From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 3 10:03:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26622; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 10:03:34 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:07:39 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: New ENTTC articles Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1915 What follows is blatant slef-promotion. If this list weren't so quiet, I wouldn't do it, but we're hardly overburdening your mailboxes. :-) I doubt the experienced textual critics on this list will care, but I've updated my articles at the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism site. Specifically, I have now included detailed descriptions of all the minuscules "cited constantly" in NA26 and NA27 for the Pauline and Catholic Epistles. In the case of many of these manuscripts (630, 1505, 1506, 1881, 2464, 2495, etc.), this is the only serious assessment of these available other than the Alands' very basic "Category" ratings. The articles aren't all that I had hoped; I often was not able to compile a decent bibliography, and in many cases I had only the information provided in the Nestle citations to work with. But I have spent years working over those collations; I thought less experienced people might like the benefit of that experience. I also tried to make the results reasonably unbiased -- e.g. I would describe a manuscript as "more Alexandrian" or "more Byzantine" rather than "better" or "worse." Also, I included some additional links which I hope will make things easier to use. I remind people that Rich Elliott (REElliott@aol.com) is the editor of the ENTTC, and that questions should be addressed to him. (I should also note that he has *not* vetted these articles. :-) But if anyone wants to post an article to the online site, feel free to contact me. Maybe it will force me to change my sarcastic signature. :-) The URL is given below. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 3 12:59:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27290; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:59:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:59:20 -0500 From: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-Id: <199703031759.MAA27290@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 393 Something has occured at the server and I can now receive mail only at Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu jwest@highland.net Please change your address book accordingly. Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@sunbelt.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 3 17:58:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA28255; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:58:54 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:58:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970303175818_-1272568414@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: New ENTTC articles Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 508 To all TCer's (and Bob W too) I do appreciate the work that Bob (and others) has (have) done in conjunction with the ENTTC. I take this opportunity to remind everyone that while the project is moving quite slowly now, (better than not at all) I am continuing to "keep the dream alive", thanks in part to the continued support that I receive from this list. Please continue to pray for the progress of this work. Again, thanks to all for your support and comments. I will keep you posted! Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 3 20:04:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA28462; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:04:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:04:11 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: LXX 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 594 I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis). However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this? Thanks in advance. -- 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 Tue Mar 4 00:02:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28809; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 00:02:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 21:03:06 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: LXX To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1339 On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: [snip] > However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes > or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this? > Thanks in advance. > To which I reply: Ron- Very good question. However, this is a little harder to answer than one might hope, because over the centuries copyists have tended to harmonize the OT citations to the LXX. So to answer it properly, one would have to resort to a procedure something like the following: 1) Look up all NT citations of OT in Nestle-Alans's 26th edition 2) Look at all the variants listed in the critical apparatus for these citations. 3) Try to guess from the style of the rest of the book in which the citation occurs, which, if any, of the variants is likely to be the NT author's own translation from the Hebrew. 4) Submit your gesses to this newsgroup and see which ones still stand after we have all had a chance to throw rocks at it. Good luck finding an snswer. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). > > -- > 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 Tue Mar 4 09:43:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29432; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:43:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199703041440.IAA15625@endeavor> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many? Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:11:28 -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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1523 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes > > or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Matthew Johnson replied: > Very good question. However, this is a little harder to answer than one > might hope, because over the centuries copyists have tended to harmonize > the OT citations to the LXX. An added problem is that the LXX doesn't seem to have been a single text, but rather a group of divergent texts (if I read the tea leaves properly). In other words, there may have been no single ascendant Greek OT text, but rather a group of them, and no single text could claim to be *the* standard LXX. Perhaps a Septuagint scholar can fill in the lacunae in my knowledge of this particular point and its corrolaries. Which LXX texts were most widely used? How widely do the extant texts diverge? Is Rahlfs a satisfactory critical text? How large a base is its text built on? How do NT quotes relate to the schizophrenic state of the LXX in late antiquity (if the situation is as I've described it)? Grace and peace, Perry L. Stepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 10:28:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29768; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:28:17 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:28:34 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: LXX Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1653 On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some >of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely >helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the >OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis). >However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes >or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this? >Thanks in advance. Personally I found A&C rather irritating. They tried to make everything match the MT, and paid no attention to the variants in LXX. I would also observe that the Nestle apparatus isn't much help. It will sometimes label a citation as being from LXX -- but only where the LXX is distinctly different from MT. It would be helpful if it noted where the citation matches LXX, not where it differs from MT. In my ignorance, I don't know of any particular studies on this subject. In my own work, I find that Paul tends to follow LXX. I believe this is true with most NT authors (Luke in particular). The one major exception is Matthew, who will usually translate the OT himself unless the LXX has some particular reading he liked (e.g. the citation about the "virgin" bearing a son). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 4 10:38:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29830; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:38:29 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703041440.IAA15625@endeavor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:42:47 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2113 On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, "Perry L. Stepp" wrote: [ ... ] > >An added problem is that the LXX doesn't seem to have been a single text, >but rather a group of divergent texts (if I read the tea leaves properly). >In other words, there may have been no single ascendant Greek OT text, but >rather a group of them, and no single text could claim to be *the* standard >LXX. > >Perhaps a Septuagint scholar can fill in the lacunae in my knowledge of >this particular point and its corrolaries. Which LXX texts were most >widely used? How widely do the extant texts diverge? Is Rahlfs a >satisfactory critical text? How large a base is its text built on? How do >NT quotes relate to the schizophrenic state of the LXX in late antiquity >(if the situation is as I've described it)? Actually, a dominant text did eventually develop (though it was never as dominant as the Byzantine text). This seems to have been the "Old Greek" form of the LXX as revised (probably in several stages) toward the MT. In general, as I understand it, this text resembles that of A more than B. It does not seem likely that this text was completely dominant in NT times, however. Based, again, on my experience in Paul, the NT citations don't match any particular text. I once did a check on Psalms citations in some list of books or other (I can't remember which). Out of about twelve citations, I believe seven agreed with Aleph, six with B, and seven with A. I believe three did not match any of those texts. (Please note that this was a *very* informal survey; don't quote me, OK?) My conclusion was that Rahlfs is *not* an adequate authority for the LXX text. Even if its apparatus includes all the variants in the tradition, it doesn't tell you their support. And this is important. Where B, Aleph, and A divide, one needs to know the evidence of supporting witnesses (C, G, M, N+V, Q, probably some minuscules) to know how to assess the variant. Robert Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Inside Bluegrass 2095 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4801 612-454-8994 World Wide Web: http://www.mtn.org/~mbotma/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 11:52:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29977; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:52:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 11:53:00 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: OT in NT X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970304115038.26cfca42@mail.highland.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: 500 I am sorry if I repeat something already said on this topic; I was gone and unsubscribed. There are far more than 19 OT quotations in the NT. There are literally hundreds of quotations, allusions, and verbal parallels. A good place to start is E. Earle Ellis' "The Old Testament in Early christianity. He has loads of info and excellent bibliography. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 13:14:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00227; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:14:30 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:16:07 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: LXX Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1216 At 7:04 PM -0600 3/3/97, Ronald L. Minton wrote: >I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some >of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely >helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the >OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis). >However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes >or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this? >Thanks in advance. Although no doubt dated in some of the details, surely a good place to start exploring this question is Swete's _Intro to the OT in Greek_; in particular, Chap II of Part 3 titled "Quotations from the LXX in the NT". One should turn to Swete for the details but, in short, he argues that "...the LXX is the principal source from which the writers of the N.T. derive their O.T. quotations." [p392], ranging from Acts where O.T. quotations "are taken from the LXX exclusively" [p398] to the Pauline corpus in which "more than half" [p400] come from the LXX. Nichael nichael@sover.net "Did I forget, forget to mention Memphis, http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks..." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 15:22:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00488; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:22:14 -0500 Message-ID: <331D19CE.3B9B@sn.no> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 22:59:26 -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: Heb 10:23 & ASV97 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: 1086 Since my "inbox" has not been directly invaded by messages from the=20 tc-list lately, I decided to post two questions, which I hope will cause=20 some response: 1) In Heb.10:23 the KJV has "faith" where the Greek has "hope" (elpis).=20 Some have asserted that the King=B4s translators simply produced this=20 rendering due to their failure to distinguish between pistis and elpis in= =20 this instance. In other words, the translators just missed it here. But=20 this seems very unlikely, in the face of the learning and skills of the=20 many translators involved. Can anybody give a report on this?? 2) Lately I read about a new translation project (which is appearing on=20 the Net) called the "American Standard Version 1997" (ASV 97). I checked=20 Matthew 10:8 and found it to omit the phrase "raise the dead" (found in=20 the old uncials and the TR) which means the "ASV 97" follows a majority=20 text reading here. Is there anybody out there who knows about the project= =20 and its textbase?? All responses will be appreciated! Thanks in advance. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 18:05:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01233; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:05:34 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:07:56 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Heb 10:23 in KJV X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <209986277A7@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 955 In 1611, hope and faith were synonyms; see Oxford English Dictionary, hope, first noun, sense 2, "feeling of trust or confidence." See also the OT in KJV, where the normal word for hope is rendered "trust" in Job 13:15 and Isa. 51:5, and the normal words for trust or confidence are rendered "hope" in Ps. 16:9 and 22:9. I think the KJ men chose "faith" in Heb. 10:23 for its sound, that is, to make a more sonorous sentence: "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised" -- pr, faith, w, w, faith, pr -- a perfect balance in the bass while h, f, th, h, f, th enliven the treble. The English Hexapla indicates that "hope," the translation in earlier versions, had assonated with "hold" in Wycliffe and Rheims, but not in Tyndale, Cranmer, or Geneva, which have "keep" and "hope." But the sound of KJV, "the noblest monument of English prose," has always been recognized as its great glory. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 4 20:31:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA01427; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:31:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:31:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Jim West cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: OT in NT In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970304115038.26cfca42@mail.highland.net> 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: 470 On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: > > There are far more than 19 OT quotations in the NT. There are literally > hundreds of quotations, allusions, and verbal parallels. But there are only 19 quotations that also have a textual variant in the NT at that place, which is the criterion I noted when I mentioned the 19. -- 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 Mar 5 08:29:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA01958; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:29:06 -0500 From: John Wevers Message-Id: <199703051329.IAA21044@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many? To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:29:14 -0500 (EST) Cc: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca (John Wevers) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Mar 4, 97 09:42:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2253 The query raised by Robert Waltz raises so many questions that it is difficult to know where to begin. Permit me to address one of the questions raised. What about the text of Rahlfs, and on what evidence is it based? First of all, I am not sure what the questioner means by Rahlfs. There is the large and complete text of the entire Greek O.T. Bible. This is usually appreviated Ra. But there are other Rahlfs texts as well. His Psalmi cum Odi is a semi critical text on the {salter, but its collations of most materials cited in it are based on the old Holmes-Parsons voluminous work, which is not at all trustworthy. Then he did an earlier text of Genesis, based on the Cambridge Septuagint. Since this rests on a much more secure basis that the large Ra, its text is markedly superior. As to Ra, which is presumably what you wish assessed, it is based on a recollation of very few uncial texts. Thus for the Pentateuch it cites only B and A and the few fragments of S. For the rest an occasional hexaplaric gloss is cited, and that is about it. Since for the Pentateuch, there are over 100 preGutenberg mss extant, this is obviously not a critical text. In Ralhfs' defence it should be stated that he never intended Ra to be more that a Nothilfe, a text which was rapidly prepared to serve as an interim text, which had at least rid the text of many glaring errors which a text which presented a single ms text, such as Swete's O.T. in Greek, which is based, as is the Cambridge LXX, on the text of cod B, and where that is not extant on cod A. Fortunately, Rahlfs was enamored of cod B which for many parts of the Greek text is an excellent witness to the oldest recoverable text of the Septuagint. Far superior to the text of Ra, and this I am sure is what Rahlfs would have wanted to be publicized as widely as possible, is the text of the Goettingen LXX, which is a truly critical text. Unfortunately, these volumes are very expensive. I realize that this is only small reply to the many and varied queries raised by R. Waltz, but it would take a great deal of time to cover the ground adequately. It would take a book! JWW -- John Wm Wevers Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto INTERNET: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 5 08:48:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA02005; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:48:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199703051348.NAA92320@out2.ibm.net> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer (Green Edition Rel 2.0) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:53:08 EST From: Kent Smith Subject: Re: ATTN: LXX scholars--one text or many? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1488 ** Reply to note from "Robert B. Waltz" Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:42:47 -0700 re: OT quotes in NT. The question raised as to text used in quotes is very complicated. A few of the factors: As mentioned by others, there Greek text in NT times was quite diverse and we probably do not any "pure" examples of any of the versions or recensions that were in use. The best we can say is that a quote approaches Aquilla, etc. Although the Hebrew was settling into what we recognize as the MT, there were other alternatives available, to say nothing of the Targums. We need to distinquish between actual quotes, introduced by a one of a number of standard words and phrases and allusions. Allusions are often reworded or only approximated to suit the argument at hand. True quotations appear to have been directly copied from some source and usually are very close to some version we recognize. We may not always have the original text being quoted -- possible examples: I Cor 15:45 is not really quoting Gen 2:7, I Cor 3:19 |= Job 5:13. These, and others are possibly quoting texts other than our known versions of "Biblical" books. Although I've been working on this issue, I'm not anywhere close to saying a Percentage. I tend to follow the common wisdom that most of the quotes are from a greek text of one sort or another, although I have a few examples where the MT is the closest. Kent Smith. West Side Presbyterian Church. Ridgewood, NJ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 5 10:10:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02196; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:10:13 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:10:04 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: ASV 97 To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199703051010_MC2-1223-F14F@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 163 Helge Evensen inquired about the ASV 97. I was not able to find this translation on the Net. Does anyone know the URL? Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 5 14:11:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02768; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:11:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 13:10:56 -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:nets-oup Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 161 Harold, have you decided to (or not to) talk to Don Kraus about royalties? I don't mind doing it, but I think you'd be far more professional, thanks--leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 11:42:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07085; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:42:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:42:38 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list archive update 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: 1562 I sent a message a few days ago to the list announcing that the messages on the list are now being archived by Reference.COM, and I gave the general URL as http://www.reference.com. This URL will allow to search the tc-list archives as well as the archives of many other lists. If you just want to search the archives of this list, you can use the URL http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch? list=tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu This should all be on one line--don't hit return or put a space after the question mark. Remember that the archives at Reference.COM only go back to Feb 27, 1997. For earlier archives, see http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html where the messages are divided into files that each contain a month's worth of data (dating back to November 1995). In case anyone has been confused by the fact that some addresses have scholar.cc.emory.edu and others have shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, our recent move to a bigger computer necessitated a change in our URL to shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. However, the old address scholar.cc.emory.edu should continue to work as an alias for the foreseeable future. As a riddle for Hebrew scholars on the list, and since we've had very little traffic the past few days, can you guess from our new name what kind of computer we have? 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 Fri Mar 7 13:02:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07285; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:02:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199703071802.KAA04904@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:01:59 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list archive update 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 280 On 7 Mar 97 at 11:42, James R. Adair wrote: > As a riddle for Hebrew scholars on the list, and since we've had > very little traffic the past few days, can you guess from our new > name what kind of computer we have? Clearly, Sun Microsystems. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 15:27:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA07667; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:27:13 -0500 Message-ID: <332079CA.220D9EA2@repurk.mw.com> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 12:25:46 -0800 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: lars@repurk.mw.com Subject: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew 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: 556 There is an interesting article in "New Testament Studies", vol. 43, 1997, pp58-71 entitled "The textual relationship between P45 and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" by Robert F. Shedinger. He makes a comparison which lends support to the conclusions of George Howard that Shem-Tob's Matthew represents an original composition of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew. Is this the concensus among all experts in this field, and if so, will this lead to the addition of this resource as a tool for translation of the Greek version of Matthew's gospel ? Sincerely, -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 16:21:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07824; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:21:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:21:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: KJV MSS In-Reply-To: <199703071802.KAA04904@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 308 I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive word on this? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 16:23:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07844; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:23:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:23:36 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: W-H draft In-Reply-To: <199703071802.KAA04904@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 240 When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could share it with others? -- 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 Fri Mar 7 17:18:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08078; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:18:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:18:56 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970307171855.41a73cc4@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5367 The article mentioned is by R.F. Shedinger; it has some errors in fact as well as in its presuppositions. Additionally, it (inexplicably?) fails to address points I raised in my review (in JBL 108 [1989], pp. 722-726) of the first edition of Howard's book (which was titled *The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text* [1988]; the second, revised edition is more modestly titled, *Hebrew Gospel of Matthew* [1995]). The remarks in my review are self-explanatory, and supported by textual evidence; I am preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication. While Howard's revised edition has more substantive evidence, both his study and Shedinger are defecting for failing to examine links between Shem-Tob (who dates c. 1400) and the medieval Matthew traditions; rather, they jump from S-T back to the first five Xtian centuries--which is an error of method, especially when there are distinctive, unique textual links between S-T and MSS copied about 1300 (in Latin, Middle Dutch, etc.). Shedinger's assertion (p. 58) that "the only Greek manuscripts available to him [S-T] would have likely contianed a Byzantine Imperial type of text, also known as Nestle-Aland's Majority Text" is empirically wrong. The medieval world was full of "wild" texts (Codex Bezae itself is often presumed to have been taken to the Council of Trent [1546], and in the 9th cent. Ado, writing in/near Lyons, used a similar text for his quotations from Acts [see A Souter, *The Text and Canon of the NT* (1913), pp. 25-26]). Need one say it? The text of Codex Bezae is hardly that of "the Byzantine Imperial type." In the same period, Vetus Latina MSS were also being copied: c (12/13th cent.) g1 (8/9th), etc. Additionally, the tradition which has (apparently) the closest links with S-T, namely, the Diatessaron, has Latin copies being made throughout the medieval period, as well as vernacular copies in Old and Middle High German, Middle Dutch, Middle Italian, etc. Howard's text is very interesting, and here and there may have very ancient features, but these can only be verified by finding other ancient documents (as he does in some places in his new, revised edition) with the identical reading--*and no other documents between the time of that ancient document and S-T with the same reading.* That Howard and Schedinger (usually) do not do. Furthermore, they ignore utterly the sources which are both *geographically* and *chronologically* closest to Shem-Tob, namely copies of Matthew/Matthew quotations/gospel harmonies executed between, say, 1000 and 1400 C.E. As a methodological point, note that *if* you limit your sights to S-T and, say, P45, it appears there is dependence; but if you are familiar with more sources, the links become very dubious. Two examples: Shedinger's first example, Matt 7.11, read "good spirit" (S-T & P45) for "good things" (Mt) or "Holy Spirit" (Lk. 11.13). Shedinger observes in note 13 (p. 60) that "spiritum bonum" is found in the Vulgate and some Vetus Latina MSS. Well, why argue that the reading comes from P45??? The Vulgate and the Vetus Latina were certainly in circulation in medieval Spain! A final example: Shedinger's agreement between Matt 17.1 (pp. 64-66 in his article), in which Shem-Tob harmonizes Matt with Luke and then Mark, is paralleled in the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony (ed. C.C. de Bruin, p. 125), copied about 1280 C.E., roughly a century before Shem-Tob. Which is more likely: That S-T is preserving a tradition from P45, or that S-T is privy to the same (Latin) medieval tradition from which the Middle Dutch harmony was copied? (And that medieval Latin tradition demonstrably goes back to a Syriac tradition, even in the West [the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony has "Semitisms" and unique textual agreements with the Vetus Syra], etc....) It is not surprising that there are links between S-T and the Liege Harmony in the readings Shedinger adduces: nearly a decade ago in my JBL review, I pointed out and gave numerous examples of these links...now we find another one... In short, the better acquainted you are with the textual environment (e.g., the medieval world) in which Shem-Tob worked, the less likely a direct link with antiquity (e.g., P45) becomes. That there is a link is not in dispute, just as "Good News for Modern Man" has links with P45. But the "link" is *not* *directly* between P45 and GNfMM: it is between GNfMM and the RSV, KJV, etc., which go back to the Vulgate, which goes back to, etc., etc. And in the case of S-T, the intermediary is clear: medieval textual traditions, including gospel harmonies, which circulated in Latin, and which rest upon a Syriac archetype (even in the West). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. At 12:25 PM 3/7/97 -0800, you wrote: >There is an interesting article in "New Testament Studies", vol. 43, >1997, pp58-71 entitled "The textual relationship between P45 and >Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" by Robert F. Shedinger. > >He makes a comparison which lends support to the conclusions of >George Howard that Shem-Tob's Matthew represents an original >composition of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew. > >Is this the concensus among all experts in this field, and if >so, will this lead to the addition of this resource as a tool >for translation of the Greek version of Matthew's gospel ? > >Sincerely, >-lars > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 18:47:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA08219; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 18:47:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3320A8D4.1464DA55@repurk.mw.com> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 15:46:28 -0800 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: lars@repurk.mw.com Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew References: <2.2.16.19970307171855.41a73cc4@email.psu.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: 972 William L. Petersen wrote: > I am preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication. I look forward to reading it. > While Howard's revised edition has more substantive evidence, both his study > and Shedinger are defecting for failing to examine links between Shem-Tob > (who dates c. 1400) and the medieval Matthew traditions; rather, they jump > from S-T back to the first five Xtian centuries--which is an error of > method I would suppose that all of those sources will eventually be compared. > The Vulgate and the Vetus Latina were certainly in circulation in medieval Spain! A footnote in the article apparently addresses that Howard has evidence that the S-T is not from the Vg, apparently published in JBL. I do have one question. Considering the purpose of the S-T, as a polemic, would we guess that great effort would have been made to translate a text from numerous sources or would it all have been derived from one source ? -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 7 23:50:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA08540; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 23:50:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199703080451.XAA44218@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 23:50:19 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1850 In response to Alan Repurk's questions/points: >I would suppose that all of those sources will eventually be compared. (Repurk's "those sources" are the medieval Matt traditions surround [both chronologically and geographically] Shem-Tob.) Before one claims "primitive" status for a text, or *begins* by comparing it with ancient sources such as P45, it might be wise to check what was circulating in your vacinity (viz., Europe, circa 1400....). >A footnote in the article apparently addresses that Howard has evidence that >the S-T is not from the Vg, apparently published in JBL. Check Howard's evidence, and then start looking for agreements with the Vetus Latina and Vulgate, and see what you decide... Remember, a text need not be directly "translated" from a version to be influenced by it (there are indirect influences). >I do have one question. Considering the purpose of the S-T, as a polemic, would >we guess that great effort would have been made to translate a text from >numerous sources or would it all have been derived from one source ? I haven't a clue. Most works from this period (c. 1400) are mish-mashes of stuff from here and there: bits of Bede's commentary, bits of Vetus Latina, bits of Bezaean readings, bits of the Vulgate, etc., etc. All we can do, without a clear archetype, is to note the agreements--and, at last count (to my knowledge), Shem-Tob has, numerically, more agreements with the Liege Harmony than with any other single source yet adduced (see the examples in my review). Therefore, before looking to the third or fourth centuries for its "source," I would look at the Liege Harmony (1280 C.E.) and its antecedents (the "Old Latin" Diatessaron, hypothesized by Th. Zahn over a century ago, whose existence was demonstrated textually by D. Plooij and others). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 8 23:12:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA09424; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:12:57 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 20:13:11 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: KJV MSS To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1614 On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive > word on this? > > -- Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16), whereas the KJV team followed the "majority text". This "majority text" is basically the same as the "textus receptus", which, however, was not published by de Beze until 1624, after the Authorized Version of 1611. In fact, what little Amphoux has to say about the text used by the KJV team and Beza's influence is not complimentary: His text was essntially the same as the 4th edition of R. Estienne, with some occasional elements borrowed from Erasmus or the Complutensian Polyglot, and very few contributions of his own. ... He appears, in fact, to have understood very little about the importance of a correct text. And yet, despite these shortcomings, he exerted a great deal of influence, and the closeness of several of the later editions to the text of Estienne is due to their use of that of Beza. Such was the case with those responsible for the Authorized Version of 1611, which has been held in honour for so long by the Church of England. (Amphoux, p 134) See "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism" by Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 9 00:04:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA09526; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:04:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:04:55 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: W-H draft 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 784 On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could > share it with others? During the period from 1870-1881 a prepublication draft of the WH text was definitely in the hands of the ERV committee for their consultation. I have never seen a copy of the draft text, and wonder whether all copies might have been destroyed after the committee had finished its work. Does anyone have any enlightenment on that point? