From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 04:55:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA20968; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:55:17 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:54:13 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Priority: normal In-reply-to: <970213023242_1962597440@emout06.mail.aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <40EFD546AA@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 727 > TC'ers > Can anyone please confirm or deny that parchment replaced papyrus near the > end of the second century. > Thanks > Rich Elliott, ENTTC Incorrect as stated. Papyrus continued in use much later, examples easily down through 7th cent CE, even later. Second, parchment & papyrus were *both* used during these early centuries, so it's not a matter of one dropping off & the other coming on-line. For info on specific examples, see Joseph van Haelst, _Catalogue des papyrus litteraires Juifs et Chretiens_ (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976). 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 Feb 13 05:11:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA20996; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:11:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:11:41 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 435 On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat." > Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text? > I have four editions of the TR and none read that way. > *********************** Sometimes, in the course of translation, it is necessary for clarity to render a pronoun in the source language as its antecedent in the target language. From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 07:14:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA21060; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:14:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:14:12 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 500 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat." > Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text? > I have four editions of the TR and none read that way. There is no variant reading that directly supports the KJV reading (at least according to the critical appartus of the NA26 for that verse). As Andrew Smith pointed out, this is presumably a case of the translators attempting to clarify an ambiguous antecedant. N From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 09:42:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21440; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:42:02 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970213023242_1962597440@emout06.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:36:01 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1522 On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, REElliott@AOL.COM wrote: >TC'ers >Can anyone please confirm or deny that parchment replaced papyrus near the >end of the second century. To say that parchment replaced papyrus at any given date is massively oversimplified. If you check any of the lists of papyri and uncials, you will see that papyri have been found from the second to the seventh/eighth centuries. The first parchment manuscripts are found in the third century, and of course continued to be used exclusively till about the twelfth century, and occasionally thereafter. Prior to the fourth century, papyrus was the dominant material. After the fifth, the use of papyrus declined; eventually it went out of use altogether. It should be noted, however, that effectively all papyri were found in Egypt (the dry climate helps preserve papyrus). And Egypt was conquered at an early date by the Arabs. While that did not suppress Egyptian Christianity (the Coptic faith still endures), it *did* mean that Egyptian Christianity turned largely to the Coptic versions. So the absence of Greek NT papyri after the eighth century really doesn't mean much. I hope that clarifies the situation. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 13 11:46:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA21803; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:46:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199702131643.KAA25731@endeavor> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:36 -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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1474 Robert Waltz said: > To say that parchment replaced papyrus at any given date is massively > oversimplified. If you check any of the lists of papyri and uncials, > you will see that papyri have been found from the second to the > seventh/eighth centuries. The first parchment manuscripts are found > in the third century, and of course continued to be used exclusively > till about the twelfth century, and occasionally thereafter. Robert, I think your statement might be misunderstood. Parchments were in use far earlier than the date you give, *possibly* even for mss of the New Testament--although that's clearly not what you were talking about. Note 2 Tim 4.13, where the canonical Paul (to use Jim Oxford's term) asks for his books, especially TAS MEMBRANAS--this from 1st-2nd century, depending on which argument you buy. (MEMBRANAS is the Greek transliteration of the Latin for parchments.) You're right to assign the date of the extant parchment mss of the New Testament to a later period--which was, of course, your intent. Grace and peace, 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 Feb 13 12:09:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21977; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:09:40 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970213090519.006959c0@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 12 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:05:19 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: professional scribes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1964 Lewis Reich wrote: >On 12 Feb 97 at 10:31, James R. Adair wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote: > >> > Isn't the question of the variety of versions of the the text at that >> > point a different question from whether the different versions were >> > being accurately reproduced and transmitted? > >> One question that Tov's analysis of the Qumran material raises is, When >> did the meticulous attention to detail that characterized the Masoretes' >> work with the text begin? Since there are so many different forms of the >> Hebrew text present at Qumran, I think we can at least say that extreme >> attention to detail did not characterize the transmission of the entirety >> of the Hebrew ms tradition during or slightly before the first century >> C.E. > >I'm not convinced that a variety of forms necessarily means that >transmission was inaccurate at that time. It could mean that >different versions had been accurately transmitted, could it not? I've wondered the same thing; let me ask the list in a different way...should we assume that the textual situation at Qumran represents the textual situation universally for the Hebrew text and its transmission? You know, that sort of sounds like the same question I asked about whether we should assume that the state of the text in Egypt represents the state of the text everywhere for the NT ?! I'd like to second Larry Hurtado's suggestion that some of the experts on this list read and then interact onlist with Gamble's book...we could certainly add Tov's book to that discussion as well. *********************************************************************** 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 Thu Feb 13 12:47:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22059; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:47:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:46:46 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131746.LAA21811@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1396 At 09:05 AM 2/13/97 -0800, Dale Wheeler wrote: >You know, that sort of sounds like the same question I asked about whether >we should assume that the state of the text in Egypt represents the state >of the text everywhere for the NT ?! The question of whether the extant textual data from Egypt is representative of circumstances elsewhere has been explored by E. J. Epp: "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in William L. Petersen, ed., _Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission_ (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989)71-103. Based on his investigation of the movement and transmission of secular documents (including the documented rapid movement of literary documents between Alexandria and Oxyrhynchus), he concludes: "The dynamism of life in the Greco-Roman world--even in the outlying areas of Egypt (where most of the New Testament papyri were discovered)--permitted relatively easy travel and rather free transmission of letters and documents, so that the earliest New Testament papyri--though they have survived accidentally and randomly--are generally representative of the earliest New Testament texts used by the Christianity of the time in all parts of the Greco-Roman world." (p. 101) Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 12:51:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22085; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:51:13 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199702131643.KAA25731@endeavor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:43:11 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2110 On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, "Perry L. Stepp" wrote: >Robert Waltz said: > >> To say that parchment replaced papyrus at any given date is massively >> oversimplified. If you check any of the lists of papyri and uncials, >> you will see that papyri have been found from the second to the >> seventh/eighth centuries. The first parchment manuscripts are found >> in the third century, and of course continued to be used exclusively >> till about the twelfth century, and occasionally thereafter. > >Robert, I think your statement might be misunderstood. Parchments were in >use far earlier than the date you give, *possibly* even for mss of the New >Testament--although that's clearly not what you were talking about. Note 2 >Tim 4.13, where the canonical Paul (to use Jim Oxford's term) asks for his >books, especially TAS MEMBRANAS--this from 1st-2nd century, depending on >which argument you buy. (MEMBRANAS is the Greek transliteration of the >Latin for parchments.) > >You're right to assign the date of the extant parchment mss of the New >Testament to a later period--which was, of course, your intent. Exactly. I was speaking of *recovered* items. Chances are that most of the original NT documents were written on papyri (probably on scrolls, in fact). So there were first century papyri. By the second century, in all likelihood, the documents were being copied on parchment in at least some places. And, of course, as the documents came to be more and more highly venerated, they would be more and more likely to be copied in elaborate form on parchment. Copies on papyrus probably continued to be made for a very long time -- *after* the date of our last papyrus manuscript. But they were made outside Egypt, and so have not survived. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 13 13:52:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA22256; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:52:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3303F7D9.AFD@sn.no> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:27:53 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1291 Ronald L. Minton wrote 12 Feb. 1997: >=20 > I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat." > Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text= ? > I have four editions of the TR and none read that way. >=20 > Thanks ahead of time. Mr. Minton, The problem in the KJV at Mark 2:15 does not seem to be a translational=20 problem at all, as it has been suggested. Sometimes the KJV translators=20 used other sources than the available Greek editions. For instance, a few= =20 times the they selected readings from the Latin Vulgate. Their main=20 source for the NT was Beza=B4s 1598 Greek edition. Since the translators=20 seem to have had Beza as the greatest authority for the text of the NT,=20 it will do good sometimes to check out his Latin translation.=20 I have done so in a few occasions, and more than once I found that the=20 KJV translators have followed a latin translation of Beza. I have a=20 pocket edition of Beza=B4s Latin dated MCMXXV. It=B4s text is taken from = a=20 reprint dated 1642. In Mark 2:15 this text reads as following: Et factum est, ut quum Jesus=20 accumberet in domo illius, ....... The Latin Vulgate reads: Et factum est cum accumberet in domo=20 illius...... Yours sincerely, --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 15:07:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA22592; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:07:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:07:24 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: professional scribes In-Reply-To: <199702130438.UAA12204@m8.sprynet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2221 On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote: > On 12 Feb 97 at 10:31, James R. Adair wrote: > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Lewis Reich wrote: > > > > Isn't the question of the variety of versions of the the text at that > > > point a different question from whether the different versions were > > > being accurately reproduced and transmitted? > > > One question that Tov's analysis of the Qumran material raises is, When > > did the meticulous attention to detail that characterized the Masoretes' > > work with the text begin? Since there are so many different forms of the > > Hebrew text present at Qumran, I think we can at least say that extreme > > attention to detail did not characterize the transmission of the entirety > > of the Hebrew ms tradition during or slightly before the first century > > C.E. > > I'm not convinced that a variety of forms necessarily means that > transmission was inaccurate at that time. It could mean that > different versions had been accurately transmitted, could it not? It is certainly conceivable that a variety of versions of the Hebrew text were being transmitted with extreme (i.e., Masoretic) accuracy in the first century and that all of the variants arose before that time. If it were the case that only two or three different forms of the text had been found at Qumran and that numerous almost identical examples of each of these forms were extant, I would think that you could argue that each of the variant forms was being transmitted with extreme accuracy at that time. However, Tov identifies five different text-types (my term, not his), including a proto-Masoretic text-type, but I don't think that the manuscripts within any single text-type agree with one another--or with the medieval MT--to the same degree that Masoretic manuscripts tend to agree with one another. This evidence suggests (to me at least) that concern with extremely accurate transmission of the text began somewhat later than the time that the Qumran scrolls were written. 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 Feb 13 16:38:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA22841; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:38:24 -0500 Message-ID: <33039E13.32B3@cobweb.com.au> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:04:51 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 References: <3303F7D9.AFD@sn.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by redback.cobweb.net.au id IAA24775 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1664 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >=20 > The problem in the KJV at Mark 2:15 does not seem to be a translational > problem at all, as it has been suggested. Sometimes the KJV translators > used other sources than the available Greek editions. For instance, a f= ew > times the they selected readings from the Latin Vulgate. Their main > source for the NT was Beza=B4s 1598 Greek edition. Since the translator= s > seem to have had Beza as the greatest authority for the text of the NT, > it will do good sometimes to check out his Latin translation. >=20 I thought the Stephanus 1551 Greek text was the Greek source behind the KJV. What evidence is there for Beza's text? cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS =20 | =20 | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cobweb.com.au |=20 | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5948/hermeneutics.htm | =20 | What's the point of gaining everything this world has =20 | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? =20 | =20 | ...Look to Jesus Christ | =20 | hO IESOUS KURIOS! =20 +--------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 16:55:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA22933; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:55:08 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970213214806.006b95d0@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 beta 14 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:48:06 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1534 At 21:46 12/02/97 -0600, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat." >Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text? >I have four editions of the TR and none read that way. The possible ambiguity of "he" is well treated by Gundry in his _Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross_ ( Eerdmans 1993 ) At p. 124 he writes: " The 'he' who 'was sitting' might refer to Levi. But the second half of this verse makes 'he' refer more naturally to Jesus, for otherwise there is no preparation for even being in the house where tax collectors and sinners dine with him and his disciples. In either case, by saving Jesus' name for tax collectors and sinners dining with him, Mark emphasizes the magnetism of Jesus. 'His house' probably means Levi's house .........." It is interesting to see how the RSV leaves one ambiguity: " And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him. " as against the NRSV which chooses to clear it up with: "And as he sat at dinner in Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples--for there were many who followed him." In any case, what is important in this verse is that it is the first reference in Mark to disciples. Regards, Maurice Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ] mauros@iol.ie [using Eudora Pro 3 and Trumpet Winsock 3.0d ] From owner-tc-list Thu Feb 13 23:54:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA23558; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:54:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:54:15 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: professional scribes In-Reply-To: <199702131746.LAA21811@homer.bethel.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2349 On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Michael Holmes wrote: > The question of whether the extant textual data from Egypt is representative > of circumstances elsewhere has been explored by E. J. Epp: "The Significance > of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the > Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in William L. > Petersen, ed., _Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, > Recensions, Text, and Transmission_ (Notre Dame and London: University of > Notre Dame Press, 1989)71-103. > > Based on his investigation of the movement and transmission of secular > documents (including the documented rapid movement of literary documents > between Alexandria and Oxyrhynchus), he concludes: > "The dynamism of life in the Greco-Roman world--even in the outlying areas > of Egypt (where most of the New Testament papyri were discovered)--permitted > relatively easy travel and rather free transmission of letters and > documents, so that the earliest New Testament papyri--though they have > survived accidentally and randomly--are generally representative of the > earliest New Testament texts used by the Christianity of the time in all > parts of the Greco-Roman world." (p. 101) Let it be noted that some of us consider that Epp probably extrapolates far too much from the actual extant evidence in making that final statement. This again is the typical argument _ex silentio_ which normally gets railed against even by Dr. Petersen himself when presented in an opposing scenario. I continue to suggest that the surviving papyri found in the sands of Egypt are much more likely by their very provenance, textual affiliations, and scribal/phonetic habits to reflect the state of the text _in Egypt_ far more than the state of the text anywhere else in the Roman Empire (i.e. locations where we do _not_ have sufficient NT textual data by which to make comparison, and from where we should _not_ presume to presuppose a universally-applied commonalty merely on the basis of a limited regional sample). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 00:00:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA23588; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:00:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:00:24 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 In-Reply-To: <33039E13.32B3@cobweb.