Subject: New ENTTC articles

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:07:39 -0700

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 ([email-masked]) 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
                         [email-masked]

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: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:04:11 -0600 (CST)

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

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 21:03:06 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:

[snip]
> or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither.  Can someone help me on this?
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).

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:28:34 -0700

>or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither.  Can someone help me on this?

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
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:16:07 -0500

>or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither.  Can someone help me on this?

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
[email-masked]               "Did I forget, forget to mention Memphis,
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/      Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks..."