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 9 00:23:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA09548; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:23:56 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:24:12 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: KJV 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1570 On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive > > word on this? > > > Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT > rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16), > whereas the KJV team followed the "majority text". This "majority text" is > basically the same as the "textus receptus", which, however, was not > published by de Beze until 1624, after the Authorized Version of 1611. May we please keep the facts straight? Minton's reference is not to Codex Bezae, but to the Beza 1598 edition of the Greek NT, and yes, the KJV translators probably used that edition more than any other in print before the period 1604-1611 (this _teste_ Scrivener). Secondly, the Byzantine or "majority text" differs from any early printed TR edition in over 1800 places and is not "basically the same" as any of those early printed TR editions which basically do agree with each other to a much higher degree than they do with the "majority text". Finally, the TR 1624 was published by the Elzevirs, not by Theodore Beza. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 09:04:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10830; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:04:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 08:38:04 EST From: george howard Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970307171855.41a73cc4@email.psu.edu> X-Mailer: MailBook 96.01.000 Message-Id: <970310.090346.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1490 Re William Petersen's comment on Shedinger and me. It is true that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of medieval readings. It is also true that he has unique parallels with such out of the way documents as Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac (SyS and SyC). He perhaps has more parallels with the Old Syriac than any other textual tradition (though I have not counted them). I suppose we can go two ways (maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an eclectic scholar who prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against the church, choosing readings from a great many sources. 2. He preserves an ancient text whose readings crop up in a multiplicity of ancient and medieval documents. Given the fact that Shem-Tob believed the Gospel of Matthew was a damnable document, I find it hard to believe that he prepared a new text of the gospel in which he selected readings from a great many sources, some coming from great antiquity and apparently not available to anyone else in the world but him, enhanced the text with puns, word connections, and alliteration, added a symbol for the Divine Name 19 times, inserted a number of subtle theological motifs that go back to early Jewish Christianity, and then told his readers that the only reason he was inserting the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians. Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more reasonable. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 11:36:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA11138; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:36:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199703101636.RAA73410@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 18:49:55 +0100 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <970310.090346.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> 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: 2884 On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, George Howard wrote: >It is true that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has parallels with a number of >medieval >readings. It is also true that he has unique parallels with such out of >the way documents as Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac (SyS and SyC). >He perhaps has more parallels with the Old Syriac than any other textual >tradition (though I have not counted them). Maybe counting agreements can not solve all of the problems, but it surely is a strong indicator when it comes to questions of textual relationships. So, why not counting them? Maybe, because counting agreements also involves counting _disagreements_? I am somehow puzzled by the fact that the Latin traditions (Old Latin and Vulgate MSS, Harmonies) are not mentioned as possible candidates for testing agreements/disagreements in relation to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (as Bill Petersen already pointed out). >I suppose we can go two ways (maybe more). 1. We can say that Shem-Tob was an >eclectic scholar who prepared a special text of Matthew in his polemic against >the church, choosing readings from a great many sources. Again, a closer look at the Latin tradition presumably would have prevented this type of carricature. Virtually every single Vulgate MS displays at least some Old Latin readings. When dealing only with the Latin harmony tradition(s) - not to mention the other vernacular harmonies - we find therein a considerable degree of "mixed" textual situation, i.e. generally "vulgatized" harmonies nevertheless display sometimes unique agreements with various parts of textual transmission. It would simply be hazardous to label each and every scribe/producer of textually "mixed" MSS an "eclectic scholar..., choosing readings from a great many sources". >2. He preserves an ancient >text whose readings crop up in a multiplicity of ancient and medieval >documents. As Bill Petersen already pointed out: Each and every copy of the Gospel of Matthew in each and every language preserves a lot of ancient readings, and, therefore, a somehow ancient text. In the case of Shem Tob or any other medieval source it is essential to establish a reasonably _distinct_ text which may or may not be "ancient", depending on the level of agreement (and disagreement) of this distinct text with other witnesses. As long as only parts of the textual tradition (predominantly old ones as, e.g., the Old Syriac or P 45) are sought through, and as long as agreements and disagreements are not counted, I simply remain unconviced of the distinct "ancient text" preseved in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. It may well be another amalgam of medieval (Latin or vernacular) Gospel traditions. snip >Number 1 is fraught with a great many problems. Number 2 is much more >reasonable. In my own judgment the alternative is simply mistaken. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 12:45:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA11296; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:45:04 -0500 Message-ID: <33244835.1C69099@repurk.mw.com> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:43:17 -0800 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: lars@repurk.mw.com Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew References: <970310.090346.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.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: 3229 george howard wrote: > connections, and alliteration, added a symbol for the Divine Name 19 > times, inserted a number of subtle theological motifs that go back to > early Jewish Christianity, and then told his readers that the only > reason he was inserting the Hebrew Matthew into his treatise, the Even > Bohan, was so they could learn to refute it and crush the Christians. Does anyone have a satisfactory explanation for the inclusion of the tetragrammaton in the S-T, besides the obvious conclusion that he copied it from a Hebrew original ? It would seem to defeat the purpose of the S-T as a document which was intended to represent the Christian tradition for polemic reasons to add the Divine Name. Would not the superstition of this devout Jewish translator impose certain restrictions on him with regard to this name ? In looking at some of the old posts I happened to file away I found some quotations from a book by James Scott Trimm entitled "The Good News According to Matthew from an old Hebrew Manuscript", a translation and analysis of the 15th Century DuTillet manuscript. I have not checked these for accuracy and have not read the book, so I hope the original poster did his homework ..... Sincerely, -lars ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Irenaeus (150-170 CE)"Matthew issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect..." (Against Heresies 3:1) Origen (210 CE) "The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in the Hebrew." (Eusebius E.H. 4:25) Pantaenus... penetrated as ar as India, where it is reported that he found the gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had preached, and left them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters." (Euseb. E. H. 5:10) Epiphanius (370 CE) "They (the Nazarenes) have the gospel according to Matthew quite complete, in Hebrew, for this gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hegrew letters." (Panarion 29:9:4) Jerome (382 CE) "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary, first of all the evangelists composed a gospel of Messiah in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed; who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Boroea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist...makes use of the testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew." (Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3) End note to a 5th century Aramaic Matthew (the Peshitta): "Completion of the Holy Gospel as published by Matthew; and which he published in Hebrew, in the land of the Palestinians." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 10 20:07:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA11995; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 20:07:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:07:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Maurice Robinson cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: KJV 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 598 On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > > > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that > > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive > > > word on this? > > > > > Yes, there is definitive word on this. Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used? -- 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 Mon Mar 10 23:04:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA12293; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:04:02 -0500 Date: 10 Mar 97 23:02:53 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: KJV MSS Message-ID: <970311040253_102147.2045_EHT62-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1249 > > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > > > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that > > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive > > > word on this? > > > > > Yes, there is definitive word on this. Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used? Dr. Minton, I don't think they used _any_ Greek MSS whatsoever. They did use Beza's GNT as the primary basis (as Robinson correctly pointed out) and they did occasionally use Stephanus, the Complutensian and, very rarely, Erasmus. The occasional textual ref in the margin obviously came from one of the printed editions. The only person I know of who claims the KJV translators used Greek and/or Latin MSS (Old Latin at that) is Peter Ruckman - and the evidence he presents for this is his own opinion. :-) Had the KJV translators used MSS, I suspect they would have made mention of this in their "Translators to the Reader" but they only speak about Hebrew and Greek texts: the title page does say "Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared" (an obvious ref. to the Heb/Greek texts and various translations available to them). Hope this helps. Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 11 11:20:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13488; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:20:12 -0500 From: "Michael Fox" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:18:00 -0600 Subject: transposition in Ben Sira -Forwarded X-Gateway: iGate, (GroupWise) vers 4.05g - 1032 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <33258627.6047.0062.000@lss.wisc.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; Charset=US-ASCII; name="ENCLOSURE" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ENCLOSURE" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 871 Date: 03/11/1997 08:34 am (Tuesday) Subject: transposition in Ben Sira Can someone explain the mechanics of the major mess-up in Sira? (No, Ben Wright doesn't deal with this issue.) Two major chunks of material were displaced in all Greek versions of Sira, while the orig order is maintained in the OL (which nevertheless has some GII materials, another puzzle): 30:25-33:13a and 33:13b-36:16a were transposed, certainly unintentionally. Are we to imagine a sheet (quire ?) falling out of a codex (prior to and ancestral to all the uncials!) and being replaced wrongly? Or did an early copyist skip from 30:24 to 33:13b, then suddenly realize the error and without missing a beat return to copy the missing material? Michael Michael V. Fox Professor Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Studies University of Wisconsin 1220 Linden Drive, rm. 1346 Madison, WI 53706 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 11 14:15:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14080; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:15:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:15:34 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: TC-LIST Subject: Old Latin In-Reply-To: <970311040253_102147.2045_EHT62-1@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 608 aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation. I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not seen the 157. What is the source of the 157, and is it accurate? My initial reaction is that it is not accurate, but there may be some evidence I do not know of. I have always taught approximately 180 or 190 as the date. Also, do we have evidence that anyone before Cyprian used it? How about Irenaeus? -- 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 Tue Mar 11 15:47:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14854; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:47:47 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:48:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970311154759_-1472806076@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: JWest@highland.net cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: von Soden Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 796 Hi Jim West: It was good to meet you at the ETS meeting. You asked where I got my copy of H. F. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (1911). A reprint of that text is available from: Good Books 2456 Devonshire Road Springfield, IL 62703 They publish a catalog in which are listed such names as: John W. Burgon H. C. Hoskier F. G. Kenyon F. H. A. Scrivener C. Tischendorf S. Tregelles and many others. The reprint books I received from there were reproduced by a Xerox like copier and bound in library quality bindings. Sincerely, 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 16:38:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18093; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:25 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.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: 310 I would appreciate it if someone could recommend a good coptic grammar on the introductory level (for a course I must teach next fall). Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net or jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 17:08:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18162; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:08:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:08:21 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Coptic Grammar In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.net> 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: 377 Jim, The one I used is Thomas O. Lambdin, _Introduction to Sahidic Coptic_ (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983). It begins with the basics and is easy to use. 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 Wed Mar 12 17:09:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18179; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:09:31 -0500 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:10:46 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: COPTIC GRAMMAR 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: 1442 > ST) > Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id QAA18093; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:27 -0500 > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:38:25 -0500 (EST) > Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net > From: Jim West > X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) > Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.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 > > I would appreciate it if someone could recommend a good coptic grammar on > the introductory level (for a course I must teach next fall). > > Thanks, > > Jim > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West > Adjunct Professor of Bible > Quartz Hill School of Theology > > jwest@highland.net > or > jwest@theology.edu > Dear Jim The best available intoductory Coptic grammar is the one by TO Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, Mercer University Press: Macon, Ga, 1983. I find it educationally helpful. It also has usefull excersises. Greetings Johann Cook > > 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 Wed Mar 12 18:36:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18273; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:36:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:36:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Melvin K.H. Peters" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970312163731.382f5f14@mail.highland.net> 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: 785 Jim, The following might not be suitable for student use by virtue of its price and its rather sophisticated terminology in places, but it is more recent than Lambdin, and was prepared by one of the most distinguished grammarians of Coptic. It should provide a valuable point of reference. A. Shisha-Halevy, Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy, A Course for Academic and Private Study. OLA 30.Leuven, Peeters, 1988. Its glossary will prove quite useful and its bibliography includes most of the important older grammars including those dealing with dialects other than Sahidic. Hope this helps. Melvin K. H. Peters Phone:(919) 660-3508 Department of Religion Fax: (919) 660-3530 Duke University Box 90964 E-mail:melopete@acpub.duke.edu Durham, NC 27708-0964 U.S.A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 12 22:47:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18610; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 22:47:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 22:47:34 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Rev 9:16 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.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: 310 NA 27 lists several variants of dismuriades muriadwn. The question I have is quite simple (!). Which reading gave rise to the others? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net or jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 13 10:18:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19288; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:18:04 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:20:19 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 953 On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: >NA 27 lists several variants of dismuriades muriadwn. The question I have >is quite simple (!). Which reading gave rise to the others? I would say "dismuriades muriadwn." In a triple reading, prefer the middle reading. Neither "muriades muriadwn" is not likely to have given rise to "duo muriades muriadwn"; the reverse could have happened, but there's no particular reason. Whereas "dismuriades muriadwn" could have given rise to either. "Dismuriades muriadwn" also appears to have the best external attestation. At a casual glance, anyway. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Mar 13 18:53:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20210; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:53:49 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Conversation <1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.net> with last message Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Huey Bahr" Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 97 17:48:07 PST Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 210 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > In a triple reading, prefer the middle reading. Is this all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or just when we can't find another reason for perferring one of the readings. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 13 19:58:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA20288; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 19:58:33 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Conversation <1.5.4.16.19970312224645.27bf62c6@mail.highland.net> with last message Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 19:03:59 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1142 On Thu, 13 Mar 97, "Huey Bahr" wrote: >Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> In a triple reading, prefer the middle reading. > >Is this all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or just when we >can't find another reason >for perferring one of the readings. By my definition of "the middle reading," it's always. But what I call the "middle reading" may depend on other criteria. (See the fuller discussion in my "Canons of Criticism" article at the ENTTC site.) Still, I consider this a very strong rule. If one reading could have *directly* given rise to all the others, that reading is almost certain to be original. It continues to amaze me that this rule (offered by Griesbach) is not quoted more often. But then, I never have been one to play by the usual rules. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Mar 14 05:17:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA20861; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 05:17:15 -0500 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:10:44 GMT Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 816 Bob Waltz wrote: Still, I consider this a very strong rule. If one reading could have *directly* given rise to all the others, that reading is almost certain to be original. It continues to amaze me that this rule (offered by Griesbach) is not quoted more often. But then, I never have been one to play by the usual rules. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- There is nothing unusual about the canon that that reading is to be preferred which explains the origin of the others. See e.g. Westcott/Hort, Intro, p.22. Indeed, is there anybody who believes the practice of textual criticism to be a rational pursuit, who does _not_ accept it? DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 14 09:22:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21098; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:22:11 -0500 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199703141422.PAA52322@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 14 Mar 97 16:36:00 +0100 Subject: Re: Old Latin 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: 1321 On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Ronald Minton wrote: >aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation. >I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not >seen the 157. What is the source of the 157, and is it accurate? My >initial reaction is that it is not accurate, but there may be some >evidence I do not know of. I have always taught approximately 180 or 190 >as the date. Also, do we have evidence that anyone before Cyprian used >it? How about Irenaeus? My apologize for late dealing with this post. Without further references I simply fail to assess this date (A.D. 157). Some hold that Tertullian used at least parts of the Bible in a Latin translation, but his testimony is notoriously difficult to assess. Irenaeus wrote in Greek (around A.D. 180). Unfortunately, his work *adversus Haereses* has been preserved only in a slavish (and therefore poor) Latin translation (Greek fragments have been preserved only in one papyrus MS, in Euseb's Church History, and in Epiphanius' Panarion). Some ascribe this Latin translation to the 3rd century, others to the late 4th century. There seems to be some connection between Latin Irenaeus and Cyprian. To sum up: Irenaeus has not helped us so far in assessing the date A.D. 157. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 14 09:55:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21217; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:55:08 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:25:03 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1318 On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, "DC PARKER" wrote: >There is nothing unusual about the canon that that reading is to be >preferred which explains the origin of the others. See e.g. >Westcott/Hort, Intro, p.22. Indeed, is there anybody who believes >the practice of textual criticism to be a rational pursuit, who >does _not_ accept it? This is not my point. I have said (see the Encyclopedia article I already cited) that "That reading is best which best explains the others" is the *basic* rule of internal criticism. All other canons (e.g. "prefer the harder reading") are corollaries of this rule. However, "prefer the middle reading" is one of the most direct and strongest corollaries of this rule. Unlike canons such as "prefer the shorter reading," "prefer the middle reading" almost always gives the correct result in cases where it applies. Yet this rule is never stated in modern handbooks, and is often ignored. Hence my statements. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Mar 14 10:51:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21476; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:51:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:52:11 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970314104958.2cc76202@mail.infoave.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: 587 I am clear as to the canons of criticism. What I am not clear about in this text is which reading gives rise to the others. It seems that "di" could have easily dropped out- even though original. It also seems that this case represents a simple case of repitition. Thus, what I am seeking, is some explanation as to which text seems to have given rise to the others (rather than a simple a gave rise to b with no explanation). Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net or jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 14 11:25:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA21544; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 11:25:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199703141625.LAA78060@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: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 11:24:53 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Old Latin Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1195 Regarding Ronald Minton's query about how the Old Latin is dated to 157 CE, and Ulrich Schmid's post, it suddenly occurs to me that what *may* lie behind the date is a reference from the *Acts of the Scillitian Martyrs*. They were beheaded in July 180, and during their (gentle) questioning by the Roman governor, they were asked what they had in a basket. They reply "the works/writings of a just man, Paul" (I'm quoting from memory here, so don't hold me to the exact wording). Since the names of the martyrs are Latin, and they are rustics (and Scilli was in the sticks), it is usually assumed that these "writings of Paul" were in Latin translation, since the "locals" probably wouldn't have been Greek-reading (or so the theory goes). This would place the translation into Latin before 180, certainly, at least for part(s) of the Pauline corpus. How one gets 157 *precisely* (and not 158 or 156) remains a mystery to me, however. The Scilli evidence is mentioned (with refernces, discussion, and literature) in virtually all of the studies of the NT Versions (Voeoebus, Metzger, as well as the older ones [Kenyon, Souter, Gregory, etc.]), as I recall. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 15 04:39:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23353; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 04:39:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199703150937.BAA06270@mail-01.telis.org> Subject: Hexapla Date: Sat, 15 Mar 97 01:43:11 -0800 x-sender: sohncom@mail-01.telis.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Dexter Garnier To: 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: 137 This message is to enquire if there is an edition of the Hexapla still in print. I would appreciate any info. Thanks, Dexter Garnier From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 15 16:16:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA23823; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 16:16:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 16:16:01 -0500 (EST) From: Wayne Kannaday X-Sender: wkannada@login3.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Mark 1:41 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: 323 Dear Text Critics: I am a grad student working on the text variant, Mark 1:41. The question is, in the healing of the leper, whether Jesus responds with "compassion" or "anger." Does anyone know of any useful bibliography on this textual variant? If so, please let me know. In advance, thank you. - Wayne Kannaday From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 15 17:17:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23906; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:17:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:17:27 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970315171522.27df8508@mail.infoave.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: 627 At 04:16 PM 3/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Text Critics: > >I am a grad student working on the text variant, Mark 1:41. The question >is, in the healing of the leper, whether Jesus responds with "compassion" >or "anger." Does anyone know of any useful bibliography on this textual >variant? If so, please let me know. In advance, thank you. > >- Wayne Kannaday See the excellent discussion in Bruce Metzger's "Textual Commentary on the GNT". (He decides on "compassion". Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net or jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 15 17:41:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23939; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:41:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970315171522.27df8508@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 16:47:01 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1292 On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Jim West >>I am a grad student working on the text variant, Mark 1:41. The question >>is, in the healing of the leper, whether Jesus responds with "compassion" >>or "anger." Does anyone know of any useful bibliography on this textual >>variant? If so, please let me know. In advance, thank you. >> >>- Wayne Kannaday > > >See the excellent discussion in Bruce Metzger's "Textual Commentary on the GNT". > >(He decides on "compassion". I always have trouble with those discussions in the UBS commentary, though. It seems like they have these extended arguments and then *always* decide on the Alexandrian reading. It might be worth looking in Yoder's concordance to Bezae to see if this particular change occurs elsewhere. The "Caesarean" and "Western" texts do have a variant in John 11:33 which might spring from the same attitudes toward Jesus. (Or might not. I'm just spinning off ideas here.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 15 19:19:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23999; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 19:19:43 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 18:22:52 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1210 Wayne Kannaday wrote; >I am a grad student working on the text variant, Mark 1:41. The question >is, in the healing of the leper, whether Jesus responds with "compassion" >or "anger." Does anyone know of any useful bibliography on this textual >variant? If so, please let me know. In advance, thank you. > This is one of those places where I think most of the textual tradition might be wrong. I give a lot of weight to the variant that best explains the origin of the other reading. On first reading of ORGISQEIS, it sounds like a nonsense reading. But if read in light of vs 43, EMBRIMHSAMENOS ("having raved at him), it becomes clear that the writer is anticipating the fact that the man failed to obey Jesus commands. If it make sense on second consideration and explains the origin of the other reading (who would change "compassion" to "anger"?), it is likely the original (contra Metzger, Textual Commentary, but note in the UBS3 (the only one I have at home) gives the text a D rating. 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 Sun Mar 16 00:12:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA24239; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 00:12:30 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 00:12:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970316001253_-2107511089@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 277 Mark, If your university library does not contain a CD-ROM copy of "Religious and Theological Abstracts", I do have access to this work (and others) and would be glad to print up a copy of what every relevant articles appear for Mark 1:41. Rich Elliott General Editor, ENTTC From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 16 14:38:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA24573; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:38:12 -0500 From: Felix Sung Message-Id: <199703161938.OAA21022@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:38:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Mar 15, 97 04:47:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2054 > I always have trouble with those discussions in the UBS commentary, > though. It seems like they have these extended arguments and then > *always* decide on the Alexandrian reading. The reason they "always" decide on the Alexandrian reading is related to the politics involved in ensuring that the readings of the UBS and the NA agree. My tc prof in seminary, Bob Lyon, was the recording secretary for the translation committee in either '57 or '58 (I forget which), and he says there was a blow-up over the fact that Kurt Aland didn't reveal to the rest of the committee that he was about to release a new edition of the NA until the UBS was in its final stages. (Actually, if I remember correctly, Bob says that Black and Metzger found out via the grapevine, rather than Aland telling the Committee.) Black and Metzger confronted Aland and demanded that the NA text be identical to the UBS text because they felt--quite rightly--that for Aland, a member of the committee, to print a text that differed from that agreed upon by the committee, was to impugn the competence of the other members of the committee, or else they (and the rest of the committee) would resign. According to Bob, Aland agreed to print the text agreed upon by the committee, but extracted a _quid pro quo_, _viz._, that when the committee was deadlocked over a reading, his vote would determine which reading was printed in the body of the text. Thus, phrases like, "Although part of the Committee preferred ..., a majority ..." and "A majority of the committee" likely signal places where Aland cast the deciding vote. (BTW, I suspect BMM got in the last word on this matter. There are a number of items flagged in the textual commentary that aren't significant enough to rate a grade in the body of the text--Mk 2.41, _dia ton ochlon_, comes to mind--where he says "that "one member considers." A veiled shot at Aland, perhaps?) Felix Sung Wycliffe College fsung@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto School of Theology From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 16 16:08:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24629; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:08:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199703162108.QAA13518@bart.ionsys.com> From: "John Cameron" To: Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V2 #24 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:03:47 -0500 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2635 Can you let me know how to get my email name off this list .. Thank you John Cameron ---------- > From: owner-tc-list-digest@scholar.cc.emory.edu > To: tc-list-digest@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list-digest V2 #24 > Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 2:30 AM > > Subjects of Messages in this Digest: > > Subject: Re: 7Q5 > Subject: Re: 7Q5 > > tc-list-digest Wednesday, 29 January 1997 Volume 02 : Number 024 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:12:09 -0500 > Subject: Re: 7Q5 > > At 8:49 PM 1/28/97, Stephen C. Carlson wrote: > > >>Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> 2] Of particular importance is the N/I difference in the second line. > > >I think this argument of Thiede's was repeated in his popular book > >on pages 41-43 and it is convincing enough (the size of the etas are > >not consistent either). > > Two brief comments: > > There are only two certain etas in the manuscript (setting aside > momentarily the conjectural readings). Their shapes --and in particular > their widths-- appear to be very similar in the available photographs. > > > ... Another argument against the iota identification > >is that the iota adscript, required by the letters of the word TWI, > >ceased to be written around 100 BCE [Smyth, sect. 5]. > > I'm not sure anyone has argued strongly for the word "TWI" at this > location; only for the sequence of letters "TWI". > > >Again, the best that can be said for Thiede/O'Callaghan is that the > >identification is just barely possible, but still extremely unlikely. > > Agreed. > > Nichael __ > nichael@sover.net Be as passersby -- IC > http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: "James R. Adair" > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:31:56 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Re: 7Q5 > > Readers of this thread might be interested in looking at an online > interview with Jose O'Callaghan (in Spanish), in which he defends his > position and talks a little bit about his rationale for coming to his > conclusions. The URL is http://users.aol.com/vemultimed/ocal7q5.htm. > > Jimmy Adair > Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press > and > Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site > - ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- > > > ------------------------------ > > End of tc-list-digest V2 #24 > **************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 16 16:16:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24655; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:16:39 -0500 Message-Id: <199703162115.QAA14062@bart.ionsys.com> From: "John Cameron" To: Subject: Re: Confirmation of your message. Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:11:20 -0500 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1266 Dear Gerald: I am a Scot studying theology in Ontario. I have no U.K. email contacts other than one that I lost when my system crashed recently. His name was Torrance and he was Dean of Divinity at Aberdeen I believe. Do you know how I can get his email address again and those of other U.K. theologians and other related academics. I am interested in particular to talking to some linguists who do Biblical translation. I had a summer program with the Summer Institute of Linguistics many moons ago before civilians had email. Would you know how I can find out about this. I hope this does not put you to at lot of trouble. If it does I will try and find out some other way to do this. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. John Cameron ---------- > From: Gerard J. Norton > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Confirmation of your message. > Date: Monday, February 24, 1997 1:46 PM > > 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 Sun Mar 16 17:36:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA24713; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:36:19 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:36:43 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8093 On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, DC PARKER wrote: > There is nothing unusual about the canon that that reading is to be > preferred which explains the origin of the others. See e.g. > Westcott/Hort, Intro, p.22. Indeed, is there anybody who believes > the practice of textual criticism to be a rational pursuit, who > does _not_ accept it? Parker is of course correct on this point, and even those of us who might favor the Byzantine Textform do not ignore this principle. Case in point regarding the Rev. 9:16 variant unit from my own perspective: Regarding the discussion of the variant at Rev. 9:16 and the supposed significance of the "middle reading", perhaps I fail to discern the point adequately, but I do not see where any supposed rule would "favor the middle reading" in this circumstance, and indeed wonder whether there is _any_ "middle reading" with which to work. Basically the variant separates into either the inclusion or omission of the number "two" (whether as "duo" or "dis") appended to the "myriads of myriads" (which by itself indicates either as much as a hundred million or as little as a hundred thousand, depending on the translational preference). So either the number is single ("myriads of myriads" or doubled "two myriads of myriads". There is thus _no_ real "middle reading" with which one must deal, any more than there is any real additional variant present when MSS read "ib" or "deka kai duo" instead of "dwdeka", as also happens within the book of Revelation. For my own part, it neither matters significantly theologically or exegetically whether the number "two" is present in this location or not (although Hal Lindsey might get upset, since he needs 200 million Chinese warriors to fulfill his Late Great Planet Earth hypothesis). My decision regarding the proper variant is based solely on text-critical internal and external considerations. Externally, the reading _without_ either "duo" or "dis" is the strongest attested numerically, having approximately 72% support (see Hoskier's _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_ for details). What makes this particularly interesting is that such a high percentage of support _transcends_ the normal approximately equal division between the two leading "Byzantine" texttypes in the Apocalypse, the An and Q groups (in N27, the MA and MK groups respectively). Had the division between the two groups been "normal", one might expect a 55%-45% or even closer division approaching 50%-50%; yet in this case the _omission_ of "duo" or "dis" enjoys the combined support of nearly all of the MK group and most of the MA group, which fact alone strongly argues for its originality. (For the record, while the omission of the numeral "two" has 72% support, the _inclusion_ of the form "duo" has approximately 8% of the MSS in support, mostly sporadically, while "dis" has approximately 15% support, mostly from the MA group). The most significant support for "duo" is found in P47 and Aleph, while the significant uncial support of "dis" is found in A and P). Note also that the omission of "two" does reflect the shorter reading, and this principle takes on _more_ significance in a case like this, since there is no reasonable cause (such as homoioteleuton) as to why the longer reading might have been accidentally omitted, nor would there be any good reason as to why the majority of scribes would have _ever_ omitted a number which _magnifies_ the number of the horsemen had "duo" or "dis" stood originally in that place. Assuming the shorter reading to be original, based on not only the unlikelihood of accidental or deliberate omission of the number "two", but also on the lack of significant exegetical or theological motivation for preferring the smaller total, the question of how and why the "duo" or "dis" might have been added remains a valid topic for discussion. I confess that I can see _no_ reason why such a large number of horsemen needed deliberately to be doubled by _any_ scribes, save possibly to enhance the magnitude of the opposing forces. This could have been a motive, but not a strong one in view of the large number already stated. Although some may wish to argue that perhaps the numeral "b" for "2" was originally present and may have been accidentally omitted or expunged by some scribe who did not notice the bar over the numeral, apparently no extant MS has the numeral form as opposed to either "duo" or "dis"; even the uncials have it written out in full (I don't know about P47, except that N27 seems to indicate it is written out in full also; P47 postdates Hoskier, and I have not yet checked the photo of the variant in that MS). It is probably significant that the Bohairic also reads "duo" in this place along with P47, since this might point to a common early Egyptian origin for the variant, regardless of whether such origin might have anything to do with exegesis or theology. My own take on this is that the nonsense reading of Aleph ("duo muriadwn muriadas") might suggest a key to the whole situation. My own studies of Aleph indicate the extremely sloppy nature of the scribe of the Apocalypse (who is different than the scribe who copied everything else in the NT of that MS; see Milne and Skeat), and I would not be surprised if the reading of Aleph reflects a blunderous interpretation of what may have lain before him in his exemplar (which also may be the same type of situation which caused the reading of P47 to occur). Assume this scenario: a scribe of an exemplar which is an archetype of Aleph dyslexically miscopies and inverts the original reading "muriades muriadwn" as "muriadwn muriades". That scribe or his later corrector notices the problem and inserts numerical sequence letters over the misordered words in order to indicate the correct sequence for the next copyist. Thus: b a muriadwn muriades The scribe of Aleph, blundering his way along in copying his exemplar, comes to this point and reads the "b" as an instruction to insert the numeral 2 at that point, and so writes out "duo" in full. He then copies "muriadwn" as it stands, but in regard to "muriades" he notices the numeral "a" above the word, takes it to be a correction to "muriades" and so writes "muriadas"; thus is produced the total nonsense reading of Aleph: "duo muriadwn muriadas" (which no other scribe thankfully follows!). P47, on the other hand, may have encountered a similar situation in his exemplar, perhaps even one which stemmed from a source common to both P47 and Aleph, but possibly one which coincidentally may have made the same transpositional error. In P47 the word order gets changed into the correct form, but the "b" still gets interpreted and inserted into the main text as "duo". >From either or both of these hypotheses, I would have no difficulty in expecting a small number of later MSS similarly to adopt the "duo" reading, and especially altering it into a stylistically more proper "dis" in the process. Either way, the reading preserved in the vast majority (72%) of MSS, having significant support from both primary Byzantine subtypes as well as some uncial (Hoskier's "B"), versional (Sahidic 1/2, Arabic, Armenian) and patristic (Tychonius) support, seems most likely to be preferred. No "middle reading" hypothesis appears necessary in order to deal with this variant unit in my opinion. The patristic and versional support for the "two" readings (Beatus, Cyprian, Sahidic 1/2, Bohairic) seem to point to an African and perhaps ultimately to an Egyptian origin and blunder for that reading, as it is supported by P47 and Aleph. My own opinion is that "two" has its likely origin in a blunder somewhere and should _not_ be considered original, whether in the form "duo" or "dis". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 16 18:23:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA24748; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:23:53 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:29:38 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2277 On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: >Regarding the discussion of the variant at Rev. 9:16 and the supposed >significance of the "middle reading", perhaps I fail to discern the >point adequately, but I do not see where any supposed rule would "favor >the middle reading" in this circumstance, and indeed wonder whether >there is _any_ "middle reading" with which to work. Allow me to explain. The "middle reading," if there are three readings, is the reading which can give rise to the other two readings directly. Let me give an English example. Suppose there are three readings in some document: I went *in* the house. I went *inside* the house. I went *outside* the house. To me, in this hypothetical case, the original reading is clearly "inside." The change from "inside" to "in" is easy; so is the change from "inside" to "outside." To change from "in" to "outside," or the reverse (barring something outside the immediate context) requires *two* changes. So "inside" is the middle reading. We have a similar situation in Rev. 9:16. Given the three readings duo, dis, and omit, omit *must* be secondary. The choice between duo and dis is more complicated (and may depend on an understanding of the style of the Apocalypse which I do not have), but duo seems to me to be more likely to be secondary. In any case, it is relatively poorly attested. [ ... ] >Externally, the reading _without_ either "duo" or "dis" is the >strongest attested numerically, having approximately 72% support (see >Hoskier's _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_ for details). This *is* interesting (and one wishes this were more obvious from NA27). I am inclined, even so, to stand by my reasoning -- but it means that we must look at the history of the Byzantine text- form at this point. This I will have to leave for those with better resources for the task than I. [ ... ] >I confess that I can see _no_ reason why such a large number of horsemen >needed deliberately to be doubled by _any_ scribes, save possibly to >enhance the magnitude of the opposing forces. This could have been a >motive, but not a strong one in view of the large number already >stated. Here, at least, we agree. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 16 18:41:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA24783; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:41:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:42:16 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2262 On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Suppose there are three readings in some document: > > I went *in* the house. > I went *inside* the house. > I went *outside* the house. > > To me, in this hypothetical case, the original reading is clearly > "inside." The change from "inside" to "in" is easy; so is the change > from "inside" to "outside." To change from "in" to "outside," or > the reverse (barring something outside the immediate context) > requires *two* changes. So "inside" is the middle reading. Speaking as a true son of the south (where we'uns talk funnier but more logical than you Yankees up nawth), for us the reading "in" would be the more likely original. Only a literary purist would change that good and decent colloquialism into the more formal "inside". Now, how some carpetbagger came up with the "outside" reading, I don't even fathom a guess....... :-) > We have a similar situation in Rev. 9:16. Given the three readings > duo, dis, and omit, omit *must* be secondary. The choice between > duo and dis is more complicated (and may depend on an understanding > of the style of the Apocalypse which I do not have), but duo seems > to me to be more likely to be secondary. In any case, it is > relatively poorly attested. I still fail to see a "middle reading" concept here, since basically it is only a question of two slightly divergent spellings meaning "two", which numeral is either present or omitted. I certainly would see NO reason whatever for either form of "two" to be omitted merely to settle the question between what might appear to be different options. I could much more readily concur if the numerals in question were "two" and "five" respectively -- then I could easily understand how or why some scribes might choose to omit either numeral in order to escape a difficulty -- but this is simply NOT the case in the variant unit under consideration, and thus (in my opinion), _no_ "middle reading". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 17 04:45:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA25102; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:45:56 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:45:10 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <26DA4BD2D83@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1692 On the variants (_orgistheis/splanchnistheis_) in Mark 1:41, C. Winbery wrote: > This is one of those places where I think most of the textual tradition > might be wrong. I give a lot of weight to the variant that best explains > the origin of the other reading. On first reading of ORGISQEIS, it sounds > like a nonsense reading. But if read in light of vs 43, EMBRIMHSAMENOS > ("having raved at him), it becomes clear that the writer is anticipating > the fact that the man failed to obey Jesus commands. If it make sense on > second consideration and explains the origin of the other reading (who > would change "compassion" to "anger"?), it is likely the original (contra > Metzger, Textual Commentary, but note in the UBS3 (the only one I have at > home) gives the text a D rating. It may be worth noting that the chief witnesses supporting "orgistheis" here are "Western" (D + some latins), and that the Western text has been shown to have varying indications of an "anti-Jewish/Judaic" tendency (see esp. E. J. Epp, _The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis_). And with "orgistheis" Jesus is attributed a more negative attitude toward the Jewish leper. Moreover, with "orgistheis" the attitude is more harmonious with the strong warning mentioned in v. 43 ("embrimesamenos auto"), which might be just the sort of minor editorial improvements one often finds from scribes. So, I'm not so sure as Mr. Winbery about the obviousness of the priority of "orgistheis". It could go either way. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 17 04:50:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA25124; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:50:59 -0500 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:49:11 GMT Subject: Re: Confirmation of your message. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 263 Dear Mr Cameron Gerald has forwarded your message to me. The address you want is i.r.torrance@abdn.ac.uk Yours sincerely D.C. Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 17 09:04:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA25282; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:04:03 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <26DA4BD2D83@div.ed.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 08:09:53 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1079 On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >On the variants (_orgistheis/splanchnistheis_) in Mark 1:41, C. >Winbery wrote: [ ... ] > >It may be worth noting that the chief witnesses supporting >"orgistheis" here are "Western" (D + some latins), and that the >Western text has been shown to have varying indications of an >"anti-Jewish/Judaic" tendency A question that I have not seen addressed: It is widely believed that Bezae has an anti-Jewish tendency. Accepting that, at least for the sake of the argument, has this ever been studied for any "Western" witness other than D? I always have trouble trusting D by itself (too much evidence of editing!). But the Latins are another matter. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 17 09:09:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA25301; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:09:36 -0500 From: KHGrenier@aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:10:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970317091000_-1840426827@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 621 If we look at the parallel passages, Mt 8:2-3 & Lk 5:12-13, we see that all three Gospels use the same exact wording at this point: eav thelhs duvasai me katharisai. kai _________ ekteivas thn xeira The only difference is that Mark adds our varient word (you choose) in the blank. It seems to me that if his original wording were "with pity" Mt & Lk would have very likely kept it in their Gospels. On the other hand, if the wording originally was one of anger, it might have been removed by the other writers as not suiting their overall purpose in writing about that incident. Just another thought. Kevin Grenier From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 17 11:19:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25627; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:19:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:19:43 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970317111733.276f6638@mail.infoave.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: 247 I am interested in the purported anti-semitism of D. Could someone provide a bibiography? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net or jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 17 13:21:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25891; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:21:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:21:26 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970317132129.4fbf10a0@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1747 E.J. Epp, *The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts,* SNTS.MS 3 (Cambridge: CUP, 1966), esp. pp. 41-end. D.C. Parker, *Codex Bezae* (Cambridge: CUP, 1991), passim (my copy is at home; just check the index). See also, on related (Western) texts: J.R. Harris, "Was the Diatessaron Anti-Judaic?" in HThR 18 (1925), 103-109. H.J Vogels, *Handbuch der neutest. Textkritik,* (Muenster 1923), 200-201. A. Voeoebus, *Early Versions of the NT,* PETSE 6 (Stockholm 1954), pp. 18-19. and my *Tatian's Diatessaron*, pp. 119-120, 252 n. 128, 420, 428. When considering this issue, care should be taken to discriminate between "anti-Semitism" of the variety found in (1) later Christianity (e.g., the *Vita Constantini* of Eusebius [3.18]), which is a Gentile "us" against a hated, Jewish "them"--which is analogous to modern Christian anti-Semitism), and (2) the internecine struggle *among* Jews in early Christianity, some of when believed Jesus was "messiah," and some of whom did not--but *all* of whom considered themselves still "Jews," and kept kosher practices, etc. (cp. Acts 2.46, 3.1, 5.21, 5.42 [always preaching in the "Temple"], 10-11 [Peter is still kosher, as, apparently, are the other disciples...]; cp. the reports about Judaic-Christians in Epiphanius, the Ps.-Clementines, etc.). The two are not the same, and have different causes, goals, and psychological contexts. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. At 11:19 AM 3/17/97 -0500, you wrote: >I am interested in the purported anti-semitism of D. > >Could someone provide a bibiography? > >Thanks, > >Jim > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Jim West >Adjunct Professor of Bible >Quartz Hill School of Theology > >jwest@highland.net >or >jwest@theology.edu > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 17 14:16:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26051; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:16:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:16:21 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login2.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970317111733.276f6638@mail.infoave.net> 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: 845 With apologies for the self-serve, B. Ehrman, "The Text of the Gospels at the End of the Second Century," in _Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994_, ed. D. C. Parker and C. -B. Amphoux, NTTS, 22; Brill, 1996, pp. 95-123 (where I deal specifically with the question). Along with Parker's monograph, which is an amazing piece of work, imho, this collection of essays is the best place to start for any questions on D, again, imho. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: > > I am interested in the purported anti-semitism of D. > > Could someone provide a bibiography? > > Thanks, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West > Adjunct Professor of Bible > Quartz Hill School of Theology > > jwest@highland.net > or > jwest@theology.edu > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 18 00:06:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA26785; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:06:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:06:00 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Hexapla In-Reply-To: <199703150937.BAA06270@mail-01.telis.org> 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: 486 The most recent edition of the Hexapla that I'm aware of is a reprint of Field's work Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive Veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964). I don't know, however, whether it's still in print. 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 Mar 18 14:10:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28015; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:10:27 -0500 Date: 18 Mar 1997 19:10:20 -0000 Message-ID: <19970318191020.7951.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (waltzmn@skypoint.com) Subject: Re: Rev 9:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1110 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A preference for middle readings would have to be based on an assumption that two-step corruptions are much less likely than any single-step corruption. If you examine Text und Textwert and compare the likely chains of descent visible in the more complex units of variation, you will find many, many cases of two-step, three-step, etc. corruptions. This can be seen online (in cryptic form) in the rough ascii database http://www.znet.com/~broman/acts-tut.zip 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 iQCVAwUBMy7ocGCU4mTNq7IdAQF4+AQAhqvmyhVQ2DedY1dIt6vqNt99BQ9MFBoZ dmrSxQlAXtAD1yMM3vuQ/oI2wxt/1A+CLawXrC15FZ5c3TiPQbBSHsX44YIBGWUW MYcS6WpBcPceeYTIUpq/8s75iWJmEYMSn6bn8p60g+mkKVM251qYB+eCrMQXwa/b Twgp0oqBYG4= =xfa5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 18 21:31:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA28901; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:31:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:31:24 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: call for articles and reviews 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: 1536 TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism is now in its second year of operation and is actively seeking articles (both full-length articles and shorter textual notes) on topics related to the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and/or New Testament textual criticism. Articles that transcend the traditional canonical boundaries are especially welcome, as are articles that demonstrate the connection between textual criticism and other critical tools of biblical interpretation. All articles that are submitted will be reviewed by the TC editorial board before being considered for publication. Send all submissions or inquiries to James R. Adair (jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu). TC also accepts reviews of books that deal with topics related to biblical textual criticism. Most books for review are assigned to TC editors or participants on the tc-list, although other reviewers may be used at times. One of the advantages that TC enjoys as an electronic journal is that reviews of books can appear much more quickly than in traditional print journals. For this reason, book reviewers are asked to submit book reviews within six to eight weeks (usually) of being assigned a book. Unsolicited reviews may be accepted from time to time. All questions concerning book reviews should be directed to the TC book review editor, Leonard Greenspoon (ljgrn@creighton.edu). 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 18 22:55:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29053; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:55:12 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970319035733.215706ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:57:33 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1020 At 09:10 3/17/97 -0500, KHGrenier@AOL.COM wrote: >The only difference is that Mark adds our varient word (you choose) in the >blank. It seems to me that if his original wording were "with pity" Mt & Lk >would have very likely kept it in their Gospels. On the other hand, if the >wording originally was one of anger, it might have been removed by the other >writers as not suiting their overall purpose in writing about that incident. I think this is a good point, and one I've wondered about before. However, although Markan priority is one of the intrinsic probabilities used in evaluating the internal evidence [Metzger, TEXTUAL COMMENTART, p. *14], one is hard pressed to find many examples where Markan priority even comes up much less where it plays a decisive role in TC of the gospels. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 18 23:20:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA29122; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:20:16 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970319042237.2467d568@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:22:37 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1744 At 05:18 3/7/97 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote: >The article mentioned is by R.F. Shedinger; it has some errors in fact as >well as in its presuppositions. Additionally, it (inexplicably?) fails to >address points I raised in my review (in JBL 108 [1989], pp. 722-726) of the >first edition of Howard's book (which was titled *The Gospel of Matthew >according to a Primitive Hebrew Text* [1988]; the second, revised edition >is more modestly titled, *Hebrew Gospel of Matthew* [1995]). The remarks in >my review are self-explanatory, and supported by textual evidence; I am >preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication. My thanks to this list for pointing out both Shedinger's and Petersen's articles. My biggest problem with Shedinger's article is his use of P45's readings in Luke and Mark. For example, Lk11:13 is understood to be from Greek Q, not a Hebrew Matthew. So how does a Hebrew Matthew fit in? Petersen, p. 723, criticized Howard's first edition for presenting 21 variants explanable on the presumption that Greek Mt is based on a Hebrew text. (Howard's second edition, which I have, handles this point better.) Petersen pointed out that requires the following assump- tions: (a) Greek Matthew depends on a Hebrew Matthew and (b) Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is faithful to original Hebrew text of Mt. In my view, Shedinger's article requires the additional assumptions: that (c) Luke [and Mark!] too depends on Hebrew Matthew and (d) P45 is more faithful to Lk's Greek text. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 19 00:02:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA29247; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:02:41 -0500 From: KHGrenier@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:03:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970319000130_-1371344798@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1645 Looking at Mark 1:41, I think a fair synopsis of the issue is as follows: Reading #1 - with compassion Reading #2 - with anger Reading #3 - word omitted I. The external evidence is very heavily in favor of reading #1. Reading #1 is found in Aleph, A, B, C, K, L, W, Theta, Delta, and a host of other MSS. Reading #2 is only found in D and some Latin readings. Reading #3 is in one Latin text (not all MSS cited for each reading, but you get the picture). Therefore, "with compassion" has the most, the earliest, and the most geographically widespread evidence. II. The internal evidence is more subjective and more mixed. Here follows some brief bullets: 1. shorter reading - reading #3 2. more difficult - reading #2 3. Matches author's style/vocab - reading #1 (the word occurs 3x in Mark, reading #2, not at all elsewhere in Mark) 4. fits the context/theology of the author - Any of the readings. Reading #1 fits our overall picture. Reading #2, however, may be in line with verse 43 where Jesus addresses the man sternly. (The question here though is whether verse 41 wasn't changed by attraction to verse 43 later). Reading #3 obvoiusly presents no problems at all in this regard. 5. Less harmonious with parallel passages - reading #2 6. Best potential source of other readings - Reading #3 I would welcome comments on these points. However, I am particularly interested in thoughts on the art/science of weighing the various pieces of evidence when coming to a decision. I'm not so concerned with the right answer as I am in hearing how different people have come to their decisions on what it is. Thanks, Kevin Grenier From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 19 09:10:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29855; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:10:03 -0500 From: Michael Collins Message-Id: <199703191410.JAA20864@gold.interlog.com> Subject: Re: P45 and SHEM-TOB's Hebrew Matthew To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:10:30 -0500 (EST) Cc: johnhurd@interlog.com (Michael Collins) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970319042237.2467d568@pop.mindspring.com> from "Stephen C. Carlson" at Mar 18, 97 11:22:37 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2080 You do know the work of Bill Farmer (William R.) et al.? They posit Matthean priority in a form that includes Mark and Q and M material. They would love more grist for their mill! But it just won't work for a large number of reasons. Cheers! -- John Hurd > > At 05:18 3/7/97 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote: > >The article mentioned is by R.F. Shedinger; it has some errors in fact as > >well as in its presuppositions. Additionally, it (inexplicably?) fails to > >address points I raised in my review (in JBL 108 [1989], pp. 722-726) of the > >first edition of Howard's book (which was titled *The Gospel of Matthew > >according to a Primitive Hebrew Text* [1988]; the second, revised edition > >is more modestly titled, *Hebrew Gospel of Matthew* [1995]). The remarks in > >my review are self-explanatory, and supported by textual evidence; I am > >preparing a critique of Shedinger's article for publication. > > My thanks to this list for pointing out both Shedinger's and Petersen's > articles. My biggest problem with Shedinger's article is his use of > P45's readings in Luke and Mark. For example, Lk11:13 is understood > to be from Greek Q, not a Hebrew Matthew. So how does a Hebrew Matthew > fit in? > > Petersen, p. 723, criticized Howard's first edition for presenting 21 > variants explanable on the presumption that Greek Mt is based on a > Hebrew text. (Howard's second edition, which I have, handles this > point better.) Petersen pointed out that requires the following assump- > tions: (a) Greek Matthew depends on a Hebrew Matthew and (b) Shem-Tob's > Hebrew Matthew is faithful to original Hebrew text of Mt. In my view, > Shedinger's article requires the additional assumptions: that (c) Luke > [and Mark!] too depends on Hebrew Matthew and (d) P45 is more faithful > to Lk's Greek text. > > Stephen Carlson > -- > Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, > scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. > http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 19 10:01:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29940; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:01:16 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970319000130_-1371344798@emout11.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:07:07 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2342 On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, KHGrenier@AOL.COM wrote, in part: >Looking at Mark 1:41, I think a fair synopsis of the issue is as follows: > >Reading #1 - with compassion >Reading #2 - with anger >Reading #3 - word omitted > >I. The external evidence is very heavily in favor of reading #1. I think we need to look at the external evidence a little differently. This list omitted some important data. Reading #1 is found in Aleph A B C L W Delta Theta fam 1 fam 13 33 579 892 2427 Byz aur c e f l q vg sin pesh hark pal sa bo arm geo Reading #2 is found in D a d ff2 r1 Reading #3 has trivial support (b and a lectionary) Thus reading #1 is Alexandrian (Aleph B C L Delta 33 579 892 2427 sa bo), "Caesarean" (Theta fam 1 fam 13 28 565 arm geo), Byzantine (A E G K Pi etc.) -- and has support of the African Latin (e), plus some other later Latin witnesses Reading #2 is "Western," but really has support only of the European Latin tradition. Reading #3 is probably accidental. >II. The internal evidence is more subjective and more mixed. Here follows >some brief bullets: > >1. shorter reading - reading #3 Not really. "The shorter reading" does not apply in cases like this. #3 is accidental, and "the shorter reading" does not apply in such cases. >5. Less harmonious with parallel passages - reading #2 Looking at the Aland synopsis, I would say that *either* #1 or #2 is less harmonious. According to SQE13, page 59, *neither* Matthew nor Luke has a verb here. Thus #3 is the harmonizing reading. (Though I still think it's an error. :-) >6. Best potential source of other readings - Reading #3 ??? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see it. I don't see any reading as the obvious source of the other readings. Now for my conclusions: The internal evidence is, at best, neutral. So the decision is made on external evidence. Reading #1 has the support of the *entire* Alexandrian and "Caesarean" texts. It has strong "Western" support, too. I say it's original. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Wed Mar 19 17:01:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA00906; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:01:13 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:02:46 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: middle readings X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <3708C7B3309@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1001 Given three readings, such as "in," "inside," and "outside" in which one is more like the other two than they are like each other, the rule must be that the original reading is the one that explains the other two. In the example, "in" explains "inside" and "inside" explains "outside" perfectly well, and vice versa, "outside" explains "inside" and "inside" explains "in" perfectly well; it is not a foregone conclusion that "inside" explains both "in" and "outside," that is only another possibility. In fact, the following is also possible: ":in" is the original reading, "outside" is a mistake, and "inside" is an unsuccessful correction. Also, if "in" explains "inside" satisfactorily and for some reason "inside" does not explain "outside" satisfactorily (remember, similarity is not explanation) then there is no way to tell which reading is the original. And so on. See my book, Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis (1974), pp. 42-56, for correct rules. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 19 17:33:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA00950; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:33:38 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3708C7B3309@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:38:50 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: middle readings Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1250 On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" wrote: >See my book, Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis (1974), >pp. 42-56, for correct rules. I'm sorry, I *can't* let this pass. "Correct"? How do you know? Can you prove it? Have you the autograph in hand? *All* canons of criticism are theories -- theories about how the text is transmitted. Some -- e.g. "That reading is best which best explains the others" -- are almost universally accepted, but they are still only theories. If any rule could be *proved* to be correct, then textual criticism would simply be a matter of applying the rules. But, obviously, it is not. This is not a criticism of Dearing or his book. Where his rules differ from mine, it's certainly possible that he's right and I'm wrong. I just can't *stand* this sort of sloppy language. Grumble, grumble, rant, rave.... OK, I'm through now. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 20 08:17:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA01933; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:17:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:18:08 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: hebrew cc: tc Subject: variations in LXX text(s) 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: 479 I freely admit that I know almost nothing about the LXX. I'm trying to figure out which text Wulfia used as his Vorlage for his translation of the Tanakh (most scholars say it was the LXX). How great are the differences between different text families within the LXX? Would one be able to work backwards from the Gothic text to determine which LXX variants were used as the Vorlage? Or are the variations so small that they would get lost in a translation? - Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 20 14:28:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02775; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:28:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:28:39 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: hebrew cc: tc Subject: LXX and Nehemiah 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: 304 I am, more particularly, interested in the LXX text of Nehemiah (Nehemiah being the largest surviving fragment of the Gothic Tanakh). Would there be large variations in the LXX Vorlage of Nehemiah, from which Wulfila worked? Or is the text of LXX Nehemiah free of major variations? - Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 20 15:05:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02927; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:05:14 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:11:11 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: LXX and Nehemiah Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1350 On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: >I am, more particularly, interested in the LXX text of Nehemiah (Nehemiah >being the largest surviving fragment of the Gothic Tanakh). > >Would there be large variations in the LXX Vorlage of Nehemiah, from which >Wulfila worked? Or is the text of LXX Nehemiah free of major variations? Without being an LXX expert, I can point out one major variation: Parts of Nehemiah were translated twice! I refer, of course, to 1 Esdras, which is primarily a translation of Ezra, but which includes Neh. 7:73-8:12 (more or less) in Chapter 9. Beyond that, I can only say that the Rahlfs apparatus for Ezra/Nehemiah is unusually large, and contains an unusually high number of singular readings of B. This seems to imply an "Old Greek" text found in B, and a revised text in A etc. Chances are that the Gothic comes from the A text. But that's based only on analogies from other books; you would have to check the actual data to be certain. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Mar 20 18:09:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03207; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:09:10 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:11:03 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Mark 1:41 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <389B03224A2@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4899 In the Greek mss before the tenth century we have readings KAI SPLAGCNISQEIS in 01 (Sinaiticus), 03 (Vaticanus), and 892, KAI ORGISQEIS in 05 (D), SPLAGCNISQEIS DE O IS in 019, and O DE IS SPLAGCNISQEIS in 02 (Alexandrinus), 04, 07, 09, 0ll, 017, 021, 030, 031, 032, 034, 037, 038, 041, 043, 045, 047, 0211, 399, 461, 565, 566, 1080, 1424, 1500, 2142, 2224, 2500 (and < >nisqeis in 33, and larger lacunae in 013, 022, 024, 044). My university library has misplaced our colorphoto reproduction of 03 and we do not have the earlier photocopies, so I cannot now speak to its exact arrangement, which may affect the following analysis. I would be grateful for the lineation in question if any of you have a copy of a photographic reproduction of 03. Note that SPLAGCNISQEIS fills a whole line in 01 and 019 (here it would be valuable to know about 03 also). We can account for the omission of the participle in some Latin mss as resulting from an eyeskip by a copist working with a ms like 01 (i.e., he left out a line). We can also account for the transposition as between 019 and 02, etc., in the same way, i.e., once the participle was omitted and the omission was remarked on in the margin of some ms, a copyist put it back in the wrong place (it is very common when we have readings xy and yx to find mss that have only x or only y). We might then speculate that ORGISQEIS in the left column of 05 ("iratus" in the right column) was an unlucky attempt to correct the omission of SPLAGCNISQEIS. But such speculation is unnecessary, unless we are also willing to suppose that Mark wrote ORGISQEIS because he had no idea of how Jesus healed, and his error was replaced by someone who knew. I am familiar with the reasoning about the readings set out by Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975 ed. It takes no account of the nature of Jesus' healing by the power of the Spirit either, but then 1975 is a long time in the past. On March 15-17 I attended the course "Spirituality and Healing in Medicine" offered in Los Angeles by the Department of Continuing Education of Harvard Medical School (the course had been offered in Boston this year and last, and will be offered next year in Texas). Richard Friedman PhD reported an experiment in which an anaesthetist stood at the bedside and spoke only briefly and impersonally to some patients, but sat down by other patients, took them by the hand, and established a caring relationship with them. The second group came through their operations better than the first by a statistically significant percent. Many will find these results unsurprizing. (I am reminded of a remark made twice over by Herbert Benson MD, the organizer of the course and a leader in the research there reported: when first he announced what he intended to do, more than one of his colleagues said, "Herb, what took you so long?") One of the faculty for the course was the publisher of the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, who long ago wrote in Science and Health, "Did the careless doctor, the nurse, the cook, and the brusque business visitor sympathetically know the thorns they plant in the pillow of the sick and the heavenly homesick looking away from earth, -- Oh, did they know! -- this knowledge would do much more towards healing the sick and preparing their helpers for the `midnight call,' than all cries of `Lord, Lord!' The benign thought of Jesus, finding utterance in such words as `Take no thought for your life,' would heal the sick, and so enable them to rise above the supposed necessitry for physical thought-taking and doctoring; but if the un- selfish affections be lacking, and common sense and common humanity are disregarded, what mental quality remains, with which to evoke healing from the outstretched arm of righteousness? . . . If the [Christian] Scientist has enough Christly affection to win his own pardon, and such commendation as the Magdalen [as she has since been called] gained from Jesus [at Simon the Pharisee's house] then he is Christian enough to practice scientifically and deal with his patients compassionately; and the result will correspond with the spiritual intent" (pp. 364-365, part of the chapter "Christian Science Practice"). (I repeat my offer to send a copy of this useful book to interested persons.) My point here is that when analyzing the biblical texts, we must not set aside our knowledge of God and His goodness, as proven by Moses, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and people like ourselves, nor ignore the laws of healing laid down and exemplified in our texts, -- exemplified still in widespread experience today. Indeed, when it is apropos, we should apply that knowledge at the beginning, and then perhaps find supplementary support in the usual rules of textual criticism. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 20 19:19:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA03265; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:19:24 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:20:58 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Mark 1:41 addendum X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <38ADA9B1B66@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1109 Our librarians found our copy of the colorphoto reproduction of 03 (Vaticanus). The lineation is question is KAQARISAIKAISPLAG CNISQEISEKTEINASTN(N) In the original the IK in the first line is exactly over EK in the second, setting a trap for the unwary copyist. It may then be that the participle was omitted by someone working with a ms like 03 whose eye dropped down a line in the middle of the column. I think it more likely that the loss occurred when copying a ms like 01, where the participle occupies a whole line, but the argument that the loss was due to eyeskip is not affected. The lineation in 01 and 03, both fourth-century mss, suggests that the loss came early in the history of the text, even if it is found only in Latin mss. Note that this argument effects only the relation between SPLAGCNISQEIS and nothing at all. The argument against ORGISQEIS remains as before. I will venture that none of the mss with Mark 1:41 from before the tenth century has such narrow columns that ORGISQEIS would fill a whole line (if I am wrong, please inform me). Vinton A. Dearing. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 20 19:23:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA03287; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:23:32 -0500 Date: 21 Mar 1997 00:23:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19970321002329.13806.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from ANDREW SMITH on Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:18:08 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: variations in LXX text(s) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1197 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- smitha@scnc.aaps.k12.mi.us asked: > Would one be able to work backwards from the Gothic text to determine > which LXX variants were used as the Vorlage? Yes. The result was that the Vorlage was found to be from a Lucianic edition of the LXX, which is of course not surprising, given Wulfilas' roots in Constantinople. The number of variants available for this analysis was not large, as success seems to have depended on one leaf of Nehemiah having been cleaned and become more legible. This information is from Streitberg's "Die Gotische Bibel". 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 iQCVAwUBMzHUyGCU4mTNq7IdAQGI6AP8CBijRmpLkpOjpRYyhLON0Clpr91/0YXZ 3ujJ/T95S8Zad6DlZmgXX0xHnbX31J8RkQBuWr390CjSjcfZqFFJUkKKZwHRMnfg e01sRv+i4oFX/4eLf44vJVtc+uDaI1uhm21CZiCN3xwTgsl1yqkGm+5z+sw1jUu/ +uua21dmLL4= =S+yJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 20 20:33:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA03368; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:33:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:33:42 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc Subject: Hebrew texts 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: 306 I am familiar with the BHS and Mass. text which it represents (mainly from the Leningrad Codex). But I've got a catalogue which offers two other texts: [a] the Ben Asher text, based on Sephardic manuscripts, especially British Library manuscript Or. 2626-8 [b] the Letteris text What are these? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 08:57:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA03836; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 08:57:52 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199703211358.OAA35182@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 21 Mar 97 16:12:10 +0100 Subject: Re: Mark 1:41 addendum To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <38ADA9B1B66@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> 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: 1578 On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote (inter alia): >Our librarians found our copy of the colorphoto reproduction of 03 >(Vaticanus). The lineation is question is > KAQARISAIKAISPLAG > CNISQEISEKTEINASTN(N) >In the original the IK in the first line is exactly over EK in the second, >setting a trap for the unwary copyist. It may then be that the >participle was omitted by someone working with a ms like 03 whose >eye dropped down a line in the middle of the column. I think it more >likely that the loss occurred when copying a ms like 01, where the >participle occupies a whole line, but the argument that the loss was >due to eyeskip is not affected. The lineation in 01 and 03, both >fourth-century mss, suggests that the loss came early in the history >of the text, even if it is found only in Latin mss. Usually I appreciate arguments from the viewpoint of mechanical corruption, for, after all, this type of variant readings is most heavily attested in NT textual transmission. However, refering to the lineation of 01 and 03 in this specific instance raises the following problem. The lay-out of 4th century O1 is four columns per page and that of 03 is three colums per page. If the supposed eyeskip happened to take place "early in the history of the text", we would have to look for earlier examples of MS lay-out's displaying a line-length of around 16 letters. As far as I recall, off the top of my head, most early 2nd/3rd centuries' papyri don't fit these requirements. (I don't have the time to check it). Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 10:01:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03973; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 10:01:17 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 07:02:55 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: A text-critical question X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <3998E4D5F82@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 325 According to Leigh Rubin, as the animals were leaving the ark, one elephant said to the other, "That was a terrible trip. It rained every day." Question: did the ur-text read "almost every day" and does the answer depend on whether it was the momma elephant or the poppa elephant who was speaking? Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 12:36:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04284; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:36:23 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:38:02 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Mark 1:41, further addendum X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <39C23B11A0C@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2419 In reply to Ulrich Schmid, when I said that the omission took place "early" in the history of the text, I meant, in a period when the text was written in narrow columns, as in 01, 03, 09, 011, 019, 021, 024, 030, 038, 045, 0211, and 566. Because 01 and 03 are the earliest texts with which I work, they are "early" to me. But you make a good point. Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste says 09, 011, 021, 030, 038, 045 and 566 are ninth century (I have a manuscript note in my copy, which is the 1963 edition, indicating that 0211 has been redated to the seventh century). So there is no reason to suppose that the omission had to take place "early," only that (1) it could have taken place by the fourth century -- we cannot, of course, assert that 01 and 03 were the first manuscripts to be written in narrow columns merely because they hap- pen to be the first such manuscripts to have survived -- and (2) it certainly took place by the fifth century, the date of it(b), which omits the participle, as given in UBS4, p. 24*. The omission in lectionary 866, written in 1174, may well be independent of that in it(b), a consideration which led me to examine all the manuscripts with narrow columns listed above, with the following results: 01: MEKAQARISAIKAI SPLAGCNISQEIS EKTINASTHNCEI 03: KAQARISAIKAISPLAG CNISQEISEKTEINASTH(N) (EK under IK) 09: KAQARISAI.ODE ISSPLAGCNISQEIS EKTEINASTHN 011: SAI.ODEISSPLAG CNISQEIS.EKTEI (but EK is under PL) 019: SAIMEKAQARISAI SPLAGCNHSQEIS DEOIS.EKTEINAS 021: SAI+ODEISSPLAGCNIS QEIS.EKTEINASTHN 024: lacuna 030: RISAI.ODEIS SPLAGCNISQEIS EKTEINAS 038: ODEISSPLAGC (taken from a printed edition so NISQEIS'EKTH vertical line up of letters uncertain) 045: SAIMEKAQARISAI+O DEISSPLAGCNISQEIS EKTEINASTHNKEIRA 0211: SAI. ODEISSPLA (space as shown) CNISQEIS.EKTEI (T is under SP) 566: saimekaqarisai: odeissplagcnisqeis [end of column and page] ekteinasthncei So a copyist may have omitted the participle by skipping a line in a manuscript like 030, and that omission may have been transmitted to lectionary 866. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 13:19:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04385; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:19:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199703211816.MAA01856@endeavor> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Cc: Subject: Re: A text-critical question Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:16:22 -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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1292 (with apologies to Bart Ehrman) NOTE: what follows is a joke, and bears no resemblance to any opinions held by the author. > From: Vinton A. Dearing > According to Leigh Rubin, as the animals were leaving the ark, one > elephant said to the other, "That was a terrible trip. It rained > every day." Question: did the ur-text read "almost every day" and > does the answer depend on whether it was the momma elephant or the > poppa elephant who was speaking? Yes. Bauer's reconstruction of early elephant history shows that mother elephants were oppressed. Oppressed mother elephants would never speak in absolutes ("every day") (unlike white male members of the privileged class like myself). Poppa elephants would never shy away from absolute terms, so it's impossible that he would have said "almost every day." And all white male members of the privileged class know that momma elephants never quit talking long enough for poppa elephants to get a word in edgewise, so . . . . Therefore, the ur-text must have read "almost every day." It was changed by misogynistic scribes. They recognized the clear tones of a female voice in the text and removed them, and thus introduced this orthodox corruption of scripture. (I don't think I'll sign this.) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 15:40:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04634; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:40:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:40:29 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Hebrew texts To: TC-List Message-ID: <199703211540_MC2-12F4-1B44@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1068 Andrew Smith asked about two editions of the Hebrew Bible: 1. Norman Snaith, unsatisfied that codex L, which was the basis of BHK/S, was the best representative of the Ben Asher tradition, prepared an edition based on his study of several famous, high quality, Sephardic mss. It could have been a worthwhile contribution to the study of the various strands of masoretic tradition; unfortunately, the execution of the project seems to be plagued by a number of misprints and apparent inconsistencies. There was a very critical review of Snaith in HUCA. Unfortunately I do not have the bibliographic reference at hand. 2. In 1852 Meyer Levi Letteris first published a slightly revised edition of the van der Hooght Hebrew Bible, which itself was based on the edition of Athias and Buxtorf's Rabbinic Bible. Letteris has been frequently reprinted and represents a generally reliable edition of the text of the Hebrew Bible as found in the Rabbinic Bible tradition Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 16:11:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04691; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:11:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:11:46 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: A text-critical question In-Reply-To: <199703211816.MAA01856@endeavor> 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: 1051 > > According to Leigh Rubin, as the animals were leaving the ark, one > > elephant said to the other, "That was a terrible trip. It rained > > every day." Question: did the ur-text read "almost every day" and > > does the answer depend on whether it was the momma elephant or the > > poppa elephant who was speaking? It needs to be noted that, in early literature refering to this text, the poppa elephants were sometimes refered to as papa elephants. This indicates a continued fluidity of orthography and of the language itself. Therefore, the ur-text may well have read either "every day" or "almost every day", but given the fluidity of the morphological development, it could also have read "most every day" (a colloquial construction, not technically grammatically correct, but frequently attested in early MSS) or "most days". But the real problem is this: whichever phrase may have been used in the autograph, that phrase has probably undergone some semantic shift in the time between the autograph and the fixing of a standard text. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 18:07:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04839; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:07:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199703212308.PAA13505@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:08:19 -500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: A text-critical question Priority: normal References: <199703211816.MAA01856@endeavor> 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1280 On 21 Mar 97 at 16:11, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > > According to Leigh Rubin, as the animals were leaving the ark, one > > > elephant said to the other, "That was a terrible trip. It rained > > > every day." Question: did the ur-text read "almost every day" and > > > does the answer depend on whether it was the momma elephant or the > > > poppa elephant who was speaking? > > It needs to be noted that, in early literature refering to this text, the > poppa elephants were sometimes refered to as papa elephants. This > indicates a continued fluidity of orthography and of the language itself. > Therefore, the ur-text may well have read either "every day" or "almost > every day", but given the fluidity of the morphological development, it > could also have read "most every day" (a colloquial construction, not > technically grammatically correct, but frequently attested in early MSS) > or "most days". But the real problem is this: whichever phrase may have > been used in the autograph, that phrase has probably undergone some > semantic shift in the time between the autograph and the fixing of a > standard text. It should not be forgotten that the Samaritan rescension attributes the remark to the rhinoceros rather than the elephant. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 19:30:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04912; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:30:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:31:00 -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:Three new books for TC-list Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 719 HURRY! HURRY! HURRY! This is a once-in-a-lifetime (or at least weekend) offer, not to be repeated. This is your chance to influence scholars and win over tenure-promotion committees. Below are three new books, just received, and ready and available for TC review. You ask, I send you the book, you agree to send us your review within two months, we edit it within a week, it's published in TC--voila: what could be easier? Make your choice quickly; supplies are limited (to say the least)--thanks, leonard MULLEN, Roderic L. THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM HANNAH, Darrell D. THE TEXT OF 1 CORINTHIANS IN THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN WEVERS, John William. NOTES ON THE GREEK TEXT OF LEVITICUS From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 21:40:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05078; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 21:40:48 -0500 Message-ID: <333346B4.549E@concentric.net> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:40:52 -0800 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Three new books for TC-list 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: 243 Dear Leonard, If I'm not too late, I'd very much like to review one of these books. My first choice would be 1 Corinthians in Origen, but I'm flexible. Thanks. Kenneth Litwak Ph.D. student in NT Graduate Theological Union Berkeley, CA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 21 21:54:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05102; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 21:54:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 21:54:14 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: phrog1@juno.com Subject: Re: A text-critical question In-Reply-To: <199703211816.MAA01856@endeavor> 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: 1463 Ha! You laugh, but *I* for one am convinced! :-) Bart Ehrman On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Perry L. Stepp wrote: > > (with apologies to Bart Ehrman) NOTE: what follows is a joke, and bears no > resemblance to any opinions held by the author. > > > From: Vinton A. Dearing > > > According to Leigh Rubin, as the animals were leaving the ark, one > > elephant said to the other, "That was a terrible trip. It rained > > every day." Question: did the ur-text read "almost every day" and > > does the answer depend on whether it was the momma elephant or the > > poppa elephant who was speaking? > > Yes. Bauer's reconstruction of early elephant history shows that mother > elephants were oppressed. Oppressed mother elephants would never speak in > absolutes ("every day") (unlike white male members of the privileged class > like myself). Poppa elephants would never shy away from absolute terms, so > it's impossible that he would have said "almost every day." And all white > male members of the privileged class know that momma elephants never quit > talking long enough for poppa elephants to get a word in edgewise, so . . . > . > > Therefore, the ur-text must have read "almost every day." It was changed > by misogynistic scribes. They recognized the clear tones of a female voice > in the text and removed them, and thus introduced this orthodox corruption > of scripture. > > (I don't think I'll sign this.) > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 23 11:56:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06664; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:56:16 -0500 Message-ID: <333560BA.455B@mail.link.net.mt> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:56:26 +0100 From: ray zammit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Aphrahat the Persian Sage 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: 125 Hello, do you happen to know of any on-line resources about Aphrahat the Sage please? Please reply privately. Thanks, Ray From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 24 00:43:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA00583; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 00:43:11 -0500 Message-ID: <33361479.3481@concentric.net> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:43:21 -0800 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Three new books for TC-list References: <333346B4.549E@concentric.net> 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: 123 I apologixe to the list that while under the influence of Nyquil I sent a private message to the whole list. Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 24 01:46:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA00640; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 01:46:17 -0500 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:20:33 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: APHRAHAT X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <1BBC1813412@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1018 > ST) > Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id LAA06664; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:56:16 -0500 > Message-ID: <333560BA.455B@mail.link.net.mt> > Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:56:26 +0100 > From: ray zammit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Aphrahat the Persian Sage > 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 > > Hello, > do you happen to know of any on-line resources about Aphrahat the Sage > please? > Please reply privately. > > Thanks, > Ray Robert Owens should know. > He is at Emmanuel school of Religion, Johnson City. emmanuel@solinet.net > 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 Mon Mar 24 09:07:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01013; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:07:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:07:30 -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: Three new books for TC-list Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 313 All three of the books I mentioned last week for TC have been assigned. Thanks to all who volunteered their services. Keep tuned for later developments when we receive other volumes...and please feel free to recommend books to us or to recommend to publishers that they send books to us..thanks again, leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 24 09:45:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01089; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:45:31 -0500 Message-ID: From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:44:20 GMT Subject: Re: Aphrahat the Persian Sage Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 562 An English translation of some of Aphrahat's demonstrations (1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 17,21, 22) can be downloaded from the following site, http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers/ They are taken from NPNF ser.2 vol. XIII. 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 Mon Mar 24 11:30:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01802; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:30:36 -0500 From: WFWarren@aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:31:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970324113104_-1236676686@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Mac collation program Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 349 Some time ago (perhaps last spring) mention was made of a Mac based program for collating mss. If you know of such a program, I would appreciate any info you could furnish. Please reply directly to me rather than occupy the list's time and space. Thanks, Bill Warren Professor of New Testament and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 24 15:18:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02515; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:18:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:18:26 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: NT Journals In-Reply-To: <33361479.3481@concentric.net> 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: 387 Could some NT types list one or two scholarly journals for text criticism and/or NT studies in general? Please exclude the following: general theology, The Bible Translator, JSNT, JBL, Novum Testamentum, NT Studies, Thanks in advance. -- 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 Mon Mar 24 16:20:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02701; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:20:52 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:22:35 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: text-critical journals X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <3E7E419555F@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 289 The journal named Text (one issue a year), Studies in Bibliography, The Library, Literary and Linguistic Computing, and Computers and the Humanities (if it is still published) occasionally have discussions of textual criticism from which New Testament specialists can learn something. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 24 17:15:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02846; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:15:58 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:19:35 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: NT Journals Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 602 Ron Minton wrote; >Could some NT types list one or two scholarly journals for text criticism >and/or NT studies in general? > >Please exclude the following: general theology, The Bible Translator, >JSNT, JBL, Novum Testamentum, NT Studies, > I have always been blessed to have access to a library that had NT Abstracts. It is very expensive, but I wouldn't want to be without it. Carlton, -- 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 Mon Mar 24 23:42:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03147; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:42:04 -0500 Message-ID: <3337579E.1D04@concentric.net> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:42:06 -0800 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: NT Journals 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: 380 >From time to time one sees text-critical articles or notes in Novum Testamentum. Discussion of the fragments associated with Matthew that cuased such an uproar last year appeared in the Tyndale Bulletin. One would also likely find such discussions in New Testament Stduies, to name just three journals, not to mention the electronic journal related to this list. Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 08:24:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA03533; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:24:47 -0500 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199703251325.OAA26832@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 15:39:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Mac collation program To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <970324113104_-1236676686@emout09.mail.aol.com> 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: 567 Those interested in a "Mac based program for collating mss" should contact http://elsa.dmu.ac.uk/~jdp/Collate/collate.html for more information on a program called *Collate 2*. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster >Some time ago (perhaps last spring) mention was made of a Mac based program >for collating mss. If you know of such a program, I would appreciate any >info you could furnish. Please reply directly to me rather than occupy the >list's time and space. >Thanks, >Bill Warren >Professor of New Testament and Greek >New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 09:22:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03616; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:22:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:21:39 +0100 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: M.Bakker@let.uva.nl (bakker) Subject: Re: Mac collation program Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1920 I intended to reply to Bill Warren's request off list, but since collation is daily praxis for TC-ers a few words on Collate: This is a very effective and smart collation program for the Mac. The new project edition of Collate 2 will be even better (we are now beta-testing it). I would never been able to write my dissertation (see Dr Parker's review in TC 2) without it. For the collation of MSS with a lot of orthographic variation it is worth to make the considerable investment of digitising the witnesses in extenso (if this process is done properly, it has to be done only once). Through a process of what we call data abstraction you can isolate in a transparent and heuristic way the *significant* variants. For Slavic and Armenian MSS it proved very successful. I also collated Greek Apostolos lectionary MSS. Although Greek (Byzantine) MSS are much more stable, it still remains methodologically very prudent to work in the following fashion: instead of picking the significant variant readings (disregarding itacisms etc.), the researcher has to indicate which readings are *not* significant (Collate initially lists every difference as a variant). Collate offers the possibility of close co-operation and - very important - checking every step in the work of a computer collater. Michael Bakker - Amsterdam >Those interested in a "Mac based program for collating mss" should contact > > http://elsa.dmu.ac.uk/~jdp/Collate/collate.html > >for more information on a program called *Collate 2*. > >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > > > >>Some time ago (perhaps last spring) mention was made of a Mac based program >>for collating mss. If you know of such a program, I would appreciate any >>info you could furnish. Please reply directly to me rather than occupy the >>list's time and space. > >>Thanks, > >>Bill Warren >>Professor of New Testament and Greek >>New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 09:45:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03676; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:45:11 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199703251445.PAA22682@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 16:59:40 +0100 Subject: Re: Mac collation program 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: 65 Sorry, I used the wrong return address. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 09:56:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03706; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:56:42 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199703251457.PAA23708@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 17:11:07 +0100 Subject: Re: NT Journals To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 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: 2546 Depending on the languages one is familiar with and/or the questions one = likes=20 to address, I would suggest the following journals related to the study o= f the=20 biblical text and to textual criticism in general: Revue Biblique, Paris Biblica, Roma Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bonn (Germany) Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Stuttgart und Leipzig (Germany) Scrittura e Civilt=E0, Firenze (Italy) Scriptorium, Bruxelles (Belgium) Revue Biblique and Biblica occasionally publish text critical studies fro= m both=20 parts of the Bible (as, e.g., NTS, NT, JBL). Non-English articles usually= =20 include an English summary. Warning for beginners!!!: The other journals are devoted to manuscript=20 transmission in general, mostly medieval, mostly non-biblical, mostly Gre= ek and=20 Latin covering all sorts of book-technical (codicological, scribal, edito= rial,=20 etc.) aspects as well as discussions of variae lectiones, conjectures,=20 corrections of older editions, newly edited texts, leaves, fragments,=20 illustrations, descriptions and examinations of ancient libraries,=20 identifications of scribes, etc. The articles are written in English, Fre= nch,=20 Italian, German, Spanish, Greek (rarely).=20 However, the advanced student of NT textual criticism should have at leas= t an=20 idea of what the real specialists in manuscript matters are doing. Very useful bibliographical tools are *Elenchus of Biblica, Roma*: A huge tool of reference covering all sorts = of=20 publications regarding biblical matters (exegesis, translations, editions= ,=20 languages, archeology, sociology, etc.). Disadvantage: It seeks to cover=20 exhaustively publications of one year, therefore it is usually four to fi= ve=20 years in delay.=20 *L' ann=E9e philologique, Paris*: Covering publications in the realm of C= lassics=20 in general including biblical matters and church history. The same disadv= antage=20 as the Elenchus. *Bibliographie papyrologique, Bruxelles*: Covering publications in the re= alm of=20 papyrology (papyri in Greek and Egyptian languages), mostly non-biblical.