Subject: tc-list archive update

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:42:38 -0500 (EST)

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=[email-masked]

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: "Lewis Reich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:01:59 -500

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
[email-masked]

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 12:25:46 -0800

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: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:21:37 -0600 (CST)

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

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:23:36 -0600 (CST)

When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could 
share it with others?

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 20:13:11 -0800 (PST)

> they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well.  Is there any definitive 
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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:04:55 -0500 (EST)

> When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could 

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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:24:12 -0500 (EST)

> 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.

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:07:23 -0600 (CST)

On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> > Yes, there is definitive word on this.

Now, once more.  Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used?