From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 1 05:21:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA13414; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 05:21:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 05:23:25 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: codex Phillips 1388? To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199708010523_MC2-1C1C-51B@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 606 Re Jean Valentine's question about Phillipps 1388, I would take it to be = in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, where Phillipps 1707 is. Jean, you will probably have access to *Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der K=F6nigliche= n Bibliothek zu Berlin,* ed. V. Rose (Berlin, in the 1890s, multiple volumes), which should lead you to the location precisely. For our Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS) project on the Diatessaron this next year, Ulrich Schmid has, if I am not mistaken, ordered MSS from Berlin; check with him as to street addresses and costs= =2E --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 1 05:35:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA13433; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 05:35:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:37:20 GMT Subject: Re: codex Phillips 1388? 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: 507 I presume that it is in the Staatsbibliothek preussischer Kulturbesitz (formerly the Koenigliche Bibliothek), Stauffenbergstrasse 41, 1000 Berlin 30. 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 Fri Aug 1 14:05:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15051; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:05:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:08:41 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: And the Winner Is.... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2629 TCers -- I guess it's true. Make something controversial, and more people will get interested in it. Over the last ten days or so, my web site has experienced a huge upsurge in traffic -- all of ten hits per day, up from about six per day in the preceding weeks. If we keep this up, no doubt we will cause the server to break down. :-) Now for the results of the voting on the Fathers page. Apparently I didn't need to wait; no new people were heard from. Although I did receive a clarification, which made it clear that the person's approval was conditional. Since I cannot guarantee to meet the conditions, I make the final score eight in favour of the page, five opposed, and two neutral. So I suppose the page will stay. If it makes those of you who were opposed feel any better, I truly regret putting it up there. :-) I just posted a second draft of the page. This incorporates, in one form or another, all the information sent to me so far. It also includes, in LARGE UNFRIENDLY LETTERS, a warning saying that the page needs work. I did make some other changes -- fixing some typos, adding a little new information, and starting the list of sources. The latter is going to take longer than I thought; I'm going to have to go through every book again. And I'm also under several deadlines this week.... I will repeat my appeal: If you have anything to add, let me know. Also, a suggestion (or should I say an order?) from Matthew Johnson. He suggests that we need to list critical editions for all the fathers cited. Now I would argue that this is a job for an Introduction, not an Encyclopedia -- but I would also agree that this is a good thing to have on line where it can be updated frequently. My problem is, I don't have the information required. Do people want this enough to be willing to help out? Also, it occurs to me that we might want to have some sort of notation for the critical methodology used. Particularly in assessing the text-type of the Father. For example -- for all that I disagree with the details of Ehrman's Comprehensive Profile Method -- I readily concede that it is the best tool currently in use for determining text-types. So an assessment based on this method would be far better than an assessment based on, say, divergences from the TR. Comments? Volunteers? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 1 20:18:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA16230; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 20:18:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:21:32 -0500 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: Re: tc: J. Weingreen Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 499 I reviewed Weingreen's book back in 1983: BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 46 (1983) 190f. Hope it proves of some help, leonard ********************************************** * Leonard Jay Greenspoon, Chairholder * * Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization * * Creighton University * * Admin Bldg #333, Omaha, Nebraska 68178 * * phone (402)-280-2304 fax (402)-280-4731 * * e-mail: LJGRN@creighton.edu * ********************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 2 22:09:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18337; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 22:09:26 -0400 Date: 3 Aug 1997 02:11:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19970803021153.3058.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <199707310427.AAA16047@server1.netpath.net> (MAILER-DAEMON@server1.netpath.net) Subject: Re: Broman's reveiw of my book From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6140 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm appreciative of Mullen's posted comments. This is lots better than trying to converse through a printing press. It sounds like we have some impediments to communication tripping us up. One is the word "Caesarean". After careful reading, I still see Mullen arguing (effectively) in his book that within the Gospel of Mark Theta + 565 + Orig + Eus + (700 + CyrilJ) are in fact related to each other. The traditional name for this grouping is either "Caesarean" or "family Theta", without any requirement to buy into all of Streeter's theories or to inflate the group into a many-tentacled I text type. Mullen's point that p45, W, f1, et al do not belong to this small group, even in Mark, is appreciated. Perhaps the name Caesarean has too much connotational baggage attached. Mullen wrote: > The difficulty in leaping to the use of a profile method without applying > Colwell first is that most of the profiles rely upon pre-defined groups of > mss, and so far as I know the best way to make a preliminary judgment about > ms relationships is by Colwell's method ... If one doesn't have predefined groups, then I agree that obtaining Colwell's metric on witnesses is a good first step in scoping out the lay of the land. This, however is not the situation of the Cyril book. I saw the goal of the book to be placing Cyril's text among the already known text types and textual landmarks. The tables labeled "Cyril's Percentages of Agreement with Control Witnesses in " were indeed presented in advance of Ehrman's profiles, but I didn't observe any case in which those tables told us anything about Cyril's affinity to text types that wasn't later visible in the profiles. I would enjoy learning of counterexamples. > ... Broman writes "Mullen's assumption > that there was a single Palestinian text of the NT, the evolution of which > can be traced through time from Origen through Eusebius, and Cyril to > Epiphanius, seems tenuous..." I NEITHER ASSUME NOR CONCLUDE SUCH! ... > "From a survey of New Testament text-types and of patristic authors related > to Palestine there is scant evidence for a distinct and independent > text-type centered in the region. In regard to distinct and independent text types, that much is clear. But the concept of a (possibly indistinct and non-independent) text which can be traced through time in Palestine is presupposed by the numerous comments made in the book about "shifts", "moving", "evolution", "trajectories", "transitional", et al. Such expressions don't make a lot of sense without some kind of cause/effect relationship connecting the Palestinian patristic texts through time. > ... if we allow the voting > consensus of the mss to determine the reading of the text-type at a given > point of variation, how can we avoid falling into the trap of the majority > text? The rule of "one MS -- one vote" is so crude that it should only be employed as an initial approximation. One should, more generally, be able to estimate the degree of relevance a witness has to the voting issue at hand. With more analysis, some kind of second-order voting scheme ought to be possible that mitigates the problems due to the nonindependence and the biased survival chances of family members. If internal evidence and local genealogy tell us about the direction of textual change, then nonsymmetric voting rules could come into play. > ... my "plus/minus > 3.88 percentage points" should be "plus/minus 3.18 points of variation." > (obviously though, we can't count points of variation in anything other than > integers, so it would be safer to say "plus/minus 4 points of variation." > ... but as I understand it, > the approximation to the normal distribution curve is the theory that lies > behind the analysis in the first place. Actually, the normal curve stuff is just a convenient approximation to speed the computation, and it fails for small N and p near 0 or 1. It may help to explain that the "plus/minus 3.18" somethings is supposed to represent a "confidence interval" for the estimate. The observed agreement count is an integer from 0 .. N, while the unknown parameter is the agreement level p, a real number in [0,1]. A 95% confidence interval is a mapping from observations to intervals for which the probability of the interval containing the true value of p is always at least 95%, but the length of the intervals being minimized for economy (and uniqueness). The critical factor for choosing sample sizes is the smallness of the confidence intervals around your results that you need. > ... at > the beginning of a quantitative analysis the relationships are (in theory) > unknown, therefore assumption is made that the witnesses are independent. The independence problem isn't in the control witnesses. In our situation, we are comparing the agreement of Cyril with witness X against the agreement of Cyril with witness Y, and *Cyril* is the random variable, while the control witnesses are the fixed quantities. So, the two agreement counts Cyr/X and Cyr/Y are each binomials, but not independent binomials. The difference in agreement counts depends only on how Cyril reads at the points of variation where X and Y *differ*. That might be some kind of shifted binomial, with a different N. About decimal points... the number of digits you quote doesn't depend on precedent in the field, it depends on how accurate the datum is. It is good practice to write down only "significant" digits. Vincent Broman broman@sd.znet.com, broman@nosc.mil San Diego, California -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM+K9umCU4mTNq7IdAQEbkAQAi8P2m8t97y1xMEMrZhknrA3mXHTSvnSN c9CPIiqWAtpqXfl63fq8YUARn6epYAsqDVl1nrm8eb8sqyrpUztoScSCz2LWcs2K VZqbZfnbbjgJC4wOREIkn+427255Y7mO1zfAaD+p7DgUg3R73v/UnhsxMhsTWcsd 3OT7eEiIzcU= =aIKQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 4 03:40:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA20712; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 03:40:17 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sipil=E4_Seppo?= Organization: University of Helsinki To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:45:10 EET DST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: And the Winner Is.... Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: <14CFFDA4280@Teologi1.helsinki.fi> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3337 Dear Mr Waltz Concerning the Fathers page, which I had some troubles to look at. (You could add a backflash at the end of the URL on your signature, just in case there are some other dummies like me.... :-) > I will repeat my appeal: If you have anything to add, let me > know. I have some suggestions a) concerning Epiphanius: I wonder if you could mention his _De mensuris et ponderibus_ which was a fairly important "encyclopedia" of biblical matters in Antiquity. The problem with the work is, of course, that it is not completly extant in Greek any longer, but in Syriac. b) concerning Origen: Is it so clear that he knew Hebrew? Sidney Jellicoe in his "The Septuagint and the modern Study" (OUP, Oxford 1968) offers a discussion of the matter (pp 104-106) but does not say how to solve the problem. Therefore I would suggest that you, instead of "he took the trouble to learn Hebrew" would use something like "perhaps he took..." or "it is claimed that he took..." Oh yes, a typo: you have _Theodotian_, should be _Theodotion_ c) concerning Theodoret: I think that the way you describe his literary activity, does not give the reader the right idea. Because you say that "In addition to writings on these subjects [= christological debate] he wrote a commentary on the Pauline Epistles" the reader thinks that Thdt did not wrote any other exegetical work at all, but surely this is not the case. It may be the case that his commentary on the Pauline Ep. is the most important work from the point of view of the NTTC, but nevertheless you could say that there are some other writings, like commentaries on the Octateuch and on Kindoms and Chronicles [these are of importance in the TC of the LXX]. When discussing the use of Fathers in TC, you describe three problems concerning the works of the Fathers. The first one is _not_ very serious, I think, and you could even say that. You could perhaps also say that one of the disturbing things with many Fathers is that the same author uses different wordings of the same biblical passage in different works! The problem is, of course, that it is difficult to know the reason for that and that it is also very difficult to know the actual wording(s) the given Father had access to. This has some relevance when we try to find out the texttype the Father is using. > Also, a suggestion (or should I say an order?) from Matthew > Johnson. He suggests that we need to list critical editions > for all the fathers cited. Instead of compling such a list you could say that the list is possible to compile by using a very usefull list of all the editions of the works of the Greek Fathers: Geerard, M (editor): _Clavis Patrum Graecorum_ 1-5 (Turnhout 1974-1987) One needs only to check from a standard bibliography, like _L'Annee Philologique_ or _Bibliographia Patristica_ if there are new editions published since the Clavis came out. The most important editions are also mentioned in the patrology of Altaner-Stuiber (the latest German edition appeared in 1993). The English translation is outdated what comes to the editions. Hope you will find these suggestions of some value! Seppo --- Mr Seppo Sipila Department of Biblical Studies University of Helsinki seppo.sipila@helsinki.fi http://www.helsinki.fi/~sesipila/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 4 08:25:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21288; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:25:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:28:55 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <14CFFDA4280@Teologi1.helsinki.fi> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: And the Winner Is.... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3967 On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, you wrote: >Dear Mr Waltz > >Concerning the Fathers page, which I had some troubles to look at. >(You could add a backflash at the end of the URL on your signature, >just in case there are some other dummies like me.... :-) I corrected some errors in the HTML yesterday. Beyond that, all I can say is that the page works on my machine. :-) >> I will repeat my appeal: If you have anything to add, let me >> know. > >I have some suggestions > >a) concerning Epiphanius: I wonder if you could mention his _De >mensuris et ponderibus_ which was a fairly important "encyclopedia" >of biblical matters in Antiquity. The problem with the work is, of >course, that it is not completly extant in Greek any longer, but in >Syriac. Thank you. >b) concerning Origen: Is it so clear that he knew Hebrew? Sidney >Jellicoe in his "The Septuagint and the modern Study" (OUP, Oxford >1968) offers a discussion of the matter (pp 104-106) but does not say >how to solve the problem. Therefore I would suggest that you, instead >of "he took the trouble to learn Hebrew" would use something like >"perhaps he took..." or "it is claimed that he took..." Well -- he *did* produce the Hexapla. Conceding that his Hebrew may not have been perfect, he must have had some knowledge of the language to have attempted such a thing. >Oh yes, a typo: you have _Theodotian_, should be _Theodotion_ Thanks. >c) concerning Theodoret: I think that the way you describe his >literary activity, does not give the reader the right idea. Because >you say that "In addition to writings on these subjects [= >christological debate] he wrote a commentary on the Pauline Epistles" >the reader thinks that Thdt did not wrote any other exegetical work >at all, but surely this is not the case. It may be the case that his >commentary on the Pauline Ep. is the most important work from the >point of view of the NTTC, but nevertheless you could say that there >are some other writings, like commentaries on the Octateuch and on >Kindoms and Chronicles [these are of importance in the TC of the >LXX]. OK. >When discussing the use of Fathers in TC, you describe three problems >concerning the works of the Fathers. The first one is _not_ very >serious, I think, and you could even say that. > >You could perhaps also say that one of the disturbing things with >many Fathers is that the same author uses different wordings of the >same biblical passage in different works! The problem is, of course, >that it is difficult to know the reason for that and that it >is also very difficult to know the actual wording(s) the given >Father had access to. This has some relevance when we try to find out >the texttype the Father is using. I thought I had said that. :-) I will try to make it clearer. >> Also, a suggestion (or should I say an order?) from Matthew >> Johnson. He suggests that we need to list critical editions >> for all the fathers cited. > >Instead of compling such a list you could say that the list is >possible to compile by using a very usefull list of all the editions >of the works of the Greek Fathers: > Geerard, M (editor): _Clavis Patrum Graecorum_ 1-5 (Turnhout > 1974-1987) > >One needs only to check from a standard bibliography, like _L'Annee >Philologique_ or _Bibliographia Patristica_ if there are new >editions published since the Clavis came out. > >The most important editions are also mentioned in the patrology of >Altaner-Stuiber (the latest German edition appeared in 1993). The >English translation is outdated what comes to the editions. > > >Hope you will find these suggestions of some value! I will try to find these books. I may not succeed; I have access to only one seminary, and I do not have loan priviledges. I also don't read German. (Remember, I'm a physicist and mathematician, not a linguist.) But I will try. And thank you for the suggestions. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 4 09:55:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21586; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:55:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:59:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <14CFFDA4280@Teologi1.helsinki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oops! Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 198 On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, I myself wrote to this list when I meant to post a private response. You have my apologies. I just assumed the original message was off-list. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 4 10:05:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21685; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:05:59 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199708041409.QAA21070@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 04 Aug 97 16:28:17 +0100 Subject: Re: codex Phillips 1388? To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9707311953.AA23189@iris.arcadis.be> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 852 Jean, Sorry for lately dealing with your request, but I was away for some days. Codex Phillipps 1388 should be kept at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. There are two buildings of the Staatsbibliothek, one "Unter den Linden" and the other at the "Potsdamer Platz". Most likely the MS is kept "Unter den Linden", for I recently consulted codex Phillipps 1707 (Latin Harmony) at that place. However, just use the mailing address covering MS requests from both buildings: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz Handschriftenabteilung D-10102 Berlin They deliver microfilms within roughly four weeks. They charge 1 DM per image (= 1 fol.) plus shipping costs. If your MS covers the whole NT, it might well amount to 150 DM. BTW-- It is possible to ask for the prospected costs in advance. Hope this helps. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 4 10:08:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21709; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:08:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:08:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List cc: DGConklin@aol.com Subject: re: p64 and 7Q5 In-Reply-To: <970802160752_-690003644@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 530 I think some of you on the list might have some bibliographic suggestions. Make sure to reply to DGConklin@aol.com as well as to the list. Thanks. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- On Sat, 2 Aug 1997 DGConklin@aol.com wrote: > I was wondering if you could suggest some good sources to read that deal with > the above fragments. > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 4 10:26:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21810; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:26:46 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <970802160752_-690003644@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:36:05 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: re: p64 and 7Q5 Cc: DGConklin@aol.com Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 699 >On Sat, 2 Aug 1997 DGConklin@aol.com wrote: >> I was wondering if you could suggest some good sources to read that deal >>with >> the above fragments. An easily accessible/semi-popular work that you should definitely look at (if you've not already done so) is Graham Stanton's _Gospel Truth: New Light on Jesus & the Gospels_ (Trinity, 1995). (A highly condensed selection from this book appeared as an article in Bible Review around the beginning of 1996.) Stanton provides thorough and compelling reasons why Thiede's claims re: p64 and O'Callaghan's (and subsequently Thiede's) claims re: 7Q5 can almost certainly not be correct. Nichael nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 4 10:31:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21839; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:31:37 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:32:57 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: re: p64 and 7Q5 Priority: normal References: <970802160752_-690003644@emout09.mail.aol.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <15C1EDE177D@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1013 On P64, see the following: --C. P. Thiede presents his controversial re-dating of P64 in "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64): A Reappraisal," _Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigraphik_ 105(1995) 13-20. --For critiques of Thiede, see K. Wachtel, "P64/67: Fragmente des Mattausevangelums aus dem 1. Jahrhundert?" _ZPE_ 107(1995) 73-80; Harald Vocke, "Magdalen 17--Weitere Argumente gegen die Fruhdatierung des angeblichen Jesus-Papyrus, " _ZPE_ 113(1996) 153-57; P. M. Head, "The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P.Magd. Gr. 17)=P64): A Response to Thiede," _Tyndale Bulletin_ 46(1995) 251-85. --T. C. Skeat now proposes that P64 + P67 + P4 are fragments of the same codex, which he dates to ca. 200 CE, making it (among?) the earliest 4-gospel codex: "The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?" _NTS_ 43(1997) 1-34. 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 Tue Aug 5 08:15:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA25005; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:15:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:21:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199708051221.IAA06467@socrate.riq.qc.ca> X-Sender: jracine@riq.qc.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: jracine@riq.qc.ca (Jean-Francois Racine) Subject: re: p64 and 7Q5 Cc: DGConklin@aol.com Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 630 To the bibliographical notices aforementioned, I would add: Emile Puech, "Des fragments grecs de la grotte 7 et le Nouveau Testament? 7Q4 et 7Q5, et le papyrus Magdalen grec 17 = P64," Revue biblique 102 (1995): 570-584. Jean-François Racine ______________________________________________________________ Jean-Francois Racine | Tel: (418) 626-4583 265, 65e rue Ouest | FAX: (418) 626-8271 Charlesbourg, QC | internet: jracine@riq.qc.ca G1H 4Y5 | CANADA | From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 5 09:30:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA25260; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:30:19 -0400 From: WFWarren@aol.com Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970805093331_1577750274@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: re: p64 and 7Q5 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 655 In a message dated 8/4/97 2:45:37 PM, Larry Hurtado wrote: >--T. C. Skeat now proposes that P64 + P67 + P4 are fragments of the >same codex, which he dates to ca. 200 CE, making it (among?) the >earliest 4-gospel codex: "The Oldest Manuscript of the Four >Gospels?" _NTS_ 43(1997) 1-34. I'm sure that many already know this, but as a reminder, Kurt Aland wrote a brief article in the late 70's (79 if my memory serves correctly) in which he proposed this same identification and date. I'll pass on the bibliographic info when I return to the office. Paz, Bill Warren Professor of New Testament and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 6 14:59:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA29189; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:59:11 -0400 Message-Id: <9708062001.AA22866@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Codex Phillipps 1388 Date: Mer, 6 Aož 97 21:02:42 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2167 A big THANK YOU to those who provided me with information about codex Phillips 1388 and the library in Berlin where it is located. Ulrich, thanks for the information about the article by Allgeier. I will check it the next time I go to Louvain. I the meanwhile, I had found this reference in Voobus' second volume of "Studies in the History of the Gospel text". I am studying another ms of the Peshitto, Sinai syr 2. According to Voobus, who doesn't give collations but only selected variants, there are much more old syriac variants in this ms. And indeed, after collating eleven chapters from Luke, I find the results really interesting. Most chapters have half a dozen or more variants that are old syriac - even sometimes that are not in the two old syriac mss, but are present in witnesses of the Diatessaron (if anyone is interested in samples...). According to Voobus, there are more of such mss. Is there really nobody anywhere working on a new critical edition of the peshitto NT? It's probably time to demonstrate that what the manuals are usually saying about its textual unity (very few variants etc...) is overstated. It's interesting, in this regard, to observe the shift in Voobus' attitude between his first volume and the second. In the first volume (1951), he lauds the faithful transmission of the peshitto and its textual stability, in the second (1987) he aligns hundreds of old syriac variants from dozens of mss that were not used by Pusey-Gwilliam... More about it later, probably... Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ NISUS WRITER - the multilingual word processor for the Macintosh. Find more about it at: http://www.nisus-soft.com http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/grads/maschke/nisus_overview/toc.htm l _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 6 15:40:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA29279; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:40:46 -0400 From: WFWarren@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970806154322_-1138055811@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: re: p64 and 7Q5 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 576 In a message dated 8/5/97 1:39:31 PM, I wrote: >I'm sure that many already know this, but as a reminder, Kurt Aland wrote a >brief article in the late 70's (79 if my memory serves correctly) in which he >proposed this same identification and date. I'll pass on the bibliographic >info when I return to the office. Having looked at the bibliographic info, the date was 1976. The full entry is: Aland, Kurt. "Neue Neutestamentliche Papyri III." _NTSt_ 22 (Apr 1976): 375-96. Paz, Bill Warren Professor of New Testament and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 7 08:02:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00837; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:02:35 -0400 Message-ID: From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:03:39 GMT Subject: Re: Codex Phillipps 1388 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: 834 A new edition of the Peshitta NT (and Harklean) is being produced by Barbara Aland and co at the Muenster Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung, "Das Neue Testament in syrischer Ueberlieferung" (W. de Gruyter). So far three volumes have appeared) containing the major catholic epistles, and Rom., 1& 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., and Col. I believe another vol. is on its way. I don't know about anyone else, but I would be fascinated to see some examples of your collations. 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 Fri Aug 8 20:01:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06802; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 20:01:35 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:57:54 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: A challenge X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5583 Dear listers: A textual stemma has a general form that may need to be determined before the stemma is decided upon. For example, with three texts, none of which can be intermediary between the others, the following stemmas are possible: any one of the three may be the archetype, having a lost text as a descendant which is the common ancestor of the other two texts; or the archetype may be the common ancestor of any one of the three texts and of a lost text which again is the common ancestor of the other two texts; or the archetype may be a lost text, the common ancestor of the three extant texts -- seven possibilities, all having a single abstract form: each text connected independently to a lost text, A to lost, B to lost, and C to lost. An archetype has all the correct readings in the texts, and if no one text has all of them, we need to recognize the abstract form to decide among the other possibilities and to reconstruct the archetype (with the three texts in the example, when they agree, the lost text agrees with them; otherwise it agrees with any two of the extant texts). This is quite a different procedure from choosing the text with the most best readings and substituting the rest in it, leaving the great preponderance of its readings unweighed in the balance. With more than three texts, the stemma may have one or more "rings" in it if nothing is done to remove them. If A and B have "yes" where C and D have "yea" and A and C have "no" where B and D have "nay" then the abstract form of the ring is A--B ("yes"), B--D ("nay"), D--C ("yea"), and C--A ("no"). The archetype may be any of the four texts or the common ancestor of any two that are connected, say, of A and C, making B a descendant of A and D the common descendant of B and C (i.e., when A and C disagreed, sometimes A and sometimes C had the best reading; the archetype would then read "no" whether or not that was one of the identifiably best readings). To "break" such a ring we decide which is the "weakest link," all variations considered, and before we look for the archetype -- note, before we look for the archetype. If, for example, there are over all fewer AB agreements than AC agreements or BD agreements or CD agreements, then we say that the agreement of A and B in having "yes" is abnormal (without deciding whether it is accidental, coincidental or emendatory) and set it aside. In effect, then, we have three variant readings, "yes (A)," "yes (B)" and "yea," and the abstract relationship among the four texts is A--C--D--B. Other evidence may modify the relationship without changing the basic series: a lost text may take the place of C with C connected to it, or a lost text may take the place of D with D connected to it, or there may be two lost texts, with C connected to one and D to the other, and one of these lost texts may be the archetype. Now, using A--B--D--C--A for the ring we have just been considering, there may also be rings A--B--C--D--A and A-- C--B--D--A, three rings that we may call alternates. And if there are additional texts we may have two small rings A--B--D--C--A and A--B--E--F--A within a larger ring A--C--D--B--E--F--A, the two smaller of which we may call connected. In order to be consistent in breaking the rings and to divide as few links as possible, we need to break them in a certain order and may need to repeat the process after the first round of breaking. These increasingly complicated matters are treated on pp. 93-98 of my book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis. If those who wish to take up my challenge wish also to have a Xerox copy of these pages I shall be happy to send them one. So what is my challenge? You may decide that you can live with a few rings in your stemmas. You will then find that with a medium sized New Testament book like First John and the twenty earliest surviving texts, there are nearly 7000 rings. I have written a computer program that patiently identifies all the smaller rings, breaks the rings in the required order, and then repeats the process as often as necessary. This program traces many linkages that do not lead to rings, and if, for example, A leads to C, C to D, D to B, B to E, E to F, and F does not lead to A, the program has (I fear) wasted some time. It is smart enough to know that if A leads to B but never to any other text to the exclusion of B then A--B will never be a link in any ring. It might be smartened up so as to know that if F does not lead to A, as in the longer example above, then it may be that F will never lead to A and the search can stop short when E leads to F. But I have a feeling that the initial form of a stemma is like a great net and that you ought to be able to move forward from any place or tag end on its circumference breaking the meshes (rings) as you come to them until the remaining strands spread out like fans within fans, not a cross link among them. Do you have or can you divise an algorithm for doing this? You do not need to be a computer programmer -- a step by step explanation will do, showing how to start with one text and comb out the linkages between it and the rest. Remember, unless one of the texts has all the best readings it is impossible to decide on the archetype until the comb-out is completed. This is such a complex matter that it may be better for us to communicate directly hereafter instead of through tc-list, but a good idea deserves wide recognition, so suit yourselves. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 8 20:33:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06844; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 20:33:04 -0400 Message-ID: <33EBBB9A.5FF7E30F@concentric.net> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 17:36:42 -0700 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Amos 9:11-12: Hebrew to Greek X-Priority: 3 (Normal) 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: 1389 I don't have tools available (or know enough languages) to check into this myself readily so I have a question for the list: In Acts 15, Luke shows James citing Amos 9:11-12, according to the Old Greek, which is what Luke usually uses when citing the Scriptures of Israel. It has been objected that James would never quote the LXX. While I find that argument open to criticism, I'm wondering if there are any Hebrew texts from, say Qumran, or other versions not dependent upon the Old Greek, which reflect the same reading as the Old Greek as cited in Acts or at least are close enough to it to explain how the Old Greek came to this rendering. (I'm not here looking to "defend" Luke -- just understand why the LXX is so different -- Luke can take care of himself :-) ). Is there a Targum that reads more like the Old Greek? I'm looking basically for an explanation for the difference between the MT Hebrew and Old Greek translation of this text in Amos. Obviously witnesses which depend upon the "LXX" are of no help because they are successors. I am looking for a predecessor that went the same direction. My brief look at the Old Greek of Amos in Rahlff's didn't lead me to think that on the whole the translator was as free as, say, the translator of Isaiah appears to have been. Thanks for any help in advance. Kenneth Litwak Graduate Theological Union Berkeley, CA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 8 21:23:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06915; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 21:23:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 20:26:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33EBBB9A.5FF7E30F@concentric.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Amos 9:11-12: Hebrew to Greek Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2714 On Fri, 08 Aug 1997, kdlitwak wrote: > I don't have tools available (or know enough languages) to check into >this myself readily so I have a question for the list: > > In Acts 15, Luke shows James citing Amos 9:11-12, according to the >Old Greek, which is what Luke usually uses when citing the Scriptures of >Israel. It has been objected that James would never quote the LXX. >While I find that argument open to criticism, I'm wondering if there are >any Hebrew texts from, say Qumran, or other versions not dependent upon >the Old Greek, which reflect the same reading as the Old Greek as cited >in Acts or at least are close enough to it to explain how the Old Greek >came to this rendering. (I'm not here looking to "defend" Luke -- just >understand why the LXX is so different -- Luke can take care of himself >:-) ). Is there a Targum that reads more like the Old Greek? I'm >looking basically for an explanation for the difference between the MT >Hebrew and Old Greek translation of this text in Amos. Obviously >witnesses which depend upon the "LXX" are of no help because they are >successors. I am looking for a predecessor that went the same >direction. My brief look at the Old Greek of Amos in Rahlff's didn't >lead me to think that on the whole the translator was as free as, say, >the translator of Isaiah appears to have been. Thanks for any help in >advance. I can't claim to have studied the matter in detail, but I think the matter is simpler than you describe. Luke quoted the Old Greek LXX because that's what he knew. Even if you assume that he had James's words verbatim (which I think -- to say the least -- unlikely), he would be much more likely to use the Greek text he knew than to translate it himself. As for the Old Greek of the Minor Prophets, I can't make any definitive statement -- but my impression (based on many hours transferring LXX readings to the margin of my "working" NRSV) is that the version *is* very different from the Hebrew. I think in some instances these do represent different texts (and at first glance the LXX looks more original in a lot of instances), but most of them appear to be nothing more than instances where the translators simply didn't know what they were doing. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you should read too much into all of this. But that's just my opinion. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 9 09:41:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07912; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 09:41:15 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:44:35 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: A challenge Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8025 On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" wrote: [ BTW -- I know Dearing asked us to respond off-list. But I have questions that no one else seems to be asking, so I thought I would post here. ] >Dear listers: > A textual stemma has a general form that may need to be determined >before the stemma is decided upon. For example, with three texts, >none of which can be intermediary between the others, A minor point: Should this not be *directly* intermediary? It is usually easy to show that A is the parent of B. It is much harder to show that A is the ancestor of B with intervening mixture. I assume, from the comments in the rest of this paragraph, that you are simply saying that none of the manuscripts are parents of any of the others. Correct? [ ... ] > An archetype has all the correct readings in the texts, and if no >one text has all of them, we need to recognize the abstract form to >decide among the other possibilities and to reconstruct the archetype >(with the three texts in the example, when they agree, the lost text >agrees with them; otherwise it agrees with any two of the extant >texts). This is quite a different procedure from choosing the >text with the most best readings and substituting the rest in it, >leaving the great preponderance of its readings unweighed in the >balance. While I generally agree with the reconstruction method proposed (except that I would substitute "text-types" for "texts"), I am not sure I understand your distinction. In the final sentence, by "best readings," do you mean based on internal evidence or on majority rule? For, if the latter, I do not see the distinction between the two methods. > With more than three texts, the stemma may have one or more >"rings" in it if nothing is done to remove them. If A and B have >"yes" where C and D have "yea" and A and C have "no" where B and >D have "nay" then the abstract form of the ring is A--B ("yes"), B--D >("nay"), D--C ("yea"), and C--A ("no"). The archetype may be any of >the four texts or the common ancestor of any two that are connected, >say, of A and C, making B a descendant of A and D the common >descendant of B and C (i.e., when A and C disagreed, sometimes A and >sometimes C had the best reading; the archetype would then read "no" >whether or not that was one of the identifiably best readings). While I concede the possibility of a "ring" in a point of variation involving four texts and two points of variation, I do not think it possible to create such a grouping if one includes more manuscripts and more readings. For example, with four manuscripts and two binary readings, there are sixteen possible breakdowns of results. Adding just one more reading doubles this. Adding a fifth manuscript increases the possibilities by 25%. And so on. The only way one can find "rings" is to confine one's self to very small samples of the text. But if one is so confined, how does one decide, of the three variants yes/yea, no/nay, and should/shall, whether to focus our attention on yes/yea and no/nay to the exclusion of should/shall? > To "break" such a ring we decide which is the "weakest link," all >variations considered, and before we look for the archetype -- note, >before we look for the archetype. If, for example, there are over all >fewer AB agreements than AC agreements or BD agreements or CD >agreements, then we say that the agreement of A and B in having "yes" >is abnormal (without deciding whether it is accidental, coincidental >or emendatory) and set it aside. In effect, then, we have three >variant readings, "yes (A)," "yes (B)" and "yea," and the abstract >relationship among the four texts is A--C--D--B. Other evidence may >modify the relationship without changing the basic series: a lost >text may take the place of C with C connected to it, or a lost text >may take the place of D with D connected to it, or there may be two >lost texts, with C connected to one and D to the other, and one of >these lost texts may be the archetype. Again, I agree that we should determine everything possible about our manuscripts before we look for the archetype. But I fail to see the point of "breaking the ring." The only justification I can see is to cast off one of the four manuscripts so that one can make a decision in the event of a two-versus-two tie. (Which, BTW, is *not* my method; in a two-versus-two tie I would actually look to internal evidence.) But it would appear that your method rewards texts which agree often. In the case of a tie, I would be inclined, in the abstract, to reward those which did *not* agree often. > Now, using A--B--D--C--A for the ring we have just been >considering, there may also be rings A--B--C--D--A and A-- >C--B--D--A, three rings that we may call alternates. And if there are >additional texts we may have two small rings A--B--D--C--A and >A--B--E--F--A within a larger ring A--C--D--B--E--F--A, the two >smaller of which we may call connected. Technical footnote: There are actually *six* possible rings with four members (assuming we always start with A): A-B-C-D A-B-D-C A-C-B-D A-C-D-B A-D-B-C A-D-C-B If you have a method for restricting this to the rings you listed, I failed to understand it. > In order to be consistent in breaking the rings and to divide as >few links as possible, we need to break them in a certain order and >may need to repeat the process after the first round of breaking. >These increasingly complicated matters are treated on pp. 93-98 of my >book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis. If those who wish >to take up my challenge wish also to have a Xerox copy of these pages >I shall be happy to send them one. So what is my challenge? > You may decide that you can live with a few rings in your stemmas. >You will then find that with a medium sized New Testament book like >First John and the twenty earliest surviving texts, there are nearly >7000 rings. I have written a computer program that patiently >identifies all the smaller rings, breaks the rings in the required >order, and then repeats the process as often as necessary. This >program traces many linkages that do not lead to rings, and if, for >example, A leads to C, C to D, D to B, B to E, E to F, and F does >not lead to A, the program has (I fear) wasted some time. It is smart >enough to know that if A leads to B but never to any other text >to the exclusion of B then A--B will never be a link in any ring. It >might be smartened up so as to know that if F does not lead to A, as >in the longer example above, then it may be that F will never lead to >A and the search can stop short when E leads to F. But I have a >feeling that the initial form of a stemma is like a great net and >that you ought to be able to move forward from any place or tag end >on its circumference breaking the meshes (rings) as you come to them >until the remaining strands spread out like fans within fans, not a >cross link among them. Do you have or can you divise an algorithm for >doing this? You do not need to be a computer programmer -- a step by >step explanation will do, showing how to start with one text and comb >out the linkages between it and the rest. Remember, unless one of the >texts has all the best readings it is impossible to decide on the >archetype until the comb-out is completed. Speaking as a computer programmer, I don't think you've defined the problem clearly enough for me to comment on a solution algorithm. I don't doubt that you have actually refined your method further than what you have described here, but based on the comments you've made, I can't add anything. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 9 10:46:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA08014; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 10:46:50 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9708091448.AA24018@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 07:49:22 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Amos 9:11-12: Hebrew to Greek Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1016 > I don't have tools available (or know enough languages) to check into > this myself readily so I have a question for the list: > > In Acts 15, Luke shows James citing Amos 9:11-12, according to the > Old Greek, which is what Luke usually uses when citing the Scriptures of > Israel. It has been objected that James would never quote the LXX. > While I find that argument open to criticism, I'm wondering if there are > any Hebrew texts from, say Qumran, or other versions not dependent upon > the Old Greek, which reflect the same reading as the Old Greek as cited > in Acts or at least are close enough to it to explain how the Old Greek > came to this rendering. The only DSS I have been able to find that include this part of Amos are the Minor Prophets scroll from Murabba`at (DJD 2:187-188) and 4QFlorilegium (DJD 5:53). Both read with MT, and the latter is only a partial citation of v.11. No help from Qumran, apparently. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 10 09:54:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA09508; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 09:54:18 -0400 Message-Id: <9708101456.AA09872@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Sinai syriac 2 (was: Codex Phillipps 1388) Date: Dim, 10 Aož 97 15:58:03 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 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: 4336 David Taylor wrote: >I don't know about anyone else, but I would be fascinated to see some >examples of your collations. Here are some from Luke. As it is difficult to transcribe syriac in = email, first the alphabet: ) b g d h w z H T y k l m n s ( f S q r $ t Luke 3.16 UBS : )t) dyn Sin syr 2 : )t) dyn btry =3D sys.c and arabic diatessaron Luke 4.16 UBS : w(l )ykn) dm(d hw) lknw$t) bywm) d$bt) Sin syr 2 : w(l lknw$t) bywm) d$bt) )ykn) dm(d hw) =3D sys Luke 4.19 UBS : lmry) Sin syr 2 : lmry) wywm) dfwr(n) I haven't found any parallels yet. Luke 5.28 UBS : wqm )zl Sin syr 2 : w)zl =3D sys --------------------------------------- One of the most interesting: Luke 6.23 UBS : (bdyn hww abhthwn lnby) Sin syr 2 : rdfw lnby) abhthwn Several observations: (1) The replacement of "to do" by "to persecute" is a harmonization = with Mt 5.12. We find it in : - the Arabic diatessaron (VIII.36 - hakadha Taradu al-anbyaa min = qablakum - so they persecuted the prophets before you) - the Li=E8ge diatessaron (ed. de Bruin, p. 40, l. 27 - so daden hare = vordren persecutie den propheten die waren vor u - so did their = ancestors persecution to the prophets that were before you). (2) Sin. syr. 2 doesn't have (the current syp text doesn't have it = either) the "before you" of the two precited diatessaric witnesses. = This addition comes from Mt 5.12 greek (tous pros ymon), but is = omitted in the text of Mt by sys (and the hebrew version edited by G. = Howard). The greek tradition seems unanimous for its inclusion. So if there's an harmonization with the text of Mt, it is probably in = the form reflected by sys. ----------------------------- Another interesting one: Luke 7.19 UBS : w)mr Sin syr 2 : w)mr lhwn zlw lwt y$w( w)mrw lh In the current greek (and syriac) text, John asks directly the = question about Jesus. In Sin syr 2, John says (1) go to Jesus, and (2) ask him the question. This decomposition in two elements we find also in: - Codex Bezae (D) os kai proskalesamenos dyo twn mathetwn autou legei (1) poreuthentes = (2) eipate autou: su ei o erchomenos etc... - the same in the old latin e: dixit euntes inquirite dicentes... - the Li=E8ge diatessaron: doe isch hi tuee sire ijongren te hem, ende geboet hen (1) dat si = ghingen tote Ihesum (2) ende vragden hem van sinen wegen aldus: bestu = deghene die te komene es... (transl: then he asked two of his disciples to him, and commanded = them (1) that they go to Jesus (2) and aske him of his way so: are = you the one that is to come...) - the Pepysian harmony: Seint John hem ansuered & seide that hij mightten seene hemselven and = heren that he was Crist, and badd hem (1) gon to Jesu on his halve = (2) & axe him hif he schulde schewen hymself that he was Crist... -------------------------- Sinai syriac 2 is a codex of the beginning of the VIth century. It = has been damaged and many leaves have been supplied by a much later = hand. The variants above are taken from the oldest leaves. Only Luke = has been entirely preserved in the old script, that's why I begin my = exploration there. Not all variants are so spectacular, of course. There are many = orthographical trivialities (kl/kwl, r$/ry$ and the like) and little = variants like addition or omission of a conjunction and such small = things. But though the text of this codex is clearly peshitto, many = of those small variants agree with sys or syc. I have found one which intrigues me. Luke 15.22 UBS : (zqt) Sin syr 2 : (zqt) ddhb) Sin syr 2 adds thus the little precision that it's a _golden_ ring. I = haven't found this variant elsewhere for the moment. Has anybody seen = this before? BTW, ther's a mistake at this point in Voobus' 2nd volume of Studies = in the history of the Gospel text in syriac. He says (page 80) that = the ms adds _dhb)_ but I can clearly see on my copy that it's = _ddhb)_. I've noticed many other typesetting mistakes in that book. I don't understand either Voobus' comment on this variant, when he = says that the parable of the prodigal son in Sin syr 2 "stands out = for its old syriac variants". Except for several purely = orthographical variants, and the addition of ddhb) that I've just = mentioned, I haven't found any deviation from the UBS text. ------------------------------- I hope you enjoyed these samples. Jean V. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 10 16:02:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10125; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:02:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:02:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: A challenge 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: 10304 Several years ago I read both of Dearing's books and found them both fascinating and informative. He has of course only given us a brief synopsis of his views on the list. Since it's been a while since I read them, I want to test my memory a bit and reply to both Vinton Dearing and Bob Waltz. On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" wrote: > > >Dear listers: > > A textual stemma has a general form that may need to be determined > >before the stemma is decided upon. For example, with three texts, > >none of which can be intermediary between the others, > > A minor point: Should this not be *directly* intermediary? It is > usually easy to show that A is the parent of B. It is much harder > to show that A is the ancestor of B with intervening mixture. I > assume, from the comments in the rest of this paragraph, that you > are simply saying that none of the manuscripts are parents of any > of the others. Correct? There is no necessity to say "directly intermediary," since with any three mss with any given set of readings, even if there is an apparent ring, it can be shown that by creating a hypothetical intermediary ms that has the majority reading whenever the mss split 2-1, this ms can be added to the other three in such a way as to eliminate the ring: A A / \ --> | B---C x / \ B C In case not everyone is clear on the definition of a ring, let me try to explain it. Dearing's genealogical method begins with the assumption that every ms under consideration had only one exemplar, so if a reading is present in two mss, they should be genetically related (of course, common scribal mistakes such as the addition or omission of a conjunction must be eliminated from consideration). From time to time, a scribe might create a variant that also appears in an unrelated ms, thus giving the appearance of a relationship that is not real. And of course, in the case of biblical mss, since we know that sometimes one ms was corrected from another, variants from (mostly) unrelated mss can appear in another ms. These agreements based on either accident or correction are called rings. > > With more than three texts, the stemma may have one or more > >"rings" in it if nothing is done to remove them. If A and B have > >"yes" where C and D have "yea" and A and C have "no" where B and > >D have "nay" then the abstract form of the ring is A--B ("yes"), B--D > >("nay"), D--C ("yea"), and C--A ("no"). The archetype may be any of > >the four texts or the common ancestor of any two that are connected, > >say, of A and C, making B a descendant of A and D the common > >descendant of B and C (i.e., when A and C disagreed, sometimes A and > >sometimes C had the best reading; the archetype would then read "no" > >whether or not that was one of the identifiably best readings). > > While I concede the possibility of a "ring" in a point of variation > involving four texts and two points of variation, I do not think > it possible to create such a grouping if one includes more manuscripts > and more readings. For example, with four manuscripts and two binary > readings, there are sixteen possible breakdowns of results. Adding > just one more reading doubles this. Adding a fifth manuscript increases > the possibilities by 25%. And so on. The only way one can find "rings" > is to confine one's self to very small samples of the text. But if > one is so confined, how does one decide, of the three variants > yes/yea, no/nay, and should/shall, whether to focus our attention > on yes/yea and no/nay to the exclusion of should/shall? Bob is right about adding mss and readings. With many mss and many readings, one quickly gets not just simple rings but whole networks of mss. To break these networks into a simple tree, Dearing proposes breaking individual links, starting with the weakest ones, until a simple tree is created. > > To "break" such a ring we decide which is the "weakest link," all > >variations considered, and before we look for the archetype -- note, > >before we look for the archetype. If, for example, there are over all > >fewer AB agreements than AC agreements or BD agreements or CD > >agreements, then we say that the agreement of A and B in having "yes" > >is abnormal (without deciding whether it is accidental, coincidental > >or emendatory) and set it aside. In effect, then, we have three > >variant readings, "yes (A)," "yes (B)" and "yea," and the abstract > >relationship among the four texts is A--C--D--B. Other evidence may > >modify the relationship without changing the basic series: a lost > >text may take the place of C with C connected to it, or a lost text > >may take the place of D with D connected to it, or there may be two > >lost texts, with C connected to one and D to the other, and one of > >these lost texts may be the archetype. > > Again, I agree that we should determine everything possible about our > manuscripts before we look for the archetype. But I fail to see the > point of "breaking the ring." The only justification I can see is to > cast off one of the four manuscripts so that one can make a decision > in the event of a two-versus-two tie. (Which, BTW, is *not* my method; > in a two-versus-two tie I would actually look to internal evidence.) > But it would appear that your method rewards texts which agree often. > In the case of a tie, I would be inclined, in the abstract, to reward > those which did *not* agree often. In the case of a tie, as I recall, Dearing's method says that the it doesn't matter which link is broken--either is equally likely to be the correct way to break it. I think it would interesting to combine this purely mechanical approach with a subjective evaluation of internal readings and see what happens. > > Now, using A--B--D--C--A for the ring we have just been > >considering, there may also be rings A--B--C--D--A and A-- > >C--B--D--A, three rings that we may call alternates. And if there are > >additional texts we may have two small rings A--B--D--C--A and > >A--B--E--F--A within a larger ring A--C--D--B--E--F--A, the two > >smaller of which we may call connected. > > Technical footnote: There are actually *six* possible rings with > four members (assuming we always start with A): > > A-B-C-D > A-B-D-C > A-C-B-D > A-C-D-B > A-D-B-C > A-D-C-B > > If you have a method for restricting this to the rings you listed, > I failed to understand it. There are only three possible rings. Remember that since the mss are a ring, the last is connected to the first. Thus, in Bob's list above, the last three groups of mss are equivalent to the first three (#4 = #2, #5 = #3, #6 = #1). Maybe it's clearer to draw it this way: A-B A-C A-C | | | | | | D-C B-D D-B > > In order to be consistent in breaking the rings and to divide as > >few links as possible, we need to break them in a certain order and > >may need to repeat the process after the first round of breaking. > >These increasingly complicated matters are treated on pp. 93-98 of my > >book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis. If those who wish > >to take up my challenge wish also to have a Xerox copy of these pages > >I shall be happy to send them one. So what is my challenge? > > You may decide that you can live with a few rings in your stemmas. > >You will then find that with a medium sized New Testament book like > >First John and the twenty earliest surviving texts, there are nearly > >7000 rings. I have written a computer program that patiently > >identifies all the smaller rings, breaks the rings in the required > >order, and then repeats the process as often as necessary. This > >program traces many linkages that do not lead to rings, and if, for > >example, A leads to C, C to D, D to B, B to E, E to F, and F does > >not lead to A, the program has (I fear) wasted some time. It is smart > >enough to know that if A leads to B but never to any other text > >to the exclusion of B then A--B will never be a link in any ring. It > >might be smartened up so as to know that if F does not lead to A, as > >in the longer example above, then it may be that F will never lead to > >A and the search can stop short when E leads to F. But I have a > >feeling that the initial form of a stemma is like a great net and > >that you ought to be able to move forward from any place or tag end > >on its circumference breaking the meshes (rings) as you come to them > >until the remaining strands spread out like fans within fans, not a > >cross link among them. Do you have or can you divise an algorithm for > >doing this? You do not need to be a computer programmer -- a step by > >step explanation will do, showing how to start with one text and comb > >out the linkages between it and the rest. Remember, unless one of the > >texts has all the best readings it is impossible to decide on the > >archetype until the comb-out is completed. Long ago I wrote a program myself (using a method somewhat different from Dearing's) that would create a tree from a given set of mss and readings, but it didn't break the rings, only identified them. My question in regard to the whole approach is this. Is it valid to use the model of a simple tree when dealing with the transmission of the biblical text? This question can't be answered in a strictly theoretical way--data is needed. At what point in the transmission of the NT, for example, did scribes begin correcting their newly copied mss from a second exemplar? Harry Gamble, in _Books and Readers in the Early Church_, seems to imply that the majority of early mss were created privately by copying a single exemplar. When did the practice of correcting the text against a second ms become widespread enough so that, after that point, the idea of using a simple tree to model the transmission of the text breaks down? 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 Sun Aug 10 16:34:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10165; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:34:27 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:34:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Amos 9:11-12: Hebrew to Greek In-Reply-To: <33EBBB9A.5FF7E30F@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: 1881 Targum Jonathan is clearly based on a Hebrew text similar to MT, not the forebear of the OG. I don't have immediate access to the Leiden Peshitta, but the Bible Society's text of P is also much closer to MT than OG. It should be noted that Acts 15:16-17, while closer to Rahlfs' LXX than to MT, is hardly identical. Thus: MT: <11> bywm hhw) )qym )t skt dwyd hnplt wgdrty )t prcyhn whrstyw )qym wbnytyh kymy (wlm <12> lm(n yyr$w )t $)ryt )dwm wkl hgwym )$r nqr) $my (lyhm n)m yhwh (&h z)t LXX (Rahlfs): <11> en th hmera ekeinh anasthsw thn skhnhn dauid thn peptwkuian kai anoikodomhsw ta peptwkota auths kai ta kateskammena auths anasthsw kai anoikodomhsw authn kaqws ai hmerai tou aiwnos <12> opws ekzhthswsin oi kataloipoi twn anqrwpwn kai panta ta eqnh ef ous epikeklhtai to onoma mou ep autous legei kurios o qeos o poiwn tauta Acts 15 (UBS4): <16> meta tauta anastreyw kai anoikodomhsw thn skhnhn dauid thn peptwkuian kai ta kateskammena auths anoikodomhsw kai anorqwsw authn <17> opws an ekzhthswsin oi kataloipoi twn anqrwpwn ton kurion kai panta ta eqnh ef ous epikeklhtai to onoma mou ep autous legei kurios poiwn tauta It looks as though the writer of Acts is either citing a Greek text quite different from that present in Rahlfs or else he is citing it rather loosely, perhaps adapting it to his own purposes and viewpoints. To give just one example, the omission of "kaqws ai hmerai tou aiwnos" _might_ reflect Luke's understanding of Christianity as the "new covenant," distinct from the old and not to be identified with it (this is just a thought that comes to mind when comparing these readings--obviously it would need to be researched further). 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 Mon Aug 11 18:50:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02380; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:50:26 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:43:02 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: A Challenge X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5636 Thanks to Bob Waltz for his interest and to Jimmy Adair for explaining some things in my original message. Some additional explanations: My method of textual criticism is not "mine": it is a genealogical method that expands Walter Greg's rules in The Calculus of Variants (1927). Greg divided variations into simple and complex types. Simple variations have only two readings, e.g., "yes" vs. "yea"; complex variations have more than two, e.g. "no" vs. "nay" vs. "nix" vs. "nada" vs. "not on your life" etc. He showed how to construct a stemma from simple variations, provided there were no complications (which I call rings). This method works fine with most problems in English literature. I added a method of handing rings and of recognizing when two or more complex variations have the effect of a simple variation. My method of dealing with complications, which I call ringbreaking, does not assume that texts have only one exemplar each. If a text has readings that have come to it from more than one exemplar, my method seeks to identify the principal exemplar and will then ignore the other(s). The principal exemplar will have provided more than half the total readings in the text at the places where one or more of the whole set of texts disagrees with the rest. Jimmy Adair says common scribal mistakes are to be ignored. I don't ignore them myself, though doing so would simplify the task of ringbreaking. I myself include every variation that might in context convey a different meaning, even if it might also be a spelling variant, e.g., double lambda vs. single lambda. The method is the same in any event though the results might be different. Suppose a text T has two exemplars E1 and E2. E1 transmits to T three scribal errors and one other variant reading, four in all. E2 transmits one scribal error and two other variant readings, three in all. If we count the scribal errors with the rest, E1 is the principal exemplar of T; if we ignore the scribal errors, E2 is the principal exemplar. The same kind of decision affects what constitutes a "best" (i.e., identifiably archetypal) reading. I myself never take the most usual reading as the best. Nor am I willing to say that the hardest reading is the best. I prefer things like homeoteleuta, where I accept the longer reading as the best. I am also willing to accept readings that conform to the author's style elsewhere. I use the term "best" because with three alternative readings one can be better than another without being the best; maybe the third reading is better still, making it the best, or maybe the third reading is unweighable, in which case there is no identifiable best reading. To my way of thinking, my method is valid for any set of texts without regard to their circumstances of production. With respect to biblical manuscripts, for example, I recall reading or hearing Sylva Lake, like her husband Kirsopp a towering figure of the last generation (he first photographed Sinaiticus; he taught me OT as literature, his last class before retirement, I regret to say; we all knew that he would weep when he read particularly fine passages from the KJV and would watch for him to do so; he told us in parting that he was going to search for Noah's ark) -- Silva and Kirsopp used to collate manuscripts by reading aloud to one another, and she reported that often a monk studying nearby would "correct" what she was saying. Such correction by memory must have been possible as soon as people set a high value on the sacred texts. Kirsopp Lake was the author of The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1900), the sixth ed. revised by Sylva (then Sylva New) in 1928. This book introduced me to textual criticism. Let me try again to explain what I think might be possible in ringbreaking. Suppose we have seven texts, and variations as follows: tis] A; pou B,C,D,E,F,G; dh] A,B; de C,D,.E,F,G; pallakh] A,B,C; gunh D,E,F,G; uioi] A,B,C,D; uiwn E,F,G; eikosth] A,B,C,E; eikadi D,F,G; and osa] A,B,C,D,E,F; a G. Now, according to Greg's rules (which I accept), the relationship of the seven texts is A--B--C,D,E,F--G and there is what I call a ring in the group of four texts. Rings only occur when at least two groups of texts "exchange" readings, as Greg put it, so the first and last variations are not part of the ring. The second variation is not part of a ring because A and B don't exchange readings with any other pair or more of other texts. The ring comes when C and D have uioi where E and F have uiwn, and C and E have eikosth where D and F eikadi (never mind that other texts have these readings, C and D and E and F are the only ones to exchange readings. (Another way to put it is to say that the pair C,D overlaps both the pair C,E and the pair D,F, and so on around the ring; it is also true that a pair which overlaps only one other pair will not be part of a ring.) And what is true of pairs is true of larger groups of texts. Isn't there some way to start with A, let us say, and feel along the sequence A (which has tis), A--B (which have dh), recognize that we have come to a ring when we come to C, break it, say between C and E, and feel along once more through C (A,B and C have pallakh), to D (all four have uioi; we disregard the fact E has eikosth like A, B and C), to F (D, F and G have eikadi), and then separately from F to E (E, F and G have uiwn and E has the now-sourceless eikosth) and from F to G (all but G have osa). Maybe not, but it's a challenge. Again, thanks to Bob and Jimmy. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 12 14:05:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05067; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:05:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:08:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: A Challenge Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4172 On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" wrote, in part: >Thanks to Bob Waltz for his interest and to Jimmy Adair for >explaining some things in my original message. Some additional >explanations: Let me also thank the other two for their clarifications. All is not yet clear to me -- but then, that is what the books are for. :-) > My method of textual criticism is not "mine": it is a genealogical >method that expands Walter Greg's rules in The Calculus of Variants >(1927). Greg divided variations into simple and complex types. >Simple variations have only two readings, e.g., "yes" vs. "yea"; >complex variations have more than two, e.g. "no" vs. "nay" vs. >"nix" vs. "nada" vs. "not on your life" etc. If it helps anyone in reading my Encyclopedia articles, the former are what I call "binary readings"; the latter are "ternary" or higher order readings. It seems to me I've seen other terminology, too. Has anyone attempted to set a standard for this? [ ... ] >Silva and Kirsopp used to >collate manuscripts by reading aloud to one another, and she reported >that often a monk studying nearby would "correct" what she was >saying. Such correction by memory must have been possible as soon as >people set a high value on the sacred texts. An interesting and noteworthy observation. Thanks for bringing it up. [ ... ] > Let me try again to explain what I think might be possible in >ringbreaking. Suppose we have seven texts, and variations as follows: >tis] A; pou B,C,D,E,F,G; dh] A,B; de C,D,.E,F,G; pallakh] A,B,C; >gunh D,E,F,G; uioi] A,B,C,D; uiwn E,F,G; eikosth] A,B,C,E; eikadi >D,F,G; and osa] A,B,C,D,E,F; a G. Now, according to Greg's rules >(which I accept), the relationship of the seven texts is >A--B--C,D,E,F--G and there is what I call a ring in the group of four >texts. Rings only occur when at least two groups of texts "exchange" >readings, as Greg put it, so the first and last variations are not >part of the ring. The second variation is not part of a ring because >A and B don't exchange readings with any other pair or more of other >texts. The ring comes when C and D have uioi where E and F have uiwn, >and C and E have eikosth where D and F eikadi (never mind that other >texts have these readings, C and D and E and F are the only ones to >exchange readings. (Another way to put it is to say that the pair C,D >overlaps both the pair C,E and the pair D,F, and so on around the >ring; it is also true that a pair which overlaps only one other pair >will not be part of a ring.) And what is true of pairs is true of >larger groups of texts. Isn't there some way to start with A, let >us say, and feel along the sequence A (which has tis), A--B (which >have dh), recognize that we have come to a ring when we come to C, >break it, say between C and E, and feel along once more through C >(A,B and C have pallakh), to D (all four have uioi; we disregard the >fact E has eikosth like A, B and C), to F (D, F and G have eikadi), >and then separately from F to E (E, F and G have uiwn and E has the >now-sourceless eikosth) and from F to G (all but G have osa). Maybe >not, but it's a challenge. That does help a bit. I'm not sure I could construct this, but at least I understand it a bit better. Unfortunately, I can't see any way to help with the code. I also showed the problem to another programmer type (a higher order sort of person than I am, BTW; I slog code to get work done, but he programs for fun -- shudder!). I'm afraid we were in agreement that the problem isn't well enough defined for the algorithm to be evident. No doubt if the problem were better specified, we would have better luck -- but if it were better specified, no doubt Vinton Deering the challenge would not have been offered. :-) Wish I could help more. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 12 15:46:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05501; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:46:43 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:42:50 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Matthew 21:3, 7 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2058 I used to suppose that Matthew did not know the rules of Hebrew poetry when he wrote that Jesus rode in triumph on two animals. I am now inclined to translate the passage differently. Jesus could compose verse, as we see from Luke 12:53, so I suppose that he knew perfectly well that the "ass" and the "colt the foal of a she-ass" in Zechariah 9:9 were the same male animal, and that when he sent the apostles to get it, saying that they would "find an ass tethered and a foal with her," he meant they would identify the colt from this information, just as he later told those who were to prepare the Last Supper that they would find the house by following a man who was carrying a waterpot (Luke 22:10). I then find traces of recognition that Jesus rode only the colt in some of the earliest mss of Matthew and prefer their readings to the common ones. "The Lord needs it" (with Sinaiticus and Theta [01 and 038]) in vs. 3, and in vs. 7, "they put their garments on it" (ep' auton with Bezae and Phi [D or 05 and 043]) and "they put him upon it" (epanw autou with Theta [038]; Bezae [D or 05] and 892 have epanw auton, but that may be only itacism). The fact that Jesus said the owner would send both animals -- or said he himself would send both animals back -- (vs. 3) does not affect my interpretation of the other passages, or so I believe -- so much so that I am inclined to emend that place in the text all by myself from apostelei autous to apostelei auton, but only in a footnote. Samuel Johnson, perhaps the greatest textual critic of Shakespeare, wrote, "Since I have confined my imagination to the margin [i.e., footnotes], it must not be considered as very reprehensible, if I have suffered it to play some freaks in its own dominion. There is no danger in conjecture, if it be proposed as conjecture; and while the text remains uninjured, those changes may be safely offered, which are not considered even by him that offers them as necessary or safe." I would be grateful for any comments. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 12 15:51:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05534; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:51:05 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:51:10 -0700 Subject: A message of hope Message-ID: <19970812.125153.3926.17.eachperson@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-4,8-13 From: eachperson@juno.com (Michael C. Dorr) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 718 When you receive this message, please forward it to as many people as possible but also to the following address: romans1212@juno.com This is necessary to count how how many have been sent this letter. Feel free to send any comments to mdoor@juno.com. Although few in words, this verse if pondered upon and followed can bring great happiness. Listen carefully to any feelings you have as you study this wise scripture. The contents, if applied at a personal level, can bring peace in the midst of turmoil. ***************************************************** "[Be] rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer" (Romans 12:12) ***************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 12 16:16:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05594; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:16:31 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:12:45 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: A challenge X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 211 I am grateful to Bob Waltz for his second communication. If there are others who wish a more detailed explanation of the problem as I see it and who wish to tackle it, please let me know. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 13 08:13:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07578; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:13:30 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Henry T. Carmichael" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:17:43 +0000 Subject: The Sound of the Word (was: A Challenge) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-Id: <19970813121014Z46122-21317+255@ctc-fw.ctronsoft.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 763 Vinton Dearing wrote: > ... -- Silva and Kirsopp used to > collate manuscripts by reading aloud to one another, and she > reported that often a monk studying nearby would "correct" what > she was saying. Such correction by memory must have been > possible as soon as people set a high value on the sacred > texts. I recall reading (Alfred Edersheim's "History of the Jewish Nation") that before the "Oral Law" was written down, there were men who had memorized the said law, and would be called on to recite a portion under discussion to help elucidate the meaning of the law. Apparently, the scholars found it easier to grasp the meaning of a passage on hearing it spoken than trying to recall the words themselves. Henry Carmichael htc@ctronsoft.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 14 14:37:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA11700; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:37:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:37:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: review of Gamble, Books and Readers 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: 406 A review of Harry Y. Gamble, _Books and Readers in the Early Church_, is now available on the pages of TC. Go to the TC home page, then click on the link to volume 2. Coincidentally, another review of Gamble's book also appeared this week in JBL 166 (pp. 552-553). Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 14 15:34:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12040; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:34:49 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:30:55 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: A challenge X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2239 This message should perhaps be titled "a challenge withdrawn," but some listers may wish to keep thinking about the problem as I originally conceived of it. I have decided to treat my problem as a maze problem. If you will think of a stemma for a minute you will see the similarity. Suppose you "enter" a stemma at some point looking for rings. This entry-point can be at any extremity or anywhere in the middle. You follow the readings along a line from your entry-point. If you come to a dead end, you go back to your entry-point, leave a message not to go down that line again, and follow another line. If you come to a branch-point, you choose one branch and follow that line. If you come to a dead end, you return to the branch-point, leave a message not to go down that line again, and choose another branch. In this way you visit every part of the stemma-maze once only. Should a ring in the stemma lead you back to your entry-point or to a branch-point you will not go again along lines already explored. Imagine a stemma of four extant texts and two missing ones. One of the extant texts, E3, is at the top; below and connected to it by a line is one of the missing texts, M1; below M1 and connected to it by separate lines are E2 on the left and M2 on the right; and below M2 and connected to it by separate lines are E4 on the left and E1 on the right. This stemma has no rings in it. You decide to start with E1 and when there is a branch to always take the leftmost open line. So you proceed to M2 and then to E4. E4 is a dead end, so you return to M2, leave a message not to take that line again, and proceed to M1. Here you turn left to E2, another dead end. You return to M1, leave a message, and proceed to E3. E3 is also a dead end, but there are no other lines to trace from M1 so you return to M2. Again there are no other lines to trace, so you return to E1. You have visited every part of the stemma-maze once each. Had you in such a process come across a ring, you could have recorded the fact and continued your exploration. Having returned to E1 you could then break the rings you had found and start out again until your search found no more rings. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 15 05:49:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA13599; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 05:49:37 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:51:05 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: review of Gamble, Books and Readers Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <45389B0D10@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 339 Can I also give advance alert of an essay-length response to points in Gamble's book by E. J. Epp forthcoming in _Critical Review of Books in Religion_ (due out by early '98)? 