= =20 Ulrich Schmid, Muenster >Could some NT types list one or two scholarly journals for text criticis= m=20 >and/or NT studies in general?=20 >Please exclude the following: general theology, The Bible Translator,=20 >JSNT, JBL, Novum Testamentum, NT Studies, >Thanks in advance. -- >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 Tue Mar 25 13:16:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04029; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:16:26 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:20:00 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Johannes.van.der.Tak@let.uva.nl (j. g. v. d. tak) Subject: Re: Mac collation program Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1380 Dear Mr. Warren, The collation programme you are hinting at is probably "Collate", now in its version 2.1. It can be obtained in a scholar and a student edition. Contact The computers and variant texts project Research officer: Peter Robinson Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN (UK) Tel (+44) 865 273200 EMAIL peterr@vax.ox.ac.uk Here in Amsterdam we are using this programme with big success for collating Slavic NT texts already four years, including previous versions (from 1.1 onward). My colleague Bakker - from whom you might get a similar response to your tc-list posting - and I are quite enthousiastic about it: collations of some 15 pages A4 in 25 MSS are processed flawless by this programme. Non-latin alphabeths (Old Church Slavonic and Greek, in our case) are no problem at all and you can eliminate from the output all kind of orthographic or other not-textual divergence in the witnesses. We will be glad to provide you with detailed information about our experiences - as will be Peter Robinson who made the whole thing. Wish you a lot of success. What are you planning to collate, by the way? Johannes van der Tak Johannes G. van der Tak Slavic Seminar, University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam Private: Icaruslaan 18, NL-1185JM Amstelveen Tel/Fax: (+31) 20 641 45 28 E-mail: joannest@mail.let.uva.nl From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 13:30:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04106; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:30:43 -0500 Message-ID: <333843B5.5330@voicenet.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:29:25 -0800 From: "L. Mark Bruffey" Organization: CBTS Library X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mac collation program 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: 649 Is there any such program for PC users? Thanks, Mark Bruffey j. g. v. d. tak wrote: > > Dear Mr. Warren, > > The collation programme you are hinting at is probably "Collate", now in -- *********************************************************************** CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd 215 368 7538 (tel) Lansdale PA 19446 215 368 1003 (fax) cbtslibr@voicenet.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Good WORD of the day: "In the way of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death" -- Solomon, 1000 BCE. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 14:08:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04237; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:08:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:08:28 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: LARGE attachment:19 variants with OT quotes (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-851401618-859259256=:13283" Content-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1620 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ---559023410-851401618-859259256=:13283 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: Ron originally sent his messages with large attached WordPerfect files. They surpassed the default length limit of messages to the list, so I moved them to our ftp site. They can be downloaded from ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/Minton1.wpd and ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/Minton2.wpd Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:07:36 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" To: Textual Criticism list Subject: LARGE attachment:19 variants with OT quotes [first message] This [Minton1.wpd] is a Word Perfect 6.1 file. It illustrates the 19 NT places that contain a textual variant and quote the OT. I will try to send the narrative details in another post. [second message] This file [Minton2.wpd] is a Word Perfect 5.1 file. Enjoy! -- 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 ---559023410-851401618-859259256=:13283-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 14:34:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04319; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:34:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:34:57 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Subject: Netiquette Reminder [was: LARGE attachment:19 ...] 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2054 Thanks to James for putting on the web-site. But more generally, please, please, plase *NEVER* send attachments to this (or any other) mailing list. In the first place, most people do _not_ want these e-mail-bomb dropped in their in-box. Second, what you are sending is primarily gibberish to most people (unless they happen to have exactly the same software on the receiving end, or some way to decode it). Certainly, feel free to invite people to send you e-mail requesting the bundle (hint: specify that they put a special word in their "Subject" line so that you can identify these messags). Better yet, set up a website where folks can pick up the message at their leisure. But broadcasting attachments in this way is --at best-- bad net.manners. N James R. Adair wrote: > Ron originally sent his messages with large attached WordPerfect files. > They surpassed the default length limit of messages to the list, so I > moved them to our ftp site. They can be downloaded from > ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/Minton1.wpd and > ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC/Minton2.wpd > > Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List > Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press > and > Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site > ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:07:36 -0600 (CST) > From: "Ronald L. Minton" > To: Textual Criticism list > Subject: LARGE attachment:19 variants with OT quotes > > [first message] > This [Minton1.wpd] is a Word Perfect 6.1 file. It illustrates the 19 NT > places that contain a textual variant and quote the OT. I will try to > send the narrative details in another post. > > [second message] > This file [Minton2.wpd] is a Word Perfect 5.1 file. Enjoy! > > -- > 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 Tue Mar 25 17:27:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04676; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:27:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:36:56 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Journals To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199703251637_MC2-1343-C11@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 623 Here's an item that may not have been mentioned: New Testament Textual Research Update, published in Australia, is a bi-monthly digest dealing with current issues and recent discoveries in NTTC. It's rather pricey at US$40 for six 24 page issues, plus another $20 if you want the annual compilation as well, but it certainly offers a lot of up-to-date information in concise form. The editor is Stuart R. Pickering who contributes all the unsigned articles and notes. Also includes reviews and annotated bibliographies. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 19:25:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04865; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:25:47 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:27:23 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: collation programs X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <402F92378C9@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2732 A suite of three programs for collation may be downloaded from http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu/Individual/dearing They are computer-independent, except that fonts must be chosen that have all characters the same width. They are written in QBASIC. Briefly described: QPROOF. Compares two transcripts of the same manuscript and marks differences found. Used to find errors in transcription. QCHOP. Compares a transcript with a base transcript and divides its lines accordingly. If the strings of words are not fairly similar, user decides where the division is to be made or that a line has been added or omitted. QCOMP. Compares properly lineated transcripts with a base. User will normally wish to follow the instructions in the program for sending command for condensed type to the printer. Example is not condensed and so actually omits part of the normal output. TEXT PAGE LINE 1 JOHN CHAPTER 2 T.R. 588 23 EN AUTW KAI EN UMIN OTI H SKOTIA 03 1438B 15 04 202 04 01 123VB 30 KAI EN 025 42 20 02 107VB 47 ALHQES **** HMIN The above indicates that 03 and 04 agree with T.R. and that 025 agrees with 01. 01 and 024 begin the line with KAI but otherwise agree with T.R., 03 and 04. 02 has ALHQES instead of EN AUTW -- ALHQES is treated as an alternate to EN and AUTW is marked as omitted. Texts wholly omitting the line are listed at the end (none in the example). Added lines are inserted in their places. Special characteristics of the transcripts can be indicated in ways the user prefers. I indicate illegible letters by dots, erased words by prefixing a minus sign (-KAI), inserted words by a plus sign (+EN), altered words by a slash (HMIN/UMIN). When I can identify the copyist making the change I append his number (HMIN/UMIN2). I save space in altered words by using a hyphen to indicate parts of a word not in question (AFEONTAI/-WNTAI2 or GEINWSKOMEN/GIN-2). With condensed type there is room at the right to write out the variations in the usual way, e.g., 5.12 en toutw/; en/ 05; < >/ 33, and there I ignore itacisms and spelling variants for the usual reasons. I need the slashes so that in my programs for making stemmas the computer will be able to tell the lemmas and variant readings from the sigla. In the example, having been informed of the sigla of all the manuscripts, the computer would supply those for the manuscripts having EN TOUTW in full and intact. These programs are available at the same address. Those of you who are programmers may see how the programs can be improved. I'll be glad of any help on that score. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Mar 25 19:29:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04883; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:29:17 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:30:32 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: A text-critical question X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <40307332560@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 134 Many thanks to those who answered my question. You gave me many a chuckle, besides admiration for your minds. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 26 10:32:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05790; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:32:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:37:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199703261537.KAA10131@mail3.voicenet.com> X-Sender: cbtslibr@popmail.voicenet.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "L. Mark Bruffey" Subject: Re: Journals Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1091 Here is complete bib and address info: Pickering, S. R. New Testament Textual Research Update. Textual Research Publications. ISSN--1320-3037. Stuart Pickering Textual Research Publications 38 Tintem Road Ashfield, NSW 2131 Australia PS DOES ANYONE HAVE AN HTTP or EMAIL ADDRESS FOR THIS PUBLICATION? Mark Bruffey CBTS Library At 04:36 PM 3/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Here's an item that may not have been mentioned: > >New Testament Textual Research Update, published in Australia, is a >bi-monthly digest dealing with current issues and recent discoveries in >NTTC. It's rather pricey at US$40 for six 24 page issues, plus another $20 >if you want the annual compilation as well, but it certainly offers a lot >of up-to-date information in concise form. The editor is Stuart R. >Pickering who contributes all the unsigned articles and notes. Also >includes reviews and annotated bibliographies. > >Harold P. Scanlin >United Bible Societies >1865 Broadway >New York, NY 10023 >scanlin@compuserve.com > > L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 26 16:53:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06671; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:53:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:25:38 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Journals: NTTRU To: TC-List Message-ID: <199703261625_MC2-1354-5C57@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 265 There seems to be no HTTP or email address for NT Textual Research Update, but I do have phone numbers: 61 (02) 798-7550 voice 61 (02) 798-4385 fax Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Mar 26 20:37:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06920; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:37:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:38:08 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Rev 12:18 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970326203757.1c5f5f0c@mail.infoave.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: 488 In this text a variant exists which seems to be easy to resolve. The majority of good, early, Alexandrian (!!!) witnesses read estaqh while the later, poorer, Byzantine (!!!) witnesses have estaqhn. I realize that NA 26 does not have every variant- so I am wondering; what is the versional evidence here and what do y'all think is the "original" reading? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@highland.net or jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 27 12:21:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08313; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:21:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:24:18 -0600 Message-Id: <9703271724.AA06673@popalex1.linknet.net> X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.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: "Carlton L. Winbery" Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 884 Jim West wrote: >In this text a variant exists which seems to be easy to resolve. The >majority of good, early, Alexandrian (!!!) witnesses read estaqh >while the later, poorer, Byzantine (!!!) witnesses have estaqhn. > >I realize that NA 26 does not have every variant- so I am wondering; what is >the versional evidence here and what do y'all think is the "original" reading? > Jim, It would be very difficult for me to vote against A when it is in agreement with Aleph, P47, and C in Revelation, especially when the context supports the reading. I think John intends to contrast the Dragon standing on the sand with the Lamb standing on Mt. Zion (14:1). It wouldn't make sense for the narrator to simply state, " I am standing on the sand." Carlton L. Winbery E-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 27 14:57:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA08757; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:57:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:58:17 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc Subject: a little idea... 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: 1040 I had this idea recently; but usually by the time I have an idea, I find that someone else has already had the idea, and written it out, and printed it...so my idea may not be new...but here goes... If we would graph the stability of a text over time, I think that it would be like a sine-wave, rising and falling on a regular basis, for this reason, that an original text is produced (low amount of variation), then copied multiple times (producing higher amounts of variation), is then canonized (producing the need for one standard text and a purging of all the variants, therefore low amounts of variation), and after the uniform standardized text has been in place for a while people either get careless or deliberately choose to create a few variations (higher amount of variation), but then orthodoxy either purges the new variations or adopts one of them as the new standard and purges the old standard (thus returning to a low level of variation)...etc. Is this plausible? Have others thought of it before me? Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 27 15:52:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09048; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:52:45 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:57:41 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: a little idea... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1844 On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: >I had this idea recently; but usually by the time I have an idea, I find >that someone else has already had the idea, and written it out, and >printed it...so my idea may not be new...but here goes... > >If we would graph the stability of a text over time, I think that it would >be like a sine-wave, rising and falling on a regular basis, for this >reason, that an original text is produced (low amount of variation), then >copied multiple times (producing higher amounts of variation), is then >canonized (producing the need for one standard text and a purging of all >the variants, therefore low amounts of variation), and after the uniform >standardized text has been in place for a while people either get careless >or deliberately choose to create a few variations (higher amount of >variation), but then orthodoxy either purges the new variations or adopts >one of them as the new standard and purges the old standard (thus >returning to a low level of variation)...etc. This model probably works for a while, but it fails after about the seventh century. From that time on, the text generally became more and more standardized, and fewer and fewer new readings arose (except, of course, by accident). I think the graph, if it oscillates at all, will be a damped (probably overdamped) oscillator. And if that last sentence means nothing to you, don't worry about it; I'm speaking in differential equations again. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Mar 27 15:52:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09063; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:52:47 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9703271724.AA06673@popalex1.linknet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:57:51 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1797 On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, "Carlton L. Winbery" wrote: >Jim West wrote: >>In this text a variant exists which seems to be easy to resolve. The >>majority of good, early, Alexandrian (!!!) witnesses read estaqh >>while the later, poorer, Byzantine (!!!) witnesses have estaqhn. >> >>I realize that NA 26 does not have every variant- so I am wondering; what is >>the versional evidence here and what do y'all think is the "original" reading? >> >Jim, >It would be very difficult for me to vote against A when it is in agreement >with Aleph, P47, and C in Revelation, especially when the context supports >the reading. I think John intends to contrast the Dragon standing on the >sand with the Lamb standing on Mt. Zion (14:1). It wouldn't make sense for >the narrator to simply state, " I am standing on the sand." While I tend to agree with that, my last comment on a reading in the Apocalypse produced more controversy and less relevant discussion than I had hoped. So I'll confine myself to what I have in the versional data. >From UBS4 we learn that the version evidence is as follows: estaqh -- a gig vg hark arm eth estaqhn -- vg-mss phil sa bo (Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.) Turning to Merk's list of Vulgate mansucripts, we find that the vulgate mss with estaqhn (steti) are cav sang mon. The remaining important witnesses, including am ful, read estaqh (stetit). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Mar 27 16:47:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09175; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:47:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:47:58 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: a little idea... 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 778 On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > This model probably works for a while, but it fails after about the > seventh century. From that time on, the text generally became more > and more standardized, and fewer and fewer new readings arose > (except, of course, by accident). I think the graph, if it oscillates > at all, will be a damped (probably overdamped) oscillator. ******************* True, unless we'd use the word "text" in an unusual way to include other versions and translations...because the pattern (as you point out) comes to an equillibrium with the original text, but then repeats itself, later, in the versions and translations. The cause of the "dampening" of the oscillations is the developing self-consciousness of philology and TC. A. Smith From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 27 21:55:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA00591; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 21:55:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 21:55:49 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970326203757.1c5f5f0c@mail.infoave.net> 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: 1275 On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: > In this text a variant exists which seems to be easy to resolve. The > majority of good, early, Alexandrian (!!!) witnesses read estaqh > while the later, poorer, Byzantine (!!!) witnesses have estaqhn. > > I realize that NA 26 does not have every variant- so I am wondering; what is > the versional evidence here and what do y'all think is the "original" reading? Despite the deprecation of the good and noble Byzantine MSS (which I will address separately in a subsequent post), I can provide the versional data from Hoskier's collation data (_Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_): Reading with "estaqh" are all the Latins, syr-sigma (not -s, whatever Hoskier means by that), the Ethiopic and Armenian 1,3. Reading with "estaqhn" are the Coptic (Sa and Bo), syr-s, Armenian a4. The significant peculiarity is that the Coptic versions support the Byzantine reading and not that of the early Egyptian uncials. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Mar 27 22:21:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA00647; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:21:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:22:22 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 In-Reply-To: <9703271724.AA06673@popalex1.linknet.net> 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: 9976 In regard to the discussion of Rev.12:18, I of course am not surprised that the unanimous decision of the modern eclectic viewpoint and that which has been expressed on this list has been supportive of only that reading which is _not_ that of the Byzantine Textform. This as usual comes almost as a knee-jerk reaction, and demonstrates that the cult of the best MS(S) still prevails in modern eclectic text-critical decisions regardless of internal considerations which might be to the contrary. I would wager that, were the respective evidence supporting "estaqhn" and "estaqh" reversed, the eclectic defense would be carefully adjusted on supposed internal grounds to support the _opposite_ reading now currently deprecated merely because it is "Byzantine". As usual, I alone have to be the Lorax speaking for the Byzantine trees, so I will point out the relevant and pertinent information which might apply in regard to the presumed originality of the Byzantine reading, and show how that reading best can explain the rise of all the other(s). Using the extensive data in Hoskier's _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_ rather than the limited material in NA27, one finds that (not counting smooth and rough breathing differences) there are three readings present in the variant unit under consideration: (1) "estaqh", supported by 20 MSS in Hoskier plus P47; these include the uncial MSS Aleph A C and reflect just under 10% of all known MSS. (2) "esth", supported by a single MS (Hoskier's number 23) (3) "estaqhn", the "Byzantine" reading, supported by the remaining 90% of MSS, including Hoskier's uncials B (046) and P. Although the aorist active "esth" of reading #2 does "make sense" in the passage, I suspect no one would claim that this otherwise unsupported reading would have a claim to originality. The decision thus is one between the aorist passive variants "estaqh" ("he stood") and "estaqhn" (I stood). Regarding the external evidence, one important item for consideration is the fact that in the Revelation there is no single "Byzantine" or "majority" text, but _two_ competing Byzantine sub-types, the so-called "Andreas" (NA27's Gothic "MA") and the "Q" (NA27's Gothic "MK"). These two subtypes are more often than not quite disparate, and their very divergence greatly complicates the establishment of a generally representative Byzantine Text in the Revelation. Regardless of one's view of the Byzantine Textform, it is without question that the "MA" and "MK" groups deviated early from whatever text they may once have had in common, if there ever had been a common text for them beyond the autograph itself. The fact that at this point of variation _both_ the "MA" and "MK" groups _unite_ in reading "estaqhn" indicates a greater likelihood that such a reading stemmed transmissionally from the autograph or at least a point previous to the great divergence of "MA" and "MK" than that there was an _independent_ creation of the "estaqhn" reading in _both_ Byzantine sub-types at some point subsequent to their original differentiation. It is also exceedingly difficult to imagine how such independent correction within two separate Byzantine sub-streams would ever have _identically_ created what Metzger (_Textual Commentary_ in loc.) suggested had to have occurred, assuming the "estaqh" reading to have been original: The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the following "eidon". The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. Had this been the case, then one would expect to find this same phenomenon of altering the persons or even tenses of verbs repeated continually in the Revelation -- especially among those dreaded Byzantine-era minuscule scribes -- but such alteration as Metzger alleges here simply did _not_ occur elsewhere in the book in that wholesale manner. Certainly, at all times _some_ scribes may have accommodated a person or tense to a preceding or following verb (and more often to a _preceding_ verb, simply due to the sequential nature of copying); but what _some_ scribes may have done at _some_ times is clearly _not_ automatically endemic to what would be nearly _all_ scribes from two divergent textual sub-types acting in concert to make the identical alteration; Colwell's "Scribal Habits" article makes this clear even among a mere three early papyri, which rarely shared the same scribal proclivities. On the other hand, if the 1st person "estaqhn" were original, it would not be difficult to assume the _accidental_ dropping of a nu -- especially if it were represented by a suspension bar at the end of a line -- in a _small_ number of early MSS, the uncials of which quite likely reflect a common Egyptian localized-text origin. If such an single-letter omission were to have occurred in such early MSS, so long as the resultant text still "made sense" there would be little motivation to correct such an error by those who read such MSS, and the error would then receive a limited degree of perpetuation while the _correct_ and _original_ reading would continue to be perpetuated in the 90% mass of all other MSS which comprise the two divergent sub-Byzantine texttypes. Further, when one considers internal evidence, the case becomes stronger in support of "estaqhn" as original. Carlton's overly-simplistic answer to the contrary, I hardly think that John was intending the dragon standing on the sand of the sea to somehow be a parallel to ch.14 where one finds the Lamb standing on Mt.Zion. Both the dragon and the Lamb might be "standing", but the parallels end there, since there is no "sea" or "sand" present in ch 14 (though there _is_ the heavenly "sea of glass" in 15:2, but I doubt one would want to press the connection that far). Similarly in the immediate context of 12:18, there also is _no_ "mountain" as in ch.14, even though there had been a "great mountain burning with fire" previously in 8:8; but again the connection is far too remote to be likely. There also is a further contextual problem if "estaqh" is original, since 12:17 has the furious dragon departing ("aphlqen") to "make war with the remnant of [the woman's] seed" -- but if "estaqh" is read, the dragon does _not_ depart, but _stops_ and stands on the sand of the sea, and does nothing more, except in 14:2 to transfer some of his authority to the Beast. While it might be convenient to have the dragon stop by the sea shore from where the Beast arises (14:1) in order to impart his authority to the Beast, this is not obligatory, since (as is usual in the Revelation) an apparent time- and locale-shift occurs in the narrative as the scene changes. If "estaqhn" is original, the scene-shift occurs quite smoothly: the dragon departs, and John suddenly is transferred from heaven to earth, finding himself on the sand of the sea _just in time_ to see the result of the dragon's own change of venue, with the Beast now rising up out from the sea who will receive authority from the dragon -- John is transported to the right place at the right time. Hitherto, John's location for viewing the events surrounding the dragon had been in heaven (ch.12). That is the location from where John watched the war which began in heaven and ended with the casting down of the dragon to earth; John watched all those events, including the persecution of the woman and her seed as a spectator from above. Beginning in 12:18, John becomes a spectator _on earth_, and it is quite natural and fitting with the normal style of the Revelation to have such shifts occur, and then for John to explain both his change of location, and then to tell the reader what he saw from his new vantage point ("kai eidon" is one of the most frequent recurring phrases in the Revelation). Stylistically and contextually, the reading "estaqhn", supported by 90% of the MSS, has _far_ more to commend it than the reading of about 21 MSS, the earliest of which are apparently of Egyptian derivation, especially MSS whose reading well may have stemmed from an accidental omission of a single letter, whether independently or in a common archetype. This scenario is far more preferable than the suggestion that scribes from two significant sub-Byzantine traditions deliberately and in concert altered the text they were copying _merely_ to make a perfectly sensible reading ("estaqh") agree with a 1st person singular in the following clause for no significant reason and with no significant gain. In my opinion, the problem with modern eclecticism continually seems to be its bias in favor of the supposed "best MSS", with no honest intent of taking _all_ possible external, transmissional, and internal aspects of the textual process into full consideration when evaluating variant units. As Colwell said regarding the impact of Hort's genealogical method (which Colwell was critiquing): "Hort has put blinders on our [the modern eclectics] eyes." I trust that the above discussion will at least demonstrate that there is _another_ methodological option which may well be superior to that currently practiced by the modern eclectic schools. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 02:01:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA00838; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 02:01:44 -0500 Date: 27 Mar 97 22:28:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 From: "Jean Valentin" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0001C415" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2782 --Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0001C415 X-Fontfamily: Espi%20Sans X-Fontsize: 10 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jeu 27 Mars 1997 18:24, --Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0001C415 Content-Type: application/X-url Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: Carlton L. Winbery bWFpbHRvOndpbmJlcnlAcG9wYWxleDEubGlua25ldC5uZXQ= --Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0001C415 X-Fontfamily: Espi%20Sans X-Fontsize: 10 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable wrote: Monaco> Jim, > It would be very difficult for me to vote against A when it is in agreement > with Aleph, P47, and C in Revelation, especially when the context supports > the reading. I think John intends to contrast the Dragon standing on the > sand with the Lamb standing on Mt. Zion (14:1). It wouldn't make sense for > Monacothe narrator to simply state, " I am standing on the sand." > I ask myself if it is good method to make decisions about textual variants from the point of view of what the text should be saying. Exegesis should come after the text has been decided... However, we all know that such a sharp distinction between TC and interpretation is sometimes quite theoretical. But I stay with the idea (specially with puzzling texts like the Apoc.) that we should speak about what makes or doesn't make sense only after we have established the text. (I hope this doesn't sound offensive, I would probably put better nuances in French!). For what concerns the versions now. Here's at least what happens in Syriac - the NA27 apparatus is correct. (1) The Apocalypse printed at the end of the UBS syriac NT (which is not the peshitto Apocalypse as there is no such thing, but a later version supposed to be the Philoxenian - it's the Crawford-Gwynn text) has 1st person singular. And, it's numbered... 13:1. (2) The "harqlean" ms edited photographically by Voobus (CSCO 400) has 3rd person masc. singular. So as you see, both readings exist in Syriac as well. And, the chronological movement goes from 1st person to 3rd person. Shayno! ___________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles (Belgique) ___________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est inutilisable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. --Cyberdog-MixedBoundary-0001C415-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 09:44:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01354; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 09:44:26 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 08:50:13 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1761 Regarding Maurice Robinson's defence of the Byzantine text in the Apocalypse.... Everyone knows that I rarely agree with Robinson. But I have to agree with him, at least in part, on this. Not on which variant is correct in this instance; I haven't really worried about it much. Rather, I agree with him that the Byzantine text in the Apocalypse deserves more attention than it gets. I am not an expert on text-types in the Apocalypse. But I know the basic results of Schmid's work. There are four text-types in the Apocalypse: 1. p47 and Aleph 2. "Alexandrian," headed by A C; also certain minuscules such as 2053, plus -- I believe -- the vulgate 3. Koine 4. Andreas Now let's look at this. The first type has only two witnesses, and one of them incomplete. The second is stronger, but even it relies strongly on incomplete witnesses (C, 2344). Only the third and fourth are well-attested. This contrasts very unfavorably with, say, Paul, where there are four non-Byzantine text-types and a wide variety of interesting families. This means that the Byzantine text is much more important in the Apocalypse. It may itself be secondary, but it probably contains older elements not found in Aleph or A. I would not conclude from this, as Robinson does, that the Byzantine text should be followed in all instances. It is simply one text-type -- and an unusually suspect one at that. But it must be consulted. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Mar 28 10:28:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01454; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:28:28 -0500 From: "George Kiraz" Message-Id: <9703281026.ZM14388@atlas.research.bell-labs.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:26:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Robert B. Waltz" "Re: Rev 12:18" (Mar 28, 8:50am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.1.0 22feb94 MediaMail) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Mt 27:46 (sabachthani) Cc: jim@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1207 In Mt 27:46 almost all the popular English translations have "sabachthani". I have a question regarding the 'h' after [t]. Am I right in assuming that in the Aramaic the [t] should be plosive since it is post consonantal? If that is the case, why is there an 'h' after [t] which indicates fricativeness? Or does the 'h' indicate that the [t] is aspirated? Brain Joseph (in Comries's *The World's Major Languages*, Oxford 1990) claims that theta was aspirated in ancient Greek. Any comments would be appreciated. George A. 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 11:05:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01602; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:05:14 -0500 From: Frederick Knobloch Message-Id: <199703281605.LAA07747@Ruby.deans.umd.edu> Subject: Re: Mt 27:46 (sabachthani) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:05:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9703281026.ZM14388@atlas.research.bell-labs.com> from "George Kiraz" at Mar 28, 97 10:26:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version for DEANS 2.4-1.6] MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 1361 > In Mt 27:46 almost all the popular English translations have "sabachthani". I > have a question regarding the 'h' after [t]. > > Am I right in assuming that in the Aramaic the [t] should be plosive since it > is post consonantal? If that is the case, why is there an 'h' after [t] which > indicates fricativeness? > > Or does the 'h' indicate that the [t] is aspirated? Brain Joseph (in Comries's > *The World's Major Languages*, Oxford 1990) claims that theta was aspirated in > ancient Greek. I am not an expert in NT or Aramaic, but have worked on Greek transcriptions of Hebrew, so I will put in my 2 cents. Greek theta was in the process of changing from aspirated plosive to fricative during the first centuries C.E. (this according to W. S. Allen, Vox Graeca, 3rd ed., 23ff.), so I imagine that the symbol theta could represent either pronunciation. But I think you are right -- since theta is representing post-consonantal Aramaic tav it is best understood to be an aspirated plosive. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Frederick W. Knobloch Meyerhoff Center for Jewish Studies 0113 Woods Hall University of Maryland Phone: (301) 405-4980 College Park, MD 20742-7415 E-mail: fk24@umail.umd.edu :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 17:58:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02123; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:58:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:00:44 -0600 Message-Id: <9703282300.AA09128@popalex1.linknet.net> X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Unverified) 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: "Carlton L. Winbery" Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5736 Maurice Robinson wrote; >I would wager that, were the respective evidence supporting "estaqhn" >and "estaqh" reversed, the eclectic defense would be carefully adjusted >on supposed internal grounds to support the _opposite_ reading now >currently deprecated merely because it is "Byzantine". I have very little regard for this kind of argumentation. >Regarding the external evidence, one important item for consideration >is the fact that in the Revelation there is no single "Byzantine" or >"majority" text, but _two_ competing Byzantine sub-types, the so-called >"Andreas" (NA27's Gothic "MA") and the "Q" (NA27's Gothic "MK"). These >two subtypes are more often than not quite disparate, and their very >divergence greatly complicates the establishment of a generally >representative Byzantine Text in the Revelation. > >Regardless of one's view of the Byzantine Textform, it is without >question that the "MA" and "MK" groups deviated early from whatever >text they may once have had in common, if there ever had been a common >text for them beyond the autograph itself. The argument that because there are two distinct traditions in the Byzantine in Revelation they both must have gone back to a very early exemplar or the original seems to me to be simplistic in the extreme and wont't hold watet. The addition of the nu is something that happens frequently in minuscule Mss. >It is also exceedingly difficult to imagine how such independent >correction within two separate Byzantine sub-streams would ever have >_identically_ created what Metzger (_Textual Commentary_ in loc.) >suggested had to have occurred, assuming the "estaqh" reading to have >been original: It happened before the two traditions were fully developed. >The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he >stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and >flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of >alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely >to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular >ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first >person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made >sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. This kind of change tended to happen in minuscules with very little reason. I find Metzgers proposal plausible. >Had this been the case, then one would expect to find this same >phenomenon of altering the persons or even tenses of verbs repeated >continually in the Revelation -- especially among those dreaded >Byzantine-era minuscule scribes -- but such alteration as Metzger >alleges here simply did _not_ occur elsewhere in the book in that >wholesale manner. But it did accur to some degree. > >Certainly, at all times _some_ scribes may have accommodated a person or >tense to a preceding or following verb (and more often to a _preceding_ >verb, simply due to the sequential nature of copying); but what _some_ >scribes may have done at _some_ times is clearly _not_ automatically >endemic to what would be nearly _all_ scribes from two divergent >textual sub-types acting in concert to make the identical alteration; >Colwell's "Scribal Habits" article makes this clear even among a mere >three early papyri, which rarely shared the same scribal proclivities. >On the other hand, if the 1st person "estaqhn" were original, it would >not be difficult to assume the _accidental_ dropping of a nu -- >especially if it were represented by a suspension bar at the end of a >line -- in a _small_ number of early MSS, the uncials of which quite >likely reflect a common Egyptian localized-text origin. I would think that the chance of the addition of a nu especially between two vowels a more likely chance in the minuscules. >Further, when one considers internal evidence, the case becomes stronger >in support of "estaqhn" as original. Carlton's overly-simplistic answer >to the contrary, I hardly think that John was intending the dragon >standing on the sand of the sea to somehow be a parallel to ch.14 where >one finds the Lamb standing on Mt.Zion. Both the dragon and the Lamb might >be "standing", but the parallels end there, since there is no "sea" or >"sand" present in ch 14 (though there _is_ the heavenly "sea of glass" in >15:2, but I doubt one would want to press the connection that far). First the word "parallel" is Maurice's term. I used the word contrast and the Revelation is full of such contrast, i.e., the two women contrast with each other, the dragon standing on the sand contrast with the lamb on Mt. Zion, the seven trumpets with the partial destruction contrast with the total destruction of the seven bowls of wrath, etc. >In my opinion, the problem with modern eclecticism continually seems to be >its bias in favor of the supposed "best MSS", with no honest intent of >taking _all_ possible external, transmissional, and internal aspects of >the textual process into full consideration when evaluating variant units. >As Colwell said regarding the impact of Hort's genealogical method (which >Colwell was critiquing): "Hort has put blinders on our [the modern >eclectics] eyes." I trust that the above discussion will at least >demonstrate that there is _another_ methodological option which may well >be superior to that currently practiced by the modern eclectic schools. > I consider Metzger and many others with whom I sometimes disagree to be honest and honorable scholars who fairly evaluate the evidence. Can any one of them produce the perfect text, probably not. Carlton L. Winbery E-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 18:52:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02156; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:52:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:53:15 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: TC List Subject: 1769 or 1873 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-758783491-859593195=:28781" Content-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 816 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ---559023410-758783491-859593195=:28781 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: I had always thought that the current KJVs were based on the 1769 revision. I recently saw where one person said it was from the 1873 Cambridge paragraph Bible by Scrivener, and not the 1769 Blayney edition. Does anyone have documentation on this? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 ---559023410-758783491-859593195=:28781-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 20:30:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02308; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:30:14 -0500 Message-ID: <333D0679.628F@sn.no> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:09:29 -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: Rev 12:18 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1527 Maurice Robinson wrote, initially: >=20 > In regard to the discussion of Rev.12:18, I of course am not surprised > that the unanimous decision of the modern eclectic viewpoint and that > which has been expressed on this list has been supportive of only that > reading which is _not_ that of the Byzantine Textform. This as usual > comes almost as a knee-jerk reaction, and demonstrates that the cult of > the best MS(S) still prevails in modern eclectic text-critical > decisions regardless of internal considerations which might be to the > contrary.=20 concluding: > In my opinion, the problem with modern eclecticism continually seems to= be > its bias in favor of the supposed "best MSS", with no honest intent of > taking _all_ possible external, transmissional, and internal aspects of > the textual process into full consideration when evaluating variant uni= ts. > As Colwell said regarding the impact of Hort's genealogical method (whi= ch > Colwell was critiquing): "Hort has put blinders on our [the modern > eclectics] eyes." I trust that the above discussion will at least > demonstrate that there is _another_ methodological option which may wel= l > be superior to that currently practiced by the modern eclectic schools. I wish to thank Dr. Robinson for his sensible and clear reasoning regardi= ng=20 Revelation 12:18 and his faithful advocacy of the Byzantine Text! There certainly is not too much of this kind of textual criticism on this= list. I=B4m sure it=B4s needed! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 20:36:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02325; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:36:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:36:55 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: TC List Subject: Re: 1769 or 1873 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 597 I think that there is a thing called the "1833 Webster update" which modernized the spelling of the 1769 version. *********** On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > I had always thought that the current KJVs were based on the 1769 > revision. I recently saw where one person said it was from the 1873 > Cambridge paragraph Bible by Scrivener, and not the 1769 Blayney > edition. Does anyone have documentation on this? > > > -- > Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 20:51:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02346; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:51:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:51:41 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970328205123.27cf8efc@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) 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: 1056 At 04:09 AM 3/29/97 -0800, you wrote: >I wish to thank Dr. Robinson for his sensible and clear reasoning regarding= =20 >Revelation 12:18 and his faithful advocacy of the Byzantine Text! > I too am thankful for Maurice; yet I am hesitant to ascribe too much to a textual tradition that is simply centuries later than the "alexandrian" type. If we are simply talking about external evidence the papyri predate the miniscules by centuries. What is the logic of suggesting that "later is better because it is closer to the time of composition"? >There certainly is not too much of this kind of textual criticism on this= list. Perhaps because there is an inherent problem with ascribing significance to documents that are centuries after the fact (of composition). >I=B4m sure it=B4s needed! > Maybe. Maybe not. It is nontheless useful! For that I too am grateful. > >--=20 >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Mar 28 22:31:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA02468; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 22:31:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:32:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: ANDREW SMITH cc: TC List Subject: Re: 1769 or 1873 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 705 On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > I think that there is a thing called the "1833 Webster update" which > modernized the spelling of the 1769 version. > > On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > > I had always thought that the current KJVs were based on the 1769 > > revision. I recently saw where one person said it was from the 1873 > > Cambridge Paragraph Bible by Scrivener, and not the 1769 Blayney > > edition. Does anyone have documentation on this? Yes, but were the corrected spellings incorporated? I do not think so. -- 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 Sat Mar 29 01:12:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA02655; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:12:15 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:12:55 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 In-Reply-To: <9703282300.AA09128@popalex1.linknet.net> 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: 15965 On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > Maurice Robinson wrote; > >I would wager that, were the respective evidence supporting "estaqhn" > >and "estaqh" reversed, the eclectic defense would be carefully adjusted > >on supposed internal grounds to support the _opposite_ reading now > >currently deprecated merely because it is "Byzantine". > > I have very little regard for this kind of argumentation. This is somewhat ambiguous: of whose line of argumentation are you speaking? That of the eclectics who shift the method of internal argument according to where the externally favored MSS happen to fall? Or merely my comment that such is the case? It can easily be demonstrated in numerous places in Metzger's _Textual Commentary_ that precisely this type of situation occurs, with the type of approach and the manner of internal argument clearly shifting in accord with whatever reading the preferred MSS happen to possess at any given variant unit, especially when such MSS are in opposition to the reading of the Byzantine Textform. Others on this list previously have mentioned that situation in Metzger as reflecting a certain textual bias (and I said nothing one way or the other at that time). Are you suggesting that such argumental shifts do _not_ occur in that work? > The argument that because there are two distinct traditions in the Byzantine > in Revelation they both must have gone back to a very early exemplar or the > original seems to me to be simplistic in the extreme and wont't hold > water. Carlton, why are you so negativistic on this point? Merely because it is the two sub-Byzantine traditions being discussed? Is not a similar line of argument used from the eclectic standpoint when two divergent textual traditions such as the Western and Alexandrian happen to concur in a reading? You don't intend to suggest that the two competing "Byzantine" traditions in the Revelation reflect but _one_ texttype, do you? If so, you would be quite wrong, since the "MA" and "MK" traditions are often in divergence, and the readings where they diverge are not merely slight variations, but are often quite significant, clearly indicating two quite different streams of transmission which must have divided at a very early date; where those two streams happen to unite, the consensus reading among the two must be considered more ancient than either stream. This is only logical. Further, the support of the P47/Aleph and the A/C groups generally tends to fluctuate _among_ the "MA" and "MK" traditions, though each of those two uncial groups possesses some unique readings of its own. Such fluctuation when it occurs quite easily reflects the primitive nature of the text belonging to both the "MA" and "MK" groups, even in those readings where support from P47/Aleph and A/C is not present. Basically, if the union of "MA" and "MK" in the Revelation does not go back to the autograph, it at the very least would go back to an ancient archetype predating or of equal date with the P47/Aleph and A/C groups. > The addition of the nu is something that happens frequently in minuscule Mss. Assuming you are speaking of movable nu, which does not change the meaning of a word, this of course is correct to a certain degree; however, the final -n in "estaqhn" is _not_ a movable nu, but an alteration which changes the person of the verb, and the "frequent" practice of the minuscule scribes thus does _not_ apply in this case, since it cannot be demonstrated that they ever "frequently" changed tenses in a wholesale manner by altering from 3rd to 1st person (or vice versa) in a narrative situation. Even in regard to the movable nu, however, among the minuscule MSS the general tendency is more strictly to follow the "rule" of including the movable nu when the next word is followed by a vowel and to omit it when followed in the next word by a consonant. Most scribes of minuscule MSS were generally fairly precise in their application of this rule, though of course there are exceptions (early uncial scribes generally included the movable nu at all times). In most cases, the minuscule scribes generally followed the "rule" and did not add or omit the movable nu willy-nilly. > >It is also exceedingly difficult to imagine how such independent > >correction within two separate Byzantine sub-streams would ever have > >_identically_ created what Metzger (_Textual Commentary_ in loc.) > >suggested had to have occurred, assuming the "estaqh" reading to have > >been original: > > It happened before the two traditions were fully developed. I of course maintain that the "estaqhn" reading does predate the division into the "MA" and "MK" traditions, but I do _not_ concur that the predating archetype was the MS which made a deliberate change in the tradition preserved in its exemplar as Metzger posits. Accidental error is always a more likely possibility than deliberate alteration, unless significant theological, grammatical, or stylistic concerns enter in (e.g. Ehrman on Orthodox Corruption; Kilpatrick on Atticism, etc.). I do not find Metzger's suggestion to be likely; rather, "estaqhn", on both external, transmissional, and transcriptional grounds, as well as on internal contextual grounds, is far better suited to claim autograph originality than the "estaqh" reading which appears secondary both in terms of external and internal criteria. > >[The reading "estaqh"] certainly would _not_ have been likely > >to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular > >ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first > >person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made > >sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. > > This kind of change tended to happen in minuscules with very little reason. > I find Metzgers proposal plausible. Will you please demonstrate this claim, Carlton, especially in regard to other variant readings in the Revelation? I will concur that such changes may have occurred, but these were rare and infrequent, and even when they did occur, they were limited only to a small number of MSS -- _without_ the remaining mass of MSS (in any texttype) blindly following along with such an alteration. Obviously, I cannot easily demonstrate an event which rarely occurs; but if this type of change is truly common and frequent, especially with the mass of MSS concurring in such a change, I would be quite interested to see where else in the Apocalypse the same scribes fell into the same practice (I would equally be interested in seeing where else in the NT such a practice so frequently occurred, but I would prefer to confine matters to the Revelation, where many people can and do have access to Hoskier's full collation data of most MSS of that book as of 1929). > >Had this been the case, then one would expect to find this same > >phenomenon of altering the persons or even tenses of verbs repeated > >continually in the Revelation -- especially among those dreaded > >Byzantine-era minuscule scribes -- but such alteration as Metzger > >alleges here simply did _not_ occur elsewhere in the book in that > >wholesale manner. > > But it did accur to some degree. To a small and infrequent degree is one thing, and I admit that any given scribe at any given time might have made such an alteration. I also maintain that such types of scribal change _would_ not and _could_ not grow so as to overwhelm the entire manuscript tradition, so long as the original reading made sense and was not theologically suspect in any way. Readers and correctors of MSS _did_ exist, and they generally _did_ do their proper job of keeping strange and isolated scribal corrections from _ever_ growing to any level of dominance. I still would like to see other alleged cases of this very practice among the _same_ scribes of the _same_ MSS in the Apocalypse -- these are the very ones who should be most likely to repeat the same scribal habit, if such indeed exists. > I would think that the chance of the addition of a nu especially between two > vowels a more likely chance in the minuscules. Assuming the final vowel of the word to which the nu is attached is an _epsilon_, and especially if the word _could_ take a movable nu, this is totally granted. Show me other places in the Apocalypse where a final _eta_ has had a nu added (which changes the person of the verb from 1st to 3rd), and we can then discuss the "chances" and frequency of occurrence on a more solid statistical basis. I would contend that such _rarely_ occurs, and when it does, it is quickly corrected and does _not_ perpetuate itself among many MSS, let alone the 90% mass of all MSS. This reflects one major failing (in my opinion) of modern eclecticism: certain "scribal habits" are postulated, which certainly _some_ scribes at _some_ times did fall into or even regularly practice; however, from the limited evidence of what "some" scribes did at some times, the concept is promulgated that "most scribes" would do the same thing at all times. This is totally unwarranted, but underlies a good deal of the anti-Byzantine bias in text-critical explanations of variant readings. Compare Metzger in his _Text of the NT_, p.200, when talking about conflation: he says that when confronted with two conflicting readings, "most scribes" would combine the two readings for fear of losing the true reading if one or the other were omitted. Yet later in the same volume, when discussing Ac.6:8, where the readings describing Stephen as either "full of faith" or "full of grace" exist, Metzger does a total about face and merely _mentions_ that the conflated reading which says Stephen was full of "grace and faith" is found ONLY in MS E -- which Metzger still points out is normally a "typical" Byzantine type of MS. So _where_ are "most scribes" in that situation, and especially "most scribes" of the "typical" Byzantine tradition? Were they busy conflating the two readings in Ac.6:8? Not at all; MS E stands quite alone -- in fact, it is the reading "full of faith" which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the MSS and the Byzantine Textform in particular. Why did not "most scribes" conflate in Ac.6:8 like Metzger said they "would" do? The simple answer is that Metzger's original generalization on p.200 was simply wrong from the start, and that _most_ conflations that did occur were in fact relatively _isolated_ occurrences which were _not_ perpetuated by many MSS at _any_ time, let alone by the mass of nearly all MSS at all times. The same principle applies, mutatis mutandis, in regard to the claim that in Rev.12:18 the majority of scribes simply would prefer _deliberately_ to alter the person of the verb into what they deemed a more suitable context, totally disregarding earlier tradition at some stage in the process and maintaining that same disregard throughout the period of transmission, even once the the Byzantine division into two sub-types in the Revelation had occurred, with significant textual divergences otherwise which fluctuated between the P47/Aleph and A/C types of reading -- for whatever reason, _neither_ sub-Byzantine type chose to adopt the early uncial reading in this case, even though (from the eclectic view of transmissional history), nearly everywhere else at least one of those two sub-Byzantine types _did_ choose one or the other of the early uncial readings. There are strong implications from the union of those two divergent Byzantine sub-types within a transmissional historical approach which are simply neglected under modern eclectic transmissional theory. > First the word "parallel" is Maurice's term. I used the word contrast and > the Revelation is full of such contrast If "contrasting parallel analogy" will be acceptable, I would be happy to use that term, since there similarly is not a real "contrast" being discussed here either, assuming the normal meaning of that term. I still fail to see much semantic difference which would cause misunderstanding in what I wrote as it was colloquially worded. Certainly I was not trying to say the passages are harmonistically parallel as with the Synoptic Gospels, and I don't think anyone misunderstood me on that point. > i.e., the two women contrast with > each other, the dragon standing on the sand contrast with the lamb on Mt. > Zion, the seven trumpets with the partial destruction contrast with the > total destruction of the seven bowls of wrath, etc. Even granting certain "contrasts" to exist, and certainly some such in regard to the seven seal/trumpet/bowl judgments, I still do not see any need to demand an authorially-intended contrast or parallel analogy between the dragon standing on the sand of the seashore and the Lamb standing on Mt. Zion, especially when only a mere 10% of the MS tradition could possibly support such a contrast, and then when the contrast may well derive ultimately from a simple transcriptional error. I certainly would not use this passage to support any contrasts found in Revelation, save in a footnote with a careful caution. > >In my opinion, the problem with modern eclecticism continually seems to be > >its bias in favor of the supposed "best MSS", with no honest intent of > >taking _all_ possible external, transmissional, and internal aspects of > >the textual process into full consideration when evaluating variant units. > >As Colwell said regarding the impact of Hort's genealogical method (which > >Colwell was critiquing): "Hort has put blinders on our [the modern > >eclectics] eyes." I trust that the above discussion will at least > >demonstrate that there is _another_ methodological option which may well > >be superior to that currently practiced by the modern eclectic schools. > I consider Metzger and many others with whom I sometimes disagree to be > honest and honorable scholars who fairly evaluate the evidence. Can any one > of them produce the perfect text, probably not. Honest intent, total integrity, and absolute honorableness will still not eliminate the problem of text-critical bias created by the "blinders" which prejudice the judgements of honest and honorable persons as they seek to evaluate variant readings. My use of "honest" was not meant to impugn the character of those scholars; "fair and unbiased intent" might have been a more preferable term. Either way, the blinders produce bias which controls and affects the judgment and leads to a certain disregard (accidental or deliberate) for the fair consideration of _all_ pertinent data regarding _all_ sources of evidence. Note that I am perfectly willing to acknowledge my present bias in favor of the Byzantine Textform, and I also trust that I am regarded as a somewhat honest and somewhat honorable scholar as well. It must be remembered that, beginning in the mid-1960s, my original training in textual criticism came from Metzger's and Greenlee's books, and my original text-critical position was totally within the modern eclectic mould. It was only after reading Colwell and studying under K.W.Clark that my text-critical opinions began to shift (I absolve James Brooks from having any influence on the direction of my textual proclivities); since Colwell and Clark, by having most of my conclusions confirmed by the critiques of Epp and others regarding modern eclecticism, I find little reason ever to don the blinders again. Yet I still do not think that I can produce the perfect text either, though I probably hold a higher degree of certainty regarding the primary reading within most variant units than might others. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 01:26:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA02676; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:26:27 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:27:08 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970328205123.27cf8efc@mail.infoave.net> 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: 1870 On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: > I too am thankful for Maurice; yet I am hesitant to ascribe too much to a > textual tradition that is simply centuries later than the "alexandrian" > type. If we are simply talking about external evidence the papyri predate > the miniscules by centuries. What is the logic of suggesting that "later is > better because it is closer to the time of composition"? > Perhaps because there is an inherent problem with ascribing significance to > documents that are centuries after the fact (of composition). It is peculiar that the assertion is continually made that it is not the age of MSS which is important, but the type of text they contain. Those who favor the Alexandrian and Western texts as "early" nevertheless appreciate those few "late" minuscules which have a significant number of readings reflecting traditions other than the Byzantine. Those of us who happen to favor the Byzantine Textform (since we consider it to reflect the "early" text of the autograph) similarly maintain that the age of documents in which a text is preserved says nothing necessarily about the age of the text contained in them, and there also are good reasons why one can readily postulate an early uncial origin for (at the very least) the earliest 9th and 10th century minuscules. (I have no need within my text-critical praxis to make any major issue out of the minuscules following the 10th century, just in case anyone was wondering how many noses I needed to count as they prepare so to caricature the pro-Byzantine position). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 10:28:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02954; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 10:28:21 -0500 From: John van der Hoek Message-Id: <199703291528.BAA24041@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:58:58 +1030 (CST) Cc: jvanderh@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (John van der Hoek) In-Reply-To: from "Maurice Robinson" at Mar 29, 97 01:27:08 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 363 Dear Prof Robinson, What is the details of the reference by Ehrman on Orthodox Corruption... -- Dr John van der Hoek l e-mail: Department of Applied Mathematics, l jvanderh@maths.adelaide.edu.au University of Adelaide, l 'phone: +61-(0)8-8303-5903 Adelaide, S.A. 5005 AUSTRALIA l fax: +61-(0)8-8303-3696 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 10:50:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02999; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 10:50:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199703291548.JAA05742@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:06:37 -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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1338 In response to Carlton Winbery, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > The addition of the nu is something that happens frequently in minuscule Mss. > > Assuming you are speaking of movable nu, which does not change the meaning > of a word, this of course is correct to a certain degree; however, the > final -n in "estaqhn" is _not_ a movable nu, but an alteration which > changes the person of the verb, and the "frequent" practice of the > minuscule scribes thus does _not_ apply in this case, since it cannot be > demonstrated that they ever "frequently" changed tenses in a wholesale > manner by altering from 3rd to 1st person (or vice versa) in a narrative > situation. Change in meaning or not, it seems transcriptionally probable that a "nu" would creep into the midst of ESTAQHEPI, and transcriptionally improbable that a "nu" would accidentally drop out from between a terminal and an initial vowel. Perry L. Stepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 13:25:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03215; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 13:25:40 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 13:26:22 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 In-Reply-To: <199703291548.JAA05742@endeavor.flash.net> 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: 2196 On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Perry L. Stepp wrote: > Change in meaning or not, it seems transcriptionally probable that a "nu" > would creep into the midst of ESTAQHEPI, and transcriptionally improbable > that a "nu" would accidentally drop out from between a terminal and an > initial vowel. In the case of a movable nu this would not be questioned. When the net effect of adding or omitting a nu is to alter the sense of a verb, however, the likelihood of such a nu merely "creeping in", whether accidentally or intentionally is significantly reduced. Further, transcriptional probability simply does _not_ favor the accidental inclusion of a nu or any other letter or letters for no good reason, let alone merely to place a consonant between two vowels for euphony or whatever. On the other hand, transcriptional probability _will_ frequently apply to the accidental omission of a single letter, especially nu, movable or not, since it is often represented by a suspension bar at the end of lines. The hypothesis of accidental omission reflected in a small number of MSS is far more likely than the suggestion of accidental or deliberate addition of a verb-altering nu occurring in the 90% mass of all MSS. Omission of nu or other single letters _does_ occur frequently in individual MSS (though _without_ the massive perpetuation of such variants). As an aside, I continue to remain amazed at how vocal and vociferous is the opposition to any external, transcriptional, or internal evidence suggestions which happen to defend a Byzantine reading. Had my _same_ case been made for the dropping of an final nu by the Byzantine MSS which nu was present in the early uncials, I suspect there would likely have not been one adverse comment. The course of the present discussion amply illustrates my point about the blinders and inherent bias which characterizes so much of modern eclecticism. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 14:17:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA03344; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:17:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 11:17:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ 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: 1736 I'm an interested amateur only and have no academic background in textual criticism (except for my own reading, of course), so I've generally been quiet on this list. Generally, I find these discussions about the Byzantine text type quite interesting, and I have to agree with Prof. Robinson tht there does sometimes seem to be something of a double standard when it comes to evaluating Alexandrian vs. Byzantine witnesses. Even so, I tend to find Metzger's arguments ("The Text of the New Testament") plausible, and I've seen very little in terms of arguments for Byzantine priority. Perhaps the most interesting thing I've seen is Vincent Broman's paper (available on his web site) "The support of internal text critical evidence for Alexandrian and Byzantine text types in Luke" which seems to indicate that omitting the canon of criticism that the shorter reading is generally to be preferred shifts the weight of internal evidence considerably with regard to Byzantine vs. Alexandrian readings. (It kind of make you wonder how the Western text type would fare under a similar analysis, doesn't it?) While this particular canon does make sense in most cases, I don't find it unreasonable to suggest it is sometimes given undue weight. Anyway, I wonder if anyone has ever proposed a scenario which would explain the Byzantine text type as an independent tradition. What kind of evidence supports this claim? Any external evidence? I'll agree that we shouldn't give too much weight to the age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, bu there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 15:08:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03470; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:08:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:09:48 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970329150922.37777920@mail.infoave.