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 920 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: > I thought the Stephanus 1551 Greek text was the Greek source behind the > KJV. > What evidence is there for Beza's text? Scrivener in the 19th century clearly demonstrated that the printed TR edition closest to the KJV English text was that of Beza 1598. The Trinitarian Bible Society today reprints Scrivener's reconstructed text purportedly underlying the KJV from Scrivener's 1894 edition. Unfortunately, the TBS edition left out the original appendix which detailed all the differences between the artificial 1894 reconstruction and the actual 1598 Beza edition. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 01:10:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA23693; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:10:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:10:53 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new review on TC Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 434 D. C. Parker's review of H. P. S. Bakker, Towards a Critical Edition of the Old Slavic New Testament: A Transparent and Heuristic Approach, is now available on the pages of TC. Both the HTML and the text versions are accessible from http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol02/vol02-toc.html. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 05:42:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA24028; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:42:01 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:40:43 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199702131643.KAA25731@endeavor> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <59B6B40109@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 479 Two notes: --"tas membranas" (2 Tim 4:13) may in fact = not merely parchment but parchment *codices*. --The use of the codex for Christian writings is quite early (as early as any identifiably Christian materials surviving), *far* earlier than outside Christian circles, and may well have begun in the lst cent. 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 Feb 14 06:16:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA24058; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:16:27 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:16:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970214061612_-1843713525@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2402 Lewis Reich wrote: << I wonder if it is appropriate to describe the equidistant letters matter as a theory, since what is being reported is a result, and as far as I know, no particular theory was advanced in the statistical articles to account for the result. >> The SS article did not propose a new theory, but was an attempt to test the ELS codes in Genesis to see if they conform to an existing theory. The existing theory was described in an article in the Journal of the Royal Acadamy of Sciences which stated that, in an intelligent literary text, pairs of meaningfully related words tend to be found in close proximity in contrast with pairs of non-meaningfully related words. This literary phenomenon was demonstrated to be generally true by rigorous statistical analysis. In other words, intelligent literary texts exhibit this characteristic. The authors of the SS article tested ELS codes in Genesis for this characteristic. They selected the names of 32 medieval rabbis from an encyclopedia, and paired their names with the date of their birth or death. The assumption was that such name-date pairs constitute valid meaningfully related word pairs. The experiment undertook to measure the overall proximity of a number of instances of each name-date pair, and to statistically compare the cumulative proximity of the 32 name-date pairs with that of 999,999 randomly arranged pertubations of the names and dates. That provided a large control group of non-meaningfully related name-date pairs. Their conclusion was "that the proximity of the ELS's with related meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance." This implies that the authors consider their experiment to demonstrate that at least some ELS codes in Genesis exhibit one characteristic of intelligent literature that cannot be accounted for by chance. This idea violates the expectations of natural intuition. It suggests that in addition to the intelligent arrangement of the letters in the surface text of Genesis, a secondary intelligent arrangement was imposed to include additional hidden information. While such an idea is not impossible, it is very unlikely and is open for very careful scrutiny. While I am very skeptical, this work cannot be dismissed lightly. Several of us are going through the methodology and assumptions of the experiment very thoroughly to detect any flaws. James D. Price From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 06:16:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA24073; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:16:36 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:16:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970214061617_-1676097653@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Equidistant Letters Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 427 Harold Scanlin wrote: << If I recall, the elusive article mentioned early in the current thread appeared in _Statistical Science_, by Witztum, et al., 9(1994):429-438. This article, along with a number of other items on ELS, is available at http://www.opendoor.com/HigherGround/proof.html >> Unfortunately, that copy does not contain the appendix that greatly helps to understand the statistics. James D. Price From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 09:58:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA24307; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:58:17 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199702131746.LAA21811@homer.bethel.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:58:13 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1321 On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >Let it be noted that some of us consider that Epp probably extrapolates >far too much from the actual extant evidence in making that final >statement. This again is the typical argument _ex silentio_ which normally >gets railed against even by Dr. Petersen himself when presented in an >opposing scenario. I have to agree with Robinson on this. There just isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. Some will argue that there are Egyptian papyri which agree with all, or almost all, second-century authors. (I've never liked calling them "church fathers." Sounds too sexist for someone of my generation....) But it should be pointed out that we have relatively few remains of second century authors -- and in cases such as Irenaeus, much of what we have is preserved only in translation. Epp *may* be right. But I don't think we can, with out present knowledge, consider the matter proved. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 14 10:35:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24376; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:35:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:35:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus In-Reply-To: <59B6B40109@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 921 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > --"tas membranas" (2 Tim 4:13) may in fact = not merely parchment but > parchment *codices*. > --The use of the codex for Christian writings is quite early (as > early as any identifiably Christian materials surviving), *far* > earlier than outside Christian circles, and may well have begun in > the lst cent. This is very interesting. My studies indicate that the early Christians invented the codex or at least were the first to widely use it. It is of course difficult to prove a negative like this. As I recall, the only NT manuscripts that are not codices are P12, P13, P18, P22, and majuscule 0212; and the oldest NT papyrus is P41, an eighth century Greek and Coptic diglott fragment of Acts 17:22. -- 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 Feb 14 11:10:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24470; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:10:47 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: "Ronald L. Minton" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:09:32 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus CC: TC-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Priority: normal References: <59B6B40109@div.ed.ac.uk> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <5F32202F36@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1296 Ron Minton wrote: > My studies indicate that the early Christians > invented the codex or at least were the first to widely use it. It is of > course difficult to prove a negative like this. See, e.g., C.H. Roberts, _The Birth of the Codex_. > As I recall, the only NT manuscripts that are not codices are P12, P13, > P18, P22, and majuscule 0212; and the oldest NT papyrus is P41, an > eighth century Greek and Coptic diglott fragment of Acts 17:22. "So wholeheartedly did they [Christians] embrace it [the codex] that only three or possibly five of the more than 150 surviving biblical MSS in Greek of the pre-400 date produced by Christians are not codices" [footnote 43 lists Stud. Pal. 15.234 (Psalms) and PAlex. inv. 203 (Isaiah), plus P98 and perhaps P93 and P97]. G.H.R. Horsley, "Classical Manuscripts in australia & New Zealand, and the Early History of the Codex," _Antichthon: Journal of the Australian Society for Classical studies_ 27(1995): 60-85 [quote from p. 78]. You cannot have meant the last part of the final sentence above. The oldest NT papyrus is the well known P52 (Rylands Fragment). 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 Feb 14 11:27:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24567; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:27:54 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <59B6B40109@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:31:04 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2506 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: >> --"tas membranas" (2 Tim 4:13) may in fact = not merely parchment but >> parchment *codices*. >> --The use of the codex for Christian writings is quite early (as >> early as any identifiably Christian materials surviving), *far* >> earlier than outside Christian circles, and may well have begun in >> the lst cent. > >This is very interesting. My studies indicate that the early Christians >invented the codex or at least were the first to widely use it. It is of >course difficult to prove a negative like this. > >As I recall, the only NT manuscripts that are not codices are P12, P13, >P18, P22, and majuscule 0212; and the oldest NT papyrus is P41, an >eighth century Greek and Coptic diglott fragment of Acts 17:22. To this latter we might add several footnotes: p13 (the most important papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer collections) is an opisthograph (I hope I spelled that right -- in any case, it is written on the *back* of a previously used scroll), and 0212 is a diatessaron fragment. Thus, neither represents a "normal" Biblical manuscript. It is clear that Christians used the codex from a very early date (since p52 is a codex). Certainly they were the first to use the form on a widespread basis. It seems to me, however, that I have read of a handful of pre-Christian codices. It's just that the form never caught on. We might note that, on papyrus, it was harder to write on the "back side" of the sheet, where the grain of the plant and the direction of the papyrus strips opposed the direction of writing. Thus, the papyrus codex was rather difficult to write. Even on parchment, one side was generally better than the other (I forget whether it was the hair or flesh side). This may explain why the codex did not come into general use until the Christians adopted it. I assume the reference to p41 should be to the *most recent* NT papyrus. And note that it is a Greek/Coptic diglot -- perhaps evidence that the Egyptian church under Moslem rule turned increasingly to the Coptic versions. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 14 11:45:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24634; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:45:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:45:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ebonics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1202 This just in from a missionary in Italy. Since we are language people, I forward to you. (warning, do not try to spell check) > >In an effort to achieve political correctness, equalness, and to make sure > >that no one group is left out, I believe that all of the following should > >be taught in all schools: > > > >Afro-American Speak - Ebonics ("Ebony" plus "Phonics") > >Irish-American Speak - Leprechaunics > >Native-American Speak - Kimosabics > >Italo-American Speak - Rigatonics > >Chinese-American Speak - Won-tonics > >Japanese-American Speak - Mama-san-ics > >Polish-American Speak - Kielbasanics > >Jewish-American Speak - Zionics > >Russian-American Speak - Rasputonics > >Spanish-American Speak - Flan-ics > >Scottish-American Speak - Tartan-ics > >Eskimo-American Speak - Harpoonics > >German-American Speak - Autobahnics > >French-American Speak - Escargonics > > > >But after much thought and consideration, we could break it down to one: > > > >Oakland-School-Board Speak - Moronics > > Yes, we do need a little humor in life :) -- 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 Feb 14 11:59:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24725; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:59:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:59:10 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Mr. Helge Evensen" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 In-Reply-To: <3303F7D9.AFD@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1472 On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Mr. Minton, >=20 > The problem in the KJV at Mark 2:15 does not seem to be a translational= =20 > problem at all, as it has been suggested. Sometimes the KJV translators= =20 > used other sources than the available Greek editions. For instance, a few= =20 > times the they selected readings from the Latin Vulgate. Their main=20 > source for the NT was Beza=B4s 1598 Greek edition. Since the translators= =20 > seem to have had Beza as the greatest authority for the text of the NT,= =20 > it will do good sometimes to check out his Latin translation.=20 >=20 > I have done so in a few occasions, and more than once I found that the=20 > KJV translators have followed a Latin translation of Beza. I have a=20 > pocket edition of Beza=B4s Latin dated MCMXXV. It=B4s text is taken from = a=20 > reprint dated 1642. >=20 > In Mark 2:15 this text reads as following: Et factum est, ut quum Jesus= =20 > accumberet in domo illius, ....... >=20 > The Latin Vulgate reads: Et factum est cum accumberet in domo=20 > illius...... I don't think it was the influence of Beza's Latin because all the earlier= =20 English NTs based on Greek have "Jesus" twice like the KJV. It followed=20 them. Wycliffe and Rheims read more like the Greek, apparently following= =20 the Latin Vulgate. -- 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 Feb 14 12:08:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24821; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:08:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:08:17 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ebonics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 732 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > >In an effort to achieve political correctness, equalness, and to make sure > > >that no one group is left out, I believe that all of the following should > > >be taught in all schools: > > > [...] > > >Oakland-School-Board Speak - Moronics We're getting way off topic here, but it is worth noting that nobody --let me repeat that *nobody*-- has ever advocated teaching the so-called "Ebonics" in public schools, least of all the Oakland School Board. This has certainly become the talk-show-one-liner urban-legend version of what was being proposed. It simply has virtually nothing to do with reality. Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 12:49:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24985; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:49:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199702141748.MAA75540@r02n02.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, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:31 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) Subject: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 6664 Re Eldon Epp's article "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in William L.Petersen, ed., _Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins,Recensions, Text, and Transmission_ (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989)71-103, Maruice Robinson wrote (of Epp's comments on p. 101): >Let it be noted that some of us consider that Epp probably extrapolates >far too much from the actual extant evidence in making that final >statement. This again is the typical argument _ex silentio_ which normally >gets railed against even by Dr. Petersen himself when presented in an >opposing scenario. > >I continue to suggest that the surviving papyri found in the sands of >Egypt are much more likely by their very provenance, textual affiliations, >and scribal/phonetic habits to reflect the state of the text _in Egypt_ >far more than the state of the text anywhere else in the Roman Empire >(i.e. locations where we do _not_ have sufficient NT textual data by which >to make comparison, and from where we should _not_ presume to presuppose a >universally-applied commonalty merely on the basis of a limited regional >sample). > How Robinson drags me into this controversy is beyond me. I have not participated in the discussion, and only served as the editor of the volume--and I do not require that contributors to the volumes I edit agree with my own point of view. If one reads Epp's article, however, one sees that his evidence is not as slim as Robinson suggests (in his post, Robinson says it is "ex silentio"). See, e.g., pp. 71-84, where he provides specific examples of literary works (Plato, Homer, Sophocles, Thycydides, Euripides), bills of lading, personal and commercial correspondance, etc., which show that there was--as his title suggests--a "Dynamic" interchange of literature as well as peoples, goods, and religions (Mythraism, Manicheeism) during the early period. Given this *fact*, Epp then presumes--*mutatis mutandis*--that if secular Greek literature moved around the Empire with such ease, and the epistulary remains of private individuals *also* display evidence of their considerable mobility (including the sending of documents by third parties), and the religions (and their texts) spread rapidly throughout the ancient world, then Christian texts should have, as well. If that is so, then, suggests Epp, we should not be so chary about viewing the papyri as "local texts," *just* from the area in Egypt in which they were found. The papyri of Plato are "well represented" (p. 82) in the hovels of Fayyum, whence did they come? Obviously from "elsewhere." Ditto for Christian papyri. Obviously--contrary to Robinson's assertion--Epp's argument is not "e silentio". Rather, Epp would have us cross two bridges of presumption, both grounded upon the *empirical* discovery of papyri of literary works authored throughout the ancient Empire, and the *empirical* discovery of documents recording the movements of people with literature from point "a" to point "b". The suppositions Epp wishes us to accept are (1) the *mutatis mutandis* that Christian texts moved throughout the Empire with the same freedom as secular texts; and (2) the presumption that the preserved papyri are a good cross-section of what was available in Egypt (which, because of his supposition #1, would then be a reasonable representation of what was available throughout the Empire). Epp confirms (at least to his mind) his findings by presenting a table (p. 100) the the four major texts of the NT (the Byzantine/Koine group--which Epp calls "A"; the "Alexandrian" or "neutral" group--B, P75, etc.