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 Fri Aug 15 08:27:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA13723; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:27:04 -0400 Message-Id: <9708151329.AA00677@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Mt 15.12 in Sin syr 2 Date: Ven, 15 Aož 97 14:31:06 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 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: 3153 Objet : Mt 15.12 in Sin syr 2 Envoy=E9 le : 15/08/97 03:44 Adress=E9 =E0 : Liste TC-List, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Dear TC-ers, Another variant (though small) from Sinai Syriac 2 called my = attention today. In Mt 15.12, our standard texts (Greek, Syriac of Pusey-Gwilliam) = read (here I give syp): Then his disciples approached and said to him: do you know that the = Pharisees who heard this word stumbled? Sin syr 2 has a small variant: it adds "to him" after approached = (qrbw _lwth_). I checked to see if it was to be found elsewhere. The first place = where I usually look is the two mss of the Old Syriac version. It's = neither in sy.c or sy.s. Tischendorf mentions the Greek ms F. Is it really the only Greek ms? On the side of versional evidence, we have: - sahidic (ed. Horner and Kasser) - bohairic (ed. Horner) - old latin: ff1 and e - georgian: ABDE (Opiza, Tbeth, Jruch and Parkhal), followed by the = Athonite recension. In fact, the Georgian mss, instead of "to him" = have "to Jesus". - dutch diatessaron of Liege (ed de Bruin, p. 108), Haaren (p. 45), = Brussels (unpublished, but I have a copy) - toscan + venetian diatessaron - the Persian harmony - the Harklean syriac version! in Arabic, the most important versions have it: - the oldest version, that of Sin Arb 74 and 72 (second half of IXth = century, usually considered as translated from Greek) - the melkite version of the XIth century (Sin arb 69 and its allies) - even the "alexandrian vulgate" produced by the Coptic Church in the = XIIIth century two hebrew versions: - the one of Ben Shaphrout, edited by G. Howard (translated from? a = lectionary?) - the one in ms Paris Hebr. 132 (probably from an old latin text) (Notice the absence of : the latin vulgate and codex Fuldensis, = arm-Zohrab, geo-Adysh, syr.c.s, and the Arabic Diatessaron. Ephrem = doesn't cite this text). Is it a real variant or are we to be satisfied with the idea that the = verb "to approach" calls for that complement? The testimony of the = versions is so massive that I'm reluctant to accept this second = explanation - though it may be true for some, we can see the usual = grouping of old latin + western diatessaric witnesses + some eastern = versions and diatessaric witnesses. For those who adhere to "majority = text" theories, if we count the versions, this is clearly the = majority :-) What should we do of all this? Would it in particular be possible = that Sinai syriac 2 preserves the true old syriac reading?... Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est = inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ NISUS WRITER - the multilingual word processor for the Macintosh. Find more about it at: http://www.nisus-soft.com http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/grads/maschke/nisus_overview/toc= .html _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 15 11:22:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14281; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:22:48 -0400 From: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) Message-Id: <199708151526.IAA22168@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Margin References in Nestle/Aland To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Vinton A. Dearing" at Aug 14, 97 12:30:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] 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: 662 I have been trying to get more familiar with my Nestle/Aland text and it's critical apparatus. In reading the introduction I speaks of the significance of the marginal references. It describes also the table of direct quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Text and the LXX. In my copy of Westcott & Hort, there is mention of Moulton as having prepared the cross-references used in that text. My question is, how reliable are these references, where did the ones come from in the Nestle/Aland text, and exactly what is an _allusion_ ? Sincerely, Larry Kruper PS I apologize in advance if this topic does not quite fit the charter for this list in advance. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 15 12:03:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14426; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:03:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:06:39 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199708151526.IAA22168@netcom9.netcom.com> References: from "Vinton A. Dearing" at Aug 14, 97 12:30:55 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Margin References in Nestle/Aland Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2582 On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, lakr@netcom.com, wrote: >I have been trying to get more familiar with my Nestle/Aland text and >it's critical apparatus. In reading the introduction I speaks of >the significance of the marginal references. It describes also the >table of direct quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Text and the >LXX. > >In my copy of Westcott & Hort, there is mention of Moulton as having >prepared the cross-references used in that text. You have a copy of W&H with marginal *references*? Which edition? My W&H doesn't have any.... >My question is, how reliable are these references, where did the >ones come from in the Nestle/Aland text, and exactly what is an >_allusion_ ? An allusion is a remark reminiscent of a scriptural passage without quoting this (Fee, BTW, has proposed an elaborate methodology for citations, adaptions, and allusions in the Fathers; this might well be applied to the NT also). Since I'm too lazy to try to find a good allusion in NA27, I'll give an example from a Bahaman folk song to the KJV: Psalm 23:4 KJV, of course, reads "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil...." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This Bahaman folk song reads, in the relevant verse: Lay down, my dear father, lay down and take your rest Lay your head upon the Savior's breast. I love you, but Jesus loves you the best And I bid you goodnight, goodnight, goodnight. And I bid you goodnight.... Chariot's coming, hear the waves a-rolling Jesus and John will comfort you See the ark, what a wonderful boat Walking through the valley of the shadow of death. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The song alludes to the psalm, but does not really quote it and leaves it out of context. That's an allusion. As for the reliability of the cross-references, there is a real question of what you mean by "reliability." The NA apparatus evolved over many years, and has had many contributors. Some of the cross-references are based simply on the fact that a rare word is used in both passages. Others are "real" cross-references. A few make no sense to me (I wonder if they might not be closer in the Luther version than in the Greek or English). I would say that those cross-references need to be *checked.* On the other hand, I think the NA claim that it is the fullest set of Greek cross-references is correct. And better to err on the side of inclusion. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 15 12:05:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14452; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:05:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:04:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708151604.MAA04582@aus-e.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Margin References in Nestle/Aland Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1274 The references are generally reliable. An allusion is statement that may allude to a passage in scripture but not actually quote it verbatim. At 08:26 AM 8/15/97 -0700, you wrote: >I have been trying to get more familiar with my Nestle/Aland text and >it's critical apparatus. In reading the introduction I speaks of >the significance of the marginal references. It describes also the >table of direct quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Text and the >LXX. > >In my copy of Westcott & Hort, there is mention of Moulton as having >prepared the cross-references used in that text. > >My question is, how reliable are these references, where did the >ones come from in the Nestle/Aland text, and exactly what is an >_allusion_ ? > >Sincerely, >Larry Kruper > >PS I apologize in advance if this topic does not quite fit the charter for >this list in advance. > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 15 12:18:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14539; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:18:58 -0400 From: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) Message-Id: <199708151622.JAA26475@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Margin References in Nestle/Aland To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Aug 15, 97 11:06:39 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] 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: 1319 > > On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, lakr@netcom.com, wrote: > > >I have been trying to get more familiar with my Nestle/Aland text and > >it's critical apparatus. In reading the introduction I speaks of > >the significance of the marginal references. It describes also the > >table of direct quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Text and the > >LXX. > > > >In my copy of Westcott & Hort, there is mention of Moulton as having > >prepared the cross-references used in that text. > > You have a copy of W&H with marginal *references*? Which edition? > My W&H doesn't have any.... Thanks for the reply. I apologize for combining two questions and in the process being clear. The W&H text has a table which lists the quotations from the NT, and does not have marginal references. I would be interested in any references to how statistics or lingusitics could be used to "rank" the possibility that there is indeed a coorelation between two sources. The Nestle/Aland says that in the table of references that quotations are italicized and the allusions are not. I have not had time to check to see if the marginal references are marked in the same way. I could really use a high quality lighted magnifying glass, the one I just picked up keeps blowing bulbs and my bifocals just don't cut it ! Sincerely, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 15 16:31:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15303; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:31:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199708152028.PAA17679@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Margin References in Nestle/Aland Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:42:29 -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: 1790 > From: Robert B. Waltz > I would say that those cross-references need to be *checked.* On the other > hand, I think the NA claim that it is the fullest set of Greek > cross-references is correct. And better to err on the side of inclusion. The NA marginal references are a commentary in themselves--an *incredibly* rich tool! Alan Culpepper once remarked in a seminar that the first step in his exegetical process was invariably to pour through these references. I once pitched [to Hendricksen] the idea of gathering these cross references into a single volume, for use by those whose primary text is a UBS (or those who use interlinears, etc.)--unlike the references in a Chain-reference Bible, or whatever, these are actually based on how words are used in context, rather than theme, etc. But they weren't terribly interested, and the logistics of daddying and pastoring and schoolwork AND assembling enough sample pages to make a decent presentation of the project was simply too much for me. Maybe someday . . . But Danker's remarks (in *Multi-purpose Tools*, he praises the value of these references) are quite accurate. Grace and peace, Perry L. Stepp (Permission granted to quote any or all and to name the writer.) **************************************************************** Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University I've railed against a mountain with a pickaxe and a file there's no minefield like presumption, there's no deathwish like denial there's no gunshot like conviction there's no conscience bulletproof there's no strength like utter weakness there's no insult like the truth --Charlie Peacock *************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 18 17:55:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22642; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:55:18 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:51:27 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Anti-Q X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 14483 Anti-Q The most important textual problem in New Testament studies is the relationship of the Gospels. Important as it is to solve the textual problems within each Gospel, these investigations are only preliminaries, logically speaking, to the more overarching question, and practically speaking they are not needed for resolving the (logically) final and (practically) simpler problem. The widely accepted theory that Matthew and Luke, to give the authors their conventional names, each drew upon three sources, supplementing Mark and Q with M and L respectively, is unnecessarily complex, as William R. Farmer recognized (The Synoptic Problem, [1976]), but Farmer's proposed return to J. J. Griesbach's hypothesis that Luke used Matthew and that Mark used both of them is still not the simplest solution. Furthermore, both theories leave John out of account. With respect to the four source theory, note that the evidence adduced for it would be equally well explained by dropping either M or L. True, if Matthew and Luke were consistent, then having exhausted Mark they should also have exhausted Q. On the other hand, the number of sources for one of them can be reduced by supposing that the other did not exhaust Q. If Matthew did not exhaust Q then we need not hypothesize a third source for Luke, and if Luke did not exhaust Q then we need not hypothesize a third source for Matthew. The fact that under a three source hypothesis we cannot tell whether it was Matthew or Luke who was inconsistent in his treatment of his sources is not an argument against it. Reducing the number of sources from four to three meets the criterion of Occam's razor, the rule of parsimony, whereas asserting consistency of method in Matthew and Luke does not. "Consistency in all things," said uncle Carl, as he smashed the last of the plates against the wall -- that story, wherever it came to me from, has always appealed to me. And of course we can suppose that neither Matthew nor Luke was consistent, and that neither exhausted Q, reducing their sources two. But there is still a better appeal to Occam's rule. Let us begin with a definition and an axiom. A "document" is by definition a body of information; it may have one or more physical forms, or none at all, without losing its identity. Documents form sequences according to their progressive and perhaps branching deviation from an original circumstance, which latter may be purely mental, the germ of an idea, an initial concept, or protomental an observed fact or set of facts. Now the axiom. Having three documents with similar contents, then if in some part of their contents two agree against the third the third is not an intermediary between them, i.e., if document A agrees with document B at a place where document C disagrees with them, then document C is not an intermediary between A and B. It is, of course, possible that A and B agree here by accident, or because one has been corrected, but as these possibilities are exceptions to normal transmission of information from document to document they do not disprove the general rule. From here on you may find the argument easier to follow if you draw the stemmas described. The rule of parsimony limits the number of lost documents we must assume in order to make a normal continuity between the extant. That is, if none of A, B or C can be an intermediary between the other two, then we assume as few lost intermediary documents as possible. E.g., if the other evidence allows, we conclude that a lost document D draws on, say, B and that A and C draw on D independently (stemma: B at the top, D in the middle, A and C across the bottom, a line from B to D and two lines from D, one each to A and to C). Or, with other evidence, we conclude that there is a second lost document on which B and the first draw independently (stemma: D2 at the top, D1 in the middle at the right, B, A, and C across the bottom, two lines from D2, one each to B and to D1, two lines from D1, one each to A and to C). We do not assume that B, say, draws on C, say, and A on both of the others (stemma: C at the top, B in the middle at the right, A at the bottom, two lines from C, one each to A and to B, and a line from B to A), for it is more normal for one document to draw on another than for one to draw on two others, that is, simple copying is the normal reason why documents agree, and we do not assume exceptions to the rule -- even though such an assumption would not require that there be even one lost document, and even though emendation and accidental agreement are always possible. Now, with respect to the four Gospels, since they all agree that Jesus of Nazareth accepted the title Son of God and that he died on the cross because of it, then, because each Gospel has additional information unique to it and each omits information found in all the others, none of them can, under the general rule, be an intermediary between any two of the others. It follows, then, that the genetic relationship among the Gospels can be any of the following, in increasing order of complexity (in drawing the stemmas use F for the facts about Jesus, G for a Gospel, and D for a missing "document" as defined above). 1. The four Gospels are independent accounts of Jesus' life, that is, the authors did not draw on one another's work even if they knew it (stemma: F at the top, four Gs across the bottom, four lines from F, one to.each G). Another way to put it is to say that the four Gospels are independent witnesses to the facts about Jesus. 2. A document has been lost and: a. The four Gospels draw independently on it -- J. G. Herder's hypothesis of a lost gospel (stemma: F at the top, D in the middle, four Gs across the bottom, a line from F to D and four from D, one to each G); or b. Three Gospels draw on the lost document and it draws on the other Gospel (stemma: F at the top, G1 below it, D below G1 and three Gs across the bottom, a line from F to G1, another from G1 to D, and three from D, one to each of the remaining Gs); or c. Three Gospels draw on the lost document and it and the other Gospel are independent accounts (stemma: F at the top, D in the middle at the right, four Gs across the bottom, two lines from F, one each to G1 and to D, and three from D, one to each of the other Gs); or d. Two Gospels and the lost document are independent accounts, the other two Gospels drawing on the lost document (stemma: F at the top, D in the middle at the right, four Gs across the bottom, three lines from F, one each to G1, to G2 and to D, two lines from D, one to each of the other Gs. 3. Two documents have been lost and: a. They are independent accounts, each the source of two of the Gospels (stemma: F at the top, two Ds across the middle, four Gs across the bottom, two lines from F, one to each D,and two lines from each D, one each to a G); or b. One lost document draws on one of the Gospels and is the source of a second Gospel and of the other lost document, which is the source of the remaining Gospels (stemma: F at the top, G1 below it, D1 below G1, D2 below D1 at the right, and three Gs across the bottom, a line from F to G1, another from G1 to D1, two lines from D1, one to G2 and the other to D2, and two from D2, one to each of the remaining Gs); or c. One lost document is the source of the other and of two of the Gospels, the second lost document being the source of the other two Gospels (stemma: F at the top, D1 below it, D2 below D1 to the right, and four Gs across the bottom, a line from F to D1, three lines from D1, one each to G1, to G2 and to D2, two lines from D2, one each to the remaining Gs); or d. One lost document and one Gospel are independent accounts, the second lost document and another Gospel draw on the first lost document, and the other two Gospels draw on the second lost document (stemma: F at the top, D1 below it and to the right, D2 below D1 and farther to the right, and four Gs across the bottom, two lines from F, one each to G1 and to D1, two lines from D1, one each to G2 and to D2, and two lines from D2, one to each of the remaining Gs). All but 1 and 2a require evidence that we do not have, namely, that one or two of the four Gospels are repeatedly preferable to the others (2b and 3b, or 2d and 3c), or that some Gospel (as in c and 3d) or pair of Gospels (as in 3a) is sometimes preferable to and sometimes less preferable than the others. At one time I accepted Streeter's reasoning about the priority of Mark (The Four Gospels, 1930, pp. 157-169, 171), namely that its style was inferior to Matthew's and Luke's, that they were more reverent than he and more aware of the danger of Gnostic misinterpretation of the facts, that they sound like editors and he sounds like a reporter, and that they omit the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29) by mutual homeoteleuton. I now reject all this reasoning: a person with an inferior style may not recognize the fact, revisionist biographers may "tell it like it was" (Washington and the cherry tree, Jefferson and his slaves, to cite two modern objects of reverence), the dates of the Gospels with respect to the rise of Christian Gnosticism are in doubt (I accept John Robinson's reasoning about the Gospel dates), and mutual homeoteleuton is a coincidence. Therefore, because 1 is a simpler hypothesis than 2a, it is preferable. From the foregoing it normally follows that: If three Gospels agree against the fourth the three are right: example, the apostles gathered up the leftovers from the feeding of the five thousand on their own initiative (John says Jesus told them to). If two Gospels agree against a third where the fourth has nothing comparable or disagrees with all the rest the two are right: example, the number of men from whom the devils went into the pigs (Matthew says two men, Mark and Luke say one). If two Gospels agree against agreement in the other two there is no way to tell which two are right: example, Jesus' being offered and rejecting a sedative drink before his crucifixion (Matthew and Mark tell of this). If two Gospels disagree when the other two have nothing comparable or disagree with all the rest, there is no way to tell which of the first two is right: example, the order of the second and third temptations (in Matthew and Luke). To say that a conclusion "normally follows" means that the burden of proof rests on those who would set it aside. It is important, however, to distinguish between two types of disagreement in the evidence: alternate information, and some information versus none. The latter kind of disagreement may be a disagreement in language without being a disagreement in fact. Thus Matthew's statement that the demons which went into the pigs came out of two demoniacs is not necessarily wrong, though I believe it is. Matthew and Mark are not necessarily either right or wrong when they say Jesus rejected an offered sedative before he was crucified. And John is not necessarily wrong in saying that Jesus "cleansed" the temple before he began his Galilean ministry, for the other Gospels omit the whole of his Judean ministry, and I believe he cleansed it twice. With regard to the essential nature of the errors in the Gospel records which such stemmatic reasoning indicates, we need to remember that the authors wrote when Christians still turned first to spiritual healing in Jesus' way (James 5:13-18). Practice of that kind of spiritual healing today demonstrates that it demands absolute honesty in its practitioners. Without honesty, as surely as without trust, the ability to heal through the Spirit fades away, for God is just, a God of truth and without iniquity. It follows that the Gospel authors would not have intentionally poisoned the wells of salvation from which they wished their readers to drink, or, more simply, that their errors were honest mistakes. The spiritual demand for honesty is, of course, also evidence against theories which make Mark a source for authors determined to glorify Jesus at whatever cost to truth. If I am Anti-Q, I am not also Anti-q, so to speak. When two or more Gospels agree word for word in a whole sentence or more, then I believe the authors had independently come across a written record, a wandering fragment of information, that they trusted and copied exactly, the sum of such fragments, however, making only "q," not Q. We have no evidence that Jesus forbade writing down his words. I do not believe, then, that no one ever said to Jesus, "Teacher, would you repeat that? I want to write it down." I do not believe that when asked Jesus said no. I do believe that his enemies who tried to trap him in his speech caused his words to be written down for that purpose, that is, I believe (contra Bauer-Gingrich-Danker) that APOSTOMATIZEIN AUTON in Luke 11:53 means "to dictate what he said" [i.e., to people who wrote it down] and that the alternative reading SUMBALLEIN AUTW means "to collect what he said." Finally, I see in my mind's eye Matthew with his tablets making shorthand notes as he inspects the bales and boxes that pass through customs at Capernaum. I do not believe that he left tablets and stylus behind when he "left all" (Luke's addition) and followed Jesus, and I believe that more than one person who heard Jesus preach had brought along writing utensils. The foregoing reasoning seems to me to be better than that in my book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis (1974), pp. 192-201, where I accepted Streeter's evidence for the priority of Mark and defined DEXIOS as "left." The title of the present communication, Anti-Q, might also stand for "antique," because my current reasoning arrives at what was thought before Augustine asserted that Mark not only wrote after Matthew, he had no other source. But please, deconstructionists, do not join in my name game, telling me that "antic" is an alternate spelling of "antique" and that one meaning of "antic" is "grotesque." You others, please do not tell me that I cannot tell right from left. With those exceptions, I welcome comment. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 18 19:32:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA22885; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 19:32:17 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <9708172058.AC22309@nyx.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:57:16 -7000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Acts 8:37 origins etc.? Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2592 This morning I received a question about Acts 8:37, the spurious verse preserved in the KJV where Philip tells the Eunuch "If you believe with all your heart, you can [be baptized]" and the Eunuch replies "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." UBS3 gives its omission an A rating (and rightly so) but I'm wondering about the rise of the other readings. I have a little working hypothesis that I would like some feedback on. The answer may be in Metzger's Textual Commentary, but my copy is several states away from me at the moment. The witnesses are as follows: "Philip said, 'If you believe with a whole heart'; and the Eunuch answered him, 'I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'" According to UBS3, this form is unique to 629. "Philip said to him, 'If you believe with your whole heart, you will be saved;' He answered and said, 'I believe in the Christ, the Son of God.'" This is the reading of both the Greek and Latin of E, and some mss. according to Bede. "Philip said, 'If you believe with a whole heart, it is possible (EXESTIN)'; he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'" With minor variations, this is the reading of several minuscules, most of the Old Latin, syr(h) with asterisks, arm, geo, Irenaeus, Tertullian and some other fathers. All other witnesses including the papyri, the uncials, the Byzantines, the lectionaries, the Syriac and Coptic and a couple of fathers omit it. But notably, UBS3 doesn't list any Old Latin witnesses for omission. This leads me to wonder: is it possible that this insertion arose out of the OL tradition, perhaps under the influence of an early baptismal liturgy? With the exception of the form found in E, the OL are the earliest witnesses (unless one counts Irenaeus and Tertullian, and I would be interested to see the contexts of the quotes before concluding too much about the form of text they used). It sure looks to me as though the OL was the origin-point of this addition (and its variations branched off from there), and later witnesses picked it up from there. The formality of it also leads me to suspect that it slipped into the text when some scribe, perhaps recalling the "standard" baptismal liturgy of his congregation, put it in thinking it had been accidentally omitted...or something like that. I would very much like to hear others' views on this suggestion. I would also be curious to know from what mss. it slipped into the KJV if anybody knows. TIA, Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 18 19:55:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA22935; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 19:55:26 -0400 From: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) Message-Id: <199708182359.QAA29793@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Nomina Sacra To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] 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: 244 Greetings, TC'ers Are there critical editions of the Greek text which differentiate between a Nomina Sacra and the full form of words abreviated in this fashion, or does one need to look at copies of the manuscripts ? Sincerely, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 18 20:04:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA22971; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:04:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:09:57 -0400 Message-Id: <199708190009.UAA18912@socrate.riq.qc.ca> X-Sender: jracine@riq.qc.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: jracine@riq.qc.ca (Jean-Francois Racine) Subject: Re: Nomina Sacra Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 914 >Greetings, TC'ers > >Are there critical editions of the Greek text which differentiate >between a Nomina Sacra and the full form of words abreviated in >this fashion, or does one need to look at copies of the manuscripts ? > >Sincerely, >Larry Kruper > For the Gospels you may look at Reuben Swanson ed. _New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus._ 4 volumes. Sheffield/Pasadena, Ca: Sheffield Academic Press/William Carey University Press, 1995. Jean-François Racine ______________________________________________________________ Jean-Francois Racine | Tel: (418) 626-4583 265, 65e rue Ouest | FAX: (418) 626-8271 Charlesbourg, QC | internet: jracine@riq.qc.ca G1H 4Y5 | CANADA | From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 04:19:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23872; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 04:19:47 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:21:12 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Nomina Sacra Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199708182359.QAA29793@netcom9.netcom.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 863 One really has to look either at the mss themselves (or, of course, photos of them), or else at proper printed editions of mss (e.g., Victor Martin on P66), wherein conscientious editors will reproduce such important scribal phenomena. The nomina sacra are, I argue, really and potentially much more important than many NT scholars have realized, largely because the NT training received has not accustomed them to work with mss and to remember that these realia are the artefacts we must reckon with for serious historical study. I have just completed a paper proposing a new theory for the origin of the nomina sacra, and it is now under consideration for publication at a major journal. 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 Tue Aug 19 13:06:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24998; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:06:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:06:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: two new TC Notes 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: 690 Recent advances in the realm of Web technology have spurred me to write two new, brief notes for TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. The first (TC Notes 3) discusses embedded fonts, a recent innovation that makes reading non-Roman characters on the Web much easier for the user. The second (TC Notes 4) describes the phenomenon of Persistent URLs and notes the new, official TC Web address. Both of these notes are accessible from the TC home page: from the home page, click on TC 2 (1997), then select the TC Note that you want to read. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 13:46:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25135; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:46:49 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199708191750.TAA26712@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 19 Aug 97 20:10:07 +0100 Subject: Re: Anti-Q 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: 2339 I always love to see Occam's razor in motion as recently in Dr. Dearing's "Anti-Q". Therefore, I simply wish to discuss the following point: On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote (inter alia): > If I am Anti-Q, I am not also Anti-q, so to speak. When two or >more Gospels agree word for word in a whole sentence or more, then I >believe the authors had independently come across a written record, a >wandering fragment of information, that they trusted and copied >exactly, the sum of such fragments, however, making only "q," not Q. >We have no evidence that Jesus forbade writing down his words. I do >not believe, then, that no one ever said to Jesus, "Teacher, would >you repeat that? I want to write it down." I do not believe that when >asked Jesus said no. I do believe that his enemies who tried to trap >him in his speech caused his words to be written down for that >purpose, that is, I believe (contra Bauer-Gingrich-Danker) that >APOSTOMATIZEIN AUTON in Luke 11:53 means "to dictate what he said" >[i.e., to people who wrote it down] and that the alternative reading >SUMBALLEIN AUTW means "to collect what he said." Finally, I see in my >mind's eye Matthew with his tablets making shorthand notes as he >inspects the bales and boxes that pass through customs at Capernaum. >I do not believe that he left tablets and stylus behind when he "left >all" (Luke's addition) and followed Jesus, and I believe that more >than one person who heard Jesus preach had brought along writing >utensils. How does Occam's razor apply to the "more than one person" taking down notes? What about unnecessarily multiplying entities in the above outlined scenario when compared to the four source hypothesis? Remember, postulating four (or three) LARGER (written) sources accounts for a lot of (nearly) identical passages while at the same time reducing entities, i.e. individuals having taken down notes AND INDEPENDENTLY consulted by Mt and/or Mk and/or Lk and/or Joh. BTW-- Not only Jesus words must have been taken down, but also what "minor" characters have said. For example, the speech of the centurio (Mt 8,8-9 + Lk 7,6b-8) is remarkably identical in wording and order (45 words, at least) when compared to the additional Jesus logion in Mt 8,11-12 (Lk 13,28-29!). Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 14:32:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25289; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:32:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:35:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Q? Anti-Q? Multi-Q? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1434 I will admit that I had some trouble understanding Vinton Deering's post on the subject of Q. But I also had a very strong reaction to it, so I'm going to speak up despite being utterly benighted in some respects. (Don't say it, folks!) It may sound surprising, coming from me, but I think so far our investigations of the "Q" phenomenon have been far too mechanical, focusing primarily on the agreements and differences between Matthew and Luke. I think we need to look at the nature of the material, too. To me, for example, it seems obvious that there is no single document "Q." Why? Because some of the common material in Matthew and Luke is clearly oral, while some (including, of course, the places where the two agree exactly) came from a written source. Oral Q probably includes also the material in common with the Gospel of Thomas. I also suspect that "M" and "L" are more complicated than we suspect. I think we simply cannot analyse Synoptic sources without paying more attention to the role of oral tradition. Enough said. If you want more, try the "Oral Tradition" article at the web site below. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 15:21:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25477; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:21:29 -0400 Message-ID: <33FA1B65.D5A@total.net> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:17:09 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Nomina Sacra References: <199708182359.QAA29793@netcom9.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 476 lakr wrote: > > Greetings, TC'ers > > Are there critical editions of the Greek text which differentiate > between a Nomina Sacra and the full form of words abreviated in > this fashion, or does one need to look at copies of the manuscripts ? > > Sincerely, > Larry Kruper I know that the Robinson-Pierpont GNT does in fact have the Nomina Sacra. In Rev. David is abbreviated as dad at 3:7, 5:5 and 22:16. This is based on the MSS evidence provided by Hoskier. Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 15:24:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25503; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:24:55 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:20:55 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Q and oral tradition X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 764 Bob Waltz says that there was no single document Q because some of the material is oral. Wouldn't one have to say then that there was no single document Matthew because some of its material is oral? Couldn't Q be a collection of earlier material -- if there ever was a Q? And M and L the same? Ulrich Schmid seems to me to make much the same point in observing that my "q," which I think of as wandering bits of information, is a more complex explanation of the verbal parallels between the Gospels than would be a gathering of such information from which the Gospel authors sometimes made the same selections. I need to think about that and draw some diagrams. Thanks to both writers for sharing their thoughts. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 16:21:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25827; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:21:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:24:56 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2190 On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" wrote, in part: >Bob Waltz says that there was no single document Q because some of >the material is oral. Wouldn't one have to say then that there was no >single document Matthew because some of its material is oral? >Couldn't Q be a collection of earlier material -- if there ever was >a Q? And M and L the same? The analogy is false. Most if not all the material in the gospels -- I think most of us will agree -- was in oral circulation before it was taken down. That's not the point. The question is, "At which point did it shift from oral to written tradition." What we call "Q" contains material that is identical in Matthew and Luke, and material that is clearly parallel but not the same. Now in the case of the former, it is clear that Matthew and Luke derived it, possibly with some intermediate steps, from *the same* source. But the material that is different has clearly undergone separate evolution. It was in oral circulation at some stage after the sources separated, because it continued to evolve. An obvious example is the Parable of the Pounds/Talents. The two versions have obviously diverged. And, in fact, Matthew's version with three servants looks like a clear oral evolution of Luke's. (Note that I speak hear as a folklorist, not as a textual critic.) Luke mentions ten servants, but describes only three. In the course of time, the seven anonymous servants would be forgotten. At the same time, the amount of money would be exaggerated. This is not merely a common behavior of oral tradition, it is *typical*. The extraneous is forgotten and the rest exaggerated. This is not to say that Matthew and Luke did not work with written "Q" documents. They may have. But they were *different* Q documents, derived from at least two, and possibly more than two, sources. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 17:49:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26034; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:49:41 -0400 Message-Id: <9708192252.AA19537@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: an omission in Jn 15.27 ? Date: Mar, 19 Aož 97 23:53:55 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1137 In one of my arabic manuscripts, I find that in Jn 15.27 the words "with me" (met' emou) are omitted. I have searched in my greek, versional and diatessaronic editions and found this nowhere. May be it's purely scribal (after all, it's a short words of three letters in Arabic) but given the possible theological dimension of such a variant, I would just like to make sure that nobody has seen this variant anywhere else before. So if one of you knows about it, please let me know. Thank you. Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ NISUS WRITER - the multilingual word processor for the Macintosh. Find more about it at: http://www.nisus-soft.com http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/grads/maschke/nisus_overview/toc.htm l _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 18:41:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26153; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:41:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:44:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Nomina Sacra In-Reply-To: <33FA1B65.D5A@total.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: 1039 On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > I know that the Robinson-Pierpont GNT does in fact have the Nomina Sacra. In Rev. David is abbreviated as dad > at 3:7, 5:5 and 22:16. This is based on the MSS evidence provided by Hoskier. Swanson is a much more valuable tool in this regard, and interested parties need to go there for detailed collation data. The printed edition of the R/P Byzantine Textform indeed did use nomina sacra for "DAD" as well as Greek letters for numerals for "12", "24", "144" and "666", but these were all in the Apocalypse, and nowhere else. Further, no other nomina sacra abbreviations (e.g. for "Jesus" or "God") were utilized, so the point is not really applicable in that regard. Sorry. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Aug 19 20:44:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA26408; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:44:26 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:48:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition 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: 487 In addition to comparing the Q material in Matthew and Luke, I find it instructive to look at the parallel passages in the Gospel of Thomas. I'm not a sholar, but it looks to me like much of Gos. Thomas was derived from the Q tradition, though it had developed here along lines which are rather different from the Mattean and Lukan versions. --- Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If, in English, we have pronouns, why do we not also have proverbs? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 21:01:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26463; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:01:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970819210437.25bfd4da@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: 723 At 05:48 PM 8/19/97 -0700, you wrote: >In addition to comparing the Q material in Matthew and Luke, I find it >instructive to look at the parallel passages in the Gospel of Thomas. I'm >not a sholar, but it looks to me like much of Gos. Thomas was derived from >the Q tradition, though it had developed here along lines which are rather >different from the Mattean and Lukan versions. Q and Thomas are, properly speaking, independent sources. Jim > >--- >Gregory Woodhouse >gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html >If, in English, we have pronouns, why do we not also have proverbs? > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 21:07:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26506; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:07:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:11:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 840 On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, "Gregory J. Woodhouse" wrote: >In addition to comparing the Q material in Matthew and Luke, I find it >instructive to look at the parallel passages in the Gospel of Thomas. I'm >not a sholar, but it looks to me like much of Gos. Thomas was derived from >the Q tradition, though it had developed here along lines which are rather >different from the Mattean and Lukan versions. Exactly. Matthew, Luke, and Thomas all has access to a fund of common material. It would appear that Matthew and Luke had *some* of this material in common written form, but the form in Thomas diverged earlier. I personally believe that the material in Thomas split off at an earlier date than the divergence between Matthew and Luke, and that all three traditions were oral at that point. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 22:35:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA26636; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:35:11 -0400 From: LegoMan07@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970819223724_-1135303006@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2706 Dear TC List, I recently read an argument with respect to the Divine Name in Rev. 1:4 in "The Morphology of Koine Greek, as used in the Apocalypse of St. John, a study in bilingualism" by G. Mussies, Leiden E.J.Brill 1971. Mussies postulates a Tetragrammaton removal in Rev 1:4 as an answer to the "missing genitive" in APO hO WN." I have a question: How plausible is his argument that the scribes would read a blank space meant for the Tetragram and collapse the words together on both sides of the space? Was this a common enough practice that it might reasonably occur? Are there any references to which you can direct me? Would you critique this argument for me? Thank you in advance, Mitchell Andrews ------- Excerpts from pages 92-94. 6.2.4.2 Use of the Nominative in the Apocalypse 6.2.4.2.1 Appositional Use. That a nominitive substantive may serve in the Apc. as an apposition, ... (...) We believe that the famous anomaly in I 4 'APW hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMEMOS' is also a nominative of apposition, and that this passage only seemingly contains the use of "APO with the nominative". The explanation of Charles and others is that St. John in deference to the Divine Name has shrunk back from submitting it to declension, that is from using it in an oblique case (PTWSIS CASUS). (...) The scribes of a number of manuscripts have assumed that a genitive has been omitted; accordingly some cursives have here 'TOU hO WN or KURIOU hO WN', and the uncial 046 and many cursives, too, have 'QEOU hO WN'. These are evidently additions meant to solve the puzzle, but 'APW hO WN' must be original, as it is found in the older uncials A, C, Aleph. It is known that Hebrew manuscripts in square script retain occasional instances of the name Jhwh in the so-called Old Hebrew or Phenician letters. 2 Similarly the LXX-mss retain somtimes (YHWH) in square letters, which was misread by Greek scribes as 'PIPI' or even as 'THGH' i.e. 'THi GHi' in Daniel IX2(LXX). 1 Our assumption is not that at Ap I 4 there was originally an alphabetical antiquity of the same kind, to which 'hO WN' etc was the apposition. The closest parallel is furnished by the Qumran-scrolls. In I Q.S VIII 14 we find instead of (YHWH) four dots by each other's side in a quotation from Isaiah XL 3, and we think it very probable that the Apc. autograph may have had at I 4 the same indication of the Divine Name, an indication which could most easily be effaced by thumbing or by decay of the scroll. 2 the result was then an open space and this seemed of course meaningless to subsequent copyists who did to retain it : 'APO .... hO WN' became 'APO hO WN' which was shortened to 'APO hO WN' From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 19 22:37:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA26660; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:37:01 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19970819224431.356fc5d0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:44:31 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970819210437.25bfd4da@mail.highland.net> 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: 1151 At 09:04 8/19/97 -0400, Jim West wrote: >Q and Thomas are, properly speaking, independent sources. Properly speaking, scholars are divided on the question of whether Thomas is independent of or dependent upon the synoptics, although I detect some momentum in favor the position endorsed by Jim West. Compare John P. Meier, A MARGINAL JEW: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 1:124-39 with Stephen J. Patterson, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS & JESUS (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1993) 9-110 for extensive treatments of the issue by scholars on opposite sides. There is a third position, viz. that the synoptics are dependent on Thomas. For a recent proposal that Mark is dependent on Thomas, see Stevan L. Davies' recent articles in Neotestamentica [sorry, paper cites not available], which are reproduced by permission at Davies' Gospel of Thomas Homepage at: http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html 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 Aug 19 23:54:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA26848; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:54:34 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19970820000141.32cf3b26@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:01:41 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Anti-Q In-Reply-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: 4832 At 02:51 8/18/97 PST, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > It follows, then, that the genetic relationship among the >Gospels can be any of the following, in increasing order of >complexity (in drawing the stemmas use F for the facts about Jesus, G >for a Gospel, and D for a missing "document" as defined above). > 1. The four Gospels are independent accounts of Jesus' life, >that is, the authors did not draw on one another's work even if they >knew it (stemma: F at the top, four Gs across the bottom, four lines >from F, one to.each G). Another way to put it is to say that the four >Gospels are independent witnesses to the facts about Jesus. > 2. A document has been lost and: > a. The four Gospels draw independently on it -- J. G. >Herder's hypothesis of a lost gospel (stemma: F at the top, D in the >middle, four Gs across the bottom, a line from F to D and four from >D, one to each G); or [...] > All but 1 and 2a require evidence that we do not have, namely, >that one or two of the four Gospels are repeatedly preferable to the >others (2b and 3b, or 2d and 3c), or that some Gospel (as in c and >3d) or pair of Gospels (as in 3a) is sometimes preferable to and >sometimes less preferable than the others. I believe, if I trust Farmer's citations in his SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: A Critical Analysis, that Herder proposed a variant of option 1 (a relatively fixed oral gospel) and Lessing proposed option 2a (a lost, written Ur- Gospel). I don't quite understand the reasoning behind rejecting the other options, but the issue of interdependence has a lot to do with similarities and nonsimilarities in *literary facts*, i.e. verbatim and seriatim agreements in the documents not attributable to common historical details, e.g. the way an Evangelist chooses to relate an event. It seems to me that the most "assured result" of more than 200 years of synoptic source criticism is that both option 1 and 2a have been largely disproven owing to Lachmann's observation in 1835 that Mark is generally a middle term between Matthew and Luke in Triple Tradition. Even Butler, who in 1951 exposed a fallacious use of Lachmann's observation, e.g. by Streeter inter alia, recognized the cogency of Lachmann's argument against Lessing's and Herder's positions. >At one time I accepted >Streeter's reasoning about the priority of Mark (The Four Gospels, >1930, pp. 157-169, 171), namely that its style was inferior to >Matthew's and Luke's, that they were more reverent than he and more >aware of the danger of Gnostic misinterpretation of the facts, that >they sound like editors and he sounds like a reporter, and that they >omit the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29) by >mutual homeoteleuton. I now reject all this reasoning: a person with >an inferior style may not recognize the fact, revisionist biographers >may "tell it like it was" (Washington and the cherry tree, Jefferson >and his slaves, to cite two modern objects of reverence), the dates >of the Gospels with respect to the rise of Christian Gnosticism are >in doubt (I accept John Robinson's reasoning about the Gospel dates), >and mutual homeoteleuton is a coincidence. I think these are generally good points, and that much of this kind of argumentation lacks historical controls allowing for nineteenth and twentieth century writing practices to be unintentionally retrojected onto the first century. Those scholars who have looked at how literary sources were used in the ancient world have noticed that "[w]ith rare exceptions, classical authors, including Josephus, *consistently* and thoroughly rewrote their sources." [Sharon Lea Mattila, "A Question Too Often Neglected," NTS (1995) 41:199, 207 (footnotes omitted, emphasis original)] Therefore, the observation that Mark's style is somehow inferior to Matthew's and Luke's should only permit conclusions about the authors' relative literary elegance, not priority. In other words, a secondary author of the first century who happens to have an inferior style would be likely to produce a work that is stylistically inferior. [...] > If I am Anti-Q, I am not also Anti-q, so to speak. When two or >more Gospels agree word for word in a whole sentence or more, then I >believe the authors had independently come across a written record, a >wandering fragment of information, that they trusted and copied >exactly, the sum of such fragments, however, making only "q," not Q. How far away are you from Schleiermacher's fragmentary hypothesis, largely abandoned due to agreements in arranging the fragments? 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 Aug 20 08:59:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA27691; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:59:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:02:44 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970819224431.356fc5d0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <1.5.4.16.19970819210437.25bfd4da@mail.highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2188 On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote: >At 09:04 8/19/97 -0400, Jim West wrote: >>Q and Thomas are, properly speaking, independent sources. > >Properly speaking, scholars are divided on the question of whether Thomas >is independent of or dependent upon the synoptics, although I detect some >momentum in favor the position endorsed by Jim West. Compare John P. Meier, >A MARGINAL JEW: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991) >1:124-39 with Stephen J. Patterson, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS & JESUS (Sonoma, >Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1993) 9-110 for extensive treatments of the issue >by scholars on opposite sides. > >There is a third position, viz. that the synoptics are dependent on Thomas. >For a recent proposal that Mark is dependent on Thomas, see Stevan L. Davies' >recent articles in Neotestamentica [sorry, paper cites not available], which >are reproduced by permission at Davies' Gospel of Thomas Homepage at: > http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html I think we're getting off-topic for this list (and yes, I know, I am contributing to the problem). But this brings up a serious question: What do we mean by *independent* source? To me, it seems clear that Thomas is not taken directly from the Synoptics; neither were the Synoptics taken directly from Thomas. There is too much divergence in language for there to be literary dependence. BUT the similarities are too great for the accounts to be entirely independent. They go back to a common oral tradition at some point on "this side" of Jesus. Does this make them dependent? Semi-dependent? Independent? I would be interested in hearing how others view this. Even if you don't agree with my reconstruction (which is based on the study of oral tradition, not literary criticism), how would you assess the degree of dependence if it *were* true? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 20 09:50:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27845; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:50:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970820095112.269fbca8@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: 1829 At 08:02 AM 8/20/97 -0500, you wrote: >What do we mean by *independent* source? To me, it seems clear that >Thomas is not taken directly from the Synoptics; neither were the >Synoptics taken directly from Thomas. There is too much divergence >in language for there to be literary dependence. When I use the term I mean to suggest that Q did not use Thomas in the composition of his gospel; and neither did Thomas use Q in the composition of his. Further, Q is independent of Matthew- but Matthew is not independent of Q. Q and Thomas are independent compositions which sometimes overlap because they draw on some of the same oral traditions. Just as two eyewitnesses are independent when they are interviewed by the police after viewing an accident; yet their testimonies can overlap because they viewed the same event. > >BUT the similarities are too great for the accounts to be entirely >independent. They go back to a common oral tradition at some point >on "this side" of Jesus. Does this make them dependent? Semi-dependent? >Independent? > Independent in composition. >I would be interested in hearing how others view this. Even if you >don't agree with my reconstruction (which is based on the study of >oral tradition, not literary criticism), how would you assess the >degree of dependence if it *were* true? > Q and Thomas contain both early, reliable tradition concerning the historical Jesus; but they also contain late, theological interpretation of the Christ of faith as seen by their communities. Like gospel texts, the text of Q and Thomas are little windows which allow us to view the beliefs of a particular community. Each biblical text, in fact, is such a window. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 20 10:20:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27973; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:20:57 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:22:27 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <970819223724_-1135303006@emout05.mail.aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <1EF5D26A52@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 414 For my money, Charles's discussion is still more likely. The hypothesis about which you inquire seems unverifiable, and unnecessary, given the several usages of the formula "who is and who was and who is to come" in Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; cf. 16:5. 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 Wed Aug 20 11:54:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA28183; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:54:10 -0400 From: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) Message-Id: <199708201557.IAA02318@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: <1EF5D26A52@div.ed.ac.uk> from "Professor L.W. Hurtado" at Aug 20, 97 03:22:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] 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: 1531 Greetings, TC'ers I think this is fascinating and I don't have any answers, only questions .... 1. Of the five usages of 'O WN ...' only Rev 1:4 has nothing in aposition to the phrase. The rest all have 'Lord God' (1:8), 'Almighty God` (4:8), 'Lord Almighty God' (11:17), with 16:5 having the pronoun 'EI'. 2. In the entire of the GNT, 'APO' is never followed by anthing but a genitive, except at Rev 1:4. 3. The evidence suggests from the article supplied by Mitchell that scribes felt that Re 1:4 was grammatically incorrect and so supplied a noun to put in aposition to the phrase 'O WN ...'. If it is true that this sounds grammatically incorrect to those who knew the language natively, does not that speak in favor of a textual problem with Rev 1:4 ? Sincerely, Larry Kruper Re 1:8 KURIOS O QEOS O WN KAI O HN KAI O ERXOMENOS O PANTOKRATWR Re 4:8 O QEOS O PANTOKRATWR O HN KAI O WN KAI O ERXOMENOS Re 11:17 KURIE O QEOS O PANTOKRATWR O WN KAI O HN Re 16:5 EI O WN KAI O HN [O] OSIOS Re 1:4 APO O WN KAI O HN KAI O ERXOMENOS KAI APO TWN EPTA PNEUMATWN > > For my money, Charles's discussion is still more likely. The > hypothesis about which you inquire seems unverifiable, and > unnecessary, given the several usages of the formula "who is and who > was and who is to come" in Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; cf. 16:5. > > 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 Wed Aug 20 12:22:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28260; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:22:00 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:23:38 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199708201557.IAA02318@netcom9.netcom.com> References: <1EF5D26A52@div.ed.ac.uk> from "Professor L.W. Hurtado" at Aug 20, 97 03:22:27 pm X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <20FB567D9C@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2240 Larry Kruper write: > 1. Of the five usages of 'O WN ...' only Rev 1:4 has nothing in > aposition to the phrase. The rest all have 'Lord God' (1:8), > 'Almighty God` (4:8), 'Lord Almighty God' (11:17), with 16:5 having > the pronoun 'EI'. > > 2. In the entire of the GNT, 'APO' is never followed by anthing but > a genitive, except at Rev 1:4. > > 3. The evidence suggests from the article supplied by Mitchell that > scribes felt that Re 1:4 was grammatically incorrect and so supplied > a noun to put in aposition to the phrase 'O WN ...'. If it is true > that this sounds grammatically incorrect to those who knew the > language natively, does not that speak in favor of a textual problem > with Rev 1:4 ? There is a textual "problem," of course: is the original reading "apo ho on . . .", or "apo theou ho on . . .", or is it the proposed emendation? But the fact that one or more scribes felt it necessary to make a change in the reading here by itself doesn't require that "apo ho on" is not the original reading. It merely indicates that some scribes found it "difficult" for this or that reason. But, going by the principle that the reading that explains the variants is to be preferred, such a "difficult" reading might well be preferred here. Two additonal points: (1) the expression "ho on, kai ho en, kai ho erchomenos" seems to have been for the author of Rev a formula, so he might well have wanted to preserve it in "ungrammatical" construction with the "apo" to avoid altering the sacred (liturgical?) formula; (2) On the proposed emendation hypothesis, there would have been originally a series of dots (?, as one finds in some Qumran Heb OT mss), because the author didn't want to write out the divine name. But how then do we get the "kyrios ho theos" in 1:8, and the other direct references to God in the other places where the "ho on, etc." formula appears in Rev? That is, why in this one case would the author have used a non-verbal substitute for mentioning God, when he has no compuctions about doing so in other places? 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 Wed Aug 20 14:59:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28724; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:59:16 -0400 Message-ID: <33FBC930.D4E@sn.no> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:50:56 -0700 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: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? 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: 658 LegoMan07@aol.com wrote (in part): > > Mussies postulates a Tetragrammaton removal in Rev 1:4 as an answer to the > "missing genitive" in APO hO WN." > I know that this may be regarded as somewhat "unscholarly", but I say it anyway: This is not a very big problem if you depend on the sources behind the Byzantine text and the TR, which has the genitive THEOU and TOU respectively. This may be seen as scribal additions in order to solve the problem. But it can also be seen as a scribal *omission* caused by scribes who found reasons to regard the case as "a nominative of apposition", as many modern scholars do. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 20 16:46:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA29062; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:46:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:50:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? In-Reply-To: <33FBC930.D4E@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5559 On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, lakr wrote: > 1. Of the five usages of 'O WN ...' only Rev 1:4 has nothing in > aposition to the phrase. The rest all have 'Lord God' (1:8), > 'Almighty God` (4:8), 'Lord Almighty God' (11:17), with 16:5 having > the pronoun 'EI'. Also, Larry Hurtado wrote: > But, going by the principle that the reading that explains the > variants is to be preferred, such a "difficult" reading might well be > preferred here. > Two additonal points: (1) the expression "ho on, kai ho en, kai ho > erchomenos" seems to have been for the author of Rev a formula, so he > might well have wanted to preserve it in "ungrammatical" construction > with the "apo" to avoid altering the sacred (liturgical?) formula; Regarding the variant unit in Apoc. 1:4, I note there that a portion of the Byzantine MSS (ca. 50%) read APO QEOU O WN while another portion (ca. 40%) of the Byzantine MSS read APO O WN along with the old uncial/Egyptian text and the Nestle/UBS editions. The TR reads the artificial APO TOU O WN with minimal support, and likely stems from an phonetic error of misreading/mispronouncing the _nomen sacrum_ QU for QEOU. Further, the construction found in the TR reading (APO TOU + nominative expression) is not only artificial and ungrammatical, but has no parallel anywhere else in the entire NT. So the variant question really revolves around APO QEOU O WN and APO O WN respectively, and it is perhaps significant that the Byzantine-era MSS are divided on this point. I suspect that it is probably not the use of O WN which should be the issue, but the use of APO within the Apocalypse which should be of primary concern. That usage (at least in my resultant Byzantine/ Majority text) breaks down as follows, if my count (made rapidly) is correct: APO + anarthrous genitive = 16x APO + arthrous genitive = 19x (APO TOU + genitive = 10x) (APO TWN + genitive = 6x) (APO THS + genitive = 3x) APO + adverb of location = 3x Pertinent to the expression in 1:4, there appear to be _no_ other instances in the Apocalypse (or the NT for that matter) of APO O WN or APO followed by _any_ nominative "technical term" or phrase as found in the old uncial/Egyptian text of 1:4. Yet, while the phrase APO TOU QEOU is found 4x in the text of the Apocalypse (whether Byzantine or old uncial/Egyptian), the _anarthrous_ Byz-pt phrase APO QEOU in 1:4 is similarly found nowhere else in the Apocalypse (note that in the LXX, APO TOU QEOU and APO QEOU each occur 6x; neither phrase is frequent in the LXX by any means). However, in the NT outside of the Apocalypse, while APO TOU QEOU only occurs 3x, the anarthrous APO QEOU occurs 23x (Byzantine text), which does set some sort of precedent for the expression encountered in the Byz-pt text of Apoc.1:4. Within the Apocalypse proper, however, APO + an anarthrous genitive (not QEOU) _is_ found in about 50% of the occurrences of APO within that book. My own decision thus was to go with the portion of the Byzantine data which included QEOU, since, albeit being anarthrous, it still reflects a known and reasonable stylistic trait of both the NT and the Apocalypse itself. On the other hand, the APO O WN expression found in the remaining portion of the Byzantine MSS as well as in the old uncial/Egyptian MSS seems to have _no_ parallel whatsoever in the biblical literature. Based on the style of the Apocalypse as shown, it certainly seems that a noun or article + noun in the genitive should be required in 1:4 following APO; this seems to be a given, even granting that the Apocalypse has a "grammar of non-grammar" in relation to the remainder of the NT. As regards the "more difficult" reading, I myself am not surprised to find a localized group of old uncial/Egyptian MSS and their relatively few descendants omitting a necessary genitive noun or article, whether by archetypical error or deliberate choice. I do not feel compelled to adopt a non-grammatical reading as original merely because of the grammatical difficulty created by such an expression, especially when the omission of single words is a frequent characteristic of the very old uncials cited in support of such a reading. On the contrary, had the Apocalypse demonstrated even a moderate use of APO followed by non-genitive nominal expressions such as in the old uncial text of 1:4, I would probably hold the opposite opinion, since the Byzantine text is clearly divided in regard to this variant unit, and external evidence does not seriously sway the situation. Since O WN is a characteristic Johannine phrase in the gospel (though not used in the Apocalypse sense as a title of Christ), I am not surprised to find the same phrase used characteristically in the Apocalypse as a technical term, regardless of the question of authorship of that book. I do not think, however, that its use as a title for deity would otherwise require suspension of the grammatical rules which normally apply within that book, especially when there is no other instance paralleling that phenomenon within that book. As a final aside, I note that I do concur with Hurtado regarding the unlikelihood of the "emendation hypothesis" (his point #2), for the same reasons as he stated. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Aug 20 17:07:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA29188; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:07:40 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:03:21 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Occam's razor (Anti-Q continued) X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4513 Ulrich Schmid has made a good point: when using Occam's razor you must be careful what you are shaving -- in the old phrase, you can't cut blocks with a razor. Some further points: The scattered verbal agreements among the Gospels I attribute to wandering scraps of written information that the Gospel authors transcribed. Dr. Schmid asks whether it would not be simpler to suppose that this information had already been collected and that the Gospel authors transcribed from the collection, for this supposition would reduce the number of sources for the Gospels. After considerable thought, I answer no, the number of sources is not reduced but increased by interposing a collection of scraps between the scraps themselves and the Gospels. Second point: Bob Waltz says the parables of the pounds and the talents are two versions of the same parable. His reasoning is similar to that of W. F. Howard in the old Interpreter's Bible, VIII, 536-538, who says that the healings of the nobleman's son and the centurion's slave are two versions of the same healing. With respect to the healings, if Jesus could heal through the Spirit without visiting the sick he could have done so more than once -- and "absent treatment" being the norm among Christian Scientists today and in fact expected by all those who mean it when they say on parting from a friend, "pray for me," shows that Jesus could heal in this way. Therefore we must require close correspondences between narratives of healing before we decide that they are versions of the same event. The nobleman's son had a fever, the centurion's slave was paralyzed, the nobleman, a Jew, asked Jesus to come to the bedside, the centurion, a gentile, said "the word" was enough. Are these differences sufficient to classify the narratives as accounts of different healings? I think so. Jesus also taught in public and private for a number of years. His message transcended human experience and even his best students were slow to grasp it fully, but he was remarkably brilliant in his ability to devise metaphors expressive of the spiritual truths he had so often to repeat. Therefore we must require close correspondences between parables before we decide that they are versions of the same story. With respect to the pounds and the talents, (1) the pounds is based on the career of Herod's son Archelaus, the talents is not; (2) the pounds speaks to poor people, the talents to rich; (3) the pounds explicitly brings out the infinite benefits of God's grace -- turn $20 into $200 and you will rule over ten cities, as opposed to turn $5000 into $10,000 and you will rule over "many things" and enjoy favor; (4) the pounds has an additional message, for the talents concerns what we may call "positive" and "zero" thoughts and actions and the pounds concerns the "negative" as well (the rebellious citizens); both parables say that only the "positive" are rewarded, the pounds adds that the "negative" forces of evil will be destroyed. Are these differences sufficient to classify the two stories as separate parables? I think so. Third point: Stephen Carlson says that Herder and Lessing had different concepts about the sources of the Gospels, the former positing a lost oral gospel and the latter a lost written one. If you accept my definition of a document, namely, that it may have different forms, then there is no essential difference between Herder and Lessing, both suppose a document intervening between the facts of Jesus' life and the four Gospels (my 2a), one saying it had an oral form, the other a written one. Carlson also says that over 200 years of New Testament textual criticism have confirmed Lachman's observation that Mark was generally a middle term between Matthew and Luke. Again, if you accept my axiom (actually Greg's, whose work and logic in the eyes of textual critics of English literature superseded Lachman's 50 years ago, though it seems to be widely unknown in Biblical studies), Mark cannot be a middle term. My axiom in this respect does not allow the qualification "generally." Even excluding the so-called Q material, and confining ourselves to passages where the three Gospels run parallel, Matthew and Luke repeatedly agree against Mark, so that, under the axiom, Mark is not a middle term. At most, he draws on a lost document that was a middle term, and it seems to me to be unnecessary to posit such a document. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 20 17:44:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA29311; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:44:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:28:50 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199708201729_MC2-1DB6-822@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 560 >From Bill Petersen, abroad at the moment: On the Thomas vs. synoptics matter raised by Waltz and others, the works = of Gilles Quispel are seminal. Especially the collations in the appendices = of his *Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas.* Quispel, who was one of the first= scholars to examine GTh, and who (co-)edited the ed.princ., has always argued for the independence of GTh. His articles (which appeared in NTS,= NovT, VigChr, etc.) are collected in his two-volume *Gnostic Studies*. --Petersen, Penn State Univ., Netherlands Inst. for Adv. Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 01:01:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA29973; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 01:01:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 01:05:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199708210505.BAA09161@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Caesarean text and migrations Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3789 Regarding the ongoing discussion between Vincent Broman and myself on the nature of the text of Mark in Palestine, one further point of clarification about Broman's article of August 3. Broman wrote "It sounds like we have some impediments to communication tripping us up. One is the word 'Caesarean.' After careful reading I still see Mullen arguing (effectively) in his book that within the Gospel of Mark, Theta + 565 + Orig + Eus + (700 + CyrilJ) are in fact related to each other. The traditional name for this grouping is either "Caesarean" or "family Theta," without wanting to buy into all of Streeter's theories..." On this score, Broman has interpreted my argument as to the groupings correctly. I personally would prefer to speak of "Group Theta" or if necessary the "Caesarean Group" for the ms witnesses Theta, 565, 700. To my mind, the group is not substantial enough to be called a text-type in the sense that we speak of the "Alexandrian text-type," for example. At the same time, I would prefer not to use the word "family" to refer to the conglomeration of Theta / 565 /700 but would reserve the word family for very close-knit collocations such as Family 1, Family 13, Family Pi, and Family E. As to how the text of Mark attested by Origen, Eusebius, and to a lesser extent by Cyril of Jerusalem, came to be found in Ms Theta (discovered in what is today the Republic of Georgia, 565 (an apparent production from asia minor for Theodora, wife of the Byzantine Emperor Leo V the Armenian), and 700 (can anyone supply information on the geographical origin of 700?), a question alluded to on p. 328 of my *The New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem*, let me note that there seems to have been a fairly heavy pilgrimmage traffic early on back and forth between Palestine and Asia Minor & Armenia. Early (5th/6th century) Armenian mosaics have been found in Jerusalem, and the earliest attestation of Cyril in a sanctoral calendar comes in an Armenian lectionary (see p. 7 of my book). To that I would now add the following comment from Krikor H. Maksoudian, ed, VARK' MASHTOTS'I (Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1985), p.xi "Medieval writers and modern scholars attribute to Koriwn [the celebrated Armenian translator who lived in the 5th century-- RLM] several literary works. In a late medieval composition, the "List of Rituals" it is stated that the translators Koriwn and Ardzan who were in Jerusalem, brought with them a work of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a treatise that "interdicted the penitents and absolved them on Holy Thursday." The work refered to is probably the "Catecheses" of Cyril of Jerusalem, the Armenian version of which was translated in the first half of the fifth century and is still extant. It would be very tempting to attribute the translation to Koriwn , but the "list of rituals" is notoriously untrustowrthy source and the style of the Armenian version of the "Catecheses" is very different from that of the life of Mastots'." Thus far Maksoudian, who references a work entitled "Eranelwoyn Kiwrghi Erusaghemay Hayrapeti koch'umn entsayut'ean" [the Catecheses of the Blessed Patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem] (Vienna, 1832). If a Palestinian author such as Cyril was being translated into Armenian in the early fifth century (whether by Koriwn or someone else) and if translators were thought to be bringing books (may we assume biblical mss as well as catecheses?) from Palestine at about the same time, it seems that this is a highly likely explanation not only for the character of Mss Theta & 565, but also for the presumed "Caesarean" affinities of the Armenian version. Erroll Rhodes or Joe Alexanian, are you available for comment? I'd be interested to hear your or others' comments. --Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 01:31:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA00057; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 01:31:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 22:34:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Codex Bezae & the Curetonian Syriac 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: 371 Hello List, I'm not much into tc, but in reading parts of Bruce Metzger's book I came across a mention that in the Codex Bezae and also the Curetonian Syriac there are a few additional names inserted within Jesus' genealogy, at Mt 1:8. Do any of you happen to know what these names are, or how one best gets hold of a copy of these codices to find out? Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 06:43:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA00605; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 06:43:50 -0400 Message-ID: <33FC23C3.7B33@cryogen.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:17:23 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky Organization: Killersoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: manuscripts in Brit. Museum 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: 1235 Hi all! I'm off to London next week and am planning to go to the British Museum. What significant manuscripts does the museum have? I know they have Aleph and A and also Bezae - are there any other major uncials or papyri or other interesting documents that I should see? cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cryogen.com | | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.cryogen.com/hermeneutics | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IHSOUS KURIOS! +--------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 08:26:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00750; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:26:23 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199708211229.OAA17002@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Aug 97 14:49:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Codex Bezae & the Curetonian Syriac 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: 731 On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >I'm not much into tc, but in reading parts of Bruce Metzger's book I came >across a mention that in the Codex Bezae and also the Curetonian Syriac >there are a few additional names inserted within Jesus' genealogy, at Mt >1:8. Do any of you happen to know what these names are, or how one best >gets hold of a copy of these codices to find out? Just consult the apparatus of critical editions as, e.g., Nestle-Aland (27th ed.) or the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (15th ed.). It's probably easier to get hold of a copy of those than of the MSS. BTW-- When consulting a copy of Codex Bezae you would be surprised to find the mattheian genealogy lacking. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 10:47:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01085; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:47:43 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199708211451.QAA35316@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Aug 97 17:11:05 +0100 Subject: Re: Occam's razor (Anti-Q continued) 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: 5300 On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote (inter alia): > The scattered verbal agreements among the Gospels I attribute to >wandering scraps of written information that the Gospel authors >transcribed. Dr. Schmid asks whether it would not be simpler to >suppose that this information had already been collected and that the >Gospel authors transcribed from the collection, for this supposition >would reduce the number of sources for the Gospels. After >considerable thought, I answer no, the number of sources is not >reduced but increased by interposing a collection of scraps between >the scraps themselves and the Gospels. >From my point of view, the scenario looks somewhat different. Consider this: Two wandering scraps of written information (A + B) happen to be found in all four Gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk, Joh). If the authors, independent of one another and no collection (X) interposed, incorporated A + B within their narratives, we have to assume eight independent relations (connections) between A + B and Mt, Mk, Lk, Joh. On the other hand, postulating an intermediary collection (X) that already incorporated A + B reduces the number of relations between the various entities down to six, two between A + B and X, and another four between X and the Gospels. The number of entities has increased by one, but the number of necessary relations has decreased by two. Now, when assuming that one of the existing Gospels was X with respect to A + B, i.e, e.g., Mark collected A + B and the rest is dependent upon Mark, the number of entities has not increased, yet the number of necessary relations has decreased by three when compared to the first scenario. If we add just another two scraps of written information (C + D) things get much worse for theories about independently incorporating entities of that type. Yet, within the canonical Gospels we have much more than only A + B + C + D. Therefrom I conclude that the number of entities is by no means the sole parameter when applying Occam's razor. One also has to account for the number of necessary independent relations between the entities. I'm still not sure which hypothesis provides the most satisfactory balance (Once I used to be more enthusiastic about the role of 'Q' than now). However, the 'wandering scraps of written information without any intermediary stage' theory is not among my favourits up to now. Maybe I will change, but there is more evidence needed to convert me. > Second point: Bob Waltz says the parables of the pounds and the >talents are two versions of the same parable. His reasoning is >similar to that of W. F. Howard in the old Interpreter's Bible, VIII, >536-538, who says that the healings of the nobleman's son and the >centurion's slave are two versions of the same healing. With respect >to the healings, if Jesus could heal through the Spirit without >visiting the sick he could have done so more than once -- and "absent >treatment" being the norm among Christian Scientists today and in >fact expected by all those who mean it when they say on parting from >a friend, "pray for me," shows that Jesus could heal in this way. >Therefore we must require close correspondences between narratives of >healing before we decide that they are versions of the same event. >The nobleman's son had a fever, the centurion's slave was paralyzed, >the nobleman, a Jew, asked Jesus to come to the bedside, the >centurion, a gentile, said "the word" was enough. Are these >differences sufficient to classify the narratives as accounts of >different healings? I think so. In my view this assessment is much to hasty. This is more or less a mix up of parts of the individual narratives, then somehow eclectically split into two separate events. a) The "son" vs. "slave" issue displays the following distribution: "son" (hYIOS: John 4,46.50.53; PAIDION: John 4,49; PAIS: Mt 8,6.8.13; Lk 7,7!; John 4,51!) - "slave" (DOULOS: Lk 7,2.10) [BTW-- I am perfectly well aware that PAIS can also stand for slave, but this is not an issue here, for only the Lukan account unambiguously labels the sick "slave"]. When assuming only one healing and applying the way of reasoning as outlined in the initial post (Anti-Q), I could easily vindicate Luke of being "wrong" (Mt + John: hYIOS+PAIS = "son" vs. Lk: DOULOS+PAIS = "slave", i.e. two against one). b) The same goes for "fever" (John 4,52) vs. "paralysation" (Mt 8,6). Now what says Luke? Well Luke says that the "slave" was "ill" and "going to die" (Lk 7,2). This fits much better with "fever" than with "paralysation". Moreover, John also says that the "son" was "ill" (4,46) and "going to die" (4,47). With regard to this feature definitely Matthew is "wrong". c) Moreover, in my view there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the BASILIKOS (John 4,46.49) was a Jew. BTW-- It doesn't matter much that Christian Scientists regularly practise "absent treatment" when Christ usually practised "face to face or nearby treatment". This is the norm within the Gospels. Therefore, the unusual "absent treatment" is additional evidence that we are ultimately dealing with the same tradition in the various accounts of this healing narrative, in my view at least. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 11:14:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01208; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:14:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:16:53 -0500 From: Mike Parsons Subject: Re: manuscripts in Brit. Mus To: "tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory." Message-id: X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2983 Reply to: RE>manuscripts in Brit. Museum check the back of your nestle-aland for a list of the locations of the various mss of the nt. D, i believe, is in cambridge, not the british museum. of course, don't miss the magna charta, the lindisfarne gospels, and if you're interested the beatles manuscripts! the only surviving copy of mallory's morte d'arthur is there as well. of course, the black obelisk, the rosetta stone and many other wonderful artifacts are in the museum itself. have fun. cheers, mikeal parsons -------------------------------------- Date: 8/21/97 5:55 AM To: Mike Parsons From: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory. Hi all! I'm off to London next week and am planning to go to the British Museum. What significant manuscripts does the museum have? I know they have Aleph and A and also Bezae - are there any other major uncials or papyri or other interesting documents that I should see? cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cryogen.com | | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.cryogen.com/hermeneutics | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IHSOUS KURIOS! +--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by QMGatewy.baylor.edu with SMTP;21 Aug 1997 05:54:20 -0500 Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu (graf.cc.emory.edu) by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.0-6 #18434) id <01IMOVMMBOOW8XJE03@baylor.edu> for mike_parsons@baylor.edu; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 05:53:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) by graf.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id GAA16929; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 06:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA00605; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 06:43:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:17:23 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky Subject: manuscripts in Brit. Museum Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <33FC23C3.7B33@cryogen.com> Organization: Killersoft MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 12:55:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01604; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:55:00 -0400 Message-Id: <9708211757.AA04343@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: manuscripts in Brit. Mus Date: Jeu, 21 Aož 97 18:59:23 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN 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: 1685 >I'm off to London next week and am planning to go to the British Museum. >What significant manuscripts does the museum have? I know they have >Aleph and A and also Bezae - are there any other major uncials or papyri >or other interesting documents that I should see? > >cheers, >Andrew The Royal Library has a big collection of Syriac mss, including many very early one. The manuscript of the Curetonian Gospels is Add. MS. 14451. Peshitta mss include: Add. 14459 (Vth century - thus probably very close, at least chronologically, to the autograph, as the peshitto seems to have been released in the first half of the Vth century!), 17117 (Vth/VIth century, except for some later folios), 14453 (Vth/VIth), 14470 (Vth/VIth). As you see, they are quite early (do we have so many Greek mss from that period? In any case, probably not so many as close to their autograph.). You might also be interested in looking at a Harklean ms (don't forget it's one of the earliest critical editions!): look Add. 14469, written AD 935-936. Cheers, Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ NISUS WRITER - the multilingual word processor for the Macintosh. Find more about it at: http://www.nisus-soft.com http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/grads/maschke/nisus_overview/toc.htm l _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 14:41:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02013; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:41:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Codex Bezae & the Curetonian Syriac In-Reply-To: <199708211229.OAA17002@pop1.uni-muenster.de> 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: 1274 On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > > >I'm not much into tc, but in reading parts of Bruce Metzger's book I came > >across a mention that in the Codex Bezae and also the Curetonian Syriac > >there are a few additional names inserted within Jesus' genealogy, at Mt > >1:8. Do any of you happen to know what these names are, or how one best > >gets hold of a copy of these codices to find out? > Just consult the apparatus of critical editions as, e.g., Nestle-Aland (27th > ed.) or the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (15th ed.). It's probably easier to > get hold of a copy of those than of the MSS. > BTW-- When consulting a copy of Codex Bezae you would be surprised to find the > mattheian genealogy lacking. Thanks very much, Ulrich. I'm slowly learning to read all the strange symbols and fine print in my 26th edition of N-A. So I found the 3 additional names, along with the annotation D for Bezae, and sy with superscript c for the other. But why was the D superscripted by "luc", as this was in reference to Matthew's genealogy, not Luke's? And if the Codex Bezae inserted an extra three names at Mt 1:8, how could it fail to contain at least a part of Matthew's genealogy? Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 15:45:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02222; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:45:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:49:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199708211229.OAA17002@pop1.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Codex Bezae & the Curetonian Syriac Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1584 On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >Thanks very much, Ulrich. I'm slowly learning to read all the strange >symbols and fine print in my 26th edition of N-A. So I found the 3 >additional names, along with the annotation D for Bezae, and sy with >superscript c for the other. But why was the D superscripted by "luc", as >this was in reference to Matthew's genealogy, not Luke's? And if the >Codex Bezae inserted an extra three names at Mt 1:8, how could it fail to >contain at least a part of Matthew's genealogy? Actually, Ulrich already explained this. If you look at the back of NA26, you'll find that D is missing for the genealogy of Matthew. The critical note is taken from D's text of *Luke*. Instead of using Luke's genealogy, D (alone; no Old Latin support except d) has substituted Matthew's genealogy. This is probably the single most important sign of editing in D in the Gospels. BTW -- we might add that D cur are not the only sources to expand the genealogy here. We also find the expanded form in at least part of the Ethiopic tradition. There are many other small variations in the manuscripts of the genealogy. Most of them serve to bring the text of Matthew closer to Genesis or Chronicles (Hebrew or LXX). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 17:21:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02526; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:21:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:24:46 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: Re: manuscripts in Brit. Mus To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199708211725_MC2-1DD6-AD82@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1291 >From Bill Petersen, abroad at the moment: It might be worth pointing out that the vast majority of MSS in the Briti= sh Library are not accessible to the public, even for viewing, as they are under lock and key in the Eastern Manuscripts Reading Room, and the Weste= rn MSS Reading Room. The last time I was there, the public display of ancie= nt MSS included a *facsimilie* of Codex Sinaiticus, etc. Only a few Biblica= l MSS were on display. To gain access to the MSS Reading Rooms, one must have a letter of introduction, from a recognized academic institution, vouching for one's standing, necessity of using the BL, etc. Even those with passes are given only facsimilies to consult if you ask for somethin= g like Codex Sinaiticus: it simply is not circulated, even in the reading room. Since the construction of the new British Library (next to Charing Cross station, if I recall correctly), I imagine most of these MSS have moved there, for they were (I presume) the property of the British Library (the= name on my reader's passes), and not the British Museum (the old, impressive building on Great Russell St.). And, yes, Codex Bezae *Cantabrigiensis* is in Cambridge, England, in the Univ. library. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Inst. for Adv. Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 21 20:34:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02781; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:34:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:38:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Codex Bezae & the Curetonian Syriac 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: 1582 On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > > >Thanks very much, Ulrich. I'm slowly learning to read all the strange > >symbols and fine print in my 26th edition of N-A. So I found the 3 > >additional names, along with the annotation D for Bezae, and sy with > >superscript c for the other. But why was the D superscripted by "luc", as > >this was in reference to Matthew's genealogy, not Luke's? And if the > >Codex Bezae inserted an extra three names at Mt 1:8, how could it fail to > >contain at least a part of Matthew's genealogy? > Actually, Ulrich already explained this. If you look at the back > of NA26, you'll find that D is missing for the genealogy of Matthew. > The critical note is taken from D's text of *Luke*. Instead of > using Luke's genealogy, D (alone; no Old Latin support except d) > has substituted Matthew's genealogy. This is probably the single > most important sign of editing in D in the Gospels. Thanks for explaining this further. I was unprepared to run into this large a degree of borrowing (Mt to Lk), and so could hardly believe it at first, even though my study of a 1963 translation of a late 1st-century to early 2nd-century ms (scrolls), whose originals are no longer extant, has prepared me for massive redactions to have occurred at the time Matthew was first written. But since an answer often leads to another question, did I interpret "vac = vacat" right to mean vacant or less or except? (This is a heck of a way to try to learn Latin!) Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 00:11:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA03181; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 00:11:58 -0400 From: LegoMan07@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 00:15:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970822001531_1454105519@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1203 In a message dated 97-08-21 21:41:39 EDT, you write: << From: Maurice Robinson Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, lakr wrote: > 1. Of the five usages of 'O WN ...' only Rev 1:4 has nothing in > aposition to the phrase. The rest all have 'Lord God' (1:8), > 'Almighty God` (4:8), 'Lord Almighty God' (11:17), with 16:5 having > the pronoun 'EI'. >> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 Maurice Robinson wrote: << Since O WN is a characteristic Johannine phrase in the gospel (though not used in the Apocalypse sense as a title of Christ), >> Thank you all for your scholarly comments on Mussies' proposal. I appreciated all comments. Just a point of clarification here regarding the claim that O WN is used of Christ in the Apocalypse. Why would we infer that Christ is the subject of the hO WN in 1:4 since 1:5 says KAI APO IESOU XRISTOU ...? As noted, the Byzantine MSS (ca. 50%) inserts "QEOU" and not "XRISTOU" in 1:4 [APO QEOU hO WN]. All five occurrences of hO WN were previously listed and I include them above. Thank you again, Mitchell Andrews From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 09:55:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04542; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:55:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:58:16 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: manuscripts in Brit. Mus To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199708220958_MC2-1DE4-125E@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 362 To see the actual MS of Bezae, rather than a facsimile, at Cambridge requires the same kind of "approvals" as the viewing of MSS at the Britis= h Library. The last time I was there it was under lock and key, although they did have a nice exhibit of Hebrew MSS. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 10:01:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04601; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:01:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? In-Reply-To: <970822001531_1454105519@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1106 > On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 Maurice Robinson wrote: > << Since O WN is a characteristic Johannine phrase in the gospel (though > not used in the Apocalypse sense as a title of Christ), > I appreciated all comments. Just a point of clarification here regarding the > claim that O WN is used of Christ in the Apocalypse. Why would we infer that > Christ is the subject of the hO WN in 1:4 since 1:5 says KAI APO IESOU > XRISTOU ...? As noted, the Byzantine MSS (ca. 50%) inserts "QEOU" and not > "XRISTOU" in 1:4 [APO QEOU hO WN]. All five occurrences of hO WN were > previously listed and I include them above. Mea culpa. I intended to say "as a title of deity" rather than "as a title of Christ". My fingers worked overtime to produce what my mind was not thinking. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 22 10:07:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04636; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:07:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:11:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: manuscripts in Brit. Mus In-Reply-To: <199708220958_MC2-1DE4-125E@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: 454 Harold P. Scanlin wrote: > To see the actual MS of Bezae, rather than a facsimile, [...] Which brings another question to mind. Many people have mentioned the facsimiles that circulate rather than the actual manuscripts themselves. What is the status of these facsimiles? Are these one-of-a-kind productions? Or they more generally available? Could someone actually get (i.e. buy) a copy of one of these? (Well, I can dream can't I? ;-) N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 14:56:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05892; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:56:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:00:03 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: manuscripts in Brit. Mus To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199708221500_MC2-1DE4-BB74@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 513 Facsimiles of manuscripts are usually published, although a library may produce a one-of-a-kind photo reproduction. Because facsimile editions a= re usually high quality they are generally quite expensive, so they are ofte= n only available in larger or specialized libraries. A very useful guide t= o published facsimile editions is J. K. Elliott's _A bibliography of Greek New Testament_ (Cambridge, 1989). = Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 15:43:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06184; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:43:43 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:39:24 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: basilikos' son vs. centurion's slave(?) X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2804 I am especially concerned not to conflate these two healings because to do so would be to give Jesus a smaller a place in the history of and evidence for spiritual healing. There are scholars who feel that the historical Jesus was a much less effective person than the Gospels say he was and that it is their duty to prove it. Others accept their methods and results without, I believe, intending to minimize Jesus' place in history and Christian lives. So what I write now is not a criticism of particular persons. It has been said that impossibilities never occur. The converse is that possibilities may always occur more than once. The fact that Jesus did not normally heal at a distance, then, is not evidence that he did so only once, as differently recorded by Matthew, Luke and John. To repeat, (a) if he could do so at all, he could do so more than once; (b) we know he could do so at all because people today do so all the time "in his name," to use the biblical expression; and therefore (c) we know that Jesus could heal at a distance more than once. Here are the differences between John and Matthew/Luke, the latter of whom clearly tell of the same healing: (1) The healing was the first that Jesus performed in Galilee (John 4:54) vs. a much later one. (2) Jesus was at different places, Cana vs. Capernaum. Granted that the people healed were both in Capernaum. (3) Those who approached Jesus had different professions, basilikos vs. centurion. Granted that the basilikos might have been a gentile like the centurion, and not a Jew as I said in an earlier communication. (4) They had different relations to the sick person, father vs. master. It is true that all three authors call the sick person a "pais" but John uses the word only when the "douloi" tell the "pathr" about his "pais" (4:51,53), whereas Luke uses "pais" as a synonym for "doulos" (8:7; cf. 2,3,10). The fact that Matthew calls him only a "pais" (8:6,13) does not mean that he uses the word in the same meaning as John. (5) The diseases were different, fever vs. paralysis. Granted that John (4:47) says the sufferer "hmellen apoqnhskein" and that Luke (7:2) says he "hmellen teleutan," nevertheless, "puretos" (John 4:52) is different from "paralutikos deinws basanizomenos" (Matthew 8:6). The fact that Luke (7:2) says only that the sufferer was "kakws ecwn" does not mean that he agrees with John as to the disease. (6) The father wants Jesus to come and heal his child; the centurion does not want Jesus to come to his home. Granted that John and Matthew say the petitioner came to Jesus and that Luke says he sent messengers. As I said before, the differences, in my estimation, outweigh the similarities. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 17:39:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06509; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:39:13 -0400 Message-ID: <33FE8CD7.48EC@sn.no> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:10:15 -0700 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: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? 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: 808 Maurice Robinson wrote: > the > construction found in the TR reading (APO TOU + nominative expression) is > not only artificial and ungrammatical, but has no parallel anywhere else > in the entire NT. Does it necessarily *have* to have a parallel in the NT in order to be a possible alternative?? There are many expressions and manner of expression in the NT which occur only *once*. As to the assertion that it is ungrammatical, this may very well be the case. But grammatical rules are not always followed. Is it possible that in the APO TOU + nominative here, the TOU functions as a personal pronoun (meaning "from Him, he who...."/"from the One who....")? Berry's interlinear has "from him who is....". It is clear that the hO often in the NT functions as a relative pronoun. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 19:54:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06719; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:54:28 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:50:24 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Photocopies of MSS X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2344 Photocopies are notorious for failing to reproduce the characteristics of their originals. I remember struggling with a MS in the Bodleian library where I had to read the scratches the pen had made in the parchment (holding the volume so that the light would shine across it at an angle) because the ink had entirely disappeared. On the other hand, ultraviolet light and other photographic techniques recover traces of ink that everyday photography and the human eye cannot recognize. I remember how the starch in my white shirt cuffs shone blue under the ultraviolet light in the little cubicle for such research in the British Museum (now the British Library), where readers were not allowed to remain for long lest the MSS be damaged. So much for war stories. There are two major repositories of photographs of biblical MSS, one at the Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung at the Westfalsichen Wilhelms-Universitat in Munster, Germany, and one at the ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in the Claremont Colleges, Claremont, CA. The Institut pioneered in collecting microfilms of NT MSS, the Center pioneered in new methods of photography developed as part of the U.S. space program, and has become the repository for the work of the Greek New Testament Project as well as for photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Huntington Library in San Marino, CA, has a set of photographs of the Scrolls, but these have been published. At least one of our listers, Ulrich Schmid, is in Munster. There is an account of the work of the Center and its address in the most recent issue of either Biblical Archaeology Review or Bible Review. Many years ago I was kindly received at the Institut and served on the governing board of the Center and can testify that their directors are anxious to serve our community of scholars. Some contributors to the holdings of these institutions will not allow free reproduction of what they have deposited, but one can always write to the contributing libraries, research groups, or individual owners for permission to have a duplicate made, remembering that a duplicate is not guaranteed to be of the same quality as what was deposited. Ideally, one should see the original documents wherever possible, and have war stories of one's own to tell. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 22 21:51:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06850; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:51:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:55:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? In-Reply-To: <33FE8CD7.48EC@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4208 On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > construction found in the TR reading (APO TOU + nominative expression) is > > not only artificial and ungrammatical, but has no parallel anywhere else > > in the entire NT. > > Does it necessarily *have* to have a parallel in the NT in order to be a > possible alternative?? There are many expressions and manner of > expression in the NT which occur only *once*. > > As to the assertion that it is ungrammatical, this may very well be the > case. But grammatical rules are not always followed. Is it possible that > in the APO TOU + nominative here, the TOU functions as a personal > pronoun (meaning "from Him, he who...."/"from the One who....")? Berry's > interlinear has "from him who is....". It is clear that the hO often in > the NT functions as a relative pronoun. Since I realize that Mr. Evensen is a defender of the TR, this type of comment comes as no surprise. From my text-critical perspective, however, the TR carries absolutely _no_ weight whatsoever, and my previous statement regarding the grammatical anomaly in that edition stands. Had the TR reading been supported by 40% of the MSS, or even 30% or 20%, then the decision would be more difficult, and I would have to take the TR reading more seriously, but as a variant standing on its own well-supported merits -- not because it appears in the TR. But when the TR reading, as here, is supported by few if any MSS -- and I know from my data in hand that the TR here certainly has less than 10% support since ca. 50% of the MSS (Byz-pt) read QEOU and ca. 40% (Byz-pt/Nestle27) omit -- then I have _no_ hesitation whatsoever about proclaiming such a reading to be non-original. I don't have my copy of Hoskier at home with me, so I can't state the actual number of MSS supporting the TR reading, but since it is certainly less than 10% of the MSS, I immediately suspect those two or three MSS which are suspected of being copies of printed TR editions (e.g., Hoskier's numbers 57 or 141), and quite possibly no others. Any MSS in which the reading APO TOU O WN does occur, however, where the MS is not a slavish copy of a printed TR, I still would suspect (as previously stated) to be the result of the aforesaid phonetic error regarding the nomen sacrum QU confused with the near-homonym TOU, for the simple reason of the scantiness of support for such a reading as well as the late MSS in which such support appears. As for the question Evensen asked, > Does it necessarily *have* to have a parallel in the NT in order to be a > possible alternative?? There are many expressions and manner of > expression in the NT which occur only *once*. ...the answer is certainly not. I myself argue for the originality of a number of hapax legomena which happen to appear in the Byzantine Textform (e.g. deuteroprwtw in Lk.6:1), and Mr. Evensen must be well aware of that, I presume, since there the TR and Byz happen to agree. However, the principle of preferring the reading which follows the known style of a writer should always take precedence whenever the reading which does _not_ match such style has little or no support among MSS, fathers, or versions, as is the case with the TR reading in question. Note particularly what Hurtado pointed out: the omission of any genitive phrase following APO _could_ be explained as a deliberate anomaly decided upon by the author of the Apocalypse to introduce a divine title. Even though I prefer to follow a reading which is more closely attuned to the known style of the Apocalypse, Hurtado's reasoning has a degree of merit which Evensen's arguments in favor of the TR do not -- and that degree of merit is that ca. 40% of the known MSS testify to that non-genitive reading. The TR's TOU, standing virtually alone, has _nothing_ similar to commend it to anyone save the TR defenders, and that by rhetoric, not reason. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 23 00:14:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA07135; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:14:23 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199708230416.VAA24154@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:16:16 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Photocopies of MSS Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 598 > work of the Greek New Testament Project as well as for photographs > of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Huntington Library in San Marino, CA, > has a set of photographs of the Scrolls, but these have been > published. I understood that the library had made the photos available to anyone who wants to examine them, but I didn't hear about them being published. Is this in printed form, and if so, do you have bibliographic info? While I'm at it, does anyone have the address (snail or e mail) of the Huntington Library? Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 23 05:19:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07500; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:19:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:22:41 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: Re: Photocopies of MSS To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199708230522_MC2-1DF2-1139@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 765 >From Bill Petersen, abroad at the moment: While I am not sure of the exact status of the project, E.J. Brill (publishers) of Leiden have--to the best of my knowledge--the *entire* se= t of Dead Sea Scrolls (entire works, fragments of works, and unidentified scraps) on CD-ROM, in photographic form. I am unsure of the price ($1,25= 0 sticks in my mind...), but that can be checked in their catalogue, or via= their web site (whose address I don't have at hand--it is not a straightforward one). I can't recall whether a diplomatic text accompani= es the recognizable works, but my memory also tells me they are working on such a project, as an outgrowth of the already-available CD-ROM version. --Petersen, Penn State Univ., Netherlands Inst. for Adv. Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 23 15:37:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA08232; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 15:37:59 -0400 Message-ID: <33FFC6B5.5105@sn.no> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 22:29:25 -0700 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: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? 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: 3099 Maurice Robinson wrote (in part): > > On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Had the TR reading been supported by 40% of the MSS, or even 30% or 20%, > then the decision would be more difficult, and I would have to take the TR > reading more seriously, but as a variant standing on its own > well-supported merits -- not because it appears in the TR. > > But when the TR reading, as here, is supported by few if any MSS -- and I > know from my data in hand that the TR here certainly has less than 10% > support since ca. 50% of the MSS (Byz-pt) read QEOU and ca. 40% > (Byz-pt/Nestle27) omit -- then I have _no_ hesitation whatsoever about > proclaiming such a reading to be non-original. Since my method of how to determine the original readings differs from that of Dr. Robinson, I would not evaluate the situation in the same manner he does. Thus his appeal to the low quantity of external evidence in favour of the TR reading and his majority text method is not necessarily convincing from my point of view. > > As for the question Evensen asked, > > > Does it necessarily *have* to have a parallel in the NT in order to be a > > possible alternative?? There are many expressions and manner of > > expression in the NT which occur only *once*. > > ...the answer is certainly not. I myself argue for the originality of a > number of hapax legomena which happen to appear in the Byzantine Textform > (e.g. deuteroprwtw in Lk.6:1), and Mr. Evensen must be well aware of that, > I presume, since there the TR and Byz happen to agree. > > However, the principle of preferring the reading which follows the known > style of a writer should always take precedence whenever the reading which > does _not_ match such style has little or no support among MSS, fathers, > or versions, as is the case with the TR reading in question. > > Note particularly what Hurtado pointed out: the omission of any genitive > phrase following APO _could_ be explained as a deliberate anomaly decided > upon by the author of the Apocalypse to introduce a divine title. Even > though I prefer to follow a reading which is more closely attuned to the > known style of the Apocalypse, Hurtado's reasoning has a degree of merit > which Evensen's arguments in favor of the TR do not -- and that degree of > merit is that ca. 40% of the known MSS testify to that non-genitive > reading. What can I say? > > The TR's TOU, standing virtually alone, has _nothing_ similar to commend > it to anyone save the TR defenders, and that by rhetoric, not reason. No, nothing *similar*; nevertheless, I would note that the TR reading *can* be defended on *internal* grounds. (I do not say that it is stronger, on internal grounds, than the other competing readings. I'm not *that* stupid!). Thus it is not mere "rhetoric" that is the tool in my defense of the TR reading. (BTW, I did not "defend" the TR reading in my previous post. I was just questioning Dr. Robinson's conclusion regarding the TR reading. There is a difference. However, in *this* post I am defending the TR reading). -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 23 18:22:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA08436; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 18:22:49 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 15:18:24 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Published DSS X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1145 I was working from memory when I said the Huntington's set of DSS photos had been published. I probably had in mind the transcriptions that came out as soon as the Huntington Library said it would make the photographs available to those who wished to examine them. On my way to our library, I met a friend who tells me that digital images of the scrolls can be found on the Web, and recommended contacting Bruce E. Zuckerman at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90089; e-mail bzuckerm@bet.usc.edu. I somehow have the feeling that Prof. Zuckerman is again in Israel protographing scrolls, so he may not be able to respond at once to e-mail.Those who know how to browse the Web will presumably be able to find the site; my friend thought that the Library of Congress was the best site and that the Huntington Library had a site or a link. The address of the Huntington Library is 1151 Oxford Road, San Marino, CA (I'm sorry, you'll have to ask at your Post Office for the zip code). My friend informs me that the Library has produced a brochure explaining how the scrolls there can be accessed. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 24 01:16:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA08956; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:16:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:20:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? In-Reply-To: <33FFC6B5.5105@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3714 On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Since my method of how to determine the original readings differs from > that of Dr. Robinson, I would not evaluate the situation in the same > manner he does. Thus his appeal to the low quantity of external > evidence in favour of the TR reading and his majority text method > is not necessarily convincing from my point of view. Were I a thorough-going eclectic, I might concur with that possibility; however, I suspect that even Kilpatrick would not have chosen to defend the TR reading in the current situation, and I suspect neither would Elliott. > > The TR's TOU, standing virtually alone, has _nothing_ similar to commend > > it to anyone save the TR defenders, and that by rhetoric, not reason. > No, nothing *similar*; nevertheless, I would note that the TR reading > *can* be defended on *internal* grounds. (I do not say that it is > stronger, on internal grounds, than the other competing readings. I'm > not *that* stupid!). Thus it is not mere "rhetoric" that is the > tool in my defense of the TR reading. (BTW, I did not "defend" the > TR reading in my previous post. I was just questioning Dr. Robinson's > conclusion regarding the TR reading. There is a difference. However, in > *this* post I am defending the TR reading). Regardless of whether or not the previous post was formally "defending" the TR reading, it still was as much of an underlying motif as is my freely admitted support of the Byzantine Textform, and thus Evensen's comments were (correctly) presumed to incline the discussion toward that point of TR defense. Any internal defense of the TR reading still has to deal with TOU introducing a nominative phrase, and this is quite a hurdle; in my opinion even more of a hurdle than Hurtado's preference for the APO + nominative phrase construction. In my opinion there comes a point where the degree of difficulty in a "more difficult" reading reaches the point of indefensibility, and, in the light of lack of MS, versional, and patristic support for the TR reading, I think virtually all Byzantine-priority defenders, reasoned eclectics, and even rigorous eclectics would demur from trying to defend the TR in this location. TR advocates here stand wholly alone, and defend this reading solely because it appears in the text they have defined _a priori_ as original, without weighing its merits against those of the other competing readings. To my way of thinking this does reflect rhetoric rather than reason, since no systematic application of text-critical principles can be shown to be applied consistently throughout the NT as applied to their methodology, but only pick-and-choose application of selected principles which suit a given purpose at various points. No other method of NT textual criticism follows such a haphazard method, and this alone calls any selective TR defense into serious question in my opinion. I do not intend to continue a debate on the merits or demerits of the TR in any case, since I consider all such discussion fruitless when dealing with virtually unsupported readings that are advocated as true by certain advocates of what I consider fringe or extreme positions within NT textual criticism. Mr. Evensen is of course free to maintain his own position, and no doctrinal damage will be done to the Christian world by his defense of the TR; but it just is not my own cup of tea. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 25 00:14:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA10596; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 00:14:13 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199708250416.VAA22327@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 21:15:16 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Published DSS Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 340 The address of the > Huntington Library is 1151 Oxford Road, San Marino, CA (I'm sorry, > you'll have to ask at your Post Office for the zip code). 91108. Their web address is www.huntington.org, but there isn't any info there on the DSS photos that I could find. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 03:21:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA10848; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 03:21:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:25:30 +0200 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="============_-1339621112==_============" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: M.Bakker@let.uva.nl (bakker) Subject: template for Bill Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1677 --============_-1339621112==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --============_-1339621112==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; name="dD_2.1-11_L_template"; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dD_2.1-11_L_template" {dD_2.1-11_L_template} {Template for Latin MSS} {Bakker, 21 aug 1997} Et die tertia nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae: et erat mater Iesu ibi. Vocatus est autem et Iesus, et discipuli eius ad nuptias. Et deficiente vino, dicit mater Iesu ad eum: Vinum non habent. Et dicit ei Iesus: Quid mihi, et tibi est mulier? nondum venit hora mea. Dicit mater eius ministris: Quodcumque dicerit vobis, facite. Erant autem ibi lapideae hydriae sex positae secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas. Dicit eis Iesus: Implete hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum. Et dicit eis Iesus: Haurite nunc, et ferte architriclino. Et tulerunt. Ut autem gustavit architriclinus aquam vinum factum, et non sciebat unde esset, ministri autem sciebant, qui hauserant aquam: vocat sponsum architriclinus, et dicit ei: Omnis homo primum bonum ponit: et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id, quod, deterius est: Tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc. Hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus in Cana Galilaeae: et manifestavit gloriam suam, et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius. --============_-1339621112==_============-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 03:21:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA10858; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 03:21:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:25:32 +0200 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: Template for Bill Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1356 {dD_2.1-11_L_template} {Template for Latin MSS} {Bakker, 21 aug 1997} Et die tertia nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae: et erat mater Iesu ibi. Vocatus est autem et Iesus, et discipuli eius ad nuptias. Et deficiente vino, dicit mater Iesu ad eum: Vinum non habent. Et dicit ei Iesus: Quid mihi, et tibi est mulier? nondum venit hora mea. Dicit mater eius ministris: Quodcumque dicerit vobis, facite. Erant autem ibi lapideae hydriae sex positae secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas. Dicit eis Iesus: Implete hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum. Et dicit eis Iesus: Haurite nunc, et ferte architriclino. Et tulerunt. Ut autem gustavit architriclinus aquam vinum factum, et non sciebat unde esset, ministri autem sciebant, qui hauserant aquam: vocat sponsum architriclinus, et dicit ei: Omnis homo primum bonum ponit: et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id, quod, deterius est: Tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc. Hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus in Cana Galilaeae: et manifestavit gloriam suam, et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 04:40:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA11070; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 04:40:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:43:55 +0200 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: Major oops: template for Bill Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 248 Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Instead of mailing to Bill Petersen's temporary address I sent electronic materials to the list. I am very sorry, especially because this was meant to be a pleasant suprise for Ulrich Schmid. hO hAMARTOLOS Michael From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 05:20:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA11131; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 05:20:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 05:24:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: Majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, Spencer Abraham , Congress , hebrew , Historic Trinity Lutheran Church , Carl Levin , President , tc , Vice President Subject: Please ignore this message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 237 Please ignore this message. It is merely a test of e-mail routing connections. ******************** This message was sent to you by A.C. Smith a.c.smith@juno.com http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/5680 ******************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 05:22:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA11156; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 05:22:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 05:26:05 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: Majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, Spencer Abraham , Ann Arbor News , Congress , hebrew , Historic Trinity Lutheran Church , Carl Levin , President , tc , Vice President cc: a.c.smith@juno.com Subject: Please ignore this message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 225 Please ignore this message. It is merely a test of e-mail routing. ******************** This message was sent to you by A.C. Smith a.c.smith@juno.com http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/5680 ******************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 10:07:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA11601; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:07:58 -0400 X-Sender: giannang@ciril.fr Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:15:17 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Francesco Giannangeli Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 308 Bonjour. Could anyone on this list give me a/some site/s where to find: -the LXX text -the VULGATE text -translations of the same En vous remerciant. -- GIANNANGELI Francesco Inserm U.308 38, rue Lionnois - 54000 NANCY - France giannang@u308.nancy.inserm.fr Tel: 03 83 36 41 45 - Fax: 03 83 37 62 44 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 11:11:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA11827; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:11:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970825111420.280f3fda@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: 437 At 04:15 PM 8/25/97 +0000, you wrote: >Bonjour. >Could anyone on this list give me a/some site/s where to find: > >-the LXX text >-the VULGATE text >-translations of the same > >En vous remerciant. > Check the Scholars Press web site (TELA) and go to the Electronic Canon link. Also the U Penn has these also. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 13:33:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA12236; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:33:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:36:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Replication of strings of identical words in parallel passages In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970825111420.280f3fda@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: 844 May I get some opinions from this list about this phenomenon of duplication of identical, consecutive words in parallel Gospel passages, up to about 30 words long in some instances? I have noticed that the frequency of replication does not fall off smoothly (or exponentially) with increased length of the string of words, as would be expected for independently edited works, but the distribution instead exhibits an anomalous number of longer strings. For this reason I doubt that scribal assimilation can be responsible. The other possibility is purposeful replication by the Gospel writers and/or a translator, as proposed in theories of Theodor Zahn and J. M Voste, the latter being discussed by B. C. Butler in his book, _The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis_. Jim Deardorff Corvallis, Oregon From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 13:52:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA12346; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:52:10 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:48:03 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: DSS X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3276 The address of the Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Center is 1325 N. College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711, telephone 909-621-6451, e-mail abmc@cgu.edu. The center is not open every day nor all day when it is open and during normal hours there may be no one there, so telephone before visiting. It is in the west wing of the Library of the School of Theology at Claremont. Its president is James A. Sanders, who is a professor at the School and also at the Claremont Graduate School. I quote from Bible Review, August issue, p. 40, "Its mission is to make photographic (and now digital) records of old manuscripts, to preserve the records in the safest possible way and to make them available to all who request them, in cooperation with the institutions that own the original documents. . . . Besides this treasure trove of ancient manuscript records, the ABMC boasts the world's largest and best-preserved collection of Dead Sea Scroll negatives and transparencies. The center now distributes, at minimal cost, prints and transparencies of the scrolls, both published and unpublished, to researchers all over the world. . . . Soon the ABMC, in collaboration with Brigham Young University and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, will also make available high-resolution digital images of the scrolls. . . . The ABMC, which also publishes two newsletters a year, depends heavily on donations by individuals who value its activities." You may ask the Center to put you on its mailing list and to send you films on interlibrary loan. The director is Michael Phelps. Bruce Zuckerman, a former director, has a web site with digital images of the DSS. How that site and the Center's forthcoming site will be coordinated has not been worked out. This summer images made with a new and improved camera at BYU showed characters that had been invisible before. Small donations in support of the Center are accepted as well as large, so all those who wish to serve biblical scholarship in this way can do so. There are no preliminary formalities if you wish to work at the Center itself. Please note that the e-mail address given in Bible Review is no longer current; use the one given above. A phone call to the Huntington Library discloses that the scrolls there were published as A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, prepared with an introduction and index by Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, Washington, DC, Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991, a 2 volume set originally priced at $185, so my memory had not failed me when I said they had been published. As is well known, the DSS began to deteriorate as soon as they were brought to light. What is not so well known is that the original photographic negatives of them also started to deteriorate. The founder and first president of the ABMC, Elizabeth Hay Bechtel, arranged to have the original negatives copied by the Huntington Library's photographer and it is these films that reside in San Marino. Another publication, perhaps more widely available in libraries, is The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition, Leiden and New York, E. J. Brill, 1993. There are supplements to the original series. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 14:22:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12499; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:22:43 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:18:26 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Replication of strings X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1241 If I understand Jim Deardoff, we do not have, say, five examples of 10-word duplications, three of 15-word duplications, and one of 20-word duplications. If the scheme is the-longer-the-fewer, I do not understand why this would be expected in "independently edited works." In short, I need information "for dummies" including the meaning of "independently edited works" and "purposeful replication by the Gospel writers and/or a translator [why "a translator" instead of "translators"?]." Could I have the title, etc., for the publication of Theodor Zahn's theories? Again, if I understand Jim, Ulrich Schmid and I have discussed these replications in communications to the list. I said I believed that the Gospel authors independently came upon scraps of written information that they believed were correct and copied them. Schmid questioned whether such a belief did not unnecessarily multiply the sources for the Gospels. I replied that to suppose the scraps had first been collected was to interpose an additional source between them and the Gospels. We seem not to be approaching the problem from the same direction as Jim, so I would very much like to know more about his reasoning. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 15:18:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12878; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:18:07 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:13:43 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: DSS X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 246 In my communication on this subject dated 25 Aug 97 10:48:03 PST I said "A phone call to the Huntington Library discloses that the scrolls there . . . " Of course, I should have said "the photographs of the scrolls there." Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 16:38:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13263; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:38:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:42:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Replication of strings 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: 5754 On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > If I understand Jim Deardoff, we do not have, say, five examples of > 10-word duplications, three of 15-word duplications, and one of > 20-word duplications. If the scheme is the-longer-the-fewer, I do not > understand why this would be expected in "independently edited > works." In short, I need information "for dummies" including the > meaning of "independently edited works" and "purposeful replication > by the Gospel writers and/or a translator [why "a translator" instead > of "translators"?]." Could I have the title, etc., for the > publication of Theodor Zahn's theories? > Again, if I understand Jim, Ulrich Schmid and I have discussed > these replications in communications to the list. I said I believed > that the Gospel authors independently came upon scraps of written > information that they believed were correct and copied them. Schmid > questioned whether such a belief did not unnecessarily multiply the > sources for the Gospels. I replied that to suppose the scraps had > first been collected was to interpose an additional source between > them and the Gospels. > We seem not to be approaching the problem from the same > direction as Jim, so I would very much like to know more about his > reasoning. > Vinton A. Dearing Vinton, I failed to properly state that we do see a nice regular decrease like you suggested, but only up to a point. We have 31 or so replications of 4-word strings, 23 of 5-word strings, 15 of 6-word strings, 11 of 7-word strings, etc., in a nice exponential distribution, but this ceases at 10 words and beyond. This is in the Luke-Matthew "Q" parallels. Past there we find great excesses, with strings occurring even of length 23, 24....27. (This made use of N-A 21; I'll repeat soon for N-A 26 and see if results differ significantly.) These latter have caused W. R. Farmer, B. C. Butler and others to assume a direct textual dependence between Mt and Lk, as opposed to the independence assumption of the 2-document hypothesis. As far as I know, Theodor Zahn was the first to postulate, using the Augustinian tradition, that Matthew first came out in Aramaic (to agree with Papias and the external evidence), then the writer of Mark used Aramaic Matthew in writing his gospel in Greek, and considerably later the translator of Matthew into Greek utilized Mark. This is in his _Introduction to the New Testament_, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1909), pp. 570f. This could be extended to the writer of Luke using both Aramaic Matthew and (Greek) Mark, and the translator of Matthew having both Mark and Luke in front of him. Zahn, and later Voste, reasoned that the translator of Matthew could well have replicated strings of words from Mark (I don't know if they discussed his utilizing Luke in the same manner or not) as a matter of convenience or guidance or out of respect while doing his transaltion (and using the LXX some then too); Butler found these reasons insufficient and so believed that Matthew was translated into Greek before Mark was written. Only one translator (at most) is involved here, as only Matthew has been argued strenuously by some to have been first written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Here's the way I reason it. For independently edited works, e.g., two editors each independently translating from a Semitic source document into Greek, they may perforce have used the same three Greek words in a row at one point in expressing a thought within a parallel, but then the odds are less than one (e.g., 0.7) that the next word (4th) they used would be the same word; then the odds would be 0.7 x 0.7 that the 5th word would be the same, and so on as one thought is completed and the next begins -- in the statistical average. This reasoning leads to the exponential fall-off distribution which one finds holds out to strings of length 10 or so. Then, I think a definite reason is needed to explain why this exponential doesn't continue to hold well past this point; if it held it would mean that strings of length 15, say, in the case of Mt-Lk, should be very rare or non-existent, and strings as long as 20 or 27 certainly wouldn't exist. I feel the same reasoning holds if one editor uses another's works without translation being involved, but feels the need to make many editorial alterations in order to improve the text, and/or to better express his own theology, etc. You'd again expect the exponential fall-off of numbers of strings as the strings got longer. But it only holds on the statistical average if you have a large enough data sample, which I believe the synoptic gospels do provide. So far I've only come across one "test" case as a check. This involved the parallels between the LXX's 2 Chr 36, Ezra & Neh 7:73-8:12 versus 1 Esdras. The results showed a nice exponential decline for the distribution of duplicate strings, without any longer strings occurring past the point where their expected number (from the exponential curve) had become significantly less than one. Although it's always difficult to be at all sure that one translation or editing is independent of another's, the result suggests that the two texts in this test case were independent, or at least that there was no purposeful replication of longer strings of words by the later translator/editor. Regarding the scrap hypothesis, there would have to be a lot of scraps hypothesized, and then you'd need to reason why the two writers so often (between Mk & Mt or between Mk & Lk) used these scraps in the same order and context. As I see it, you'd need about 30 scraps just to explain the numbers of unexpectedly long strings occurring within the "Q" parallels. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 16:38:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13284; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:38:48 -0400 Message-Id: <9708252141.AA17731@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: A question about the "cesarean text" Date: Lun, 25 Aož 97 22:43:18 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3237 A question to the specialists in Greek manuscripts. There have been instructing discussions about the so-called "cesarean text". As I'm working primarily on versions and my knowledge of Greek manuscripts is not as precise as yours, I would like to make sure that I understand correctly the questions about the manuscripts (and versions) usually known as "cesarean text". The agreement of Theta, fam1, fam13, 565, 700, and several eastern versions has first been described (by Lake and others) as a text-type, named cesarean text. Working on versions, I can only remark that often, the Georgian, Armenian, Syropalestinian and several (not all) Arabic versions often have common variants, there being often also some members of this group that follow another text. Despite this, I remark that many specialists of the Greek manuscripts (and if I understand, Dr Hurtado, who participates to this list, is one of them) deny the existence of such a text-type or family of manuscripts. It seems also, as I read it some days ago, that "text-type" is not a good vocabulary to describe the phenomenon of the common variants of those eastern texts. I understand there's no reason to connect it to Cesarea in Palestine, though another Cesarea, in Cappadoce, has been pointed in a post not long ago as a possible origin for the Vorlage of the Armenian texts - BTW, if my memory is good, the same has been said as to the origins of the Armenian liturgy. But I may be mistaken once again by my memory... If I understand also, there are some that argue for a connection between all those texts, but a looser one than what we find in "text-types" where the text would be more unified, like in the Alexandrian text. Do I understand correctly? Please understand that I don't want to argue or to take position in the debate, as it simply is beyond my speciality! I am simply intrigued by this debate, that seems to have implications on the manner I will have to present the results of my own work to people working in Greek textual criticism. And I realize that in previous posts, I have used that vocabulary (wrongly?) to present some Arabic manuscripts. I just want to make sure I understand correctly what's going on, AND I would like to make sure I'm using the correct vocabulary when I describe the texts I'm working on for the use of Greek TC scholars. When I'm describing an Arabic version, for example, as following a "cesarean text", am I using a correct vocabulary or are there better concepts I should use ? Should I use more general statements like "it has many common variants with Theta and the Syropalestinian and Georgian versions" or the like ? Am I taking the risk of using a wrong or misleading vocabulary ? What about such appellations as "palestinian text", "mixed eastern texts", "Theta-text" ? Or is a whole collation the only way to say something accurrate (but not brief then :-) Of course, I would be very thankful if some of you (Dr Hurtado for example, since from what I read on the list he's been working on the subject for so many years) could indicate me some book or article to read, in order to make my ideas clearer about this. Thank you in advance, Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 17:13:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13443; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:13:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: your mail To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: 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: 541 On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Francesco Giannangeli wrote: > Bonjour. > Could anyone on this list give me a/some site/s where to find: > > -the LXX text > -the VULGATE text > -translations of the same > > En vous remerciant. Ah, a question I can answer! For the vulgate, I usually go to http://estragon.uchicago/Bibles/VULGATE.form.html. There are other sites, but the "up-time" on this one is pretty good. 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 Mon Aug 25 17:51:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13483; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:51:24 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:47:21 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Replication of strings X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 855 Thanks to Jim Deardorf for his explanations. I'll have to examine the replications in detail before contributing further to the discussion. Three questions, though, for Jim. 1. How do you determine the odds in question? You cite 0.7 as an example, but do not say what circumstance would lead you to choose 0.7. And 2, you speak of expected numbers becoming significantly less than 1. How do you decide what is "significantly less"? And 3, you mention that translations or editings may be independent. Do you have a statistical test for independent events? In my book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis I have a chapter on "Probabilistic Methods in Textual Criticism" in which I examine some proposals for statistical reasoning and make one of my own. If you have such a test, I should be glad to have more details. Vinton Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 25 20:17:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13714; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 20:17:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:21:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Replication of strings 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: 4819 On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > Three questions, though, for Jim. 1. How do you determine the odds > in question? You cite 0.7 as an example, but do not say what > circumstance would lead you to choose 0.7. Vincent, What I did was work it backwards. First you go through the comparison of duplicated word strings between the parallel passages and get their distribution. I call it Y(I) -- the number of duplicate strings found of length "I" words each. Then you fit a two-constant exponential curve to it, using the data points at I=4, say, and I = 9 or 10. That allows you to determine the two constants involved, call them A and b, in: Y(I) = A*exp(-b*I) where * denotes multiplication and exp is the exponential. Then you take the ratio Y(I+1)/Y(I), which by definition is that factor like f = 0.7 we used as the example. "A" cancels out and you get f = exp(-b) . For the gospel parallels I examined, I found "b" to be 0.45, which means then that f was 0.64. > And 2, you speak of > expected numbers becoming significantly less than 1. How do > you decide what is "significantly less"? One way was using the test case; there a string was observed for I=11 for which the exponential predicted 1.20 strings; another string was observed for I=12 for which the exponential predicted 0.69 strings; and a final string was observed for I=13 for which the exponential predicted 0.40 strings. There was no string for I=14 for which the exponential predicted 0.23 strings, and none for any greater values of I. So this test-case data set appeared to have independently worded texts (though parallel in content). However, if you had been "unlucky," you still might have run into a string as long as I=15, say, for which the exponential predicted only 0.044 strings. This would mean that if you had 23 (=1/.044) very similar cases, with parallels containing the same number of words, etc., and they had been independently edited or translated, then you could still expect by chance to see a duplicate string 15 words long in one out of those 23 cases. So this is around the usual 5% level where it is customary to draw the line. But if one had observed two strings of this length, and another string of I = 16 or 17 words, then one would have to conclude the data weren't independent, or random. Another way to look at it is to see the similarity between this and the simple conceptual problem of drawing a ball, colored either black or red, out of a mixed bag of 1000 balls, 577 black and 423 red. Then keep track of its color, replace and mix it, and draw another, etc., doing this as many times as necessary until your data base is as large as with the test case. Then you'll find that the number of strings (Y) of black balls you drew in a row (I) before getting a red ball follows the same exponential distribution. (The number of black balls is chosen here such that f & b would be the same as in the test case, where b=0.55.) You can do this on the computer scores of times and examine just how infrequent it is to observe a string (Y=1) after I has become so large that the predicted number of strings is as small as 0.1, say. And it comes out the way I discussed above. > And 3, you mention that > translations or editings may be independent. Do you have a > statistical test for independent events? If the distribution Y(I) indeed turns out exponential, within the expected limits of sampling error, then the preceding analysis indicates the editings were either independent, or done in a manner that imitated independence. Fortunately, with the gospel parallels one doesn't have to distinguish between these two cases, as the distribution deviates very far from exponential for large "I". For "I" as small as 2 or 3 one doesn't necessarily expect a very good fit to the exponential curve, since there are so many nouns with articles (I=2) that an editor can't avoid replicating, and so many 3-word prepositional phrases that are hard to edit or translate into anything else. But for I=4 and on, the statistics of large numbers seems to take over, and the idiosyncracies of the particular language involved doesn't seem to matter, so that the exponential curve prevails unless purposeful editorial replications of strings occurs. I've written this up, along with results for the gospel parallels, and submitted it to a journal. Hope to hear before too long if they accept it or not. > In my book Principles and > Practice of Textual Analysis I have a chapter on "Probabilistic > Methods in Textual Criticism" in which I examine some proposals for > statistical reasoning and make one of my own. If you have such a > test, I should be glad to have more details. Does any of your chapter on this relate to the problem at hand? Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 26 05:50:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA14546; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 05:50:54 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:52:38 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: A question about the "cesarean text" Priority: normal In-reply-to: <9708252141.AA17731@iris.arcadis.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <1B40A42A58@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3848 A limited response (as requested) on some questions about the "Caesarean text" of the Gospels. --First, my own work on the subject has (thus far) been limited to showing that the mss earlier thought to be primitive witnesses to a Caesarean text-type (the text-type otherwise identified esp. with Theta & 565) are not only any correct basis properly linked with Theta & 565. P45, W and Fam 13 in fact do *not* agree comparatively more often with Theta and 565, as I showed in comparing agreements across the whole of Mark among P45, W, fam 13 and several control witnesses. P45 and W *do* seem to agee often enough and in such types of readings as to justify linking them with each other, and their comparative degree of agreement is distinguisably greater than with any control witness for any other identified early group. So, one might refer to a P45-W type of text in the early centuries, but it is *not* "Caesarean", if by this term one means witnesses to the kind of text one has in Theta-565. --Theta and 565 do seem likewise to agree with each other closely enough to link them. And they do seem to represent something identifiable, but not so distinctive as the P45-W linkage. Based on my limited study, I've suggested that Theta & 565 witness to a text drifting in the direction of what we call the "Byzantine" text-type. But the formation of the latter is a subject with which I am only somewhat competent to speak. So, two points by way of advice: 1) In claiming agreement twixt mss or mss and versions, or Fathers, one really should be able to show sufficiently high levels of agreement across a body of text, and not merely a string of isolated readings shared by two or more witnesses. An ad hoc anecdotal list of readings by itself is most certainly *not* to be taken as evidence of "text-type" relationship. Individually significant readings *may* signal some kind of common influence or some kind of historical connection, or merely coincidence. But even a handful of spectacular readings (e.g., the long ending of Mark or the pericope of the adulteress, or whtever), is not a text-type relationship. 2) In referring to the "Caesarean" text, I respectfully suggest (in light of my own study, which has never been refuted, and has been endorsed as correct by quite a number of major NT text critics), that one is obliged to explain what one means first. One might use the term to = Theta and 565. If so, "Caesarean text-type" is quite a bit too grand a term. Perhaps "Caesrean group" (*with the quote marks around "Caesarean" to indicate no necessary connection with anything else, just as we should put quote marks around "Western"). *If* one can demonstrate on some sound methodological basis a sufficiently high level of agreement of a version with Theta & 565, then one might do this. As for bibliog. refs., perhaps the place to start is my 1981 book: _Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark_ ("Studies & Documents" 43; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981). See also, e.g., E. J. Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism," JBL 93(1974), 386-414, esp. 393-96. On earliest witnesses & groupings of NT mss evidence, see now e. J. Epp, "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the NT Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in Epp & G. D. Fee _Studies in the Theory & Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_ ("Studies & Documents" 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274-98. Check out also Epp's excellent survey article on "Textual Criticism (NT)" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. 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 Tue Aug 26 06:05:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA14609; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 06:05:28 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:07:14 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: A question about the "cesarean text" Priority: normal References: <9708252141.AA17731@iris.arcadis.be> In-reply-to: <1B40A42A58@div.ed.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <1B7E6C095E@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 353 Oops. A potentially serious typo in my posting on the Caesarean text question: In the opening sentence of my first point, for "not only any correct basis" read "not on any correct basis". 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 Tue Aug 26 06:29:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA14631; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 06:29:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 06:33:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: A question about the "cesarean text" In-Reply-To: <1B40A42A58@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 770 Dr. Hurtado's mention of the Caesarean text and the MSS involved prompts a question which the resources available to me cannot answer: MS 565 is cited in UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 as omitting the Pericope Adultera entirely. Metzger in his _Textual Commentary_ (either edition) says that MS 565 transposes the Pericope Adultera to the end of John, along with MS 1 of Family 1. I don't have access to the microfilm or collation of 565, so which statement is correct? _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Aug 26 10:06:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15101; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:06:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:10:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199708261410.JAA05556@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: A question about the "cesarean text" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1124 J. Belsheim in 1885 published an article on Mark in manuscript 565 which includes a collation of John. That collation notes at 7.52 that 7.53-8.11 are omitted in their entirety. The collation of ch. 21 gives no indication at all that the passage has been added at that point. Mike Holmes At 06:33 AM 8/26/97 -0400, you wrote: > >Dr. Hurtado's mention of the Caesarean text and the MSS involved prompts a >question which the resources available to me cannot answer: > >MS 565 is cited in UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 as omitting the Pericope >Adultera entirely. > >Metzger in his _Textual Commentary_ (either edition) says that MS 565 >transposes the Pericope Adultera to the end of John, along with MS 1 of >Family 1. > >I don't have access to the microfilm or collation of 565, so which >statement is correct? > >_________________________________________________________________________ >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 Tue Aug 26 11:37:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15552; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:37:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:41:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: MS 565 In-Reply-To: <199708261410.JAA05556@homer.bethel.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1098 On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Michael Holmes wrote: > J. Belsheim in 1885 published an article on Mark in manuscript 565 which > includes a collation of John. That collation notes at 7.52 that 7.53-8.11 > are omitted in their entirety. The collation of ch. 21 gives no indication > at all that the passage has been added at that point. That was what I had heard, but could not verify it for myself. If so, then Metzger is incorrect in both editions of his _Textual Commentary_ on that point, unless in fact Belsheim erred. Perhaps only the microfilm will tell, but I did suspect that UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 were correct here. Now the next question is where Metzger obtained any information suggesting that MS 565 transposed the pericope adultera to the end of John. Any help will be appreciated. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Aug 26 13:31:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16108; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:31:55 -0400 Date: 26 Aug 1997 17:34:35 -0000 Message-ID: <19970826173435.544.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Jim Deardorff on Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:36:53 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: Replication of strings of identical words in parallel passages From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1973 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- deardorj@ucs.orst.edu wrote: > I have noticed that the frequency of replication does not fall off > smoothly (or exponentially) with increased length of the string of words, > as would be expected for independently edited works, > ... the odds are > less than one (e.g., 0.7) that the next word (4th) they used would be the > same word; then the odds would be 0.7 x 0.7 that the 5th word would be the > same, and so on ... The assumption that the conditional probabilities at each step would be the same I find highly dubitable. The remarks about articles and prepositional phrases affecting the probabilities should be taken as cautionary -- that all the probabilities will depend on the idiosyncrasies of Greek syntax and prose usage. The remark about the law of large numbers taking over is confusing, because that law predicts convergence to a normal distribution, not the geometric distribution you derive. The fact that by eliminating a few points a geometric sequence can be fit (how well?) to the data is not much evidence that that is the proper kind of curve one *should* attempt to fit. Without more convincing a priori reasoning to support the idea of a geometric distribution, some substantial observational data would be needed to validate this approach. 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 iQCVAwUBNAMTbmCU4mTNq7IdAQGsJAQAty2wEn2szypphcjqRLJ1QZUCAAMckLU4 Qt1Kg/wKgenaa5M2Tyq3bxUq2Uxfo1ljXQDFCHSsfOVJttFNaFgo1U2BCPiUFOUm XqNRsh6EClIJlQK4cMgzFp4bc6pTiFKevk0eS8jcKsX5lcblqvtrcAr6a3AdabCU dVXqQ0qhB3Y= =BcBy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 26 15:43:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16912; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:43:53 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199708261947.VAA27604@pop1.