Subject: Re: CPM? (Was: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text))

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:02:10 -0500 (EST)

>Also, does it seem that the level of civility on this list is declining?

I, personally, don't think so.  To me, good honest criticism (of opinions-
never people) is useful in helping me to clarify my own thinking.  Now of
course I am often not persuaded by the arguments presented- but that just
means that I am rather dense!

>Recently we were all jumping on Jim West. Of course, we've also climbed
>on Maurice Robinson regularly. Now it's my turn. And the "refutations"
>are no more detailed than the original statements. Is there any way
>that we can get back to discussion?
>

I think we are discussing.  

Jim, (a happy participant who doesn't mind being dragged through it- so long
as no one says anything unkind about Mozart!).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:57:44 -0700

>means that I am rather dense!

Well, it seemed to me that we were getting into people -- perhaps
because I was being attacked for not having published or having a
seminary degree.

But I hope I'm wrong.

>I think we are discussing.  

Since you're one of the ones who has been under attack, I'll accept
that. The sad thing is, though, that in the course of that deluge
against Jim West, I asked a serious question (specifically, where
does a person with his views place the doxology of Romans, since
p46 has it after chapter 15). In all the sound and fury, I never
saw an answer. And I am genuinely curious.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            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: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:43:34 -0700

> as no one says anything unkind about Mozart!).

I would certainly _not_ be the first one to say anything unkind about Mozart. I 
really _love_ classical music, especially Mozart!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:30:41 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> I asked a serious question (specifically, where

I have wondered about that too, as I see it, the choices for the floating 
doxology are as follows:

Majority Text   = at end of ch 14
Aleph, A, B, Cr = after 16:23
Textus Receptus = end of ch 16 (aft 16:24)
Alexandrinus    = after both chapters 14 and 16:23
P46             = end of ch 15

Does A conflate Byz and B... here?  (just asking)

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:00:25 -0700

>Alexandrinus    = after both chapters 14 and 16:23

There's another important reading here which you have not listed:

1506             = at end of ch. 14 *and* at end of chapter 15,
                   *omitting* chapter 16. (That's what I said;
                   look it up in NA26) And 1506 is an important
                   witness to Paul; in Romans, it seems to be
                   second only to Aleph in "Alexandrian-ness"
                   (based on my table of readings).

>Does A conflate Byz and B... here?  (just asking)

It's not just A -- P 33 al have the same reading. I think you're right,
though -- A etc. are conflating the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings.

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]