--which Epp calls "B"; the "C" group, which includes W, P45, fam.13, etc.; and the "Western" text group--which Epp labels "D" [the classifications are on pp. 87-99]), to which he assigns the extant papyri. The "A" group finds its earliest representation in P84 (6th cent.); P52 (2nd cent.) is the earliest "B" group representative; P45 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of the "C" group; and P5 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of the "D" group. Again, this is all empirical, based on the "arm's length" dating of *extant* *Egyptian* papyri--there is no supposition here, only the facts (= dating and provenance) as generally accepted. Epp sees this as confirming his view because the "Western" text (Epp's "D" group) is usually thought to have been of Syrian provenance, and is obviously present in Rome in the writings of Justin; the "C" group corresponds with the so-called Caesarean text, at least in part. Yet neither the "C" or "D" text have Egyptian origins, yet they are found in the early *Egyptian* papyri. Obviously this empirical *fact* requires movement of thier text from their point of origin (Antioch? Caesarea? Jerusalem? Berytus? Rome?) to Egypt. (I presume the "A" text --Byzantine/Koine--is also presumed to have an origin outside Egyp-- yet it too is also found in the *later* Eyptian papyri. How did it get from its point of origin to Egypt?) Personally, I find Epp's view as too conservative, for the "wild" citations found in Justin, Tertullian, Clement of Al., the Diatessaron, the Didache, and the Judaic-Christian gospel fragments, are not represented in the papyri--but where we have multiple Patristic/apocryphal testimony for a reading, we can be quite certain that it *did* circulate in the early (second cent.) church. Therefore, I do disagree with Epp--not because his argument is based on an "e silentio," but becuase his reconstruction gives short shrift to the *empirical* textual evidence of the second century apocryphal and Patristic sources. If there is one thing which Epp's argument is not, however, it is "ex silentio." One may disagree that Christian texts moved with the same (demonstrated) freedom as did secular texts (his supposition #1, as I have termed it), or one can disagree with his assumption that the preserved papyri are a reasonable cross-sample of the texts available in Egypt at this time (his supposition #2, in my synopsis of his arguments). But neither of these are based on an "ex silentio" argument. I suspect that the real reason Dr. Robinson disapproves of Epp's work is that he tabulates the extant evidence (= the papyri), and places it into textual groups--which, of course, leaves the Byzantine text out in the cold (6th cent. is earliest papyri evidence, as per Epp). I understand Robinson's claim that the Byzantine text is the Ur-text, but that, indeed, is an "e silentio" argument. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 12:54:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25023; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:54:49 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:53:54 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: professional scribes Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <60EF316485@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1006 > On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > >Let it be noted that some of us consider that Epp probably extrapolates > >far too much from the actual extant evidence in making that final > >statement. This again is the typical argument _ex silentio_ . . . Reading Epp carefully shows that he offers an inference which is based on a number of supporting reasons and accompanying evidence. There isn't the evidence to falsify or verify empirically the inference, but it isn't offered in a vacuum. An inference isn't an argument from silence. Robt. Waltz added: > Epp *may* be right. But I don't think we can, with out present knowledge, > consider the matter proved. Sure. And Epp didn't present the matter as "proved", but as a reasonable inference, based on the considerations he offered. 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 Feb 14 13:20:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25138; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:20:25 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970214101014.0071f768@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 12 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:10:14 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Spacing/Punctuation in mss Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 929 Someone mentioned in passing on another list that early mss had no spacing or punctuation (which is what Finegan says in _Encountering NT Mss_, p. 32). To my eye, the one's that I've looked at clearly have (I use the following terms loosely) word and/or clause and/or sentence and/or paragraph and/or chapter spacing (eg., p52, p46) or punctuation (eg., p66). How widespread in the papyri is this type of spacing and punctuation (I've only looked at the easily accesible ones, which amounts to maybe 20 of the @100 papyri) ? 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 Fri Feb 14 13:30:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25181; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:30:38 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970214102620.0071f5e0@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 12 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:26:20 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: professional scribes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3055 Michael Holmes wrote: >At 09:05 AM 2/13/97 -0800, Dale Wheeler wrote: > >>You know, that sort of sounds like the same question I asked about whether >>we should assume that the state of the text in Egypt represents the state >>of the text everywhere for the NT ?! > >The question of whether the extant textual data from Egypt is representative >of circumstances elsewhere has been explored by E. J. Epp: "The Significance >of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the >Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in William L. >Petersen, ed., _Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, >Recensions, Text, and Transmission_ (Notre Dame and London: University of >Notre Dame Press, 1989)71-103. > >Based on his investigation of the movement and transmission of secular >documents (including the documented rapid movement of literary documents >between Alexandria and Oxyrhynchus), he concludes: >"The dynamism of life in the Greco-Roman world--even in the outlying areas >of Egypt (where most of the New Testament papyri were discovered)--permitted >relatively easy travel and rather free transmission of letters and >documents, so that the earliest New Testament papyri--though they have >survived accidentally and randomly--are generally representative of the >earliest New Testament texts used by the Christianity of the time in all >parts of the Greco-Roman world." (p. 101) I have to admit that I've always felt that Epp was stretching the evidence a bit to cover territory for which we have no apparent evidence. I'm wondering if anyone has done any further studies on this topic, responded to Epp, etc. For, with one stroke of the pen, Epp has thrown out the long-standing idea that there was a certain geographically-based isolation and inbred development in the "text-types". This, of course, lies at the heart of the current "Egyptian priority" vs "Byz priority" debate currently going on...was it all the same in the first couple of centuries througout Christianity or not ?! But even if we assume that Epp is correct, I've often wondered if "christians" living in Asia Minor would have accepted texts done by "professional" scribes (though Comfort seems to paint a picture of devout Christians copying their own texts in early Egypt) from an area known to contain pockets of heresy ? Or did the text only/primarily flow in the opposite direction, from Byz to Egypt ? For if there was no ebb and flow of the text to provide a basis of comparison and thus generate some consistency, then are we not back at geographically-isolated inbred development? Just musing out loud (sort to speak)... 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 Fri Feb 14 13:48:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25274; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:48:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3304B370.5A0F@accesscomm.net> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:16 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus References: <59B6B40109@div.ed.ac.uk> <5F32202F36@div.ed.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1589 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > Ron Minton wrote: > > > My studies indicate that the early Christians > > invented the codex or at least were the first to widely use it. It is of > > course difficult to prove a negative like this. > > See, e.g., C.H. Roberts, _The Birth of the Codex_. > > > As I recall, the only NT manuscripts that are not codices are P12, P13, > > P18, P22, and majuscule 0212; and the oldest NT papyrus is P41, an > > eighth century Greek and Coptic diglott fragment of Acts 17:22. > > "So wholeheartedly did they [Christians] embrace it [the codex] that > only three or possibly five of the more than 150 surviving biblical > MSS in Greek of the pre-400 date produced by Christians are not > codices" [footnote 43 lists Stud. Pal. 15.234 (Psalms) and PAlex. > inv. 203 (Isaiah), plus P98 and perhaps P93 and P97]. G.H.R. > Horsley, "Classical Manuscripts in australia & New Zealand, and the > Early History of the Codex," _Antichthon: Journal of the Australian > Society for Classical studies_ 27(1995): 60-85 [quote from p. 78]. Somewhere near the turn of the 2nd century, Christians in either Antioch or Ephesus gathered copies of the NT writings that had been circulating among the churches to "collate" them. Apparently concerned that some would be lost (as some were) by individual circulation, I wonder if the "invention" of the codex was not a device to keep the collection together. The "deutero-pauline" book of Ephesians, a revised Colossians, may have been a "cover letter" to that collection. Thoughts? Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 16:52:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25779; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:52:23 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199702141748.MAA75540@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5941 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) wrote: [ ... ] >How Robinson drags me into this controversy is beyond me. I have not >participated in the discussion, and only served as the editor of the >volume--and I do not require that contributors to the volumes I edit agree >with my own point of view. Understanding that, I'm going to continue hacking at the conclusions anyway. BTW -- Epp's article can also be found in the recent Epp & Fee volume in studies and documents. >If one reads Epp's article, however, one sees that his evidence is not as >slim as Robinson suggests (in his post, Robinson says it is "ex silentio"). >See, e.g., pp. 71-84, where he provides specific examples of literary works >(Plato, Homer, Sophocles, Thycydides, Euripides), bills of lading, personal >and commercial correspondance, etc., which show that there was--as his title >suggests--a "Dynamic" interchange of literature as well as peoples, goods, >and religions (Mythraism, Manicheeism) during the early period. I concede that Epp's argument is not *entirely* from silence. Still, the only Biblical evidence we have for this period is the handful of early papyri and the handful of early citations. And before someone points out that there are dozens of early papyri -- yes, there are. Almost all of which contain no more than two leaves, and many contain only one or a fragment of one. Often the text is so short that one cannot determine the text-type reliably. >Given this *fact*, Epp then presumes--*mutatis mutandis*--that if secular >Greek literature moved around the Empire with such ease, and the epistulary >remains of private individuals *also* display evidence of their considerable >mobility (including the sending of documents by third parties), and the >religions (and their texts) spread rapidly throughout the ancient world, >then Christian texts should have, as well. There is, however, one slight difference. In general, literature was the possession of the upper class. These people *did* move around freely. Christianity, however, was at this time a persecuted religion, and generally more "lower class." Ordinary people were not as mobile as those of equestrian or senatorial rank. This does not invalidate the conclusion, but it suggests caution. >If that is so, then, suggests >Epp, we should not be so chary about viewing the papyri as "local texts," >*just* from the area in Egypt in which they were found. The papyri of Plato >are "well represented" (p. 82) in the hovels of Fayyum, whence did they >come? Obviously from "elsewhere." Ditto for Christian papyri. Probably true. But how can we prove it? [ ... ] > >Epp confirms (at least to his mind) his findings by presenting a table (p. >100) the the four major texts of the NT (the Byzantine/Koine group--which >Epp calls "A"; the "Alexandrian" or "neutral" group--B, P75, etc.--which >Epp calls "B"; the "C" group, which includes W, P45, fam.13, etc.; and the >"Western" text group--which Epp labels "D" [the classifications are on pp. >87-99]), to which he assigns the extant papyri. The "A" group finds its >earliest representation in P84 (6th cent.); P52 (2nd cent.) is the earliest >"B" group representative; P45 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of >the "C" group; and P5 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of the "D" >group. Again, this is all empirical, based on the "arm's length" dating of >*extant* *Egyptian* papyri--there is no supposition here, only the facts (= >dating and provenance) as generally accepted. These results are rather questionable. I defy *anyone* to definitively assign a text-type to p52; it's too small! But let's try this the other way around; let's look at the substantial early papyri (p13, p45, p46, p47, p66, p72, p75; p74 is substantial but not early). We find: p13 (contents: Hebrews) -- Goes with p46/B p45 -- Hurtado has shown that it is *not* "C" type, and Colwell showed that it was simply "wild." p46 -- Goes with B (only, not Aleph etc. See Zuntz). p47 -- Goes with Aleph (only, not A C vg). p66 -- Goes loosely with p75/B p72 -- Goes with B, but is not very close to the rest of the Alexandrian text p75 -- Goes with B etc. So let's try that list again, this time taking text-types and sections: Gospels: A witnesses -- none B witnesses -- p66, p75 C witnesses -- none D witnesses -- none Other -- p45 Acts (no early papyri except the "wild" p45) Paul Byzantine witnesses -- none Alexandrian (Aleph/A/C/33) -- none p46/B -- p46, p13 "Western" -- none family 1739 -- none Catholics Byzantine -- none Alexandrian -- (p72) family 1739 -- none family 2138 -- none Apocalypse Byzantine -- none Andreas -- none p47/Aleph -- p47 Alexandrian (A/C/vg) -- none The above list strikes me as pretty thin. Even if we try to include the more fragmentary papyri, we find some early text-types not represented. For example, family 1739 existed in the fifth century (since C is primarily family 1739 in the Catholics). It is *probably* earlier, since Origen is close to the family text. But there are no family 1739 papyri in either Paul or the Catholics. (I haven't tested the matter in Acts.) Similarly, family 2138 goes back at least to the sixth century, since it is found in the Harklean Syriac. But, again, no papyri. I am forced to conclude that Epp simply does not have the evidence to support his claims. Again, they *may* be true. (Note that I do not share Robinson's view of the history of the text; I consider Epp's position to be quite possible.) But it cannot be proved. [ remainder omitted ] -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 14 17:15:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25857; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:15:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:15:10 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes In-Reply-To: <199702141748.MAA75540@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8545 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, William Petersen wrote: > How Robinson drags me into this controversy is beyond me. I have not > participated in the discussion, and only served as the editor of the > volume--and I do not require that contributors to the volumes I edit agree > with my own point of view. Robinson only did this by way of comparative reference in regard to the earlier comment by Petersen complaining about some of my own argumentation _ex silentio_. I of course was certain that there was no undue influence or control imposed upon the individual contributors to that volume which Petersen edited. I merely suggested that Epp did very much the same thing in his claim as I was earlier criticized for. > If one reads Epp's article, however, one sees that his evidence is not as > slim as Robinson suggests (in his post, Robinson says it is "ex silentio"). > See, e.g., pp. 71-84, where he provides specific examples of literary works > (Plato, Homer, Sophocles, Thycydides, Euripides), bills of lading, personal > and commercial correspondance, etc., which show that there was--as his title > suggests--a "Dynamic" interchange of literature as well as peoples, goods, > and religions (Mythraism, Manicheeism) during the early period. None of these however deal with the NT documents themselves. In a parallel instance I could demonstrate great communication of Associated Press articles or NY Times Book Reviews in our own day, but few if any of them will ever quote the NT directly, let alone contain a significant portion of such. > Given this *fact*, Epp then presumes--*mutatis mutandis*--that if secular > Greek literature moved around the Empire with such ease, and the epistulary > remains of private individuals *also* display evidence of their considerable > mobility (including the sending of documents by third parties), and the > religions (and their texts) spread rapidly throughout the ancient world, > then Christian texts should have, as well. This however fails to take into account the nature of Christianity during that period as a generally persecuted entity, whose life and documents often had to function in a more covert manner. I do not think that Epp's _mutatis mutandis_ takes all the necessary circumstances into account in his conclusion. > If that is so, then, suggests > Epp, we should not be so chary about viewing the papyri as "local texts," > *just* from the area in Egypt in which they were found. The papyri of Plato > are "well represented" (p. 82) in the hovels of Fayyum, whence did they > come? Obviously from "elsewhere." Ditto for Christian papyri. This is certainly agreed, since no NT book had its origin in Egypt. But we are not talking specifically about the books, but about the texttypes or mixed types found in such books, which well may reflect only the local-text nature of the Egyptian region, and not necessarily or even likely that which obtained elsewhere. The books themselves got there one way or the other due to the mission-minded nature of the early Christians, persecutions or no...... > The suppositions Epp wishes us to accept are (1) the *mutatis mutandis* that > Christian texts moved throughout the Empire with the same freedom as secular > texts; and (2) the presumption that the preserved papyri are a good > cross-section of what was available in Egypt (which, because of his > supposition #1, would then be a reasonable representation of what was > available throughout the Empire). Neither of which suppositions I think definitively warranted by the extant evidence, although I do think the initial portion of (2) is quite the case if taken alone and without making assumptions based upon (1). > group. Again, this is all empirical, based on the "arm's length" dating of > *extant* *Egyptian* papyri--there is no supposition here, only the facts (= > dating and provenance) as generally accepted. That varied texttypes and highly mixed texts happened to exist in Egypt does not necessarily translate into the universal state of the text elsewhere. Had that assumption been correct, we then would find the text having degenerated into virtual chaos everywhere in the Empire, and no reasonable resolution of the difficulty would be in sight, short of a formal revision such as W-H proposed in the manner of Jerome. > neither the "C" or "D" text have Egyptian origins, yet they are found in the > early *Egyptian* papyri. Obviously this empirical *fact* requires movement > of thier text from their point of origin (Antioch? Caesarea? Jerusalem? > Berytus? Rome?) to Egypt. I do not doubt that at least _readings_ migrated from place to place and from copy to copy in varied fashion. Whether complete MSS moved as completely as did readings brought in by "uncontrolled popular expansion" or by cross-comparison and correction, I know not (but neither does Epp). The fact that those Egyptian papyri are generally so "mixed" in character tends to indicate migration of readings more than MSS as entities in my opinion. > (I presume the "A" text --Byzantine/Koine--is > also presumed to have an origin outside Egyp-- yet it too is also found in > the *later* Eyptian papyri. How did it get from its point of origin to Egypt?) After Constantine, I fully expect a wide degree of intercommunication among the newly-legitimized churches of the Empire, and would therefore not be surprised to find Byzantine MSS after the fourth century in any locality within the Empire. > (second cent.) church. Therefore, I do disagree with Epp--not because his > argument is based on an "e silentio," but becuase his reconstruction gives > short shrift to the *empirical* textual evidence of the second century > apocryphal and Patristic sources. I am not convinced that the Western-type citations in the Fathers are necessarily MS based, any more than the readings in the MSS originally derived from some Father's embellished sermon text. Patristic readings should certainly be considered, but also carefully evaluated when absent manuscript support. > If there is one thing which Epp's argument is not, however, it is "ex > silentio." One may disagree that Christian texts moved with the same > (demonstrated) freedom as did secular texts (his supposition #1, as I have > termed it), or one can disagree with his assumption that the preserved > papyri are a reasonable cross-sample of the texts available in Egypt at this > time (his supposition #2, in my synopsis of his arguments). But neither of > these are based on an "ex silentio" argument. The process of combining the hard evidence of (1) and (2) leads to a conclusion which still remains _ex silentio_ in my opinion. I do not see any inexorable or even culminative proof that the combined conclusion is indeed accurate or that the NT MSS we possess from the early centuries which were found in Egypt reflect anything more than the localized textual situation in that region, in which mixture from "migrating readings" more than anything else predominated within the text of NT MSS. > I suspect that the real reason Dr. Robinson disapproves of Epp's work is > that he tabulates the extant evidence (= the papyri), and places it into > textual groups--which, of course, leaves the Byzantine text out in the cold > (6th cent. is earliest papyri evidence, as per Epp). I understand > Robinson's claim that the Byzantine text is the Ur-text, but that, indeed, > is an "e silentio" argument. Cheerfully admitted by the way :-) Now if only modern eclectics will acknowledge the same in regard to the NA27 text as the supposedly Ur-text or closest-to-it hypothesis, we can all get along. As for tabulation of the extant evidence, I suspect that my own tabulation of the identical NT data in the papyri will end up quite different than that of Epp. Although I will not attempt to claim any early papyrus from Egypt as being thoroughly Byzantine, since the evidence is clearly opposed to such a claim. But I will maintain that the early papyri reflect little more than the state of the text in pre-fourth century Egypt, and not necessarily that which may have predominated in any other significant local region, let alone the native Greek-speaking portion of the Roman Empire as a whole. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 19:09:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26035; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:09:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:09:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1349 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >As I recall, the only NT manuscripts that are not codices are P12, P13, > >P18, P22, and majuscule 0212; and the oldest NT papyrus is P41, an > >eighth century Greek and Coptic diglott fragment of Acts 17:22. > > To this latter we might add several footnotes: > > p13 (the most important papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer collections) > is an opisthograph (I hope I spelled that right -- in any case, it is > written on the *back* of a previously used scroll), and 0212 is a > diatessaron fragment. Thus, neither represents a "normal" Biblical > manuscript. Also, see Aland, TEXT OF NT, p. 102. Is the combination of age and non-fragmentary length the primary reason for your evaluation of the importance of P13? > It is clear that Christians used the codex from a very early date (since > p52 is a codex). Certainly they were the first to use the form on > a widespread basis. It seems to me, however, that I have read of a > handful of pre-Christian codices. It's just that the form never caught > on. Does anyone know for certain about pre-Christian codices? > I assume the reference to p41 should be to the *most recent* NT papyrus. Yes. -- 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 Feb 14 21:25:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26199; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 21:25:18 -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, 14 Feb 1997 20:24:18 -0700 To: "Ronald L. Minton" From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1210 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote, in part: >> p13 (the most important papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer collections) >> is an opisthograph (I hope I spelled that right -- in any case, it is >> written on the *back* of a previously used scroll), and 0212 is a >> diatessaron fragment. Thus, neither represents a "normal" Biblical >> manuscript. > >Also, see Aland, TEXT OF NT, p. 102. >Is the combination of age and non-fragmentary length the primary reason for >your evaluation of the importance of P13? Actually, there are three factors: Age, length, and the fact that p13 seems to go with p46 and B. Since there are only three Greek manuscripts of this type (Zuntz would add 1739, but I think it stands apart), and since p46 and B are both defective for parts of Hebrews, p13 takes on great significance. Says I. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 14 22:50:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA26300; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:50:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3305C761.33CF@sn.no> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 06:25:37 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7076 On Wed 12 Feb Ronald L. Minton wrote: > I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat." Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text? I have four editions of the TR and none read that way. Thanks ahead of time. > On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:=20 Mr. Minton, > The problem in the KJV at Mark 2:15 does not seem to be a translation= al > problem at all, as it has been suggested. Sometimes the KJV = translators used other sources than the available Greek editio= ns. For instance, a few > times the they selected readings from the Latin Vulgate. Their main > source for the NT was Beza=B4s 1598 Greek edition. Since the translato= rs > seem to have had Beza as the greatest authority for the text of the NT= , > it will do good sometimes to check out his Latin translation. >=20 > I have done so in a few occasions, and more than once I found that the > KJV translators have followed a Latin translation of Beza. I have a > pocket edition of Beza=B4s Latin dated MCMXXV. It=B4s text is taken fr= om a > reprint dated 1642. >=20 > In Mark 2:15 this text reads as following: Et factum est, ut quum Jesu= s > accumberet in domo illius, ....... >=20 > The Latin Vulgate reads: Et factum est cum accumberet in domo > illius...... > =20 Mr. Minton answered on Fri 14 Feb: =20 > I don't think it was the influence of Beza's Latin because all the earl= ier > English NTs based on Greek have "Jesus" twice like the KJV. It followe= d > them. Wycliffe and Rheims read more like the Greek, apparently followi= ng > the Latin Vulgate. >=20 > --=09 I reply: First, let me establish Beza=B4s extraordinary influence on the KJV trans= lators:=20 Scrivener wrote: "Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of B= eza=B4s Greek=20 Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed th= an his fifth=20 (1598),....." and "On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yield= ed too much to=20 Beza=B4s somewhat arbitrary decicions; but they lived at a time when his = name was the very=20 highest among Reformed theologians,.....". (The Athorized Version, App. E= , p.60). A good example of this yielding is their choice to follow Beza in Rom.7:6= (apothanontos)=20 against all known MS evidence. Only Erasmus alleged that the reading was = supported by=20 Chrysostom.=20 None of this does, of course, prove conclusively that the KJV translators= included the=20 first "Jesus" in Mark 2:15 only because Beza had it in his Latin. But I a= sk this question:=20 Is it not a possibility though, since they relied so heavily on Beza else= where? If the KJV=20 translators could follow the *Roman Catholic* Vulgate Latin in some place= s, I believe it=20 is only logical to conclude that they also could have followed Beza=B4s *= Reformed* Latin in=20 some places!=20 The fact that the earlier translations had the rendering/reading in quest= ion, did, without=20 question, influence their choice. But still I ask: Is it likely that they= would have=20 included this reading *without* the authority of Beza=B4s Latin? I sugges= t that it is=20 *unlikely* that they would! Why? Because normally they placed translation= al additions in=20 italics! Also, in the Geneva Bible "Jesus" is added without italics, as i= n the KJV. Below=20 I shall comment on the fact that the Geneva Bible too, which, by the way,= was the first to=20 use italics in the text, was influenced by Beza. No doubt, this reading *may* be a translational thing, and the English tr= anslators *and*=20 Beza (in his Latin) may have added "Jesus" for the sake of clarification.= If this is so,=20 the suggestion is that there never was any real MS evidence for the readi= ng, not even=20 among Latin MSS. But if this was *not* a translational thing with Beza, h= e must have had=20 some authority for the reading.=20 We know that Beza=B4s Latin translation first appeared in 1556. (This is = according to=20 Scrivener!). Also, we know that the Geneva New Testament first appeared i= n 1557.=20 Therefore, it is very likely that Beza=B4s Latin influenced the decicions= made for the 1557=20 and 1560 editions of the Geneva NT. It is, at least, very clear that Beza= left his mark on=20 both the Geneva NT and the AV 1611 NT. Also, the Reformed theology of Bez= a and Calvin is=20 the very foundation for the famous marginal annotations in the Geneva Bib= le edition of=20 1602, two years before the KJV translators started their work. In fact, t= hese annotations=20 is based directly on Beza=B4s 1574 Latin translation with notes. The English versions prior to Beza may have used the same sources for the= NT (other than=20 the Greek) that Beza used for his Latin (whatever that may have been) for= the establishing=20 of the reading in Mark 2:15. The fact that the Geneva Bible, which was th= e first to=20 include italics, did *not* place "Jesus" in italics, suggest an authority= for the reading,=20 other than just a translational solution. Translations prior to the Genev= an did not=20 indicate words which were not in the Greek.=20 In conclusion, let me point to one possible witness to the authority of t= he "Jesus"=20 reading/rendering in Mark 2:15:=20 In a 1825 printing of H. A. Schott=B4s edition of the Greek-Latin New Tes= tament, which has a=20 brief critical apparatus for both the Greek and the Latin, the Latin text= reads as follows=20 in Mark 2:15a: "In cuius domo quum Jesus postea accubuisset, .....". That this Latin translation reads "Jesus" here *without* placing it in a = parantheses (or=20 brackets) is remarkable, for it seems that it *usually* has parantheses a= round words=20 supplied, especially names of Deity added for emphasis or clarity. Look, = for instance, at=20 the rendering at Colossians 1:21-22: "Vos quoque, olim alienos (a Deo), m= ente (Deo)=20 inimicos, pravis quippe factis deditos, nunc omnino (Deo) reconciliavit (= Christus) corpore=20 suo,.....". >From the above example, it is to be expected that this Latin edition woul= d have had=20 "Jesus" within parantheses in Mark 2:15 if the editor had felt that there= was no Latin (or=20 other) authority for the reading/rendering. However, I am not saying that= this *proves*=20 anything. Besides, it=B4s still *possible* to imagine that the Latin read= ing is a=20 translational decision. I conclude that it is at least *likely* that the KJV translators (and the= Genevan=20 translators) adopted the reading under the influence of Beza, knowing tha= t Beza had a=20 reason to include the reading. After all, the translators had the *opport= unity* to place=20 supplied words in italics, but they didn=B4t do it! This indicate some *o= ther* authority=20 than just the rendering of Tyndale, et.al.=20 I have only attempted to answer your question concerning the authority be= hind the KJV=20 reading/rendering at Mark 2:15, well aware of the fact that I cannot prov= e anything=20 concerning it. It is just suggestions, nothing more. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 15 11:05:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26938; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:05:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:04:53 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: professional scribes In-Reply-To: <60EF316485@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1194 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > Reading Epp carefully shows that he offers an inference which is > based on a number of supporting reasons and accompanying evidence. > There isn't the evidence to falsify or verify empirically the > inference, but it isn't offered in a vacuum. An inference isn't an > argument from silence. Of course, if someone else can make an entirely different inference based upon precisely the same data plus perhaps other supporting considerations which were not taken into account by the first scholar, then which inference is necessarily better than the other? That is what was my point on this matter; I do not consider Epp's inference as proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and my own inference regarding the pre-fourth century papyri as more likely reflecting the state of the text in Egypt at that time still remains equally plausible. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 15 13:39:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27112; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:39:59 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:39:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts? In-Reply-To: <970215124035_138196806@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 710 I was recently given this by a very questionable source who was trying to degrade the NKJV, but I wanted to check with you folks before dismissing it. "Given the recent (1990) discovery of 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts, all dating earlier than Kittel's [Leningrad], one can easily assert that Kittel's text is based on "less than 1% of the available data." The NKJV was published before these manuscripts were discovered." Is she speaking of the Biblical Archaeological Review article? Is there anything to the 2,500 new mss.? I know the other info. is off. -- 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 Feb 15 18:02:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27462; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:02:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199702152302.SAA61320@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:01:24 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 5153 (1) This matter is really not worth the time, for Robinson now admits that Epp's piece is not an *e silentio* argument, as does Waltz. Robinson (to Hurtado): >Of course, if someone else can make an entirely different inference based >upon precisely the same data plus perhaps other supporting considerations >which were not taken into account by the first scholar, then which >inference is necessarily better than the other? That is what was my point >on this matter; I do not consider Epp's inference as proven beyond a >reasonable doubt, [snip] If Epp's piece actually were an *e silentio*, then there would *be* no "data" to rearrange. As Hurtado pointed out: >An inference isn't an argument from silence. As for Waltz (in reply to me): >I concede that Epp's argument is not *entirely* from silence. (2) What makes this entire exchange regrettable and absurd is Robinson's own description as to why he sought to draw me into it. I begin with Robinson's quote of my post: >On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, William Petersen wrote: > >> How Robinson drags me into this controversy is beyond me. I have not >> participated in the discussion, and only served as the editor of the >> volume--and I do not require that contributors to the volumes I edit agree >> with my own point of view. > >Robinson only did this by way of comparative reference in regard to the >earlier comment by Petersen complaining about some of my own >argumentation _ex silentio_. I of course was certain that there was no >undue influence or control imposed upon the individual contributors to >that volume which Petersen edited. I merely suggested that Epp did very >much the same thing in his claim as I was earlier criticized for. > But now it is apparent to all that Epp's arguments are not *e silentio* and, therefore, not comparable to Robinson's. *That* is why I have not criticized Epp, although I have (verbally, when he delivered his paper nearly a decade ago, and in my first post) stated the *empirical* textual evidence which leads me to disagree with Epp. (3) Finally, lest the point Epp makes so skillfully in his article (will someone actually please read the thing, and deal with Epp's *evidence*?) be entirely obscured by Robinson's following (mis)characterization of it-- >> (Petersen) If one reads Epp's article, however, one sees that his evidence is not as >> slim as Robinson suggests (in his post, Robinson says it is "ex silentio"). >> See, e.g., pp. 71-84, where he provides specific examples of literary works >> (Plato, Homer, Sophocles, Thycydides, Euripides), bills of lading, personal >> and commercial correspondence, etc., which show that there was--as his title >> suggests--a "Dynamic" interchange of literature as well as peoples, goods, >> and religions (Mythraism, Manicheeism) during the early period. > >(Robinson) None of these however deal with the NT documents themselves. In a >parallel instance I could demonstrate great communication of Associated >Press articles or NY Times Book Reviews in our own day, but few if any of >them will ever quote the NT directly, let alone contain a significant >portion of such. --allow me to give the correct analogy which--*pace* Robinson--has nothing to do with "quot[ing] the NT directly" (!!!): Imagine any state/province or, if you are a European, a European country. Imagine that in 2,000 years archaeologists dig back and discover newspapers. They find the NYTimes, the Chicago Trib, the SF Chronicle, as well as copies of Le Figaro, the Times (of London), Le Soir, the NRC Handelsblat, Corriera de la Serra, the Utrechese Dagblat, the Frankfurter Allegemeine,the Times (of India), the Neuer Zuricher Zeitung, the Svenska Dagblat, etc., etc. Additionally, they find copies of the Bible. Given the diversity of the provenance of the *secular* literature (the newspapers), which comes from all over the world, what should we presume about the provenance of the copies of the Bible we find there? Do they also represent a good cross-section of what was available in the world at that time (so Epp, who sees their distribution as analogous to that of the secular documents), or are they "local" texts (so Epp's critics)? I have no answer, but know we are not dealing with an *e silentio* argument. What is interesting is that, in contemporary life, Epp is demonstrably correct: If even "pagan" Manhattan were "frozen in time" today, we would find (1) newspapers from all over the world there, and (2) Bibles from all over the world there. The same would go even for Iowa. Is Epp correct or not? Only empirical evidence (such as the failure of the Egyptian papyri to reflect the wide-spread 2nd cent. reading at Luke 3.22 [+ "this day I have begotten you"], which is in Justin [Rome], Origen [Alexandria], Ev. Ebion [Palestine]--and which is why I find Epp's inviting scenario ultimately defective) will tip the balance. (4) It is an easy thing to pillory one's interlocutors by mischaracterizing their statements, or by imputing arguments to them which they do not make. This is the last time I shall take my time to deal with such juvenilia. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 16 00:02:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA27774; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:02:04 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:01:52 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes In-Reply-To: <199702152302.SAA61320@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 8102 On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > (1) This matter is really not worth the time, for Robinson now admits that > Epp's piece is not an *e silentio* argument, as does Waltz. I still beg to differ, since the matter of arguing from silence rests precisely at the point where the relevance of the distribution of classical literature within the Empire (which is demonstrated by facts) indicates the same level of distribution of NT MSS around the Empire (which is _not_ supported by any hard data). The mere existence of 99 fragmentary papyri from the region of Egypt is also data which is known, but which does not cross-link in any way with the matter of the distribution of the classical literature. Solid data exist on both questions, but to combine both and draw a definitive conclusion such as Epp has done is in my opinion still an unwarranted argument based on silence. > Robinson (to Hurtado): > > >Of course, if someone else can make an entirely different inference based > >upon precisely the same data plus perhaps other supporting considerations > >which were not taken into account by the first scholar, then which > >inference is necessarily better than the other? That is what was my point > >on this matter; I do not consider Epp's inference as proven beyond a > >reasonable doubt, [snip] > > If Epp's piece actually were an *e silentio*, then there would *be* no > "data" to rearrange. As Hurtado pointed out: > > >An inference isn't an argument from silence. I admitted my inferences regarding the extant papyri as more likely representative of local conditions in Egypt were drawn from only that segement of the evidence, and to that extent are based on hard data. As soon as I proclaim (as I do in my own textual theory) that such was _not_ representative of the state of the tect in the Empire as a whole, I argue from silence (and cheerfully admit it). Why does there seem to be a problem in recognizing that Epp basically does the same thing? > (2) What makes this entire exchange regrettable and absurd is Robinson's own > description as to why he sought to draw me into it. Petersen is correct. He is totally irrelevant to the discussion of Epp's position. I have stated this already. My only point in that regard was in reference to Petersen complaining strongly about my own claims in OTHER unrelated areas regarding transmissional history which were similarly based upon _ex silentio_ arguements, and merely suggesting that Petersen should be as critical of Epp at this point as he was of me. But basically, this entire discussion of Epp's position has _nothing_ to do with Petersen, so if he chooses to ignore it, that is fine with me. > >I merely suggested that Epp did very > >much the same thing in his claim as I was earlier criticized for. > > > But now it is apparent to all that Epp's arguments are not *e silentio* and, > therefore, not comparable to Robinson's. Since that point is not granted by me, the comparison still might remain apt. However, I will not dwell on the matter of Petersen vs myself further. > (3) Finally, lest the point Epp makes so skillfully in his article (will > someone actually please read the thing, and deal with Epp's *evidence*?) be > entirely obscured by Robinson's following (mis)characterization of it-- > Imagine any state/province or, if you are a European, a European country. > Imagine that in 2,000 years archaeologists dig back and discover newspapers. > They find the NYTimes, the Chicago Trib, the SF Chronicle, as well as copies > [of other newspapers].... > Additionally, they find copies of the Bible. > Given the diversity of the provenance of the *secular* literature (the > newspapers), which comes from all over the world, what should we presume > about the provenance of the copies of the Bible we find there? Do they also > represent a good cross-section of what was available in the world at that > time (so Epp, who sees their distribution as analogous to that of the > secular documents), or are they "local" texts (so Epp's critics)? I have no > answer, but know we are not dealing with an *e silentio* argument. There are differences which would have to be taken into consideration, but the issue is NOT whether copies of the NT were in Egypt and obviously HAD to come from elsewhere (this is granted); but the issue is where did their specific READINGS come from, based upon whatever textual identity those NT books had. Following Petersen's illustration (which is good), but altering the locale to the USA and to English Bible translations which might be found, what will the future archaeologist make of the texts such as the KJV or NKJV which reflect one type of NT text, as opposed to those other translations which reflect a different type of NT text (and, being eclectic, those other translations still differ in various places and (especially with the dynamic equivalency translations) may even render passages totally differently where the known underlying Greek text remains the same (I would presume the Greek printed texts also would be preserved for those archaeologists). The analogy breaks down of course, due to the matter of the printing press and identity of copies, but at least the textual variation issue still remains. The question then would be whether all those NIV's from the Zondervan scribes in the region of Grand Rapids, Michigan, are typical of the state of the text in the entire US or whether those NKJV's from the Nelson scribes in the "local" area of Nashville, Tennessee, are typical, or whether those NASV's from the Lockman scribes out of California are typical, etc. We know that in our own situation that local publishing houses imply nothing about national distribution -- but as soon as one reverts back to first century Egpyt and hand-copied MSS, that same conclusion (which would be Epp's) might no longer apply. And that is my point. > What is interesting is that, in contemporary life, Epp is demonstrably > correct: If even "pagan" Manhattan were "frozen in time" today, we would > find (1) newspapers from all over the world there, and (2) Bibles from all > over the world there. New York is great -- think of those future archaeologists uncovering the American Bible Society archive! :-) But look at the utter _diversity_ of NT texts found in that archive -- what conclusions would you suggest should be drawn regarding distribution of biblical texts in that case? Remember the Zondervan archive in Grand Rapids would have been almost exclusively NIV, and the Lockman archive in California would have been almost exclusively NASV -- but the Bible Society archive would have numerous English translations of widely varying type; so what can be said of the distribution of the text nationwide based upon any of those "local" finds? > The same would go even for Iowa. I'll bet in Iowa the KJV will probably be the most numerous find, with only a relatively few translations of other types. This may also hold true in other rural areas of the US as well. Would one then not do well to conclude that the TR (or, horrors, a generally Byzantine type of text) was the dominant type in the USA of the 20th century, even though localized texts of major metropolitan regions and especially scholarly centers might reflect something significantly different? > (4) It is an easy thing to pillory one's interlocutors by mischaracterizing > their statements, or by imputing arguments to them which they do not make. > This is the last time I shall take my time to deal with such juvenilia. I hope that I at least have not pilloried anyone in my discussions. My intent is only to suggest that one be wary of any firm conclusions drawn when it is at least _possible_ that the data does not support the inference. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 16 06:49:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA28007; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 06:49:58 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 06:49:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970216064943_-972582813@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re:Koren text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 156 Hi: Dr. Haralick verified that the Koren text agrees with the Tikun Sefer edition in all the places where I found Koren to differ from BHS. James D. Price From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 16 12:46:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28276; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:46:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199702152302.SAA61320@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:40:18 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: What Epp was really talking about (Was: Epp, papyri....) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 7060 On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote: >(1) This matter is really not worth the time, for Robinson now admits that >Epp's piece is not an *e silentio* argument, as does Waltz. It's true that what we were discussing was not Epp's basic point. Indeed, the whole argument was over something almost incidental to Epp's argument. Petersen reminded us that we should read Epp's article before commenting. I should note that I *had* read it, but re-read it to make sure I wasn't missing something. I *did* make some mistakes (e.g. Epp did not say that the p45/W text is the Caesarean text; he just said they had common characteristics). But the crucial fact is that Epp was not talking about what texts existed in Egypt, but *whether text-types existed at all prior to the fourth century.* Here Robinson and I -- and I think Petersen -- will agree: They did exist. The only question is, Which text-types existed then. (And here we would continue to disagree.) In general I agree with Epp. In fact, I think Epp is one of the few scholars who clearly perceives our current problem in textual criticism: That we do not have a theory of the text. Let's summarize the main points: 1. The papyri in Egypt *do* demonstrate the existence of text-types in Egypt prior to the fourth century. The most obvious is the p75/B/p66 type, which became the Alexandrian text. (Epp does not note it, but the papyri also attest to the p46/B/sa/p13 text of Paul. Their testimony regarding other text-types is more dubious.) 2. Not all text-types found in Egypt are *from* Egypt. (Assuredly true.) Note that this does not imply that *all* foreign text-types will occur in Egypt! We cannot infer from the absence of a type in Egypt that it did not exist. 3. The text-types found in the early papyri generally survive in latter manuscripts. (As an attempt to get away from the problematic term "text-type," Epp refers to "trajectories" and "spectra" of witnesses. The former analogy bothers me, but I think the latter is a good comparison.) However, there are places where Epp's analysis strikes me as flawed. These are generally on minor points -- e.g my objection to his "trajectory" analysis. Also, I don't like his trajectory groupings; 33 and 1739 are *not* the same text-type. And p74 is Alexandrian, not Byzantine. Also, one reading does not identify a text-type! Ever! (See page 286 in Epp/Fee.) One may be able to determine, on the basis of a handful of readings, that a manuscript *does not* belong to a text-type. But four or five readings cannot determine if a manuscript belongs to a known text-type; it might belong to something undiscovered. Hence I would still maintain that we cannot classify p52 by type. Also, I agree with the Alands (for once!) that we cannot build text- types around Bezae. If there are "Western" papyri of the Acts (though I would note that, of the three so-called "Western" papyri of Acts -- p29, p38, and p48, only p38 shares text with D!), there are none of the gospels. The only early Greek witness claimed to have a "Western" text of the gospels is 0171 -- but based on the readings of the Nestle apparatus, 0171 is nearly as close to B as to D; it has ten readings with B against D and twelve with D against B (plus three which are not found in either ms.). Finally, I cannot accept the Colwell "70%" definition of a text-type. (But let's not start on *that* again. Some will recall the earlier discussion on this topic; those who don't can read my views in my article on text-types, found in the encyclopedia site in my sig.) Now to address certain points in Petersen's discussion. :-) [ ... ] >As for Waltz (in reply to me): > >>I concede that Epp's argument is not *entirely* from silence. More to the point, the matter is not central to the argument of his essay. Still, I urge people to look at the evidence of the substantial papyri listed in my earlier post. [ ... ] >Imagine any state/province or, if you are a European, a European country. >Imagine that in 2,000 years archaeologists dig back and discover newspapers. >They find the NYTimes, the Chicago Trib, the SF Chronicle, as well as copies >of Le Figaro, the Times (of London), Le Soir, the NRC Handelsblat, Corriera >de la Serra, the Utrechese Dagblat, the Frankfurter Allegemeine,the Times >(of India), the Neuer Zuricher Zeitung, the Svenska Dagblat, etc., etc. >Additionally, they find copies of the Bible. > >Given the diversity of the provenance of the *secular* literature (the >newspapers), which comes from all over the world, what should we presume >about the provenance of the copies of the Bible we find there? Do they also >represent a good cross-section of what was available in the world at that >time (so Epp, who sees their distribution as analogous to that of the >secular documents), or are they "local" texts (so Epp's critics)? I have no >answer, but know we are not dealing with an *e silentio* argument. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Let's take the example of newspapers. In my hometown (the Twin Cities of Minnesota) there would be many copies of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and somewhat fewer of the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. (These are our local "text-types.") There would be a handful of copies of the Wall Street Journal and of the New York Times (both available for home delivery here; these are foreign text-types). Other "foreign" types such as the Chicago Tribune would hardly be seen at all; they are available only by extarordinary methods. But that is, in fact, exactly what we observe in Egypt: A dominant text (the Alexandrian), a few copies of another text (the "Western"), and none at all of other types (the Byzantine, family 2138, etc.) > >What is interesting is that, in contemporary life, Epp is demonstrably >correct: If even "pagan" Manhattan were "frozen in time" today, we would >find (1) newspapers from all over the world there, and (2) Bibles from all >over the world there. The same would go even for Iowa. I don't think this can be considered analogous. Iowa doesn't have any publishing houses; it has to import books. Whereas any Christian with a copy of scripture and enough money could make another copy. >Is Epp correct or >not? Only empirical evidence (such as the failure of the Egyptian papyri to >reflect the wide-spread 2nd cent. reading at Luke 3.22 [+ "this day I have >begotten you"], which is in Justin [Rome], Origen [Alexandria], Ev. Ebion >[Palestine]--and which is why I find Epp's inviting scenario ultimately >defective) will tip the balance. Defective in which sense? Epp is only arguing that other text-types *can be* found in Egypt, not that they *must be* 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 Sun Feb 16 14:05:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28396; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:05:09 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199702152302.SAA61320@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:58:10 -0700 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: KJV centers (was: Re: Epp, papyri...) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1221 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >I'll bet in Iowa the KJV will probably be the most numerous find, with >only a relatively few translations of other types. This may also hold >true in other rural areas of the US as well. Tsk. This, as a Midwesterner, I can't let slip by. (Yes, I'm from Minnesota, and tell Iowa jokes like any other Minnesotan, but it's still biased.) Iowa's churches are primarily mainline Protestant. It may be that there are more AVs in Iowa than any other version -- but the *combined* numbers of modern versions will vastly outnumber copies of the AV. If I were to point to a particular place as the hotbed of KJVs, it seems to me that the (conservative, Baptist, rural) southern Appalachians would be the logical place. And, yes, I know this isn't really relevant to anything we're talking about. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Feb 16 19:33:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA28838; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:33:33 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:33:22 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: KJV centers (was: Re: Epp, papyri...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1045 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > Iowa's churches are primarily mainline Protestant. > It may be that there are more AVs in Iowa than any other version -- > but the *combined* numbers of modern versions will vastly outnumber > copies of the AV. No joke intended -- this precisely illustrates my point. The KJV still would appear to be the predominant text in Iowa or other rural areas, even though all other translations combined might outnumber it. So too with the Byzantine Textform in the Roman Empire -- all local text MSS combined might indeed outnumber it, but it nevertheless might remain dominant. > If I were to point to a particular place as the hotbed of KJVs, > it seems to me that the (conservative, Baptist, rural) southern > Appalachians would be the logical place. Granted readily from a North Carolina perspective. :-) > And, yes, I know this isn't really relevant to anything we're > talking about. :-) If you say so.... From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 17 05:33:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA29260; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:33:56 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:32:55 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3304B370.5A0F@accesscomm.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 2073 J. Kilmon wrote: > Somewhere near the turn of the 2nd century, Christians in either > Antioch or Ephesus gathered copies of the NT writings that had been > circulating among the churches to "collate" them. Apparently concerned > that some would be lost (as some were) by individual circulation, I > wonder > if the "invention" of the codex was not a device to keep the collection > together. The "deutero-pauline" book of Ephesians, a revised > Colossians, > may have been a "cover letter" to that collection. N.B. Christians didn't "invent" the codex; it had been used for some time, but primarily for non-formal writing, such as notes, etc. Earliest was the bundle of wax tablets, thereafter parchment codices. Martial even refers to experiments with the codex for publication of literary works but suggests this didn't catch on. Christians appropriated the codex-format and seem to have *used* it programmatically far earlier than any other group. WhY? Various possibile scenarios have been suggested. They fall basically into 2 types: (1) The Christians may have intended some socially/religiously defining significance--Torah is to be written on scrolls, so the Christian writings were put in anothe format to distinguish them, either as Christian or as something other than "scripture"? (2) Christians appropriated the codex for practical reasons, such as the one Kilmon sketched. But remember that scrolls can be prepared with more than one book (e.g., the "book of the 12", the "minor Prophetes" are written on one scroll in ancient times). Codices did come to be made that could handle a larger amount of texts and more writings than is practical for scrolls, but the earliest Christian codices are quite a bit smaller and more modest than the grand 4th cent ones! THose interested really could start with the C.H. Roberts, T.C Skeat volume, _THe Birth of the Codex_. 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 Feb 17 08:21:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29514; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:21:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:18:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702171318.IAA10917@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: KJV centers (was: Re: Epp, papyri...) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1485 Can I suggest a Chattanoogan Text Family? At 07:33 PM 2/16/97 -0500, you wrote: > > >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >> >> Iowa's churches are primarily mainline Protestant. >> It may be that there are more AVs in Iowa than any other version -- >> but the *combined* numbers of modern versions will vastly outnumber >> copies of the AV. > >No joke intended -- this precisely illustrates my point. The KJV still >would appear to be the predominant text in Iowa or other rural areas, even >though all other translations combined might outnumber it. So too with >the Byzantine Textform in the Roman Empire -- all local text MSS combined >might indeed outnumber it, but it nevertheless might remain dominant. > >> If I were to point to a particular place as the hotbed of KJVs, >> it seems to me that the (conservative, Baptist, rural) southern >> Appalachians would be the logical place. > >Granted readily from a North Carolina perspective. :-) > >> And, yes, I know this isn't really relevant to anything we're >> talking about. :-) > >If you say so.... > > 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 (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 17 09:22:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29705; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:22:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:21:50 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Koren vs BHS (2) To: TC-List Message-ID: <199702170921_MC2-1159-E164@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 3099 About a week ago I posted two items on the tc-list, but I am not sure if they were actually received, perhaps because of swichover problems.. I have now added some additional information supplied by several of you. In addition to the valuable resource list shared by Price, some (most?) editions of the Koren Tanakh include a list of differences between their edition and other editions. Their list does not include matres lectionis differences; thus for the Torah only Gen 9:29 and Deut 23:2 are listed. Further, the list is not necessarily a comparison with BHS. My guess is that it is a comparison with the second Rabbinic Bible. A new Tanakh was just published in a Hebrew-English diglot "Stone" edition by Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY. It will be interesting to see how well this Hebrew text is received in the Jewish religious community as something of a rival to the well-received Koren edition. As far as the text is concerned, in a very preliminary check I have spotted a few readings in Stone which agree with L (via BHS?) but it generally agrees with Koren. All this suggests the need for a careful electronic comparison of the major editions and manuscripts along the lines already undertaken by Price. The electronic status of the different texts is not well documented. This would, of course, be a major first step. My understanding of the situation is as follows: PRINTED EDITIONS BHS (extremely close to L): the Westminster-CCAT file in its most recent release(s) should be considered the authority for this file. It should be noted, however, that the Westminster morph version includes some changes not introduced in to the latest printed edition of BHS (1990). Many of these changes will be introduced into the next printing of BHS (probably 1997). Note that practically all of the 1990 and upcoming 1997 changes are teamim. The revised edition of BHS, tentatively designated BHQ (Quinta), should advance the accuracy of the electronic file even further. Ultimately, these files will be available for academic research. Koren: Torah used in "Torah Codes" program. Is the Nakh available? "Stone": ArtScroll has a computer program of Torah Davka CD-ROM, "The Holy Scriptures" "Bar Ilan Judaic Library" CD-ROM: I am under the impression that these files are essentially related to the Rabbinic Bible. Does anyone have more information? MANUSCRIPTS Aleppo: currently appearing in print (for the extant portions of the ms) in several editions: HUBP: Isaiah, Jeremiah forthcoming Bar Ilan Miqraot Gedolot: Joshua - Isaiah Breuer edition (Jerusalem: Kook, 1989), but I have detected a number of examples where it does not totally conform to the ms. According to P. Cassuto (IOMS 8th Congress, p. 3, fn.3) CATAB has an electronic file. Cassuto is arranging the AIBI 5 program , to be held in Aix-en-Provence, 1 -4 September 1997. This would be a good occasion to discuss informally the issue of Tanakh texts. Leningradensis: See BHS Cairo: CATAB, according to Cassuto Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 17 11:13:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29924; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:13:51 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Koren text Message-ID: <19970217.080007.10278.0.HILKAP@juno.com> References: <970216064943_-972582813@emout17.