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: 1653 At 11:17 AM 3/29/97 -0800, you wrote: > >Anyway, I wonder if anyone has ever proposed a scenario which would >explain the Byzantine text type as an independent tradition. If it is independent, and its age can only be empirically established to the 8th century or so CE then it is even more unreliable than before. An 8th century manuscript can carry no weight unless it demonstrates affinites to an earlier manuscript, irregardless of "text type". Otherwise, what we have is simply the notion that "majority rules". Count up your manuscripts- because early doesn't count in this scenario. > What kind of >evidence supports this claim? Any external evidence? None- thats the problem; and thats why Byzantine priority is held by so few. If we took external evidence "only" into account, the Byzantine tradition would naturally fall by the wayside. But, as opposition to the consensus is what sells books and offers tenure, then it must continue to live. > I'll agree that we >shouldn't give too much weight to the age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, bu >there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. > What would you prefer to this criteria? Which seems more reasonable to you- that an 8th cenutry manuscript is closer to an original document or that a 4th century manuscript is? If you found a copy of the Declaration of Independence written 20 years after the original and a copy written 250 years after the original, which would you consider closer to the original? >--- > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 15:51:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03537; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:51:53 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:57:37 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6181 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, "Gregory J. Woodhouse" wrote: >I'm an interested amateur only and have no academic background in textual >criticism (except for my own reading, of course), so I've generally been >quiet on this list. Generally, I find these discussions about the >Byzantine text type quite interesting, and I have to agree with Prof. >Robinson tht there does sometimes seem to be something of a double >standard when it comes to evaluating Alexandrian vs. Byzantine witnesses. This depends on what you mean by "double standard." It is true that the reading of the Byzantine text does not receive the respect that the readings of other text-types do. But one should keep the reason in mind: It is the opinion of most scholars (Robinson is, of course, an exception) that the Byzantine text-type is secondary, derived from other text-types. If this is true, then *of course* the Byzantine text-type will receive less consideration. The question is, is this assumption true? You've alluded to that below, so I'll give my answer below. >Even so, I tend to find Metzger's arguments ("The Text of the New >Testament") plausible, and I've seen very little in terms of arguments for >Byzantine priority. Perhaps the most interesting thing I've seen is >Vincent Broman's paper (available on his web site) "The support of >internal text critical evidence for Alexandrian and Byzantine text types >in Luke" which seems to indicate that omitting the canon of criticism that >the shorter reading is generally to be preferred shifts the weight of >internal evidence considerably with regard to Byzantine vs. Alexandrian >readings. (It kind of make you wonder how the Western text type would fare >under a similar analysis, doesn't it?) While this particular canon does >make sense in most cases, I don't find it unreasonable to suggest it is >sometimes given undue weight. The rule "Prefer the shorter reading" is now in very bad shape. It should never be applied in isolation. NEVER! Consideration must be given to why the variant might have arisen, and also to the nature of the witnesses. For a summary of opinions on this particular topic (mostly mine, of course, but I try to be balanced), see the article on "Canons of Criticism" at the web site listed below. >Anyway, I wonder if anyone has ever proposed a scenario which would >explain the Byzantine text type as an independent tradition. What kind of >evidence supports this claim? Any external evidence? I'll agree that we >shouldn't give too much weight to the age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, bu >there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. Ultimately this is to ask two questions: The role of internal versus external evidence, and the history of the text. The latter is part of the "art" of textual criticism, and is subject to deep debate. There are those who favour the use primarily of internal evidence, those who favour external evidence (both Robinson and I fall into th latter camp, though in very different ways), and those who favour a mixed approach. The history of the text will determine the approach of those who use external evidence. Robinson, for instance, believes in the priority of the Byzantine text, and so produces a text which resembles it. I believe it to be secondary, and so construct a text which based primarily on other text-types. (There's a big article on text-types, as well, at the web site. That explains my personal views much more fully than I can do on the spur of the moment.) But let's examine the Byzantine text. Let's start by making one thing clear. The age of the Byzantine text is not (necessarily) the age of its readings. All scholars will agree that the Byzantine text contains many, many early readings. The question is, at what time did these readings come together to form a text-type? With that in mind, let's look at the earliest Byzantine witnesses. Not all these witnesses are purely Byzantine (in fact, one -- the Harklean Syriac -- belongs to a separate text-type). But all are at least 80% of the way to what came to be "the Byzantine text," and so can be considered evidence that the type was in existence at that time. Section by section, we find the following as the earliest witnesses: Gospels: A; also parts of W (both V) Acts: Harklean Syriac (early VII, though perhaps incorporating older materials). In Greek, parts of E (VII) Paul: Harklean Syriac (VII). In Greek, Psi (VIII/IX) Catholics: K L 049 (IX) Apocalypse: P 046 etc. (IX) Turning to citations, it is now held that the earliest true witness to the Byzantine text is Asterius the Sophist (IV, as I recall). So it would seem that the Byzantine text, at least in the gospels, is no later than the fourth century. But is it possible that it is earlier? Hort said no, basing his argument in large measure on conflations. This is weak; conflations are rare. But it is true that the readings of the Byzantine text are almost always found in one of the other text-types (Alexandrian; "Western"; in Paul, also p46/B and family 1739; in the Catholics, also families 1739 and 2138). What is more, the Byzantine text, more often than not, incorporates the easiest of these readings. These two reasons are, I think, why most scholars continue to think the Byzantine text secondary. I know *I* consider it so. Also, if the Byzantine text were original, why was it not more widespread in early times? It eventually came to be dominant -- but only after Egypt and the west were cut off from Greek christianity. *Of course* most medieval manuscripts show the Byzantine type! I would observe that none of this *proves* that the Byzantine text is late. But, in the absence of evidence that it is early, I consider this the easiest explanation. And I'm sure you're sorry I said anything, so I will stop 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 15:53:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03558; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:53:14 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:51:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970329150922.37777920@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ 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: 1790 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: > At 11:17 AM 3/29/97 -0800, you wrote: > > > I'll agree that we > >shouldn't give too much weight to the age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, bu > >there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. > > > > What would you prefer to this criteria? Which seems more reasonable to you- > that an 8th century manuscript is closer to an original document or that a > 4th century manuscript is? > If you found a copy of the Declaration of Independence written 20 years > after the original and a copy written 250 years after the original, which > would you consider closer to the original? > Of course, what I said was *too much* weight, not no weight. Of course I give weight to the age of a manuscript. On the other hand, if it is true that the basic traditions that underly the Gospels crystallized late in the second century, I'm not sure the difference in age between a fourth century and a fifth century manuscript is really of overriding importance. Now, fourth century versus eight or ninth century may be another story, and it is my understanding that the witnesses we have of the Byzantine text type typically date from this time period and later. Now, I'm not a specialist, and my understanding here may be incorrect. The point of my question was that i was curious about what kind of evidence could be marshaled to support Byzantine priority. I am frankly skeptical, but I do want to give it a fair hearing. > >--- > > > > Jim > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu > --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 16:48:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03641; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:48:08 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:49:05 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970329164842.19afa99a@mail.infoave.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: 1326 At 12:51 PM 3/29/97 -0800, you wrote: >Of course, what I said was *too much* weight, not no weight. Of course I >give weight to the age of a manuscript. On the other hand, if it is true >that the basic traditions that underly the Gospels crystallized late in >the second century, I'm not sure the difference in age between a fourth >century and a fifth century manuscript is really of overriding importance. This second century date is far too late. The Gospel of John, composed last of the four, is easily dated before 125 CE because we have a manuscript fragment of it. >Now, fourth century versus eight or ninth century may be another story, >and it is my understanding that the witnesses we have of the Byzantine >text type typically date from this time period and later. Now, I'm not a >specialist, and my understanding here may be incorrect. > >The point of my question was that i was curious about what kind of evidence >could be marshaled to support Byzantine priority. I am frankly skeptical, >but I do want to give it a fair hearing. > > There simply is no good evidence (rather than a doctrinal principle) to support Byzantine priority. >> >--- >> > >> >> Jim >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 22:00:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA03923; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:00:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:01:03 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970329150922.37777920@mail.infoave.net> 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: 9682 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: > >Anyway, I wonder if anyone has ever proposed a scenario which would > >explain the Byzantine text type as an independent tradition. I certainly have :-) ...but that probably is beside the point. > If it is independent, and its age can only be empirically established to the > 8th century or so CE then it is even more unreliable than before. An 8th > century manuscript can carry no weight unless it demonstrates affinites to > an earlier manuscript, irregardless of "text type". The bias is already in full operation in such a statement....Of course the simple question to ask is always "where did the text found in that 8th century MS come from?" I suggested earlier that the same question be asked regarding the very large number of 9th and 10th century minuscule MSS -- they are apparently unrelated in any close or remotely close genealogical manner (so Lake, Blake, and New in _HTR_ 1928), thus their relative independence should be assumed (and this is Lake's conclusion, not merely my own). Yet each of those "independent" earliest minuscules was copied from _some_ MS which predated them, and, since there are _no_ earlier minuscules than the 9th century, it is obvious that they were copied from older _uncial_ MSS, some of which may have been 8th century, but others equally may have been of the 6th, 5th, or even 4th centuries -- we basically have _no_ clue, and it is unreasonable to presume that the date of the minuscule MS containing the text (especially if of the 9th and 10th century) somehow automatically relegates that text to _only_ the 9th century and beyond. It seems peculiar that of a sudden (i.e. within the last 10 years) there has been an eclectic abandonment of the view originally espoused by Westcott-Hort (and previously maintained by all previous eclectics!) that the Byzantine Textform _clearly_ existed by AD 350 and _was_ dominant from at least the 5th century onward. Whether one chooses to call that early Byzantine text "proto-Byzantine" or whatever, there should be absolutely _no_ question that in general the text of A in the Gospels, certain parts of W, and Chrysostom were "Byzantine" -- and by this I mean to the exclusion of being either "Alexandrian" or "Western" in character. It seems to me that the current eclectic view regarding the existence of the Byzantine Textform has become just as biased in regard to the concept of "counting noses" as the position they oppose. It is now claimed (e.g. Aland, Wallace) that the Byzantine Textform was never the majority until after the 9th century when suddenly an empirical numeric majority exists. Suffice it to say that such revisionist history runs counter to the text-critical opinions of the past century, and can only be viewed as another attempt to discredit any concept of Byzantine priority or value -- yet this time it is the _eclectics_ who use the criterion of "number" to support the hypothesis regarding only a "late" 9th century Byzantine dominance. One should not be able to have it both ways, and both to criticize numeric dominance on the one hand and to appeal to such on the other hand merely because it is convenient to do so in opposing the Byzantine Textform is unwarranted. > Otherwise, what we have is simply the notion that "majority rules". Count > up your manuscripts- because early doesn't count in this scenario. This of course is another caricature of the pro-Byzantine position. Numeric dominance -- especially when such reflects 90% of more of the textual tradition -- does have some degree of weight; but even as Burgon pointed out over a century ago, "number" is only _one_ of his _seven_ "notes of truth", and does _not_ carry as much weight when a majority of the remaining six elements might contradict it (and I at this point also rule out Fee's caricature of Burgon's position as "merely seven ways of saying that the majority is always right"). "Early" most certainly _does_ count in any scenario; no one would argue Byzantine priority unless they were convinced of the "early" nature of the _text_ represented by the Byzantine Textform. That such an "early" text happens to be contained in not only the numeric majority of MSS but also in virtually all of the most recently copied MSS does _not_ negate the claim nor likelihood (on _non_ numeric grounds!) that such text may also have the strongest case for authenticity, both in regard to a transmissional historical approach and in regard to the application of standard eclectic internal criteria themselves. > > What kind of > >evidence supports this claim? Any external evidence? > > None- thats the problem; and thats why Byzantine priority is held by so few. > If we took external evidence "only" into account, the Byzantine tradition > would naturally fall by the wayside. I would consider the MSS containing the Byzantine Textform to offer the obvious external evidence -- it is not exactly like we are making up a text wholesale and offering it to deceive the public in the absence of data. I suspect the claim here goes back to the issue of "good" external evidence which is judged merely by the age of MSS, which then automatically becomes preferred to the age of the text which differing MSS might contain (unless of course, those later MSS happen to contain a non-Byzantine text, in which case they can be highly valued because their text agrees with the earlier MSS -- this of course is circular, and reflects a biased subjectivity, but I probably have made that abundantly clear hitherto). > But, as opposition to the consensus is > what sells books and offers tenure, then it must continue to live. Excuse me? I would _love_ to sell books and get tenure by espousing my totally unpopular non-consensus opinion. Can you put me in touch with the proper publisher and after that convince my seminary president to abandon his eclectic text-critical position in favor of my pro-Byzantine stance in order that tenure might be secured? I am not being too facetious on this point....although I may have had my Byzantine Greek NT published, and my views summarized by a 60pp introduction to that work, that edition was limited to only 1000 copies, and is basically out of print at this point, with no immediate plans to republish, and _no_ money was made for myself or the publisher beyond the cost of publication by that work. All my other material in defense of the Byzantine Textform has been presented as scholarly papers, generally before the ETS and in one article in our seminary journal, and there is no money there either. Trust me, it would be FAR easier and more profitable merely to have gone with the flow and to have remained within the modern eclectic camp and practice "safe" textual criticism.... >> I'll agree that we >> shouldn't give too much weight to the age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, >> but there still must be solid reasons to prefer a younger manuscript. > What would you prefer to this criteria? Which seems more reasonable to you- > that an 8th cenutry manuscript is closer to an original document or that a > 4th century manuscript is? Let me draw a parallel and ask this question: which seems more reasonable, that a 2nd or 3rd century papyrus is closer to the original document or a 4th century MS? So now I present P45, P66, and P75, as well as a good number of others -- all predating the 4th century uncials on vellum. So, which of these three is closest to the original document? Most eclectics will say P75.....why? Other papyri are almost equally early or even pre-date P75....But P75 agrees with B....but that is declaring an early document's text as "good" by appeal to the "good" text of a favored later document -- very similar to what pro-Byzantine advocates claim in regard to the text preserved in their favored "later" documents (and remember that until 1955, P75 was unknown, and scholars of the pre-1955 period were thoroughly confused as to the nature of the text at that point, due to the conflicting readings of the 2nd and 3rd century papyri -- just read the literature from that period; only with the discovery of P75 and finding it to agree with B did everyone swiftly move back to the "B is best" hypothesis which stemmed from Westcott and Hort). Leave out any appeal to the fourth century documents, and the problem in establishing the original text by examining the pre-4th century papyri and assuming they all are automatically "closer" to the autograph becomes very complex. The fact is (as Colwell and Scrivener both long ago stated) that there was probably _more_ corruption in the pre-4th century period, and even in the pre-200 period than ever was the case after AD 350. So there is _no_ automatic presumption of "closeness" to the autograph text inherent in MSS merely because of age; and this simply reflects the principle already stated that the age of the MS does not necessarily say anything about the age of the text contained within that MS. > If you found a copy of the Declaration of Independence written 20 years > after the original and a copy written 250 years after the original, which > would you consider closer to the original? Not a good analogy. Assuming the modern copy when printed had been checked against the original, and was electronically typeset and spell-checked -- definitely the more recent copy. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Mar 29 22:15:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA03952; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:15:18 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:16:01 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970329164842.19afa99a@mail.infoave.net> 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: 1536 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: > There simply is no good evidence (rather than a doctrinal principle) to > support Byzantine priority. Excuse me? What "doctrinal principle" is there which supports Byzantine priority? If such exists, I certainly have not used it, nor am I sure that I would like to use it, since it certainly would be a man-made doctrine and not a biblical one.... This statement is patently unfair, and reflects another type of bias (this time ad hominem) in which the theology of the espouser of a text-critical theory somehow influences and biases his entire approach. I don't recall _anyone_ blasting Vinton Dearing or even hinting that his basically "non-orthodox" Christian Science beliefs somehow biased his text-crtiical approach or judgements -- why is there a theological bias presumed for those who espouse Byzantine-priority? So far as I know, I have not made any arguments on particular grounds of my own theology; also, virtually all of those who hold my own particular theological position also hold to the modern eclectic viewpoint. So I suppose a field day could be had in that regard were I ever to suggest theological bias within modern eclecticism..... But I'm not....and won't...... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 30 14:51:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04770; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 14:51:21 -0500 Message-ID: <333F59F8.2E71@sn.no> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:30:16 -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: Rev 12:18 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: 688 Maurice Robinson wrote: > As an aside, I continue to remain amazed at how vocal and vociferous is > the opposition to any external, transcriptional, or internal evidence > suggestions which happen to defend a Byzantine reading. Had my _same_ case > been made for the dropping of an final nu by the Byzantine MSS which nu > was present in the early uncials, I suspect there would likely have not > been one adverse comment. The course of the present discussion amply > illustrates my point about the blinders and inherent bias which > characterizes so much of modern eclecticism. If there ever was a _true_ statement regarding modern eclecticism, this is it!! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 30 16:06:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04825; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 16:06:26 -0500 Message-ID: <333F6B92.2845@sn.no> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:45:22 -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: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) References: <1.5.4.16.19970329150922.37777920@mail.infoave.net> 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: 2012 Jim West wrote: > If you found a copy of the Declaration of Independence written 20 years > after the original and a copy written 250 years after the original, whi= ch > would you consider closer to the original? The latest copy could very well be closest to the original. It depends on= =20 what circumstances and conditions the respective copies have been subject= =20 to. If the oldest copy has introduced a number of deviations from the=20 original (which for some reason were never corrected by the original,=20 which may have then been in existence and available for consultation) and= =20 the later copy has not, then the later copy is obviously both "better"=20 and nearer to the text of the original document. This is only logical.=20 For the later copy may represent the results of a faithful and accurate=20 transmission, while the oldest copy may represent a sloppy or inaccurate=20 copying. (If I=B4m not mistaken, textual critics have found many times th= at=20 the "later" codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are "better" and represent=20 _older_ readings than the much _earlier_ papyri!) As to what is more _likely_ to be the case in such a situation, it is=20 clear that this cannot be determined with any certainty. It is equal as=20 clear, though, that if 10 more later copies were discovered which runs=20 with the one later copy, which copies were written, let=B4s say, from yea= r=20 100 up to the year 250 after the writing of the original, one cannot=20 conclude that the _one_ early copy _must_ be nearer to the original than=20 the eleven later ones! Even when the one late copy stood alone, it must have originated from=20 _earlier_ copies. The conditions under which the copies have been=20 transmitted is, I believe, more important than the age of a particular=20 copy. A copy may be early, but it=B4s text is not necessary nearer to the= =20 original document=B4s text. I thought this point had been demonstrated numerous times in textual=20 research. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 30 16:19:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04849; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 16:19:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 16:20:00 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970330161946.0b476cd4@mail.infoave.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: 488 At 11:45 PM 3/30/97 -0800, you wrote: >I thought this point had been demonstrated numerous times in textual >research. > If I may be bold as to point you to Aland's discussion of these issues in his "Text of the New Testament. In that way much material that is well covered there need not be repeated here. >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 30 18:57:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05023; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:56:59 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:57:41 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? In-Reply-To: <38ADA9B1B66@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 15835 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >It is the opinion of most scholars (Robinson is, of course, >an exception) that the Byzantine text-type is secondary, derived >from other text-types. If this is true, then *of course* the >Byzantine text-type will receive less consideration. >The question is, is this assumption true? >Ultimately this is to ask two questions: The role of internal versus >external evidence, and the history of the text. The latter is part of >the "art" of textual criticism, and is subject to deep debate. There >are those who favour the use primarily of internal evidence, those who >favour external evidence (both Robinson and I fall into the latter >camp, though in very different ways), and those who favour a mixed approach. Let me correct that last sentence: I have already mentioned that my theory and method is close to that suggested by Burgon, and thus a Byzantine-priority approach is itself in fact "mixed", using both external and internal criteria in a number of different categories. My own application of internal criteria does not differ significantly from that of modern eclecticism, although I do reject internal canons which presume a bias against the Byzantine Textform from the start. I do apply a wide range of "standard" internal principles to variant units with no initial bias against the Byzantine Textform or other texttypes. As for the external criteria, the weight given to such within my own methodology is not much different than that placed upon external data by the modern eclectic school, albeit in a different direction, and with a carefully-constructed theory of transmission appended. It is probably due to the constant caricature of the Byzantine-priority position as "nose-counting" or solely based upon the number of MSS that these other factors tend to get ignored in the discussion, when in fact the matter of transmissional history as well as the application of internal criteria to any unit of variation remain the most essential elements of a pro-Byzantine theory and method. I presume that my discussions of several variant units within this forum should have made this aspect quite clear. >The history of the text will determine the approach of those who use >external evidence. Robinson, for instance, believes in the priority >of the Byzantine text, and so produces a text which resembles it. I don't particularly like the term "believe", since this makes it sound like a mere faith-assumption, which it most decidedly is not. Acceptance of a Byzantine-priority position is directly based upon a specific interpretation of the _evidence_ preserved to us among the various MSS, Fathers, and versions. That such an interpretation of the same data happens to differ from that of modern eclecticism is only logical within the scientific method, where various hypotheses are regularly constructed to explain certain phenomena. Generally, the hypothesis which best accords with the extant data and which also has the least number of problems or intermediate steps when contrasted with other competing hypotheses is that which should be given the nod. I simply maintain that the pro-Byzantine hypothesis can hold its own on all of these counts. No mere "faith" assumption here.... >But let's examine the Byzantine text. >Let's start by making one thing clear. The age of the Byzantine text >is not (necessarily) the age of its readings. All scholars will agree >that the Byzantine text contains many, many early readings. The >question is, at what time did these readings come together to form >a text-type? The Byzantine-priority hypothesis of course maintains that such reflects the original Textform of the autograph, and thus that such readings which are contained therein did not "come together" at a subsequent era. The pro-Byzantine position also maintains that the other existing texttypes (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean) can all be readily explained as _departures_ from the original Byzantine standard which occurred at times subsequent to the completion of the autograph text of any given NT book. The "coming together" hypothesis of modern eclecticism regarding the formation of the Byzantine Textform is fraught with difficulty. The prevailing model for such "coming together" is the "process" view, which comes under the criticism best expressed by Zane Hodges, which I have quoted previously and which was cited in the Introduction to my own Greek NT, p.xxxv: No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the [supposedly] earlier [Western and Alexandrian] forms of text....An unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination. Westcott and Hort recognized the inherent difficulties in trying to explain the Byzantine text by any such approach, and they therefore developed their theory regarding a hypothetical formal and official "Syrian [= Byzantine] recension in order to eliminate the Byzantine Textform from further consideration. This they knew they had to do, since even Hort admitted ("Introduction", Vol.2, p.45) that A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents _at each stage of transmission_ than vice versa. [Emphasis added] There really is no better statement regarding a "majority text" or Byzantine-priority position in regard to external evidence and transmissional considerations than what Hort penned in that 1882 Introduction. True, the remainder of that introduction was designed to overturn that presumption, but it nevertheless remains a valid hypothesis, especially since virtually all claims made by Hort so as to overturn that initial presumption have been subsequently abandoned by subsequent eclectic critics. The paradox is that modern eclectics basically retain an Alexandrian type of Hortian text but without Hort's supporting pillars. >With that in mind, let's look at the earliest Byzantine witnesses. >Not all these witnesses are purely Byzantine (in fact, one -- the >Harklean Syriac -- belongs to a separate text-type). But all are >at least 80% of the way to what came to be "the Byzantine text," >and so can be considered evidence that the type was in existence >at that time. As stated before, these should be granted by all, whether one chooses to term their text "Byzantine" or "proto-Byzantine, or whatever (I have my own views and terms for them, but these are not pertinent to the discussion). >Section by section, we find the following as the >earliest witnesses: >Gospels: A; also parts of W (both V) >Acts: Harklean Syriac (early VII, though perhaps incorporating > older materials). In Greek, parts of E (VII) >Paul: Harklean Syriac (VII). In Greek, Psi (VIII/IX) >Catholics: K L 049 (IX) >Apocalypse: P 046 etc. (IX) Do not forget the church fathers from at least the 4th-century era of Chrysostom, followed in the next century by Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, and others following. The matter of the Peshitto Syriac still remains unresolved, depending on who advocates what, but that version should also be considered as at least a 4th-century early Byzantine witness (and it certainly is earlier than the Harklean). >Turning to citations, it is now held that the earliest true witness >to the Byzantine text is Asterius the Sophist (IV, as I recall). Fee originally proposed this, but I understand the claim now is not so strong and has been revoked, since it was based on only nine extant citations. Chrysostom (d.407) would be a stronger choice for a clearly Byzantine type of text in an early father, a text which would have been flourishing in (at least) Constantinople by ca.AD 380 or thereabouts. >So it would seem that the Byzantine text, at least in the gospels, >is no later than the fourth century. But is it possible that it >is earlier? >Hort said no, basing his argument in large measure on conflations. >This is weak; conflations are rare. But it is true that the readings >of the Byzantine text are almost always found in one of the other >text-types . . . . What is more, the Byzantine text, more often than >not, incorporates the easiest of these readings. Conflations aside, the fact that the readings of the Byzantine Textform also appear in either the Alexandrian or Western texttypes is no problem from within a Byzantine-priority perspective: if the Byzantine Textform were indeed original, then both of the two major remaining texttypes _should_ be expected to have been derived from that Textform, and thus they each would retain a significant portion of text which had previously existed in that Textform, even though each "later" texttype would independently deviate from that common Textform in its own particular way. Thus, what appears from the modern eclectic viewpoint to be a _very_ peculiar "fluctuation" within the Byzantine Textform -- picking and choosing readings now from the Alexandrian, now from the Western texttype -- the opposing Byzantine-priority theory provides a much simpler model. Rather than presuming the complex hypothesis regarding the creation of the Byzantine Textform as a deliberate editorial process of selection from two greatly disparate and conflicting texttypes, those two texttypes can each be easily explained as independent deviations _directly_ from the overarching Byzantine Textform. Once again, the question of simpler versus more complex hypotheses comes into play, and the Byzantine-priority hypothesis has the least complicated explanation of the relevant data in this case. As for the supposed "easiest" readings in the Byzantine Textform, I would challenge this statement, since it can readily be demonstrated that the eclectically-favored Alexandrian texttype as well as the Western texttype actually preserve far more readings which might be considered "easier" than what is preserved in the Byzantine Textform (the omission of "deuteroprwtw" in Lk. 6:1 is a case in point, and in my opinion indicates clear recensional activity among the Alexandrian and other MSS which make such an omission). >These two reasons are, I think, why most scholars continue to think >the Byzantine text secondary. I know *I* consider it so. I also happen to think that a century of anti-Byzantine bias may have played a large part in perpetuating the modern eclectic consensus. Few if any eclectic critics -- as I admit formerly to have been; I am a reformed eclectic :-) -- are willing to ask _all_ the pertinent questions and to go back to a theoretical square one and evaluate _every step_ in the process without an initial prejudice regarding a given portion of the data. I suspect the same bias will affect even the consideration of my presentation as made in this posting, and thus the _serious_ consideration of the items cited above by me will probably not occur. >Also, if the >Byzantine text were original, why was it not more widespread in early >times? It eventually came to be dominant -- but only after Egypt >and the west were cut off from Greek christianity. The contention of the Byzantine-priority hypothesis is precisely that the Byzantine Textform _was_ wide-spread and dominant during the early centuries within the Greek-speaking portion of the Empire, particularly in the regions where Greek was _not_ a second language (i.e., from Southern Italy through Greece and through what is today modern Turkey). Where Greek was a second language, I suspect that more of a "local text" situation prevailed. The problem is that our earliest MSS (the papyri) all stem (due to climactic considerations) from a single localized region, and are not necessarily representative of the state of the text throughout the Empire during the first three centuries. The regions where Greek was a primary language have left us no MSS and insufficient data from that early period from which one could accurately judge the state of the text over the entire early Empire. Certainly there is a clear later Byzantine dominance in that same primary Greek-speaking portion of the Empire ranging from Italy through Turkey, but, pray tell, _why_ should the Byzantine text have become dominant in such a region if the Alexandrian texttype were indeed original? Again it places "impossible strains on our imagination" (Hodges' comment) to suppose that merely by an unguided process that virtually _all_ MSS of the Byzantine Textform as found in that wide-ranging area just "grew like Topsy" from an Alexandrian original into the near-total uniformity of text found in the MSS preserved in that region without formal collusion and recension, authorized and imposed by the dominant Orthodox church of that era. The question remains: _what_ was the dominant texttype which would have been found in the primary Greek-speaking region of the Empire during the first three centuries? And if it were not the Byzantine Textform, how does one logically and successfully explain the rise and dominance of that Textform? Hort could not explain the situation without appealing to a formal Byzantine revision process, authorized and then later promulgated by the dominant Orthodox church (without which it would not win any acceptance against the staunch conservatism which people maintain in regard to religious texts with which they have become familiar). Since no such formal revision process has left a trace in history, Hort's view has been subsequently abandoned by most modern eclectic critics, as mentioned. What remains in such a case is Hort's "theoretical presumption", and that presumption points _directly_ to the likelihood of Byzantine dominance in _every_ era, beginning from the earliest stages within the primary Greek-speaking regions of the Empire and continuing into the age of the minuscules which today are the primary extant representatives in lineal descent from that original Textform. >*Of course* most >medieval manuscripts show the Byzantine type! Only to be expected, if they were simply preserving the various (and mostly independent) lines of transmission which we find reflected in the minuscule MSS of the 9th and 10th centuries, which early minuscule MSS themselves were more likely to have been copied from early uncials than anything else. >I would observe that none of this *proves* that the Byzantine text >is late. But, in the absence of evidence that it is early, I consider >this the easiest explanation. Since Westcott and Hort it has always been "easy" to dismiss the Byzantine Textform. I suggest that a solid grappling with the evidence and consideration of transmissional historical principles will make the task of Byzantine rejection somewhat more difficult; also that the considerations herein presented will suggest that the easier explanation is in fact a Byzantine-priority hypothesis. >And I'm sure you're sorry I said anything, so I will stop there. :-) And many many people are probably sorry I have a week off for Spring Break so I can participate more fully on this listserver. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 30 22:44:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05192; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:44:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:44:48 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1075 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >... With that in mind, let's look at the earliest Byzantine witnesses. > Not all these witnesses are purely Byzantine (in fact, one -- the > Harklean Syriac -- belongs to a separate text-type). But all are > at least 80% of the way to what came to be "the Byzantine text," > and so can be considered evidence that the type was in existence > at that time. Section by section, we find the following as the > earliest witnesses: > > Gospels: A; also parts of W (both V) > Acts: Harklean Syriac (early VII, though perhaps incorporating > older materials). In Greek, parts of E (VII) > Paul: Harklean Syriac (VII). In Greek, Psi (VIII/IX) > Catholics: K L 049 (IX) > Apocalypse: P 046 etc. (IX) Robert, thanks for this post. I always enjoy them. Since you listed early Byz mss, should you not have included uncials Q (5th), and 6th cent D2, E2, N, O, P, R, sigma, and 064? -- 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 Sun Mar 30 22:48:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05209; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:48:26 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:49:00 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Jim West cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970329164842.19afa99a@mail.infoave.net> 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: 356 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: >... There simply is no good evidence (rather than a doctrinal principle) to > support Byzantine priority. Jim, what is the good evidence you call a doctrinal principle? -- 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 Sun Mar 30 23:15:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05254; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:15:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:16:16 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 To: TC-List Message-ID: <199703302315_MC2-137A-4A9A@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3756 Minton asked about the 1833 Webster KJV and the 1769 edition.. Perhaps the real answer is neither.There are MANY print versions of the KJV, some claiming to be based on the "best" KJV of 1769. That certainly was a quality edition, the printer having gone to great lengths to get rid of typos and ensure consistency where appropriate. However, this was only one of many efforts in this regard. The need to occasionally reestablish the text was due in part to the way books were printed. Any 1000+ page book required a large inventory of movable type. Some printers actually had to print the sheets for part of the Bible, then break down the setting to get enough individual letters to set the rest of the Bible. This kind of practice intoroduced the possibility of inconsistent spellings, etc. (Cf. what can happen when more than one scribe works on a single MS.) In the 18th century a largely successful effort to avoid this problem, and significanty reduce the price of Bibles, was accomplished by the wealthy von Canstein who was able to fund the cost of enough moveable type to set the entire Luther Bible and keep the typesetting in place. General printers could not afford to do this, even if they had enough type to do an entire Bible, since they would need the type for other books. Canstein's Bible Society was the immediate predecessor of the German Bible Society and the 19th century Bible Society movement. Noah Webster, of dictionary fame who also was interested in spelling reform, undertook a review of the KJV text, but he had another motivation as well. He prepared his edition for a public(!) school audience and wanted to spare the youths some of the more blunt language of the traditional KJV text. Accordingly, he introduced a small number of bowdlerizing changes. Since I think someone has an electronic version of Webster 1833 it would be interesting to crossmatch this file with one of the "standard" KJV's. Incidentally, this may be a good context to mention one of my pet peves: there are several electronic KJV's, but they generally get distributed without any information on which KJV they were based on. For information on the 1769 "establishment" (I purposely avoid the use of "revision") see the note in Herbert's published update of the English section of Darlow and Moule's Catalog of the BFBS Bible collection. Herbert generally includes notes on major efforts at reestablishing the KJV text. For similar notes on US editions, including Webster 1833, see Margaret Hills's published catalog of the ABS Bible collection. There were, of course, a number of notable efforts to "revise" the KJV, in most cases rather modest changes. A few of the more famous efforts include John Wesley's, where he introduced some readings bsed on Bengel's recommended departures from the MT. Webster may qualify as a revision, depending on how many changes one believes are required to qualify as a revision. In the 1850's ABS tried a minor revision involving mostly spelling. The committee was composed of some of America's leading biblical scholars of the day, including Edward Robinson, the "father" of biblical archaeology and the first major translator of the Gesenius Hebrew lexicon. I think his name is still on the title page of BDB. This edition was published but was met with such a furor from some quarters that ABS withdrew this edition and made a more modest revision, instead. Pardon ths rambling on, but I think the whole history of textual variants in printed editons is relevant to the practice of textual criticism in general. This same point was made in a very interesting round of list discussions a few months back. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Mar 30 23:22:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05277; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:22:11 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:22:46 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Jim West cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970329150922.37777920@mail.infoave.net> 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: 1429 On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: >... Otherwise, what we have is simply the notion that "majority rules". >Count up your manuscripts- because early doesn't count in this scenario. The reason the Alex or "neutral" text is not a candidate for priority is IMHO that the few leading Greek mss. that do support it disagree so much. Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in Paul's epistles. It is impossible for them to be as valuable as Tischendorf and Hort believed. In the Gospels they disagree over 38 times per chapter. I know that they are early and very valuable witnesses, but witness character must come into play at least some. Of course, the early papyri are even more divided. Likewise the Byz text is divided on many occasions. The H-F Maj. Txt. lists over 1,400 Mpt cases; in these, the Byz witness is substantially split. Even with all the problems, I would still consider the Majority Text closer to the original, but the division is not as great as many think. For example, Aleph agrees with the TR more than 25% of the time in text variants, and of course even more with the BYZ text itself. The same is true of P66. Also, it is interesting that in UBS4 most of their "A" catagories are also the BYZ reading. -- 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 Mon Mar 31 08:26:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00507; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:26:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:27:28 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: TC-List Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 In-Reply-To: <199703302315_MC2-137A-4A9A@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 960 The "Online Bible" CD-ROM (I have version 6.12, dated Oct. '94) has both the 1769 and the 1833 KJV texts, and allows one to compare them side by side. ******************* On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Harold P. Scanlin wrote: > Noah Webster, of dictionary fame who also was interested in spelling > reform, undertook a review of the KJV text, but he had another motivation > as well. He prepared his edition for a public(!) school audience and > wanted to spare the youths some of the more blunt language of the > traditional KJV text. Accordingly, he introduced a small number of > bowdlerizing changes. Since I think someone has an electronic version of > Webster 1833 it would be interesting to crossmatch this file with one of > the "standard" KJV's. Incidentally, this may be a good context to mention > one of my pet peves: there are several electronic KJV's, but they generally > get distributed without any information on which KJV they were based on. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 31 09:26:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00787; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:26:15 -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: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:19:47 -0700 To: "Ronald L. Minton" From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2419 On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, you wrote: >On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >>... With that in mind, let's look at the earliest Byzantine witnesses. >> Not all these witnesses are purely Byzantine (in fact, one -- the >> Harklean Syriac -- belongs to a separate text-type). But all are >> at least 80% of the way to what came to be "the Byzantine text," >> and so can be considered evidence that the type was in existence >> at that time. Section by section, we find the following as the >> earliest witnesses: >> >> Gospels: A; also parts of W (both V) >> Acts: Harklean Syriac (early VII, though perhaps incorporating >> older materials). In Greek, parts of E (VII) >> Paul: Harklean Syriac (VII). In Greek, Psi (VIII/IX) >> Catholics: K L 049 (IX) >> Apocalypse: P 046 etc. (IX) > > >Robert, thanks for this post. I always enjoy them. Since you listed >early Byz mss, should you not have included uncials Q (5th), and >6th cent D2, E2, N, O, P, R, sigma, and 064? I wasn't listing early Byzantine manuscripts; I was listing *the earliest* manuscript of the type. I concede that N, O, P, and Sigma (also Phi) are early and Byzantine. I *don't* agree in the case of Q or R. Both have suffered Byzantine influence, but my check showed that R is about a third Alexandrian, and Q is about a quarter so. 064 I haven't checked. As for E2, I mentioned that under Acts. Though we might note that it has many, many non-Byzantine readings. I'm not sure what you mean by D2. Is that the corrector of Bezae, or are you referring to Claromontanus? If it refers to Bezae, I concede that the corrector used a Byzantine text, but it seems to me that it was later than the sixth century. As for Claromontanus, it is "Western," and although it received Byzantine corrections, they were from the ninth century. It should be noted that the Byzantine text is surely older than its oldest witnesses. The big question is, of course, *how much* older.... No doubt Maurice Robinson will have something to say about that (I hope he doesn't get carpal tunnel syndrome...). :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 31 09:26:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00802; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:26:17 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703302315_MC2-137A-4A9A@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:22:35 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1106 On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, "Harold P. Scanlin" wrote, in part: >There were, of course, a number of notable efforts to "revise" the KJV, in >most cases rather modest changes. A few of the more famous efforts include >John Wesley's, where he introduced some readings bsed on Bengel's >recommended departures from the MT. Webster may qualify as a revision, >depending on how many changes one believes are required to qualify as a >revision. I always though it was ironic, though, that Wesley's changes did not include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5. I once saw his bible, with a cover note saying that it incorporated changes from the TR text. Naturally I checked that passage first. And, yes, it has the spurious reading. Sigh. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 31 09:26:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00813; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:26:19 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.16.19970329150922.37777920@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:26:29 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1073 On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote, in part: >Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in >Paul's epistles. I'm not sure I see what the UBS text has to do with this, but let's leave that aside. There's a good reason Aleph and B often disagree in Paul: They *don't belong to the same text-type.* This was first pointed out by Zuntz, and my researches clearly confirm it. Aleph belongs to a text-type that also contains A, C, 33, and the Bohairic Coptic, with 81, 1175, etc. as lesser witnesses. B goes with p46 and the Sahidic in a separate text-type. (Note: Zuntz also includes 1739 and the Bohairic here. I disagree. But in general my results agree with his.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 31 10:14:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00911; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:14:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:15:03 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC-List Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 In-Reply-To: <199703302315_MC2-137A-4A9A@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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3141 On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Harold P. Scanlin wrote: > Minton asked about the 1833 Webster KJV and the 1769 edition.. > Noah Webster, of dictionary fame who also was interested in spelling > reform, undertook a review of the KJV text, but he had another motivation > as well. He prepared his edition for a public(!) school audience and > wanted to spare the youths some of the more blunt language of the > traditional KJV text. Accordingly, he introduced a small number of > bowdlerizing changes. Since I think someone has an electronic version of > Webster 1833 it would be interesting to crossmatch this file with one of > the "standard" KJV's. The Webster 1833 edition circulates in electronic form either as ASCII text exported from the Online Bible software program or within the Online Bible program itself. Any other software programs which might use the Webster 1833 text, so far as I know, have taken that text directly from that which originally appeared in the Online Bible. Since I have been involved in some of the details involving the Online Bible (primarily the manual entry and proofing of the entire Greek NT text plus parsing data in four different editions [Stephens 1550 TR, Scrivener 1894 TR, my own Byzantine/Majority Textform, and Westcott-Hort 1881]), I should probably speak to the text of the Webster 1833 text included within that software package. The Webster 1833 text appearing therein was prepared electronically from the Baker (or was it Hendrickson?) reprint edition by Larry Pierce, the programmer of the Online Bible, but the Online Bible form of that text does _not_ in all places reflect the original Webster 1833, but has been modernized in either spelling or removal of further archaisms which Webster left intact. The "thees and thous" and older English endings remain in that text, but one should not think that by running an electronic comparison with the KJV that a _true_ list of differences between Webster 1833 and the KJV will result. > Incidentally, this may be a good context to mention > one of my pet peves: there are several electronic KJV's, but they generally > get distributed without any information on which KJV they were based on. This is definitely a reasonable complaint, especially due to the differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV. The Online Bible does note that its text is that of the 1769 Cambridge revision, and in its documentation even gives the specific printed edition currently available with which it was compared. As I understand the situation, at this time the Online Bible's KJV text is considered to be 100% accurate with that Cambridge edition, and after examining other electronic KJV texts currently available Franklin electronics chose to use only the Online Bible 1769 KJV text for their handheld electronic KJV product. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 31 10:41:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00959; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:41:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:42:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) 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@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1723 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I wasn't listing early Byzantine manuscripts; I was listing *the > earliest* manuscript of the type. > I concede that N, O, P, and Sigma (also Phi) are early and Byzantine. > I *don't* agree in the case of Q or R. Both have suffered Byzantine > influence, but my check showed that R is about a third Alexandrian, > and Q is about a quarter so. I suspect Prof. Minton and I might differ regarding this assessment; myself because of the loaded words "Byzantine influence" which I would reverse and suggest a primarily Byzantine MS has suffered "Alexandrian influence". > As for E2, I mentioned that under Acts. Though we might note that it > has many, many non-Byzantine readings. But it is still considered, even by Metzger, as primarily a Byzantine MS. > It should be noted that the Byzantine text is surely older than its > oldest witnesses. The big question is, of course, *how much* older.... > > No doubt Maurice Robinson will have something to say about that (I hope he > doesn't get carpal tunnel syndrome...). :-) Thankfully, I have addressed most of these questions in my previous posts so my hands are relaxing now. (BTW, one of the _best_ ways to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome is _not_ to sit in the standard typing position, but to lean back in your chair, put your feet up on the computer desk, and rest the keyboard on your lap -- trust me, it works :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 31 12:51:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01150; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:51:43 -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: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:57:45 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Byzantine Manuscripts (Was: Re: Why Byzantine?, etc.) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2417 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> I wasn't listing early Byzantine manuscripts; I was listing *the >> earliest* manuscript of the type. > >> I concede that N, O, P, and Sigma (also Phi) are early and Byzantine. >> I *don't* agree in the case of Q or R. Both have suffered Byzantine >> influence, but my check showed that R is about a third Alexandrian, >> and Q is about a quarter so. > >I suspect Prof. Minton and I might differ regarding this assessment; >myself because of the loaded words "Byzantine influence" which I would >reverse and suggest a primarily Byzantine MS has suffered "Alexandrian >influence". Perhaps I consider "influence" a more neutral word that Robinson et al. I would say that Q and R have experienced *both* Alexandrian and Byzantine influences. And since they are early, I am not even sure which "direction" the influence pointed. They may have been Byzantine-corrected-toward-Alexandrian or Alexandrian-corrected-toward- Byzantine. The net result, however, is mixed, not Byzantine (though the Byzantine is the strongest element). Of course, this means that the Byzantine text must have existed, before their date. That proves its existence in Egypt by the sixth century. >> As for E2, I mentioned that under Acts. Though we might note that it >> has many, many non-Byzantine readings. > >But it is still considered, even by Metzger, as primarily a Byzantine MS. So? Metzger considers B Alexandrian in Paul. He calls 1739 "Caesarean." Doesn't mean it's true. :-) But I'll repeat: I listed E as the earliest Greek Byzantine witness in Acts. I simply wanted to point out that, while there are places where it is purely Byzantine, there are also places where it has a mixed text. It appears to me to be block mixed. Though I have not investigated the matter in enough depth to be sure. (I freely concede that almost all my work has been devoted to Paul, the Catholics, and the Gospels, in that order. I'm very weak in Acts and the Apocalypse.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 31 13:46:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01379; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:46:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:46:42 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Eph 5:9 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970331134334.2eb73810@mail.infoave.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: 818 In Eph 5:9 there is a variant which is worthy of note in light of our current discussion of the Byzantine text: P46, D (2nd corrector), the Harclean Syriac, and the Byzantine tradition read "pneumatos" while P49, Sinaiticus, A, B, D (original), F,G,P, 6, 33,81, 629, 1175, 1739, 1881 2464 etc read "fotos". It seems to me that the Byzantine text is simply a harmonization to Galatians 5:22. Those who support Byzantine superiority are therefore asked how they see this text. How could "fotos" arise if "pneumatos" was original? Also, with the widespread attestation of "fotos" in all text types (but Byzantine), how could the Byzantine text be seen to preserve the original reading? Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 31 14:40:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01637; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 14:40:44 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970331134334.2eb73810@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:47:21 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2328 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: >In Eph 5:9 there is a variant which is worthy of note in light of our >current discussion of the Byzantine text: > >P46, D (2nd corrector), the Harclean Syriac, and the Byzantine tradition read >"pneumatos" while >P49, Sinaiticus, A, B, D (original), F,G,P, 6, 33,81, 629, 1175, 1739, 1881 >2464 etc read "fotos". > >It seems to me that the Byzantine text is simply a harmonization to >Galatians 5:22. Those who support Byzantine superiority are therefore asked >how they see this text. How could "fotos" arise if "pneumatos" was original? >Also, with the widespread attestation of "fotos" in all text types (but >Byzantine), how could the Byzantine text be seen to preserve the original >reading? While I agree with Jim West that the Byzantine reading here is a harmonization and an error, I don't think we can make too much of this. One example cannot make a rule! All text-types contain harmonizations, conflations, and expansions. The question is not "does text-type such-and-such contain harmonizations?" but rather "*how many* does it contain?" Most of us, of course, think that the Byzantine text contains more harmonizations. Certainly that's my impression. But -- in defense of Robinson and his ilk -- it should be said that my impression is based on the critical apparati of Nestle, UBS, and Merk (in that order). These apparati are all biased; they give the Byzantine text short shrift, but also ignore, for instance, many of the readings of the "Western" text. (And yes, this does include NA27. Compare it with Tischendorf or the NT Auf Papyrus volumes from Munster. You'll see what I mean.) And even if NA27, etc. had complete apparati, we cannot rely on impressions. What is needed is a precise study of the rate of harmonizations, etc. I don't think that has ever been done. I feel fairly sure I know the results. But they have not been proved. (Is that an unbiased enough assessment, Maurice? :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mar 31 17:46:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02637; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:46:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:47:12 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 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: 5376 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote: >In Eph 5:9 there is a variant which is worthy of note in light of our >current discussion of the Byzantine text: >P46, D (2nd corrector), the Harclean Syriac, and the Byzantine >tradition read "pneumatos" while P49, Sinaiticus, A, B, D (original), >F,G,P, 6, 33,81, 629, 1175, 1739, 1881 2464 etc read "fotos". >It seems to me that the Byzantine text is simply a harmonization to >Galatians 5:22. Those who support Byzantine superiority are therefore >asked how they see this text. How could "fotos" arise if "pneumatos" >was original? Also, with the widespread attestation of "fotos" in all >text types (but Byzantine), how could the Byzantine text be seen to >preserve the original reading? Although I expect modern eclectics to disagree with my assessment of the data as usual, I happen to consider this variant unit far more simple to respond to than some others which might have been adduced. Why look for a harmonization to a remote parallel (Gal. 5:22), when a harmonization to the close immediate context is right at hand? Go up merely one line in the printed Nestle text and see "fwtos" in Eph.5:8. A minority of MSS as well as the archetypes of the Old Latin and Coptic versions happened to perform close-context assimilation to an identical word. This is (or should be, since it was declared more than a century ago by Scrivener) a well known common type of error made by scribes. Scrivener also pointed out that harmonization/assimilation to a word or words in close-context is _far_ more common among MSS than harmonization to more distant passages. Further, such close-context harmonization (which usually has an accidental cause) is far more likely to repeat itself _independently_ among MSS or their sources in a way which will transcend normal genealogical (family or texttype) connections. >From a Byzantine-priority perspective, in this variant unit a very small minority of MSS from diverse sources happen to have harmonized to the immediate context of the preceding verse. Viewed from this contextual and transcriptional perspective, the Byzantine Textform (with the early support of P46) happens actually to preserve the correct and contextually _non_-harmonizing reading against that minority of MSS. The close-context harmonization to "fwtos" of 5:8 could also have been dramatically influenced by the other forms of the same word in similar close contexts: 5:8a has "fws" in direct contrast with "skotos"; also 5:11 brings up "skotous" once more, which is again answered by "fwtos" in 5:13 and "fws" in 5:14. There simply is far too much close-context influence here to suppose anything other than assimilation to such on the part of a minority of MSS. It is _far easier_ to presume _accidental_ contextual assimilation than to suppose that P46, Psi and the mass of almost all other MSS (or their archetypes) made a _deliberate_ decision to harmonize to a remote parallel phrase in Gal.5:22 -- a parallel phrase which, though existing in Galatians occurs _nowhere else_ in the entire Greek NT (unless this passage in the Byzantine text of Ephesians also concurs). One thing can be said with certainty: on the basis of Gal.5:22, "fruit of the Spirit" is _definitely_ a Pauline phrase; "fruit of light", however, is quite un-Pauline, since it is otherwise unsupported by any NT book attributed to him. Within the NT a number of lists of virtues engendered by the Holy Spirit are catalogued, and the marginal notes in Nestle at Eph.5:9 and Gal.5:22 refer the reader to these. Yet in _none_ of the other passages is any attempt made by the Byzantine scribes to inject "fruit of the Spirit", even though the context of those virtue lists supposedly would cry out for such assimilative identification, since their contents are _far_ more close to Gal.5:22 than is Eph.5:9. The fact is that here in Eph.5:9, as elsewhere, the Byzantine scribes merely performed their usual task, and preserved the original reading. A minority of scribes, quite independently in some cases, made an accidental harmonization to the immediate context, which actually produced an "easier" reading: "children of light" commanded to "walk" and produce the "fruit of light", i.e. those deeds befitting their stated character as children of light. The "fruit of the Spirit" in such a context is clearly more difficult, and comes in almost as a non-sequitur. Why, if "fruit of the Spirit" were not original, would _anyone_ want to change "fruit of light" which apparently fits the context into something which results in a contextually more awkward expression and which would force one to recall the remote parallel in order to comprehend it? Finally, the context and content of Gal.5:22 is _wholly dissimilar_ from that of Eph.5:9. Harmonization to remote parallels usually does _not_ include the mere lifting of a short phrase to be placed in a wholly different context, but rather a bringing closer of the _entire_ text of both parallel passages. This most definitely did _not_ occur in Eph.5:9. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 31 17:55:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02655; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:55:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:56:16 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 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: 4144 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B.. Waltz wrote: >While I agree with Jim West that the Byzantine reading here is a >harmonization and an error, I don't think we can make too much of >this. One example cannot make a rule! Since I believe I have provided a reasonable response to the example, I would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view. >All text-types contain >harmonizations, conflations, and expansions. The question is not "does >text-type such-and-such contain harmonizations?" but rather "*how many* >does it contain?" I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation. Certainly _some_ MSS within the Byzantine MSS _did_ harmonize from time to time, but I still maintain that wholesale harmonization, adopted and perpetuated by virtually all MSS of the Byzantine Textform, simply did _not_ occur. The reason is simple: if the Byzantine Textform indeed reflects the overarching "original archetype", then it would not be expected to hold harmonizations in common unless such apparent harmonizations were the intent of the original authors. Also, if the Byzantine scribes had such a "harmonistic bent" (Fee's words), then we should expect to find parallel passages among at least the synoptic gospels in near-total harmony among the Byzantine MSS, since to allow disharmony to remain would be contrary to their supposed "usual" practice; this of course is not the case, and in itself demonstrates that there was no major tendency among Byzantine-era scribes to harmonize parallel passages, but if any did so, the normal processes of comparison and correction against other exemplars would weed out the harmonistic corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. The archetypes of the various minority texttypes _can_ be shown to have harmonized in many places in directions _away_ from the non-harmonizing Byzantine text (why would the Byzantine Textform _ever_ choose to "disharmonize" if the supposedly earlier Alexandrian or Western MSS already had a harmonizing reading in place? yet this does occur in a manner more frequently than one might suppose) and in such places the Alexandrian or Western harmonization either points to accidental alteration or deliberate recensional activity. >Most of us, of course, think that the Byzantine text contains more >harmonizations. Certainly that's my impression. Most modern eclectics will do so because that has been the hypothesis accepted ever since Westcott and Hort, and goes hand-in-hand with the "conflation" and "Syrian Recension" hypotheses. I would suggest that Wisselink's volume on "Assimilation" in regard to the Byzantine text of the Gospels strongly tends to discredit this overly-simplified assumption. >But -- in defense of Robinson and his ilk Should I _like_ the word "ilk"? Or does it have a certain degree of negative connotation like "brood"? >And even if NA27, etc. had complete apparati, we cannot rely on >impressions. What is needed is a precise study of the rate of >harmonizations, etc. I don't think that has ever been done. Wisselink once more is suggested, but not his published volume (which contains only the text portion of his doctoral research in the Netherlands), but the four large volumes of data which Wisselink also has made available in photocopied form for sale, but at great expense. I don't even have them myself, but was able to spend some time with them while in Kampen in 1989, and was greatly impressed with his statistics on this matter. >I feel fairly sure I know the results. But they have not been >proved. Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this is not the result you were expecting. >(Is that an unbiased enough assessment, Maurice? :-) You're getting better. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Mar 31 18:56:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02734; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:56:08 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:02:08 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6005 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B.. Waltz wrote: > >>While I agree with Jim West that the Byzantine reading here is a >>harmonization and an error, I don't think we can make too much of >>this. One example cannot make a rule! > >Since I believe I have provided a reasonable response to the example, I >would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view. It's a strong point, too -- Colwell showed that harmonization to immediate context is very common. I think, to finally settle the matter, we would have to determine how often the "fruits of the spirit" phrase in Galatians was quoted. If it is frequently cited in ancient times, then harmonization could have occurred. (I would point out that harmonization need not even apply to parallels within scripture. Harmonization generally applies to *the most familiar text,* scriptural or otherwise.) >>All text-types contain >>harmonizations, conflations, and expansions. The question is not "does >>text-type such-and-such contain harmonizations?" but rather "*how many* >>does it contain?" > >I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation. Why? If you refuse to examine the matter, then we cannot take you seriously. Of course, you can examine a list of examples, and say, "No, this is not a harmonization." But if you refuse in advance to consider the question, then your results *have no meaning.* >Certainly _some_ MSS within the Byzantine MSS _did_ harmonize from time to >time, but I still maintain that wholesale harmonization, adopted and >perpetuated by virtually all MSS of the Byzantine Textform, simply did >_not_ occur. The reason is simple: if the Byzantine Textform indeed >reflects the overarching "original archetype", then it would not be >expected to hold harmonizations in common unless such apparent >harmonizations were the intent of the original authors. This is assuming the solution. You *may* be correct. But you are not offering evidence. >Also, if the Byzantine scribes had such a "harmonistic bent" (Fee's >words), then we should expect to find parallel passages among at least the >synoptic gospels in near-total harmony among the Byzantine MSS, since to >allow disharmony to remain would be contrary to their supposed "usual" >practice; this of course is not the case, and in itself demonstrates that >there was no major tendency among Byzantine-era scribes to harmonize >parallel passages, but if any did so, the normal processes of comparison >and correction against other exemplars would weed out the harmonistic >corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. This is false logic. For one thing, the *primary* characteristic of the Byzantine scribes was conservatism; they did their best to preserve the readings before them. Occasionally the urge to harmonization might overwhelm them -- but certainly not always. Besides, nobody could possibly remember all the texts to harmonize them. Even if they could, they might harmonize in different directions. This process has actually been observed in oral tradition. I can't place my hands on the example at the moment, but I know it's there. Two siblings had learned the same song from their father. They both also knew a related song. Both "harmonized" the two slightly. One harmonized it more than the other; neither harmonized completely. But in neither instance did they produce a fully harmonized version. "Lizie Wan" was still "Lizie Wan," not "Edward." (And don't ask about those songs, folks. They're both about murder, and one of them involves incest as well....) [ ... ] >>But -- in defense of Robinson and his ilk > >Should I _like_ the word "ilk"? Or does it have a certain degree of >negative connotation like "brood"? I simply meant it to refer to those who accept Byzantine priority. Perhaps it means something different to you, but in my Midwestern-influenced- by-Medieval-English vocabulary, it implies "a typical but upstanding example." >>And even if NA27, etc. had complete apparati, we cannot rely on >>impressions. What is needed is a precise study of the rate of >>harmonizations, etc. I don't think that has ever been done. > >Wisselink once more is suggested, but not his published volume (which >contains only the text portion of his doctoral research in the >Netherlands), but the four large volumes of data which Wisselink also has >made available in photocopied form for sale, but at great expense. I don't >even have them myself, but was able to spend some time with them while in >Kampen in 1989, and was greatly impressed with his statistics on this >matter. I'd need to see the results before I can accept them blindly. Frankly, too much textual criticism is done by following the dogmatic results of earlier scholars. (There, at least, Maurice Robinson and I agree fully.) Is there any hope of commercial publication (read: Something a non- professional in this field can afford)? >>I feel fairly sure I know the results. But they have not been >>proved. > >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this >is not the result you were expecting. If true and verifiable, it is not the result I was expecting. And, if true, I at least would have to significantly re-think my position. With the footnote, of course, that the results must be broad spectrum. Examples are *not* sufficient. >>(Is that an unbiased enough assessment, Maurice? :-) > >You're getting better. :-) Although I suspect I lost most of my credit in the points of logic above. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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)