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-18 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:02:38 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 546 On what medieval Hebrew manuscript does the KOREN text depend ? CODEX LENINGRADENSIS and CODEX ALEPPO represent Ben Asher. There was also the Ben Naphthali texts, from another family of Tiberian scribes. Ben Chayim was the basis/author of the Second Rabbinic Bible, but from whence cometh the KOREN ? HILLEL On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 06:49:45 -0500 (EST) DrJDPrice@aol.com writes: >Hi: >Dr. Haralick verified that the Koren text agrees with the Tikun Sefer >edition >in all the places where I found Koren to differ from BHS. >James D. Price > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 17 14:23:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00303; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:23:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3308B040.1669@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:23:44 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 1949 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > N.B. Christians didn't "invent" the codex; it had been used > for some time, but primarily for non-formal writing, such as > notes, etc. Earliest was the bundle of wax tablets, > thereafter parchment codices. Martial even refers to > experiments with the codex for publication of literary works > but suggests this didn't catch on. Christians appropriated > the codex-format and seem to have *used* it programmatically > far earlier than any other group. WhY? > Various possibile scenarios have been suggested. They fall basically > into 2 types: (1) The Christians may have intended some > socially/religiously defining significance--Torah is to be written on > scrolls, so the Christian writings were put in anothe format to > distinguish them, either as Christian or as something other than > "scripture"? I would tend to believe that Jewish writings continued in scrolls because they believed that's how Moses wrote the Torah. The adoption and refinement of the codex form by Christians may have coincided with the institution of a "canon" and the desire to keep the "apostolically authoritative" writings in one package. (2) Christians appropriated the codex for practical > reasons, such as the one Kilmon sketched. But remember that scrolls > can be prepared with more than one book (e.g., the "book of the 12", > the "minor Prophetes" are written on one scroll in ancient times). > Codices did come to be made that could handle a larger amount of > texts and more writings than is practical for scrolls, but the > earliest Christian codices are quite a bit smaller and more modest > than the grand 4th cent ones! Of course. On papyrus and smaller, they were less expensive and portable....and hideable! :) At the time Constantine may have bankrolled Eusebius to produce Aleph and 49 others, no need for portability and hideability (is that a word>) :) Jack Kilmon JPMan@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 17 18:17:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00721; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:17:37 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:17:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970217181726_917020653@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Thiede Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 124 TC'ers Does anyone know the e-mail address or phone number for Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede? Thanks ahead of time. Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 17 19:18:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00803; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:18:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:17:17 -0600 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re:TC Book Reviews--Progress (and lack of progress) report Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu content-length: 857 Allow me to use this list once again to thank those individuals who have reviewed books for the first, and now for the second issue of our JOURNAL. There are still a few books in the hands of reviewers. Since a major premise (and promise) of electronic publishing is that we can provide substantive reviews very quickly, it is essential that we do just that. I promise to continue to keep the editing process as brief as possible, so that there is very little time between my receiving a review and its being publishsed. Please take the time to complete your review or, if necessary, to let me know that you won't be able to. We no longer have (m)any books left to be assigned to reviewers. So, if you hear of a suitable book, please let us know....All of you, I hope, feel that you have a stake in our JOURNAL's success....thanks so much, leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 08:44:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA01844; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:44:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:44:10 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: test message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 359 Some members of the list are still having trouble receiving messages. Please ignore this (and future) test messages. Thank you. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 10:56:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02506; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:56:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199702181555.QAA23688@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 18:08:36 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1616 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Hurtado wrote: >N.B. Christians didn't "invent" the codex; it had been used >for some time, but primarily for non-formal writing, such as >notes, etc. Earliest was the bundle of wax tablets, >thereafter parchment codices. Martial even refers to >experiments with the codex for publication of literary works >but suggests this didn't catch on. Christians appropriated >the codex-format and seem to have *used* it programmatically >far earlier than any other group. WhY? >Various possibile scenarios have been suggested. They fall basically >into 2 types: (1) The Christians may have intended some >socially/religiously defining significance--Torah is to be written on >scrolls, so the Christian writings were put in anothe format to >distinguish them, either as Christian or as something other than >"scripture"? (2) Christians appropriated the codex for practical >reasons, such as the one Kilmon sketched. But remember that scrolls >can be prepared with more than one book (e.g., the "book of the 12", >the "minor Prophetes" are written on one scroll in ancient times). >Codices did come to be made that could handle a larger amount of >texts and more writings than is practical for scrolls, but the >earliest Christian codices are quite a bit smaller and more modest >than the grand 4th cent ones! >THose interested really could start with the C.H. Roberts, T.C Skeat >volume, _THe Birth of the Codex_. I would like to add a relatively recent article by T.C. Skeat, _The Origin of the Christian Codex_; in: ZPE 102 (1994) 263ff. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 11:17:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02632; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:17:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:17:21 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: test Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 551 This is another test message. If you've been receiving messages from the list for the past few days, please ignore this. If you haven't been receiving messages but you can see this one, please let me know offlist at jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. This problem especially seems to affect non-US addresses. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 15:04:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03126; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:04:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:03:59 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: missing messages Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 731 Once again I hope to have fixed the problem that some people are having with receiving e-mail from the list. If you did not receive any messages from the list over the weekend and would like to catch up on the discussion, send the following message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: get tc-list-digest v02.n027 get tc-list-digest v02.n028 get tc-list-digest v02.n029 get tc-list-digest v02.n030 You may see a few messages that you already have, but you will also get all those you've missed. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 18 23:51:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03843; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:51:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:51:17 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 642 I sent the below, but received no reply so I am re-sending it in part. >>>>I recently received this communication: "Given the recent (1990) discovery of 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts, all dating earlier than Kittel's [Leningrad], one can easily assert that Kittel's text is based on "less than 1% of the available data." The NKJV was published before these manuscripts were discovered." Is she speaking of the Biblical Archaeology Review article? Is there anything to the 2,500 new mss.? -- 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 19 15:48:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05587; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:48:50 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:48:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219154839_1281857584@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1560 Ron Minton wrote: << I recently received this communication: "Given the recent (1990) discovery of 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts, all dating earlier than Kittel's [Leningrad], one can easily assert that Kittel's text is based on "less than 1% of the available data." The NKJV was published before these manuscripts were discovered." >> Riplinger continues to propagate false information, even though she has been informed otherwise. Because the NKJV is a revision of the KJV, it was based on exactly the same texts as the KJV 1611. It followed the Textus Receptus of the NT and Bomberg's 2nd edition (1525/26) for the OT--the primary text [TR] used by the KJV translators. The introduction to the NKJV mentions BHS [not BHK!] as one of the textual sources, but also Bomberg. In every place where BHS differed from Bomberg, the NKJV followed Bomberg, with a marginal note indicating that fact. As executive editor of the NKJV OT, I made sure of that. I personally told her that in a letter a couple of years age. Given the fact that she believes that the KJV is far superior to any Hebrew MSS of any number or date, that she knows nothing about Hebrew, and that she has no idea what the texts of the alleged new MSS say, her attack on the textual base of the NKJV is nothing but vicious propaganda. << Is she speaking of the Biblical Archaeology Review article? Is there anything to the 2,500 new mss.? >> I personally have not read anything about this, even though I read BAR from cover to cover. What is the reference? Sincerely, James D. Price From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 20 19:41:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA07695; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:41:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:41:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: DrJDPrice@aol.com cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts? In-Reply-To: <970219154839_1281857584@emout11.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1599 On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 DrJDPrice@aol.com wrote: > Ron Minton wrote: > > << I recently received this communication: > > << "Given the recent (1990) discovery of 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts, all > dating earlier than Kittel's [Leningrad], one can easily assert that > Kittel's text is based on "less than 1% of the available data." The NKJV > was published before these manuscripts were discovered." >> > > << Is she speaking of the Biblical Archaeology Review article? Is there > anything to the 2,500 new mss.? >> > > I personally have not read anything about this, even though I read BAR from > cover to cover. What is the reference? > > Sincerely, > James D. Price For clarification to all: Gail Riplinger claims that 2,500 Hebrew manuscripts were discovered in 1990 ( all older than Codex Leningrad). Since I had not heard of any such discovery, I thought she might have been confused with some recent article about Hebrew manuscripts. Since she is familiar with BAR, I thought she might have confused the Cairo Ginesah collection of 140,000 mss that were reported in the Sept/Oct 96 issue. Even though the article was written to celebrate the 100th year anniversary of moving the collection to England, this is all I could think of that she might be referring to. It reflects her level of research, and I assumed she has some basis for her claim. All I want to know is: has anyone heard of a 1990 discovery as noted above. -- 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 20 20:32:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA07795; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:32:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:32:15 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: 2,500 new Hebrew manuscripts? X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970220203041.26af7864@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 703 Ron, At 06:41 PM 2/20/97 -0600, you wrote: >Gail Riplinger claims that 2,500 Hebrew >manuscripts were discovered in 1990 ( all older than Codex Leningrad). > All I want to know is: has anyone heard >of a 1990 discovery as noted above. > >-- >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 > > Surely if a manuscript find of this magnitude had really been made we would have all heard about it! Its simply more hooey from the hooey master (of home economics). Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 12:22:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08961; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:22:10 -0500 From: WFWarren@aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:22:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970221122202_-2076897291@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net Subject: KRABBATGON vs. KRABBATON Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1216 Recently Carlton Winbery and I were discussing a reading in ms. 1346 (which Carlton is collating) at John 5:7 in which KRABBATGON was read for KRABBATON. Ms. 565 has the same variant reading (which I've collated), and a couple of other mss. are listed in Swanson as having the same reading. In discussing this, we postulated that perhaps the original was KRABBATION, since LSL does not list KRABBATGON as a Greek word. (Also, knowing the Attic tendency to discourage diminutives, the shift from the conjectured diminutive to KRABBATON would be understandable, if KRABBATION was considered as a possible reading.) Could some of you help with the background on KRABBATGON and comment on the possibility that this reading is the result of a scribal slip in which someone confused an iota made with an overly long tail with a gamma. I have not seen any evidence of the variant in the Uncials, only minuscules, where the confusion would be feasible. At any rate, if KRABBATGON is not a Greek word, an explanation for its presence in several mss. would be needed, thus the conjecture of confusion with an original iota. Bill Warren Professor of New Testament and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 13:29:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09149; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:29:39 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:31:54 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: KRABBATGON vs. KRABBATON Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1490 >Recently Carlton Winbery and I were discussing a reading in ms. 1346 (which >Carlton is collating) at John 5:7 in which KRABBATGON was read for >KRABBATON. Ms. 565 has the same variant reading (which I've collated), and a >couple of other mss. are listed in Swanson as having the same reading. In >discussing this, we postulated that perhaps the original was KRABBATION, >since LSL does not list KRABBATGON as a Greek word. (Also, knowing the Attic >tendency to discourage diminutives, the shift from the conjectured diminutive >to KRABBATON would be understandable, if KRABBATION was considered as a >possible reading.) > By the word "original" we meant the precursor of one or more of these Mss that have the non-sense reading. Often among these minuscules the scribe will come off of a tau and make an iota by simply drawing a line straight down from the right edge of the tau. If he drug his pen going back to the omicron, he would make what looks in other places as a gamma unintentionally. I am in the process of checking as many places where such a mistake could have occurred. So far the use of KRABATON/TION in John 5 is the only one I can positively identify. Next I will check and see what other phenomena tie these particular mss together in this part of John. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 15:40:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09389; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:40:55 -0500 Date: 21 Feb 1997 20:40:19 -0000 Message-ID: <19970221204019.2737.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: archimedes.nosc.mil archive Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 882 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My archive of machine-readable texts of the Greek New Testament with some related materials has been moved from archimedes.nosc.mil to http://www.znet.com/~broman and has been slightly repackaged. Please update bookmarks and the like. 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 iQCVAwUBMw4IKmCU4mTNq7IdAQHJIgP5AZ672C301RtxnzzTqqnYZmN4QVtxzXVj 1q5TiqvxgLnKWb1ODMkZS89YgVEB04UQfu08WIhbqVL+RVjOd7VseqnCmoWs7hhK wzYxHuFm+y2U25PQuy5AfAfsqAW9s83NmYallt67wWnVP9DB8ZED5fy8hoIaAmw3 BZV+nwG4Qpc= =etwr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 21 23:22:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA09938; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:22:00 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199702220424.VAA08617@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:19:40 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: archimedes.nosc.mil archive Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 575 I noticed the link to the LXX Unix line-per-verse file didn't work, gave a "file not found" error. Did I catch it on a bad day? > > My archive of machine-readable texts of the Greek New Testament > with some related materials has been moved from archimedes.nosc.mil > to http://www.znet.com/~broman and has been slightly repackaged. > Please update bookmarks and the like. > 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 22 08:27:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA10318; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:27:37 -0500 Message-ID: <330F896D.854@sn.no> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:03:57 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Byzantine Canon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 628 Can anybody out there give me some concise information concerning the Old Testament and New Testament Canon in the Byzantine Empire during the period of manuscript transmission (c.400-1453)?? To be exact, my questions are these: 1. Did the Greek Church during this period accept the LXX Canon as Scripture (including the Apocrypha)? Or did they judge the Hebrew Canon to be of greater authority? 2. Did they accept the additions to the N.T. books such as is found in the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement, Barnabas, etc.)? I appreciate all responses! Thanks ahead! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 22 09:05:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10382; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:05:19 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <330F896D.854@sn.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:09:50 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1440 On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: >To be exact, my questions are these: > >1. Did the Greek Church during this period accept the LXX Canon >as Scripture (including the Apocrypha)? Or did they judge the Hebrew >Canon to be of greater authority? As far as I know, the church never officially pronounced on this. However, since most LXX copies include the relevant Apocryphal books, they must have been regarded as scripture. Of course, this does not include the Latin Apocrypha (i.e. the Apocalypse known as 2 Esdras). >2. Did they accept the additions to the N.T. books such as is found in >the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement, >Barnabas, etc.)? We might note that Vaticanus does *not* include any NT apocrypha. Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus do, but they don't contain the same documents. Nor do later codices contain these apocryphal books. Since most of the "canon" lists in Eusebius also omit Barnabas, etc., it is clear that the church, from the fifth century on, considered the NT canon to be the same 27 books we now use. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 22 22:46:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA11148; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:46:48 -0500 Message-ID: <331052AE.69B@sn.no> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:22:38 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 2:15 References: <3305C761.33CF@sn.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7278 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >=20 > On Wed 12 Feb Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat." > Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text= ? > I have four editions of the TR and none read that way. >=20 > Thanks ahead of time. >=20 > > On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Mr. Minton, > > The problem in the KJV at Mark 2:15 does not seem to be a translati= onal > > problem at all, as it has been suggested. Sometimes the KJV = translators used other sources than the available Greek=20 editions. For insta > > times the they selected readings from the Latin Vulgate. Their main > > source for the NT was Beza=B4s 1598 Greek edition. Since the transla= tors > > seem to have had Beza as the greatest authority for the text of the = NT, > > it will do good sometimes to check out his Latin translation. > > > > I have done so in a few occasions, and more than once I found that t= he > > KJV translators have followed a Latin translation of Beza. I have a > > pocket edition of Beza=B4s Latin dated MCMXXV. It=B4s text is taken = from a > > reprint dated 1642. > > > > In Mark 2:15 this text reads as following: Et factum est, ut quum Je= sus > > accumberet in domo illius, ....... > > > > The Latin Vulgate reads: Et factum est cum accumberet in domo > > illius...... > > > Mr. Minton answered on Fri 14 Feb: >=20 > > I don't think it was the influence of Beza's Latin because all the ea= rlier > > English NTs based on Greek have "Jesus" twice like the KJV. It follo= wed > > them. Wycliffe and Rheims read more like the Greek, apparently follo= wing > > the Latin Vulgate. > > > > -- > I reply: >=20 > First, let me establish Beza=B4s extraordinary influence on the KJV tra= nslators: > Scrivener wrote: "Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of= Beza=B4s Greek > Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed = than his fifth > (1598),....." and "On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yie= lded too much to > Beza=B4s somewhat arbitrary decicions; but they lived at a time when hi= s name was the very > highest among Reformed theologians,.....". (The Athorized Version, App.= E, p.60). >=20 > A good example of this yielding is their choice to follow Beza in Rom.7= :6 (apothanontos) > against all known MS evidence. Only Erasmus alleged that the reading wa= s supported by > Chrysostom. >=20 > None of this does, of course, prove conclusively that the KJV translato= rs included the > first "Jesus" in Mark 2:15 only because Beza had it in his Latin. But I= ask this question: > Is it not a possibility though, since they relied so heavily on Beza el= sewhere? If the KJV > translators could follow the *Roman Catholic* Vulgate Latin in some pla= ces, I believe it > is only logical to conclude that they also could have followed Beza=B4s= *Reformed* Latin in > some places! >=20 > The fact that the earlier translations had the rendering/reading in que= stion, did, without > question, influence their choice. But still I ask: Is it likely that th= ey would have > included this reading *without* the authority of Beza=B4s Latin? I sugg= est that it is > *unlikely* that they would! Why? Because normally they placed translati= onal additions in > italics! Also, in the Geneva Bible "Jesus" is added without italics, as= in the KJV. Below > I shall comment on the fact that the Geneva Bible too, which, by the wa= y, was the first to > use italics in the text, was influenced by Beza. >=20 > No doubt, this reading *may* be a translational thing, and the English = translators *and* > Beza (in his Latin) may have added "Jesus" for the sake of clarificatio= n. If this is so, > the suggestion is that there never was any real MS evidence for the rea= ding, not even > among Latin MSS. But if this was *not* a translational thing with Beza,= he must have had > some authority for the reading. >=20 > We know that Beza=B4s Latin translation first appeared in 1556. (This i= s according to > Scrivener!). Also, we know that the Geneva New Testament first appeared= in 1557. > Therefore, it is very likely that Beza=B4s Latin influenced the decicio= ns made for the 1557 > and 1560 editions of the Geneva NT. It is, at least, very clear that Be= za left his mark on > both the Geneva NT and the AV 1611 NT. Also, the Reformed theology of B= eza and Calvin is > the very foundation for the famous marginal annotations in the Geneva B= ible edition of > 1602, two years before the KJV translators started their work. In fact,= these annotations > is based directly on Beza=B4s 1574 Latin translation with notes. >=20 > The English versions prior to Beza may have used the same sources for t= he NT (other than > the Greek) that Beza used for his Latin (whatever that may have been) f= or the establishing > of the reading in Mark 2:15. The fact that the Geneva Bible, which was = the first to > include italics, did *not* place "Jesus" in italics, suggest an authori= ty for the reading, > other than just a translational solution. Translations prior to the Gen= evan did not > indicate words which were not in the Greek. >=20 > In conclusion, let me point to one possible witness to the authority of= the "Jesus" > reading/rendering in Mark 2:15: > In a 1825 printing of H. A. Schott=B4s edition of the Greek-Latin New T= estament, which has a > brief critical apparatus for both the Greek and the Latin, the Latin te= xt reads as follows > in Mark 2:15a: "In cuius domo quum Jesus postea accubuisset, .....". > That this Latin translation reads "Jesus" here *without* placing it in = a parantheses (or > brackets) is remarkable, for it seems that it *usually* has parantheses= around words > supplied, especially names of Deity added for emphasis or clarity. Look= , for instance, at > the rendering at Colossians 1:21-22: "Vos quoque, olim alienos (a Deo),= mente (Deo) > inimicos, pravis quippe factis deditos, nunc omnino (Deo) reconciliavit= (Christus) corpore > suo,.....". >=20 > >From the above example, it is to be expected that this Latin edition w= ould have had > "Jesus" within parantheses in Mark 2:15 if the editor had felt that the= re was no Latin (or > other) authority for the reading/rendering. However, I am not saying th= at this *proves* > anything. Besides, it=B4s still *possible* to imagine that the Latin re= ading is a > translational decision. >=20 > I conclude that it is at least *likely* that the KJV translators (and t= he Genevan > translators) adopted the reading under the influence of Beza, knowing t= hat Beza had a > reason to include the reading. After all, the translators had the *oppo= rtunity* to place > supplied words in italics, but they didn=B4t do it! This indicate some = *other* authority > than just the rendering of Tyndale, et.al. >=20 > I have only attempted to answer your question concerning the authority = behind the KJV > reading/rendering at Mark 2:15, well aware of the fact that I cannot pr= ove anything > concerning it. It is just suggestions, nothing more. > -- >=20 > - Mr. Helge Evensen This message is repeated because it was originally sent to the wrong=20 address. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Feb 23 19:39:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12058; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:39:07 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:52:52 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 443 I'm new to this list and hope this is on-topic. I was very impressed indeed by this book. It seemed to me to be very scholarly, while also very readable and using simple, clear and convincing arguments that laymen such as me can understand. While I believe I can recognize good work when I see it, I was wondering if the book was very controversial in its field? Are there people who disagree with it and do they have any good arguments? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 11:11:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13686; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:11:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:10:52 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Tyndale To: TC-List Message-ID: <199702241111_MC2-11A4-8233@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 544 Some time ago a brief thread discussed the newly discovered copy of Tyndale's first edition NT at the Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart. The Stuttgart copy has now been included in the traveling Tyndale exhibit which just opened at the New York Public Library. After May 17 the exhibit moves to Washington DC (I think the Library of Congress). The Stuttgart copy is in excellent condition and the entire exhibit is quite good, including matters of textual relationships of Reformation era translations. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 11:54:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13924; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:54:06 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:56:49 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: KJV X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <143631057E2@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1043 See David Norton, "John Bois's Notes on the revision of the King James Bible New Testament: A New Manuscript," The Library, 6th ser., XVIII:4, 328-346. "John Bois's notes taken during the final revision of the epistles and Revelation for the King James Bible (KJB) are now well known to scholars of English Bible translation. They give a unique insight into the way the translators worked, and they show above all the translators' sensitivity to the nuances of the Greek and the level of scholarship they brought to their work." The original notes have disappeared, but at least two copies of them have survived. The article describes the second copy and lists its differences from the first copy, together with photographs of some parallel pages. In connection with some recent answers to queries, would it not be better to refer enquirers to Bible dictionaries where they may find full explanations, the respondents only specifying any objections they may have to details in the published sources? Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 14:34:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14630; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:34:00 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Gerard J. Norton" Date: 24 Feb 1997 18:46:47 Subject: Confirmation of your message. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Mac v2.02 Message-ID: <67B0EC3B8D@novell2.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 285 Confirmation: message read at 18:46, 24 Feb 1997 Subject: KJV ******************************************** Gerard J. Norton Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham England B15 2TT email: G.J.Norton@bham.ac.uk Tel (44-121) 4145663 ********************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 18:56:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15152; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:56:54 -0500 Message-ID: <3312BFD6.3A77@sn.no> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:32:54 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2310 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: > > >To be exact, my questions are these: > > > >1. Did the Greek Church during this period accept the LXX Canon > >as Scripture (including the Apocrypha)? Or did they judge the Hebrew > >Canon to be of greater authority? > > As far as I know, the church never officially pronounced on this. > However, since most LXX copies include the relevant Apocryphal > books, they must have been regarded as scripture. > > Of course, this does not include the Latin Apocrypha (i.e. the > Apocalypse known as 2 Esdras). > > >2. Did they accept the additions to the N.T. books such as is found in > >the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement, > >Barnabas, etc.)? > > We might note that Vaticanus does *not* include any NT apocrypha. > Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus do, but they don't contain the same > documents. Nor do later codices contain these apocryphal books. > Since most of the "canon" lists in Eusebius also omit Barnabas, > etc., it is clear that the church, from the fifth century on, > considered the NT canon to be the same 27 books we now use. > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz Thanks for your answer, Dr. Waltz. I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical situation in the Byzantine Empire. Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of the later Eastern Fathers refer to this? In other words, did the Greek Church in one way or the other make a distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX?? I also would like to know in what degree the Greek Church transmitted/copied the text of the LXX. How many of the surviving copies of the LXX are from the Byzantine area? All answers are appreciated. Lastly: Can anyone refer me to articles or books that could contribute to any clarity on this?? Thanks in advance! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 19:58:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15213; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:58:40 -0500 From: Anthony.York@UC.Edu Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:17:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: RCPT: KJV To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <2F07C926930@UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.EDU> Organization: University of Cincinnati-English X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Mac (v2.1.2) Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 172 Confirmation of reading: your message - Date: 24 Feb 97 8:56 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.EDU Subject: KJV Was read at 21:17, 24 Feb 1997. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 20:30:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15263; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:30:23 -0500 Message-ID: <33124069.2FB5@3-cities.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:29:13 -0800 From: Raymond Williams X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-KIT (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission? References: <2F07C926930@UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 461 > If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today ...". Any one want to comment? Ray snickers@3-cities.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 20:30:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15278; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:30:38 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3312BFD6.3A77@sn.no> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:34:26 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2800 On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: >Thanks for your answer, Dr. Waltz. Once again I must remind people that I am not a doctor, not a professor, not a seminarian -- just a mathematician who talks too much. :-) >I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical >situation in the Byzantine Empire. I probably should point out that there was no "official" canon at this time -- just as there was no official Catholic canon until the Council of Trent. The Orthodox churches did eventually have a similar council to settle such matters; I can't remember the name and date, but it was relatively recent. >Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that >could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the >NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as >belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they >accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of >the later Eastern Fathers refer to this? I can't cite passages. I seem to recall, however, that the Orthodox church in general accepted the books. Remember, other than Origen, none of the eastern fathers read Hebrew. Origen and Jerome were almost the only ones to comment on the matter. I believe that most of the versions translated from the LXX (e.g. the Armenian) include the "apocryphal" books, but again, I can't give exact data. >In other words, did the Greek Church in one way or the other make a >distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX?? In general, no. The LXX was *the* Greek canon, and the church relied on it explicitly. Certainly all the major LXX codices (Aleph, A, B, C, N+V, Q) includes the books. Remember, too, that copies of the LXX tended to retain its distinctive text (e.g. in Kings or the prophets) when even casual comparison with the Hebrew would have produced a different text. >I also would like to know in what degree the Greek Church >transmitted/copied the text of the LXX. How many of the surviving copies >of the LXX are from the Byzantine area? This depends on the date, of course. The earliest copies of LXX are from Egypt. Very many of the later copies are from Athos. Others are in western libraries but may have originated in Byzantium. But for exact figures you would have to consult the catalogs. I wish I could offer more detail, but this is an area I am not expert on. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 21:54:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15476; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:54:52 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:58:08 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon Cc: helevens@sn.no Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1342 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical >situation in the Byzantine Empire. [...] >Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that >could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the >NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as >belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they >accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of >the later Eastern Fathers refer to this? [...] >I also would like to know in what degree the Greek Church >transmitted/copied the text of the LXX. How many of the surviving copies >of the LXX are from the Byzantine area? [...] >Lastly: Can anyone refer me to articles or books that could contribute to >any clarity on this?? Two books, both by the same author, that cover in detail virtually all of the questions that you ask (and are, moreover, true pleasures to read): Bruce M. Metzger _The Text of the NT: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration_ 3ed. (Oxford 1992) Bruce M. Metzger _The Canon of the NT: Its Origin, Development and Significance_ (Oxford 1987) Nichael "Pull down... nichael@sover.net ...tear up." http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ -D. Martin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 24 21:55:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15491; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:55:19 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33124069.2FB5@3-cities.com> References: <2F07C926930@UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:31:57 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2205 On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Raymond Williams wrote: > If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are >challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his >spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the >thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We >believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today >...". > Any one want to comment? One might note that this is a list devoted to textual criticism, so there probably aren't many here who believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Even so, I'm scientifically trained, so I probably believe in it less than most. So I'm probably a good one to start.... I assume you're referring to the work of the Jesus Seminar. I've never been very impressed with that group. For one thing, I don't see it as overly relevant whether Jesus said exactly this word or that. (For one thing, he spoke in Aramaic and the New Testament is in Greek. :-) What the New Testament represents is *the church's understanding* of the teachings of Jesus. If they are not exactly accurate, it is not relevant to the doctrine of the church, which flows from the scriptures. So I think that the work of the Jesus Seminar is largely irrelevant. I also disagree with many of their particular conclusions. As someone deeply interested in oral tradition, I don't think they understand its role. Still, I think there is truth in what they say. The words of Jesus have *not* always been transmitted correctly, either by the gospel writers or by the scribes who copied their works. As for giving an exact figure for how much is and is not accurate, you won't catch *me* offering such a figure. :-) To sum up: I think the Jesus Seminar sees part of the truth, but I don't think it should affect anyone's faith (or lack thereof). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 00:15:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA15722; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:15:08 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199702250518.WAA14349@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:12:50 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 759 > If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are > challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his > spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the > thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We > believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today > ...". > Any one want to comment? As one who has followed such comments fairly consistently over the years and always found the methodologies involved seriously wanting, all I can say is: *yawn* SSDD. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 01:09:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA15774; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:09:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:09:34 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Byzantine Canon In-Reply-To: <3312BFD6.3A77@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2522 On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that > could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the > NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as > belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they > accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of > the later Eastern Fathers refer to this? > In other words, did the Greek Church in one way or the other make a > distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX?? According to the canon lists given in Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, the Eastern fathers were not particularly consistent, especially early in the period in question. Some seem to include at least some "apocryphal" books alongside those found in the Jewish canon without distinction (e.g., Pseudo-Chrysostom, canon list described by Lagarde, Junilius, John of Damascus, Ebed-jesu, Apostolic Canons). Others make some kind of distinction between the "main" canonical books and the "peripheral" ones, if they mention the latter at all (Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, Pseudo-Athanasius, Leontius, Nicephorus, Laodicene Canons, Canon list in Codd. Barocc. 206). The exception to this general characterization is that even most of those who follow the Jewish canon (or make a distinction between main & peripheral books) apparently included the minor books associated with Jeremiah & Daniel with the larger books, and they also probably accepted the Greek version of Esther and perhaps also 1 Esdras. >I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical >situation in the Byzantine Empire. Bob Waltz answered: >I probably should point out that there was no "official" canon at this >time -- just as there was no official Catholic canon until the Council >of Trent. The Orthodox churches did eventually have a similar council >to settle such matters; I can't remember the name and date, but it >was relatively recent. The Council of Jerusalem in 1672 settled the OT canon (more or less) for the Eastern Orthodox Church, although some differences remain to this day among the various communions of the EOC. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 04:01:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA15881; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:01:24 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:57:55 GMT Subject: RCPT: KJV Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 498 Confirmation of reading: your message - Date: 24 Feb 97 8:56 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: KJV Was read at 8:57, 25 Feb 97. ********************************************************************* 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 09:01:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16132; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:01:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:00:33 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Byzantine canon To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199702250900_MC2-11AD-CDBF@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1244 In addition to the helpful bibliographic references mentioned by Adair and others, the three volume set edited and translated by William A. Jurgens, -_The Faith of the Early Fathers_ (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970 - 1979), is very helpful. You may also be interested in my article in the Meyendorff memorial volume, "The Old Testament Canon in the Orthodox Churches," in _New perspectives on historical theology_ (Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 300 - 312. It is important to keep in mind that the Orthodox Churches are autocephalous, that is, each "national" Orthodox church decides for itself its own canon, not only in the number of books but in the definition of "canon." There is, on the other hand, an Orthodox approach to the entire topic, even though specifics may vary. I think the willingness to include the works associated with Jeremiah and Daniel, even in earlier canon lists which are quite close to the Hebrew canon, reflects an attitude towards "canon" that focuses on inspired writers rather than on inspired books/editions of books. In a way, it's "the exception that proves the rule" that in the earlier period there was a decided preference for the Hebrew canon in the East. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 09:53:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16291; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:53:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:52:36 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Hebrew Text X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970225095128.248f372a@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 221 Is there a Hebrew text available without the pointing of the Masoretes? If so, where. Thanks. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 11:38:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA16545; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:38:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:32:56 GMT Subject: Unpointed Hebrew Text Priority: normal X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 753 The British and Foreign Bible Society, London, published an edition of the Hebrew Bible without points and accents in four volumes (Torah, Former and Latter Prophets, Writings). My copies of the last three volumes are dated 1920 and the copy of the Torah is dated 1961 so I presume, without looking up Darlow and Moule, that the complete set was republished in 1961 (and on other occasions?). Yrs, 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 11:54:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA16583; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:54:32 -0500 Message-ID: <3313AE61.5398@sn.no> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:30:41 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Byzantine Canon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 65 Many thanks for your comments, Mr. Waltz -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 12:05:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16620; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:05:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3313B0F0.9EB@sn.no> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:41:36 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Byzantine Canon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 69 Many thanks for your good comments Mr. Adair -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 12:41:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16716; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:41:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3313B956.73DC@sn.no> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:17:26 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Unpointed Hebrew Text Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 382 Mr. West, I would highly recommend that you contacted a "Used Books" Store or an Antiquarian Books dealer to buy a copy of an unpointed Hebrew Text Edition. I suggest that you just ask the book-dealer to look at the text before sending it. It probably would not cost you much more than $10.00 Many times I have obtained out-of-print books in this way! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 14:56:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17067; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:56:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:56:13 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: mystery e-mail address Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 480 If anyone on the list recognizes the address jllaroc@magi.com, please contact me off-list. I'm getting error messages concerning this address, but it is not subscribed to the list. Apparently there's some sort of mail forwarding going on. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 25 16:27:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17300; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:27:07 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:29:55 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Christ's words X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <15FF0B63CC7@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4417 The Christian Science point of view is set forth in Science and Health, by Mary Baker Eddy (final edition 1910): "The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the ancient versions; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New, -- these facts show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record, with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages. But mistakes could neither wholly obscure the divine Science of the Scriptures seen from Genesis to Revelation, mar the demonstration of Jesus, nor annul the healing by the prophets, who foresaw that `the stone which the builders rejected' would become `the head of the corner.'" (p. 139) "We must have faith in all the sayings of our Master, though they are not included in the teachings of the schools, and are not understood generally by our ethical instructors. Jesus said (John viii. 51), `If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.' That statement is not confined to spiritual life, but includes all the phenomena of existence. Jesus demonstrated this, healing the dying and raising the dead." (pp. 429-430) "The progress of truth confirms its claims, and our Master confirmed his words by his works." (p. 94) "It is possible, -- yea, it is the duty and privilege of every child, man, and woman, -- to follow in some degree the example of the Master by the demonstration of Truth and Life, of health and holiness." (p. 37) In short, while the Gospels may not transmit all Jesus' words verbatim, their essential accuracy and consistency can be demonstrated by anyone who turns to spiritual healing for evidence. Speaking for myself, the evidence that Jesus could speak Greek is now sufficient for me to believe that in his conversations with Pilate we may well have his very words (presumably recounted by him to his followers at a later time). I particularly like to believe that he did say exactly this: EGW EIS TOUTO GEGENNHMAI KAI EIS TOUTO ELHLUQA EIS TON KOSMON INA MARTURHSW TH ALHQEIA PAS O WN EK THS ALHQEIAS AKOUEI MOU THS FWNHS. Pilate's reply is famous. Mrs. Eddy writes, "The women at the cross could have answered Pilate's question. They knew what had inspired their devotion, winged their faith, opened the eyes of their understanding, healed the sick, cast out evil, and caused the disciples to say to their Master: `Even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.'" (Science and Health, p. 49). I hope someday to write an essay for this forum on the importance of spiritual healing in textual criticism of the New Testament. For example, UBS4 omits KAI DIELQWN DIA MESOU AUTWN EPOREUETO KAI PARHGEN OUTWS from John 8:59, and Metzger, Texual Commentary, p. 227, explains that the fuller text was the work of copyists who wished to give the impression that Jesus had escaped by miraculous power. Why conclude that Jesus' escape was not empowered by the same understanding of God's love as the escape recorded in Luke 4:30? Why not conclude instead that the omission came about through an eyeskip from KAI before DIELQWN to KAI before PARAGWN (9:1)? I recognize that among the manuscripts having DIELQWN there is a preceding KAI only in 01c, 04, 019, 044, 0211, 33, and 892, but I suppose that in an ancestor of the others it was at the margin and got lost among the marginal markings; I am encouraged in the idea of eyeskip by the fact that 02 skips from the KAI before DIELQWN to KAI before PARHGEN. If we accept the TR then the narrative takes on a wonderful glow of inspiration. Jesus was completely untouched by the hatred he had aroused -- no "not again!" not even "whew!" -- and was at once ready to heal the man born blind. The time has not passed when some Bible scholars reject the biblical record of spiritual healing, but the time has already come when those engaged in healing, physicians, psychologists, nurses, have begun to welcome the power of prayer and to declare that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated. If any member of our colloquium does not have a copy of Science and Health, I'll be glad to send him/her one. It has been my guide to life and health and a treasured key to the Scriptures for more than 75 years. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 00:07:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA17900; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:07:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:07:38 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: RCPT Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 259 test message - please ignore 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 17:40:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA19180; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:40:47 -0500 Message-ID: <33155127.5D4@sn.no> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:17:27 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 96 I have not seen any messages lately. Maybe nothing have been posted!? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 19:07:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA19267; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:07:16 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:07:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970226190635_1880109136@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 750 In a message dated 97-02-24 20:31:49 EST, you write: << If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today ...". >> If this has anything to do with the "Jesus Seminar", I will give them the benefit of the doubt and read their findings (I suppose, of their second book). If, however, it is as their first book (that I subsequently did a review of) I'll venture to say that much less than 5% of their presuppositional findings are accurate! R.E. Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 26 19:47:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA19312; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:47:47 -0500 Message-ID: <3314D96C.362A@3-cities.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:46:36 -0800 From: Raymond Williams X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-KIT (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question "Christs Words" - Accurate transmission? References: <970226190635_1880109136@emout15.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1063 REElliott@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-02-24 20:31:49 EST, you write: > > << If any one wishes ... a recent group of "scholars" who are > challenging the authenticity of Jesus ... examined the validity of his > spoken words ... such as - " ...were his words consistant with the > thought, language, and geographical componants of his generation?" "We > believe only 5% of his words are accurately passed down to us today > ...". >> > > If this has anything to do with the "Jesus Seminar", I will give them the > benefit of the doubt and read their findings (I suppose, of their second > book). > If, however, it is as their first book (that I subsequently did a review of) > I'll venture to say that much less than 5% of their presuppositional findings > are accurate! > R.E. Elliott Hello, Thanks for you comments .. could you "briefly" summarize your thoughts on this???? Thanks .. I would be interested in what you have to say! Ray Williams snickers@3-cities.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 27 00:57:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA19666; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:57:36 -0500 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:55:50 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 885 > ST) > Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id RAA19180; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:40:47 -0500 > Message-ID: <33155127.5D4@sn.no> > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:17:27 -0800 > From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" > Organization: SN Internett > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: (no subject) > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > I have not seen any messages lately. > > Maybe nothing have been posted!? > -- > - Mr. Helge Evensen > > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 28 01:31:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA21624; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:31:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:31:04 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list archives on Web Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1514 TC-list archives are now available on the Web! The tc-list is being archived on Reference.COM (http://www.reference.com) , a site that archives many mailing lists and Usenet groups. You can search the tc-list archives (or the entire Reference.COM site) by keywords, authors of comments, date, and more. Currently, only messages since Feb. 28, 1997 (this is probably the first one) are archived there, although we hope that our entire archives will be there in the future. In the meantime, however, the tc-list archives are available on TELA at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html. The messages in this archive are in chronological order, grouped by month. There is no separate search engine yet, but you can use the general TELA search engine, accessible from the home page: http://scholar.cc.emory.edu. Enter "tc list*" (without the quotes, but include the asterisk) and whatever term or terms you want to search for. Don't forget that the archives are also available by e-mail. Send the message "get tc-list tc-list.yymm" to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, where yymm is the year and month. For example, to retrieve all the messages from February 1997, send the message "get tc-list tc-list.9702." Do not include the quotation marks. 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 <-----------------