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 26 Aug 97 22:07:33 +0100 Subject: Re: MS 565 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: 3062 On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Michael Holmes wrote: >> J. Belsheim in 1885 published an article on Mark in manuscript 565 which >> includes a collation of John. That collation notes at 7.52 that 7.53-8.11 >> are omitted in their entirety. The collation of ch. 21 gives no indication >> at all that the passage has been added at that point. >That was what I had heard, but could not verify it for myself. If so, >then Metzger is incorrect in both editions of his _Textual Commentary_ on >that point, unless in fact Belsheim erred. Perhaps only the microfilm >will tell, but I did suspect that UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 were correct >here. >Now the next question is where Metzger obtained any information suggesting >that MS 565 transposed the pericope adultera to the end of John. Any help >will be appreciated. Hope this helps: At fol 359 verso John 7,53-8,11 is absent from MS 565 within the context of chapters 7 and 8. fol 405 verso provides two and a half lines from John 21,25 (KAQhEN...AMHN) followed by a slim decoration line. Then we find the explicit EUAGGELION KA(TA) IWANNHN written in uncial script (similar to the endings of Matthew and Mark in 565). The rest of fol 405 verso is covered with a text written in uncial script (probably 10 lines) but faded or deliberately wiped out. From the photographs stored in the Muenster Institut one can hardly read the text. However, having spent some time on this text I may safely conclude that it reads ...PERITHS.OIXALID...E... ...ALAION....KATA..... In Line three I can hardly identify more than two subsequent letters. The last line on fol 405 verso reads GALILAIAS OUK EGEIRETAI This is sufficient evidence to assume that the uncial text on fol 405 verso might be virtually identical with family 1's text. Unfortunately the rest of the text is lacking. After fol 405 there is an additional leave appended, presumably stemming from a later binding, for it looks like paper, not like parchment. This leave is covered with John 1.1-17 and John 20.19-25 from a very late hand. It seems impossible for me (a) to decide whether the pericope's text originally was added completely then partly dropped (and/or wiped out) or only up to the end of fol 405 verso; and (b) to decide at what point in time the uncial script was added to fol 405 verso and at what point in time it almost completely dissapeared. All I can say is that Metzger apparently had some hints for his statement, though it might be partly conjectured partly misleading. BTW-- Belsheim does not say a word on fol 405 verso? BTW-- Swanson apparently does not address the ending of MS 565 in his edition. Is he relying on Belsheim? Was the reproduction of MS 565 he used even worse than the photographs at the Muenster Institut? (I will deeply miss the opportunity to just get hold of microfilms, photographs, facsimiles of virtually every known Greek NT MS, for I'm about to leave this place heading to Wassenaar, Netherlands for the next months.) Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 26 19:23:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17821; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:23:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Replication of strings of identical words in parallel passages In-Reply-To: <19970826173435.544.qmail@np.nosc.mil> 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: 4677 On 26 Aug 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > deardorj@ucs.orst.edu wrote: > > I have noticed that the frequency of replication does not fall off > > smoothly (or exponentially) with increased length of the string of words, > > as would be expected for independently edited works, > > less than one (e.g., 0.7) that the next word (4th) they used would be the > > same word; then the odds would be 0.7 x 0.7 that the 5th word would be the > > same, and so on ... > The assumption that the conditional probabilities at each step > would be the same I find highly dubitable. The remarks about articles > and prepositional phrases affecting the probabilities should be taken > as cautionary -- that all the probabilities will depend on the idiosyncrasies > of Greek syntax and prose usage. The remark about the law of large numbers > taking over is confusing, because that law predicts convergence to a normal > distribution, not the geometric distribution you derive. The fact that by > eliminating a few points a geometric sequence can be fit (how well?) to > the data is not much evidence that that is the proper kind of curve one > *should* attempt to fit. Without more convincing a priori reasoning to support > the idea of a geometric distribution, some substantial observational data > would be needed to validate this approach. Vincent, Like you say, the conditional probabilities are all somewhat different from one choice of word the editor makes to the next, but each lies between 0 and 1. Only on the average does one particular value emerge, like 0.7, which one can derive after determining the coefficient within the observed exponential fall-off rate. I overly simplified the reasoning behind it so that it would be more understandable first time through. The law of averages you refer to -- the bell-shaped curve -- doesn't apply to the distribution of the number of times in a row that you will flip a coin and get heads, for example, since that distribution is one sided with a maximum at 1 or 2 flips of the coin. The word-string duplication problem is more like that, except the average odds on each successive word choice by the editor, or "flip of the coin" is not 0.5 but somewhat higher on the average. The ideosyncracies of the language do average out, with a large sample size, for word-string length "I" larger than about 3, because sometimes the next word, say the 4th word under consideration, is a verb, sometimes an adjective, sometimes a noun, etc. But even the I=3 results don't lie excessively far from the exponential curve derived from 3 Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18187; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:46:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:50:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199708270250.WAA09458@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Hurtado & Schmid Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 181 Just a note from the patristic perspective to concur with Larry Hurtado's comments on the "Caesarean" group and with Ulrich Schmid's comments on 565. Charis kai eirene, Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 27 04:40:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA18961; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 04:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3403EF61.239A@cryogen.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:12:01 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky Organization: Killersoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: MS 565 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: 2032 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Michael Holmes wrote: > > > J. Belsheim in 1885 published an article on Mark in manuscript 565 which > > includes a collation of John. That collation notes at 7.52 that 7.53-8.11 > > are omitted in their entirety. The collation of ch. 21 gives no indication > > at all that the passage has been added at that point. > > That was what I had heard, but could not verify it for myself. If so, > then Metzger is incorrect in both editions of his _Textual Commentary_ on > that point, unless in fact Belsheim erred. Perhaps only the microfilm > will tell, but I did suspect that UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 were correct > here. > On several occasions now I have seen comments made by scholars on this list and others concerning the validity and accuracy of Metzger's comments in his Textual Commentary. I always thought of Metzger as an outstanding and careful scholar so I wonder what everyone else thought about his work. Just how useful and reliable is his textual commentary? Are his errors only few and far between? cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cryogen.com | | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.cryogen.com/hermeneutics | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IHSOUS KURIOS! +--------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 27 08:56:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA19326; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:56:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:00:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3403EF61.239A@cryogen.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Metzger's Commentary (Was: Re: MS 565) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1730 On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote: >On several occasions now I have seen comments made by scholars on this >list and others concerning the validity and accuracy of Metzger's >comments in his Textual Commentary. I always thought of Metzger as an >outstanding and careful scholar so I wonder what everyone else thought >about his work. Just how useful and reliable is his textual commentary? >Are his errors only few and far between? Let's distinguish between *accuracy of data* and *accuracy of logic.* In most of the readings in the _Textual_Commentary_, Metzger is not describing the textual data but opinions of the committee about readings. As far as his own opinions are concerned, presumably Metzger describes them accurately. :-) Based on what I have read, he does not describe the opinions of the other Committee members quite as accurately, but even so, the _Commentary_ describes their overall reasoning well. The textual data is another matter. There are, of course, many readings in the _Commentary_ for which there is no apparatus in the text volume. For these, Metzger had to gather data on manuscripts from other sources. As the list of witnesses cited shows, he usually cited, at least partly, from Von Soden or one of his followers (Merk, Bover). Inaccuracies in Metzger's data are, therefore, presumably to be laid at the door of Von Soden. Does that help? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 27 13:42:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20231; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:42:06 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:37:49 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Literary statistics for dummies (formerly Replication of strings X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6247 I should like to enter a general plea that discussions of literary statistics on the list be more oriented to statistical dummies like myself. If we are to apply mathematics to language in the general sense of both terms we need to be sure that the formulas we choose fit the circumstances to which we apply them. With respect to language as it is used in literature, while it is true that there are many ways to describe an event or express a rule, an idea, or an emotion, still there are definite constraints on the details of description or expression--constraints of grammar, vocabulary, and style, at a minimum--which allow us, for example, to recognize mistakes, plagiarisms, and editorial interventions. Thus, for example, to say that verbal parallels between the Gospels should be rarer as they are longer if they are purely the result of chance is not enough by itself. The shorter parallels are not all the result of chance but are conditioned at a minimmum by the limitations of language, and this is true for sections within the longer parallels. We need to remember also that in a string of words one or more may condition the next or some of the next if the words are to convey meaning to the average reader/istener, and that (s)he may sooner or later be aware of what is to come: in Latin and Milton, if we find no verb before what appears to be the object of a verb we expect to find it at the end of the clause or sentence. In addition, if precise mathematical reasoning is to be introduced, the procedures must not only fit the circumstances of language, they must be multilayered. As a dummy in these matters, I cannot name the various procedures, but there is one, for instance, that has been used to predict how sentences can be expected to develop, and there is another combining the statistics reached for various language characteristics. Statistical dummies like myself need an explanation of any statistical term except "average" -- even "median" requires some thought on my part. I remember a story told by a History Professor at Columbia. He had two teachers of mathematics. One would write a problem on the board, make a grinding noise, and write the answer. The other proceeded through the solution step by step, each time saying, "What does this gimme?" Statistical dummies are always asking, "What does this gimme?" and they need answers in non-mathematical language. And finally, they need to be shown how the procedures employed fit the circumstances analyzed. A procedure that will allow you to estimate whether you should stop processing hamburger meat, destroy what you have processed and, if you have sold any of the batch, spread the alarm is not necessarily a procedure that will allow you to estimate whether two witnesses to the word of God are not independent, reject one or both and spread the alarm. Maybe it is, but the fact that it is needs to be explained, not merely asserted. Even a parallel experiment cited as proof that the procedure is correct needs to be explained in detail to us dummies. I say this not only of initial messages to the list but to replies. While I was looking for the name of the procedure that has been used to estimate the expectations generated as word follows word, which I read in "Literary and Linguistic Computing," I came across a review of a publication of "our own" Scholars Press, Bernard Frischer's "Shifting Paradigms. New Approaches to Horace's `Ars Poetica,'" in Vol. 11, no. 1 (1996), p. 47. The review is by G.R.Ledger of the University of Reading in England, an institution for which I have a great deal of respect, and this review has given me great respect for Ledger. I quote: "The general reader, I suspect, would find that Chapter 2 on the stylometric attempt to date the poem is, as Huckleberry Finn found parts of the Gospel to be, `interesting but tough.' It could be made clearer, for example, that the ratio of unique strings to all strings is simply a measure of vocabulary richness, otherwise known as the type/token ratio, one among several metrics of vocabulary which might have been used (p. 42). In fact it is a measure which is dependent partly on text length, and this intrusive factor is not accounted for. A simple statement in the body of the text could easily have cleared up much avoidable confusion about strings and lexemes. Table P, derived from this vocabulary measure, should state that the two figures sum to unity, i.e., they are not independent variables. This may be obvious to an experienced statistician, who would in any case probably not include figures for non-unique strings, since they add nothing to the information already available from the percentage of unique strings. I should also like to have seen at the outset a clear Table displaying the accepted dates of each work [analyzed in determining the date of Horace's poem], rather than having to grub among the footnotes for this information (p. 28). Not everyone has this knowledge in their back pocket as it were. However, this is not of major importance. It is encouraging to see a distinguished scholar willing to use the analytic methods of statistics and stylometry." Bravo, G.R.Lederer, though clearly no dummy yourself you speak for those of us who are, and with a geniality befitting a lover of mankind. By the way, I recommend that all those who wish to undertake or have undertaken statistical studies of the Scriptures read through back issues of "Literary and Linguistic Computing," and subscribe to it. If your institutional library does not have copies, get them on interlibrary loan and ask the library to subscribe, or contribute your copies to your library. It is expensive, US$145 a year, and I sometimes wonder why I spend the money, since much of what it contains does not interest me, and sometimes I do not open the issues at all, but I save them, because they are full of useful information for later perusal. I found Ledger's review before I found the article on estimating sentence development and went no farther, since it made the point I wished to make. Laus Deo, my eye lit on it almost at once. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 27 14:25:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20359; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:25:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:29:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Mathematics, etc. (Was: Literary statistics for dummies) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1437 On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" wrote, in part: >I should like to enter a general plea that discussions of literary >statistics on the list be more oriented to statistical dummies like >myself. [ etc. ] Tangentially, I would like to point out that the web site below has an article on mathematics. And whatever certain people out there say about my skills as a textual critic, I *am* a trained mathematician. But I wrote that page somewhat casually. I included most of the mathematical subjects I regularly work on -- but I don't know what others need. I can't guarantee I'll be able to supply what you need; I don't know everything (my geometry, for instance, is rather pitiful -- not that I can imagine a textual critic needing to know geometry). And I can't promise to make everything clear -- as it is, the material already in place walks the fine line between being too-simplistic-to-be-true and being too difficult to understand. (Actually, I probably have missed on both sides of the line.) But if people have questions, I will try to accommodate them. Eventually. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 27 19:31:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA21562; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:31:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:35:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Literary statistics for dummies (formerly Replication of strings 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: 12193 On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > I should like to enter a general plea that discussions of literary > statistics on the list be more oriented to statistical dummies like > myself. > If we are to apply mathematics to language in the general > sense of both terms we need to be sure that the formulas we choose > fit the circumstances to which we apply them. With respect to > language as it is used in literature, while it is true that there are > many ways to describe an event or express a rule, an idea, or an > emotion, still there are definite constraints on the details of > description or expression--constraints of grammar, vocabulary, > and style, at a minimum--which allow us, for example, to recognize > mistakes, plagiarisms, and editorial interventions. I hope this discussion doesn't drift too far away from the key point I was raising, which is that in two independent editings or translations of a given document, the actual frequency distribution (or histogram if you like) for numbers of strings of duplicate successive words as a function of the string's word length, is observed to follow the exponential distribution. Knowing this allows one to judge much better whether a possible plagiarism is an actual plagiarism or is just a matter of chance or coincidence. The jury has been out for a long time on whether the duplication of the longer word strings found in parallel passages of Mt-Lk (Q verses) is a result of plagiarism by one or the other evangelist, or not. Now we have a procedure for deciding, and if it is not a plagiarism, then some other mechanism that can mimic it needs to be proposed. Hence I was interested in opinions on whether scribal assimilation could likely account for it, or maybe even the method by which the standard text (N-A) has evolved. > Thus, for > example, to say that verbal parallels between the Gospels should be > rarer as they are longer if they are purely the result of chance is > not enough by itself. The shorter parallels are not all the result of > chance but are conditioned at a minimmum by the limitations of > language, and this is true for sections within the longer parallels. > We need to remember also that in a string of words one or more may > condition the next or some of the next if the words are to convey > meaning to the average reader/istener, and that (s)he may sooner or > later be aware of what is to come: in Latin and Milton, if we find no > verb before what appears to be the object of a verb we expect to find > it at the end of the clause or sentence. And one must try to include all the other factors that would condition the independent editor's choice of words -- intended improvements of text and of theology being extremely important and having a large variety of different means of implementation. So it's not surprising if the central limit theorem takes over, causing the end result to look as if chance had been at work. So why not examine the simplest statistical result that can explain the observations? Previously I described how the analogy is relevant of how many black balls in a row one draws out of a mixed bag of 1000 black balls and red balls. The distribution of numbers of strings of black balls drawn in sequence turns out to mimic the results of the test case I analyzed in the distribution of verbal parallels between Ezra and 1 Esdras, if the bag contains 577 black balls. An exponential distribution occurs in each case, with the same fall-off rate and degree of scatter. Today a friend of mine ran a computer program for me wherein this analogy is extended so that the conditional probability in each draw of a ball out of the bag is not a fixed value (0.577) but itself varies, as I had suggested yesterday. I let it vary randomly (and uniformly) within the interval 0.254 and 0.9, the linear average still being 0.577. The idea is to simulate the editor who, in deciding, e.g., what his 4th word would be after a duplicate string of 3, would in one instance have a probability of 0.8 or 0.9 of giving it the same value as was in the text he was editing, but in another instance only a probability of 0.3 or 0.4 of duplicating the word. And same for all the other words he lays down -- different conditional probabilities depending upon the particular sentence he's in and depending upon his mood (or the mood he wishes to express it in), etc. Again the distribution came out exponential -- on the average, the longer the string, the fewer of them in the string. The number of strings of length I+1 again tended to be 0.58 of the number of strings of length "I". So I see the exponential distribution as being a very robust solution for this problem, and fitting the circumstances of any complicated language having many degrees of expression. Greek is especially relevant since word order is exceptionally open to the editor's option. > In addition, if precise > mathematical reasoning is to be introduced, the procedures must not > only fit the circumstances of language, they must be multilayered. As > a dummy in these matters, I cannot name the various procedures, but > there is one, for instance, that has been used to predict how > sentences can be expected to develop, and there is another combining > the statistics reached for various language characteristics. I see only three "multilayering" effects that need to be paid attention to with this exponential frequency distribution: 1) Don't expect it to necessarily hold well for duplicate word-string lengths as short as 2 and 3; 2) Expect sampling error (scatter of the data) to become quite evident for word-string lengths exceeding 10 when the total number of words in one set of parallel verses is around 9000, or when the total number of words in duplicated strings of two or longer is around 3400. For shorter data bases the sampling error becomes evident for smaller values of word-string length, "I". However, the results continue to hold statistically for this and all higher values of "I", for independent editing, and in no way become useless from this point (e.g., I=10) on. 3) Allow the exponential fall-off factor b [e.g., Y(I)=A*exp(-b*I)], to vary a little from one study to another depending upon what language is involved, who the editor is and what his motives are. The key point, however, is that a single value of "b" will prevail in any particular case of independent editing. But what we see in the Gospel verbal parallels is a radical departure (excesses) from exponential for the longer strings, indicating purposeful duplication or plagiarism somewhere along the line. > Statistical dummies like myself need an explanation of any > statistical term except "average" -- even "median" requires some > thought on my part. ... Vinton, please don't keep referring to yourself as a "dummy!" I'm a "dummy" when it comes to tc or to the proper choice of words with which to describe things involved with textual criticism. E.g., I'm glad to adopt your phrase, "verbal parallels," for which I've been using something more cumbersome, to indicate identical (or nearly so) Greek-word parallels as opposed to just parallels in the text's meaning. And I'm no statistician either, having only brushed up against pieces here and there in my former career as a researcher in the atmospheric sciences. > I remember a story told by a History Professor at Columbia. ... > A procedure > that will allow you to estimate whether you should stop processing > hamburger meat, destroy what you have processed and, if you have > sold any of the batch, spread the alarm is not necessarily a > procedure that will allow you to estimate whether two witnesses to > the word of God are not independent, reject one or both and spread > the alarm. There's nothing new in the latter, of course. From the time of Irenaeus, Origen and Augustine, and no doubt earlier, the tradition was spread of the Mt-Mk-Lk dependence. And I'd say that Papias inferred a dependence of Mark upon Matthew in his statement of how Mark has verses out of order. And even the modern consensus allows two gospels to be dependent upon Mark. Advocates of these, plus Griesbachians, have long since spread various alarms of lack of independence. > Even a parallel experiment cited as > proof that the procedure is correct needs to be explained in detail > to us dummies. I hope I've come closer to doing this now. Otherwise you'll either need to wait until my paper comes out (if it does), or I could e-mail you its Part II, which contains the data analysis and exponential-distribution fits, upon individual request. You can understand that it's not easy to get a paper into print of a new procedure (if it's indeed new) by an independent scholar whose previous career was not related to biblical studies. > .... While I was looking for the name of the procedure that has > been used to estimate the expectations generated as word follows > word, which I read in "Literary and Linguistic Computing," I came > across a review of a publication of "our own" Scholars Press, Bernard > Frischer's "Shifting Paradigms. New Approaches to Horace's `Ars > Poetica,'" in Vol. 11, no. 1 (1996), p. 47. The review is by > G.R.Ledger of the University of Reading in England... If you come across a name for the procedure, please let me know! Otherwise, if one doesn't exist, perhaps someone on this list could suggest one. So far I'm stuck with "The Expected Frequency Distribution of Duplicate Strings of Words in Parallel Passages due to Independent Editing or Translating." > ... I quote: "The general reader, I suspect, > would find that Chapter 2 on the stylometric attempt to date the poem > is, as Huckleberry Finn found parts of the Gospel to be, `interesting > but tough.' It could be made clearer, for example, that the ratio of > unique strings to all strings is simply a measure of vocabulary > richness, otherwise known as the type/token ratio, one among several > metrics of vocabulary which might have been used (p. 42). In fact it > is a measure which is dependent partly on text length, and this > intrusive factor is not accounted for. I could mention that in this exponential frequency-distribution approach, the length of text involved in the parallels is more or less proportional to the constant A in Y(I) = A*exp(-b*I) . You want A to be as large as possible (plentiful data) so that the resulting exponential curve can be pinned down as well as possible in the 3 By the way, I recommend that all those who wish to undertake or > have undertaken statistical studies of the Scriptures read through > back issues of "Literary and Linguistic Computing," and subscribe to > it. ... I am additionally a dummy when it comes to knowing what books or journals on statistical methods within biblical scholarship might have anything relevant to say on the exponential distribution for duplicate strings, which one can observe (out to a certain word length even for the Gospels) upon doing the analysis. Hence I'm testing out this list on this subject. If anyone becomes aware of such, I'm the one who most needs to know at the moment, and then, if it isn't too late, I could perhaps add a reference, in my paper, as to who was the first to observe this. As it stands, I'm not aware of such, and thus have not been able to supply any of you with any literary reference about the procedure. Perhaps the motivation never came up before for someone to plow through all duplicate word strings in relevant parallel passages instead of just noting 10 or 15 of the longer ones, and then plot their frequency distribution, etc.; it's a good deal of work, but an ideal project for a graduate student to work on! I doubt that it could be safely computerized, as each potential parallel seems to need careful scrutiny to make sure which words & phrases are really parallel. Jim Deardorff Research Professor emeritus Oregon State University From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 27 22:52:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA21846; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 22:52:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:56:36 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Statistical patterns In-Reply-To: <199708260950.FAA14566@shemesh.scholar.emory.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: 1238 Jim Deardorff has noticed a statistical pattern in the frequency of long parallel strings. I have noticed a similar pattern in the frequency of the number of readings in a variation unit. Taking the forty four variation units in Hebrews that are given in the UBS edition, there are 22 with two possibilities, 11 with three possibilities, 6 with four, 3 with 5, and so on. Noting this apparent geometric progression, I counted the variation units in Romans and added them to the picture. I can't remember the exact figures off hand, but they did not form a geometric progression and looked a bit like a Fibonacci series. After much trying of distributions, I found that the numbers did not fit the Poisson distribution, as one might expect for accidental events, but fitted a transformed Gaussian distribution i.e. N = A exp -(a - bx)^2, where N is the number of variation units with x readings. I have worked out A, a, and b, but I haven't got those here either. Strange, isn't it? Any statisticians out there who can explain why the number of readings in a variation unit appear to obey such a law? Best regards, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 27 23:38:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA21902; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 23:38:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 23:38:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Statistical patterns 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: 1634 On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: > Taking the forty four variation units in Hebrews that are given in the > UBS edition, there are 22 with two possibilities, 11 with three > possibilities, 6 with four, 3 with 5, and so on. My initial impression for why the number of variants in a variation unit seem to follow Fibonacci or transformed Gaussian patterns (and I'd have to look up the latter!) is that it is largely accidental. If instead of analyzing the variation units in the UBS apparatus you look at those in the NA-27 apparatus, your numbers will change completely, and I would guess that the curve would be different as well. Again, if you look at the apparatus of a major critical edition, the curve will change once again, although I think the curve that you would get from examining Tischendorf or Von Soden or IGNTP would be more meaningful than UBS. Although it may be that variation units with small numbers of variants are more common than those with large numbers, the curves that are generated will depend to a very large extent on the sampling technique: how many mss do you collate? do you count purely orthographic variants? how do you group clusters of variants? Finally, if we do find that plotting the number of variants in the variation units throughout a NT book produces a curve that can be approximated by some mathematical formula, what are the implications of this discovery? 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 Thu Aug 28 08:31:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA22810; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:31:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:35:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199708260950.FAA14566@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Statistical patterns Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4958 On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: [ ... ] >Taking the forty four variation units in Hebrews that are given in the >UBS edition, there are 22 with two possibilities, 11 with three >possibilities, 6 with four, 3 with 5, and so on. > >Noting this apparent geometric progression, I counted the variation units >in Romans and added them to the picture. I can't remember the exact >figures off hand, but they did not form a geometric progression and looked >a bit like a Fibonacci series. After much trying of distributions, I found >that the numbers did not fit the Poisson distribution, as one might expect >for accidental events, but fitted a transformed Gaussian distribution i.e. >N = A exp -(a - bx)^2, where N is the number of variation units with x >readings. I have worked out A, a, and b, but I haven't got those here either. > >Strange, isn't it? Any statisticians out there who can explain why the >number of readings in a variation unit appear to obey such a law? And "James R. Adair" added: >My initial impression for why the number of variants in a variation unit >seem to follow Fibonacci or transformed Gaussian patterns (and I'd have to >look up the latter!) is that it is largely accidental. If instead of >analyzing the variation units in the UBS apparatus you look at those in >the NA-27 apparatus, your numbers will change completely, and I would >guess that the curve would be different as well. Again, if you look at >the apparatus of a major critical edition, the curve will change once >again, although I think the curve that you would get from examining >Tischendorf or Von Soden or IGNTP would be more meaningful than UBS. >Although it may be that variation units with small numbers of variants are >more common than those with large numbers, the curves that are generated >will depend to a very large extent on the sampling technique: how many mss >do you collate? do you count purely orthographic variants? how do you >group clusters of variants? Finally, if we do find that plotting the >number of variants in the variation units throughout a NT book produces a >curve that can be approximated by some mathematical formula, what are the >implications of this discovery? Several comments on this (since it's a subject I've looked at in some depth). First, Tim's sample is small, so a pattern might not tell us much. But more important is the question of "What is a variant?" This has been dealt with elsewhere, but just take the case of O (DE/GAR) (QEOS/LOGOS). One variant with four readings? Or two with two readings each? The number of readings in a variant will depend in large measure on the editors of the edition -- e.g. the users of Claremont Profile Method type systems seem very much to prefer binary (two-reading) variants. Then, too, part of the difference between UBS and NA is that UBS cites many more manuscripts. This will naturally increase the number of minor variants in lesser manuscripts. But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that we have come up with an absolutely hard-and-fast system for deciding "what is a variant" (there are several articles in Epp & Fee on this, though I don't think they've resolved the matter). Let's say that we have created a fixed list of manuscripts. Assume whatever we need to to get a set of numbers. What do they mean? Now we have to remember that there are two sources of readings. One is ancient readings, of genetic significance. The other is accident. Based on my observation, variants where there are two readings (except for haplographic errors) are usually genetic. Variants where there are four or more, by contrast, almost never fall along text-type lines. An analogy I have used is that of a crystal: Tap it lightly and it will break at a facet (a text-type division). To make it break into four or more pieces, you have to hit it so hard that the crystal, rather than breaking along facets, *shatters.* What this shows is that one needs also to examine the nature of variants. Is it a reading that invites errors of some sort? Is it a difficult readings that invites corrections? Such will generally have more readings (I think). As for Jimmy Adair's question about what this tells us, I think the answer is that we need to know the distribution first. Potentially it could tell us something about text-types or scribal habits -- but we can't base any conclusions simply on the readings in the UBS edition. Nor even, I would argue, on the readings in NA27, unless we can add many more manuscripts to the collations. For what it's worth.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 28 17:06:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25333; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:06:36 -0400 Message-Id: <9708282209.AA14547@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Cesarean text - thank you Date: Jeu, 28 Aož 97 23:11:09 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1259 Just a few words to say thank you to those who answered to my question about the cesarean text, and especially to Dr Hurtado, whose remarks on method I keep preciously. Dr Hurtado, I noticed your book on the shelves of the Peeters Bookstore in Louvain: the next time I go there, I will surely buy it! I understand the best way to present a text is to count agreements _and_ disagreements with several types of text. I don't know yet which ones are likely to be included in my analysis. Probably D, B, Theta and a Byzantine text are a must. As to Byz, what should I do? Take A and/or W, the Majority text, or the TR? And are there other texts that are important in such a work (of course, there will also be the vetus syra and the peshitto). This raises even another question. In the past, many such works for the use of Greek NT scholars have been presented in the form of a collation against one form of the Greek text - sometimes with a few notes. Do you think such things can be usable, and which text should be used as a base for collation? NA, WH, TR? What are the pros and cons of all these methods? Of both methods, whoch is the best suited, and what text(s) are the most required? Thanks again for your help and greetings, Jean V. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 28 17:53:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25588; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:53:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:56:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: Liste TC-List Subject: Re: Cesarean text - thank you In-Reply-To: <9708282209.AA14547@iris.arcadis.be> 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: 2882 On 28 xxx -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > I understand the best way to present a text is to count agreements _and_ > disagreements with several types of text. I don't know yet which ones are > likely to be included in my analysis. Probably D, B, Theta and a > Byzantine text are a must. As to Byz, what should I do? Take A and/or W, > the Majority text, or the TR? > against one form of the Greek text - sometimes with a few notes. Do you > think such things can be usable, and which text should be used as a base > for collation? NA, WH, TR? Although this was addressed to Hurtado, I would like to throw my two cents in as regards the Byzantine Text portion of the inquiry. If you are going to use a "representative" Byzantine text based on MSS, something like the union of S U V might do; otherwise a single MS such as Omega could be used. However, I would recommend a consensus Byzantine text such as either my own and Pierpont's, or the Hodges/Farstad edition. I would warn, however, that neither H/F nor Robinson/Pierpont is "Byzantine" in either the Pericope Adultera (where H/F basically follow the Von Soden "mu-6" group, and R/P the "mu-5" group) nor in the Apocalypse, where H/F follow a smaller, stemmatically-determined subgroup which they claim to be original, and R/P follow an eclectically-determined text derived from the M-a and M-k groups. For the rest of the NT, there is little difference between H/F and R/P, and that only in places where the Byzantine Textform is itself divided significantly. As for a collating base, I continue to recommend only the TR (Oxford 1873), since it has become the standard for the IGNTP, and also correlates well with more published collations of the past. Even though the Byzantine Textform might have been a superior collating base had it existed in the past century, it is now too late for that luxury, and the amount of difference would be minimal in most cases. The benefit of collating against the TR or Byzantine Text rather than against Westcott-Hort (e.g. Legg) or a modern critical text like Nestle/UBS has been noted previously by other scholars: since the TR basically reflects the "majority" reading in most cases, there will be less material which has to be noted in the collation of most MSS. Only in regard to the non-Byzantine MSS will there be more material in the collation record than in the main text, and one still can then see at a glance the significant differences of such MSS rather than merely the mass of Byzantine differences which a collation against the critical text would reveal. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 28 18:35:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA25709; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:35:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:39:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199708282239.RAA12769@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: Cesarean text - thank you Cc: Jean VALENTIN Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1517 Jean Valentin wrote: >This raises even another question. In the past, many such works for the >use of Greek NT scholars have been presented in the form of a collation >against one form of the Greek text - sometimes with a few notes. Do you >think such things can be usable, and which text should be used as a base >for collation? NA, WH, TR? > >What are the pros and cons of all these methods? Of both methods, whoch >is the best suited, and what text(s) are the most required? > The starting point for answering your question ought perhaps to be the essay by Tj. Baarda, "What Kind of Critical Apparatus for the New Testament Do We Need? The Case of Luke 23:48," in _New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History_, ed. B. Aland and J. Delobel (Kampen: Kok Pharos,1994), 37-97, esp. pp. 60-61 and p. 77. True, he discusses the apparatus for a full critical edition, but the principles he spells out would apply to your question, I think, as a contribution of information towards a full edition. In brief, he calls for a four-level critical apparatus: I. Greek MSS II. Patristic testimony III. Conjectural emendations IV. Versional evidence The versional evidence, he argues, must be presented in a way that distinguishes for the user between versional readings that represent genuine variations in the textual tradition of the document and readings that do not. This suggests that a simple collation may not be sufficient for the task. Hope this is helpful, Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 28 20:38:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA25901; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:37:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:41:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Verbal Agreements -- Can TC or RC explain them? 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: 3421 I'm still interested in hearing if any members of this list think that tc can explain the verbal agreements between Mt-Lk's "Q" verses in which strings of up to 27 consecutive words are duplicated. If so, what might be the most likely means? Those who work on the synoptic problem but don't buy into the two-document hypothesis (2DH: Mark-Q priority) believe that redaction criticism (RC) is responsible for it. Those who favor the 2DH, however, must feel that tc can explain it, as they assume that Matthew and Luke were written independently, and that Matthew was (first) written in Greek and so that no translator was involved either. But I've never seen any proposed explanation of how scribal assimilation or "harmonistic corruptions," as Metzger refers to it, could leave behind a frequency distribution that follows the exponential or geometric-progression distribution very well for Q-verse word strings up to 10 words long, and then deviates radically from it for the longer strings. For the one test case I could find in which independence of the translator/editor can probably be assumed, the distribution followed the geometric progression all the way out to 10 or so, with none of these very long strings existing. I've checked out the 9 longest duplicate strings of "Q" using both N-S 26 and N-S 21, and they stay unchanged during that interval of time. If any here are interested, you might look into N-S 27 to see if they survive there also, unchanged. They are: 27 consecutive, perfectly agreeing, words long: in Mt 11:25-27 & Lk 10:21-22 26, in Mt 24:50-51 & Lk 12:46 26, in Mt 6:24 & Lk 16:13 25, in Mt 8:9-10 & Lk 7:8-9 24, in Mt 7:7-8 & Lk 11:9-10 24, in Mt 3:8-10 & Lk 3:8-9 20, in Mt 3:10 & Lk 3:9 19, in Mt 11:7-8 & Lk 7:24-25 16, in Mt 12:42 & Lk 11:31 The excessive word-string lengths continue on down to lengths of 10 or 12 words, below which there are so many more shorter strings that the normal geometric progression prevails. >From what I read in Metzger (I hope his book doesn't have very many serious mistakes; I certainly find it fascinating reading as a beginner in this field), there are a lot of mechanisms that can cause variant readings: all the errors that come under the "accidental heading" and most of the "intentional" scribal errors. Against these you have the "harmonistic corruptions." Is it reasonable to explain the nine verbal agreements listed above, and another 20 or so, as due to the latter? One would then need to explain why a whole host of shorter strings also did not get harmonized; i.e., why would the scribal harmonization be so selective? Although a few of the above nine verses are among the more memorable discourse verses, others are not. I do see this as a problem needing consideration, since various scholars of the synoptic problem in the past, such as William Farmer, view these verbal agreements as proving beyond doubt that Matthew and Luke were not written independently. The assumption is made that the presently accepted Gospel text, and that as of a century ago also, are pretty close to the truth of how the Gospels appeared within a few decades after being written, regarding the presence of these long duplicated strings. I tend to go along with this, but perhaps it places too much reliance upon the work of text critics in deducing the present majority text? Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 28 20:52:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA25934; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:52:01 -0400 Message-Id: <9708290155.AA02378@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Verbal Agreements -- Can TC or RC explain them? Date: Ven, 29 Aož 97 02:56:49 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN 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: 1757 >I do see this as a problem needing consideration, since various scholars >of the synoptic problem in the past, such as William Farmer, view these >verbal agreements as proving beyond doubt that Matthew and Luke were not >written independently. The assumption is made that the presently accepted >Gospel text, and that as of a century ago also, are pretty close to the >truth of how the Gospels appeared within a few decades after being >written, regarding the presence of these long duplicated strings. I tend >to go along with this, but perhaps it places too much reliance upon the >work of text critics in deducing the present majority text? > This is the kind of question I ask myself about work on the Synoptic agreements/disagreements - though I have not studied much about this. Most of these works, I believe, are made on the basis of the modern critical texts which mostly concur with the B-text. What happens if the presupposed text is changed for another text closer to D for example, or, as you say, a text closer to the Byzantine text ? May be we would hae much different theories. Just wondering. Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail: 2:291/780.103 _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" _________________________________________________ NISUS WRITER - the multilingual word processor for the Macintosh. Find more about it at: http://www.nisus-soft.com http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/grads/maschke/nisus_overview/toc.htm l _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 29 00:25:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA26353; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:25:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:29:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Verbal Agreements -- Can TC or RC explain them? In-Reply-To: <9708290155.AA02378@iris.arcadis.be> 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: 1500 On 29 xxx -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > >I do see this as a problem needing consideration, since various scholars > >of the synoptic problem in the past, such as William Farmer, view these > >verbal agreements as proving beyond doubt that Matthew and Luke were not > >written independently. The assumption is made that the presently accepted > >Gospel text, and that as of a century ago also, are pretty close to the > >truth of how the Gospels appeared within a few decades after being > >written, regarding the presence of these long duplicated strings. I tend > >to go along with this, but perhaps it places too much reliance upon the > >work of text critics in deducing the present majority text? > This is the kind of question I ask myself about work on the Synoptic > agreements/disagreements - though I have not studied much about this. > Most of these works, I believe, are made on the basis of the modern > critical texts which mostly concur with the B-text. What happens if the > presupposed text is changed for another text closer to D for example, or, > as you say, a text closer to the Byzantine text ? May be we would hae > much different theories. Just wondering. > > Jean V. Someone with access to a copy of D could check this out (I think it would be too awkward to try to check it out just using the critical apparatus of N-S). But it's rather time consuming, and after you're finished someone would suggest you ought to check it out on still another manuscript! Jim From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 29 06:28:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA26940; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 06:28:40 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:30:13 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Cesarean text - thank you Priority: normal References: <9708282209.AA14547@iris.arcadis.be> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <63E3A77797@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1580 > On 28 xxx -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > > > I understand the best way to present a text is to count agreements _and_ > > disagreements with several types of text. I don't know yet which ones are > > likely to be included in my analysis. Probably D, B, Theta and a > > Byzantine text are a must. As to Byz, what should I do? Take A and/or W, > > the Majority text, or the TR? > > > against one form of the Greek text - sometimes with a few notes. Do you > > think such things can be usable, and which text should be used as a base > > for collation? NA, WH, TR? As to a collation base, I support Maurice Robinson's support for the Internatl. GNT Project policy of using the TR, which is widely available and not going to change. Thus, the collation once done accurately can be of continued usefulness. As to what to do in selecting representative witnesses for the Byzantine text-type, when I did my PhD thesis, I tried to use a chronologically early ms (Codex A) and then also something representative broadly of the matured or later stage (I simply used the TR as a text representative of the late/matured stage). Today, with the benefit of such things as Fred Wisse's study, _The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence_ (SD 44; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), it is possible to choose a good bit more scientifically reps of various sub-groups of the Byzantine text. 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 Fri Aug 29 07:12:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA26994; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:12:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:16:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Cesarean text - thank you In-Reply-To: <63E3A77797@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1558 On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > Internatl. GNT Project policy of using the TR, which is widely > available and not going to change. Thus, the collation once done > accurately can be of continued usefulness. There remains one problem in this scenario, and that is that the Oxford 1873 TR really is _not_ "widely available", and we would not want to send collators to all the various TR editions presently out there (and certainly not to the Trinitarian Bible Society TR, which was altered by Scrivener to reflect the KJV's underlying text). Yet the only TR's currently in print are the Trinitarian, several from Greece, and the nearly-Stephens 1550 TR printed in Berry's Interlinear. None of these are the Oxford 1873 TR, and, so far as I know, only fascicles of such have been reprinted by the IGNTP for in-house use by collators of the particular portions being examined. It seems it would behoove the Bible Societies or any private publisher to reproduce "the" Oxford 1873 TR for such purposes. Dallas Seminary used to reprint its own TR for many years, but that was the Oxford 1825 version. So, I hope some publishers might be listening; there is a need to have a collation base text which truly is "widely available". _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 29 14:24:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28130; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:24:21 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:19:53 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Publishing statistical results X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2291 Bob Deardorf asked for the full citation of an article I remembered reading in Literary and Linguistic Computing. I was unable to find it from the tables of contents in my back issues, but I ran across something else during the search, "Proposed Criteria for Publishing Statistical Results," by D. Ross (Univ. of Minnesota) and B. Brainerd (Univ. of Toronto), in the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing Bulletin, VI (1978), 233-234. The authors gave criteria for what they thought was a minimally adequate presentation, but the editors of the Bulletin said they would accept articles that did not meet them. I quote here as part of my campaign for more information in our communications with one another. "1. The numerical data from which the statistics were derived, for example, the counts of frequencies of literary and linguistic properties, should preferably be listed in the article or in an appendix [or otherwise made available for examination]. 2. When statistical assertions are made, they should be accompanied by adequate supporting information. a. When sample means (averages) are obtained, the sample size and standard deviation should be routinely included. b. Comparison between sample means from a common normal population should present the t statistic. c. Correlation and regression analysis should present the value of r and the coefficient of the relationship. d. When the F-test, the t-test, or the chi-squared test is used, it should also have complete information about the degrees of freedom and the level of significance. 3. When any other than the most common statistical tests or methods of estimation are employed, a reference to an appropriate statistical textbook or article should be given. [Strike the words "When . . . employed," say I. Who knows what the t statistic is?] This does not exclude the presentation of other relevant parameters for the tests listed, nor does it imply that these are necessarily the best procedures for all bodies of data." [Perhaps statisticians have devised other and better tests in the last twenty years. In any case, say I, make my day: explain why you think your procedures fit the circumstances you are reporting on.] Vionton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 29 18:27:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA28688; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:27:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:31:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Publishing statistical results 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: 9163 On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing wrote: > Bob Deardorf asked for the full citation of an article I > remembered reading in Literary and Linguistic Computing. I presume you are addressing this primarily to me, namely to Jim Deardorff? > I was > unable to find it from the tables of contents in my back issues, > but I ran across something else during the search, "Proposed > Criteria for Publishing Statistical Results," by D. Ross (Univ. of > Minnesota) and B. Brainerd (Univ. of Toronto), in the > Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing Bulletin, > VI (1978), 233-234. The authors gave criteria for what they thought > was a minimally adequate presentation, but the editors of the > Bulletin said they would accept articles that did not meet them. I > quote here as part of my campaign for more information in our > communications with one another. > "1. The numerical data from which the statistics were derived, for > example, the counts of frequencies of literary and linguistic > properties, should preferably be listed in the article or in an > appendix [or otherwise made available for examination]. That's indeed necessary. That's in the portion of the paper I said I'd e-mail to any individuals on the list who may be interested enough to request it. > 2. When statistical assertions are made, they should be > accompanied by adequate supporting information. > a. When sample means (averages) are obtained, the sample size > and standard deviation should be routinely included. > b. Comparison between sample means from a common normal > population should present the t statistic. > c. Correlation and regression analysis should present the value > of r and the coefficient of the relationship. > d. When the F-test, the t-test, or the chi-squared test is > used, it should also have complete information about the degrees of > freedom and the level of significance. These tests (t, chi-squared..) as I've seen them described seem to apply to data that tend to fit a normal (or Gaussian or bell-curve) distribution, which the geometric-progression or exponential-decline distribution is not. Not being a statistician, I'd need to be told what test for what property could be best applied to data that appears to follow the geometric-progression distribution (follow it up to a point, that is, and then perhaps deviate from it). When you count the number of consecutive duplicate words between parallel passages that each contain I=10 words, say, you get just one number. That is your mean for that value of "I". There is no standard deviation there (unless you count them over and over and derive somewhat varying results each time, due to mistakes in identification and counting; this latter does of course happen to a small extent, which is one reason why my results could stand checking by someone else; another reason is that I used N-A 21, though there were no differences between its results and N-A 26 for the 9 longest strings of Mt-Lk data I checked; but a check using N-A 27, or maybe TR?, would be an obvious thing to do). > 3. When any other than the most common statistical tests or > methods of estimation are employed, a reference to an appropriate > statistical textbook or article should be given. [Strike the words > "When . . . employed," say I. Who knows what the t statistic is?] Again, not being a statistician, I don't know any more than you if some standard test can be applied to check out whether a given observed frequency distribution follows a geometric progression better or worse than some other mathematical distribution. If I had known of an understandable reference textbook on this, I would have cited it. However, by graphing the data and comparing it against the geometric progression or exponential, it's obvious by eyeball that these do well within their range of applicability. In e-mail form, Part II of my paper gives the data in Tables rather than graphs, however. There's probably a simple way to best-fit an exponential or geometric-progression curve through a histogram of observed data that scatters about such a curve, in analogy to least-mean-squares for linear data. I've sent an e-mail to a statistician at my university in case he has time to advise me what it is. > This does not exclude the presentation of other relevant > parameters for the tests listed, nor does it imply that these are > necessarily the best procedures for all bodies of data." [Perhaps > statisticians have devised other and better tests in the last > twenty years. In any case, say I, make my day: explain why you think > your procedures fit the circumstances you are reporting on.] > Vionton A. Dearing In my writeup, I do present the odds in several instances that an observed data point (a long duplicate string of words -- 15 or 20 in the cases in question) could occur due to chance, or due to independent translation/editing. Odds like 1/300 or 1/500 occur in the Gospel parallels; rare odds like these did not occur for the data of the test case. Now, to make what's left in your day, you need to hear again why the geometric progression is the frequency distribution to be expected for independently translated or edited works. Let's take the case of an independent translation. A translator (T2) is editing a Hebrew text into Greek, and is unaware that another translator (T1) has already done this, or else T2 does not have T1's text available to him. At each step in T2's translation, he chooses a word that has a certain (conditional) probability of being the same word that T1 had chosen at the same point within the parallel. If it is a proper noun that is needed there, the probability is pretty high, say 0.9, of being the same as what T1 had chosen. But it's not unity, since T2 may have chosen to express the noun in a different case (nom. or accusative...) than did T1 (and same with any article or preposition that may have preceded the noun). If it's an ordinary (non-proper) noun, the probability is somewhat lower, say 0.8, since T2 may choose a different synonym for the noun than did T1. Following this noun, the next word could be a verb or adjective or preposition..., and the odds are still lower that it would be the identical word T1 had used within the same parallel, say 0.3. (That is, if there were 10 independent translators, only 3 out of 10 would have picked the same word as had T1 at that point.) Perhaps T2 chose to put in a prepositional phrase there, where T1 had placed it elsewhere in the sentence. Nevertheless, this could cause a 3-word string (prepositional phrase) to be duplicated within the parallel passage, if the words T2 used at each end of the phrase were different than what T1 had used. But perhaps T2 used a "kai" at the end of the prepositional phrase and T1 had also, then this would constitute a 4-word duplicate string (unless T2's "kai" started a different phrase or clause than what T1's had); the conditional probability may have been 0.5 for a duplicate "kai." Continue this reasoning through a parallel text containing some 10,000 words. I contend it leads to a geometric progression for the frequency distribution of length of duplicate word strings, with the average ratio of occurences of each word string to that of the 1-shorter word string being the same (within the scatter of sampling error) as the average conditional probability involved in all the word choices. If instead of two translators two editors independently edit the same text, the same sorts of arguments exist. Each editor has different reasons for wishing to omit certain material and add some of his own, for making improvements in the original text, and for adding in his own theology. These cause the finished works to again exhibit the property of the longer the duplicate string, the rarer its occurrence. I've already explained how I've simulated the T2 case by the numerical experiment of drawing a ball from a mixed bag of 1000 black balls and red balls, and keeping track of how many times in a row that you draw a black ball. In the latest set of experiments, I allowed the conditional probability of drawing the black ball to vary randomly on each draw, between 0.254 and 0.900, like in the discussion above. Again, on the average, a geometric-progression frequency distribution was obtained for the number of black balls drawn in a row, with the ratio of successive frequencies of occurrence being 0.58, i.e., the average of .254 & .900. But of more importance than computer simulations is to try to discover cases of apparently independent translation or editing of the same basic document and examine them for their duplicate-strings frequency distributions. So as I see it, when you run into data that depart radically from the exponential frequency distribution for large word length, not just once but several times or many times within a given data set, it indicates that one translator or editor was aware of the other's text -- unless tc can explain it as due to subsequent scribal harmonistic corruptions. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 29 21:00:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA28920; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 21:00:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:03:50 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Publishing statistical results Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6282 I'm going to add a few mathematical comments to this discussion. This is a matter where proper technique is vital, and rarely practiced. On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, in part: [ ... ] >> "1. The numerical data from which the statistics were derived, for >> example, the counts of frequencies of literary and linguistic >> properties, should preferably be listed in the article or in an >> appendix [or otherwise made available for examination]. > >That's indeed necessary. That's in the portion of the paper I said I'd >e-mail to any individuals on the list who may be interested enough >to request it. As a general goal, one should *always* include as much raw data as possible. Jimmy Adair made the suggestion to me that the World Wide Web makes it possible to supply all source data, as well as interpreted results. Also, if you use the computer for anything, you should either list the programs you used or provide source code of any custom software you wrote. If possible, the code should be a "plain vanilla" dialect of a common language (BASIC, Pascal, C, Perl), so that it can run on any platform. >> 2. When statistical assertions are made, they should be >> accompanied by adequate supporting information. >> a. When sample means (averages) are obtained, the sample size >> and standard deviation should be routinely included. >> b. Comparison between sample means from a common normal >> population should present the t statistic. >> c. Correlation and regression analysis should present the value >> of r and the coefficient of the relationship. >> d. When the F-test, the t-test, or the chi-squared test is >> used, it should also have complete information about the degrees of >> freedom and the level of significance. > >These tests (t, chi-squared..) as I've seen them described seem to apply >to data that tend to fit a normal (or Gaussian or bell-curve) >distribution, which the geometric-progression or exponential-decline >distribution is not. Not being a statistician, I'd need to be told what >test for what property could be best applied to data that appears to >follow the geometric-progression distribution (follow it up to a point, >that is, and then perhaps deviate from it). More important, I would say, is point (a): Give sample size and standard deviation. This tells you how "scattered" the data is. Regression (curve fitting) is a bit of an art; you have to "guess" the form of the function (typically by looking at a graph), then use a least-squares fit to get the best approximation. >When you count the number of consecutive duplicate words between parallel >passages that each contain I=10 words, say, you get just one number. That >is your mean for that value of "I". There is no standard deviation there >(unless you count them over and over and derive somewhat varying results >each time, due to mistakes in identification and counting; this latter >does of course happen to a small extent, which is one reason why my >results could stand checking by someone else; another reason is that I >used N-A 21, though there were no differences between its results and N-A >26 for the 9 longest strings of Mt-Lk data I checked; but a check using >N-A 27, or maybe TR?, would be an obvious thing to do). Since I haven't been observing this discussion, I may have missed something. But why should each sample be ten words? If you are insisting on ten word parallels, what about the distance between such parallels? I am inclined to say that a data set for which you cannot offer a standard deviation is not a statistic, it's an appeal to faith.... [ ... ] >There's probably a simple way to best-fit an exponential or >geometric-progression curve through a histogram of observed data that >scatters about such a curve, in analogy to least-mean-squares for linear >data. I've sent an e-mail to a statistician at my university in case he >has time to advise me what it is. I think I've covered this above. For curve-fitting, you always have to "guess at" a solution and a list of parameters. >> This does not exclude the presentation of other relevant >> parameters for the tests listed, nor does it imply that these are >> necessarily the best procedures for all bodies of data." [Perhaps >> statisticians have devised other and better tests in the last >> twenty years. In any case, say I, make my day: explain why you think >> your procedures fit the circumstances you are reporting on.] >> Vionton A. Dearing > >In my writeup, I do present the odds in several instances that an observed >data point (a long duplicate string of words -- 15 or 20 in the cases in >question) could occur due to chance, or due to independent >translation/editing. Odds like 1/300 or 1/500 occur in the Gospel >parallels; rare odds like these did not occur for the data of the test >case. I have to ask: How do you estimate such odds? [ ... ] >I've already explained how I've simulated the T2 case by the numerical >experiment of drawing a ball from a mixed bag of 1000 black balls and red >balls, and keeping track of how many times in a row that you draw a black >ball. In the latest set of experiments, I allowed the conditional >probability of drawing the black ball to vary randomly on each draw, >between 0.254 and 0.900, like in the discussion above. Again, on the >average, a geometric-progression frequency distribution was obtained for >the number of black balls drawn in a row, with the ratio of successive >frequencies of occurrence being 0.58, i.e., the average of .254 & >.900. I don't entirely buy this analogy. Drawing balls is a random process. Constructing a sentence isn't, or the first sentence of this paragraph could read buy analogy entirely don't I this... or something worse.... *** My apologies if some of this re-covers ground already gone over. But as a mathematician, I hate to see math abused. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 30 02:01:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA29240; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 02:01:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:05:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Publishing statistical results 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: 10514 On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I'm going to add a few mathematical comments to this discussion. > This is a matter where proper technique is vital, and rarely > practiced. > > On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, > in part: [Vinton wrote:] > >> "1. The numerical data from which the statistics were derived, for > >> example, the counts of frequencies of literary and linguistic > >> properties, should preferably be listed in the article or in an > >> appendix [or otherwise made available for examination]. > .... > Also, if you use the computer for anything, you should either list > the programs you used or provide source code of any custom software > you wrote. If possible, the code should be a "plain vanilla" > dialect of a common language (BASIC, Pascal, C, Perl), so that it > can run on any platform. If the reviewers of my paper should request the source code (in C++), I could include it. However, the editor was wishing I could shorten the paper, not lengthen it. I could, however, send the program via e-mail if one of you should request it. > >> 2. When statistical assertions are made, they should be > >> accompanied by adequate supporting information. > >> a. When sample means (averages) are obtained, the sample size > >> and standard deviation should be routinely included. > >> ... > More important, I would say, is point (a): Give sample size and > standard deviation. This tells you how "scattered" the data is. > Regression (curve fitting) is a bit of an art; you have to "guess" > the form of the function (typically by looking at a graph), then > use a least-squares fit to get the best approximation. It didn't take much guessing to see the obvious relationship of the frequency-distribution function. But as to least-squares fit, I need to figure out how to scale the function or normalize it first so that sampling errors where the function is large (though sampling errors are relatively small there) do not swamp the sampling errors at large "I" where the function is small (though the sampling errors are relatively large there). > >When you count the number of consecutive duplicate words between parallel > >passages that each contain I=10 words, say, you get just one number. That > >is your mean for that value of "I". There is no standard deviation there > >(unless you count them over and over and derive somewhat varying results > >each time, due to mistakes in identification and counting; this latter > >does of course happen to a small extent, which is one reason why my > >results could stand checking by someone else; another reason is that I > >used N-A 21, though there were no differences between its results and N-A > >26 for the 9 longest strings of Mt-Lk data I checked; but a check using > >N-A 27, or maybe TR?, would be an obvious thing to do). > Since I haven't been observing this discussion, I may have missed something. > But why should each sample be ten words? If you are insisting on ten word > parallels, what about the distance between such parallels? > I am inclined to say that a data set for which you cannot offer a > standard deviation is not a statistic, it's an appeal to faith.... The sample of 10-word strings (I=10) was an example. There are also samples of 2-word strings, 3-word strings, 4-word strings... out to 15- or 20- or 30- word strings. For each data set, you have but one sample for a given value of "I". That's it. In my Mt-Mk Gospel-parallel data set, I found 321 duplicate 2-word strings, 195 3-word strings, 122, 4-word strings, 54 5-word strings (sampling error showed up biggest there), 52 6-word strings , 33 7-word strings, 28 8-word strings, 13 9-word strings, 9 10-word strings, etc. (No two people analyzing it will come up with precisely the same numbers, I venture to say, but it will be very similar). For each of these frequencies of occurrence, there is but one number that one derives for that value of "I". Hence, no standard deviation. Similarly, for the Gospel parallels between Mt & Lk's "Q" verses, each value of "I" yields but one number giving the frequency of occurrence of strings of that length. This is perhaps a simpler problem that what you're used to. If I were to average this in with the data set for Mt-Mk and the one for Mk-Lk, I would have three numbers for each value of "I" from which to calculate a standard deviation. But this would be mashing together data sets of different size and different authorship for which the degree of dependence of one writer's work upon the other's (or degree of independence) is likely different. That wouldn't be logical at all. So no standard deviation is involved. I could break a given data set into three parts and then calculate a bare-bones standard deviation for each "I" value. But then each data set would be woefully small in total numbers of words. If you had ten data sets of the same size wherein each writer had translated the same extensive Semitic document into Greek, independently of each other, and also ten sharp graduate students eager to work on the problem, then you could form the standard deviation about the mean number of duplicate word strings each of length I = 2, 3, 4,.....20 or 30. Since we don't have such available, it is only natural to turn to a numerical program that can simulate the same distribution, in order to explore the sampling error of its results, for example. From such numerical results, one could also derive standard deviations for each value of "I". But this may not be of much interest to biblical scholars who are interested in the real thing, not in numerical models > For curve-fitting, you always have to "guess at" a solution and a > list of parameters. So that's where I'm at. The guess is obvious from the test data, despite its sampling errors. For values of "I" from 4 up to about 10 (for the size data sets available) the geometric progression also holds for the cases of interest: Mt-Mk, Mk-Lk and Lk-Mt parallels. For longer word strings, the results of dependency become pronounced. > >In my writeup, I do present the odds in several instances that an > >observed data point (a long duplicate > >string of words -- 15 or 20 in the cases in > >question) could occur due > > to chance, or due to independent > >translation/editing. Odds like 1/300 > >or 1/500 occur in the Gospel > >parallels; rare odds like these did not occur for the data of the test > >case. > I have to ask: How do you estimate such odds? The exponential (or geometric progression) curve one fits through the data points from I=4 to I=9 or 10 can be extended on outwards to larger values of duplicate word-string length, "I". For I=11, the curve derived from my test set predicted only one such string should occur on the average, and one did occur there (though it could easily have been 0 or 2 due to sampling error). For I=13 the curve predicted 0.4 of a string of that length, which has to be zero or one in any one realization. One occurred. For I=14 the curve predicted 0.23 of a string. None occurred. For I=15 the curve predicted 0.13 of a string, none occurred. Etc., no more strings occurred for larger "I". Had a string occurred at I= 20, say (as in the Gospel-parallels data), the predicted number of strings there would have been only 0.0085. I take this to mean that if 117 realizations had been available (1/0.0085), in only one of them would a string this long by chance have occurred, on the average. I'd like to know if you would place a different interpretation than this on it. This seems to be the obvious interpretation, and I utilized the numerical program to check that it seemed to work, as there I had 100 realizations available, using different seeds with the pseudo-random number generator. >>I've already explained how I've >>simulated the T2 case by the numerical experiment of drawing a ball >>from a mixed bag of 1000 black balls and red balls, and keeping track >>of how many times in a row that you draw a black ball. In the latest >>set of experiments, I allowed the conditional probability of drawing >>the black ball to vary randomly on each draw, between 0.254 and 0.900, >>like in the discussion above. Again, on the average, a >>geometric-progression frequency distribution was obtained for the >>number of black balls drawn in a row, with the ratio of successive >>frequencies of occurrence being 0.58, i.e., the average of .254 & >> .900. > I don't entirely buy this analogy. Drawing balls is a random > process. Constructing a sentence isn't, or the first sentence of this > paragraph could read > > buy analogy entirely don't I this... > > or > something worse.... > My apologies if some of this re-covers > ground already gone over. But as a mathematician, I hate to see math > abused. :-) You may need to analyze a test case of your own choosing, if you were to get that interested, to see that once you get out past I = 3 the randomness sets in for a large data set. In your example, there were no duplicate word strings of length 2 or more. In a long works in Greek, arrangements like that can happen once in a while within a parallel sentence, as much or more by different choice of words than by different order of words. More often, though, two different translators wouldn't translate that sentence in Hebrew into Greek without one or maybe two duplicate word strings of I=2 or 3 occurring, especially where theological topics are covered and informal language like "buy" is not used. So in numerous other sentences there will be duplicate word strings of somewhat greater length occurring, and occasionally of length 15 words or so, which evidently can occur within the last part of one sentence and the first part of another, etc. Look at it this way: if you were to translate 100 pages of Greek Eusebius into meaningful English, without looking at any existing English translation, would you want to bet your N-S 27 that you wouldn't end up with a lot of 2, 3, and even 4-word-string duplications in comparing against what you read in the Kirsopp & Lake English translation, e.g.? (No cheating allowed!) And also some strings of I=5 and 6? And don't you think the higher you go in "I" the smaller the number of strings you'd find? And would you be so surprised if a smooth curve through your data obeyed the exponential distribution, for I>3 ? Y(I) = A exp(-bI) . It's that simple, really. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 31 03:00:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA01280; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 03:00:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 03:00:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199708310700.DAA01260@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: 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: 6876 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enough of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). List archives may also be accessed on the Web at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html. TC messages since 28 Feb 1997 are also archived by Reference.COM at http://www.reference.com. ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but some of these difficulties have already been overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in its second year of operation, and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 31 15:50:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02089; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 15:50:19 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199708311954.MAA29394@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 12:53:35 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: TC in Isaiah 53 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1801 Here's a Hebrew TC question for us, though it's actually in 3 parts. I really don't like posting multiple-question stuff, so I'll start with what is actually a translational question and move from there into the TC part of it, if no one objects. Isaiah 53:8 has LFMOW in the last clause, in parallel with a bunch of singular verbs and pronouns in the rest of the verse. Some investigation revealed several places, such as Gen 9:25 and 26, where this word can appear to have a singular meaning even though "standard" grammars such as GKC list it as a plural. Recently, I also noticed that the Westminster BHS Morph database consistently lists it as L with a singular pronoun suffix. Conventional wisdom suggests that it is consistently a plural, and hence translate the last clause of v.8 as "the judgment of my people, to whom [plural] the stroke was due." I have doubts about the translation, and there is also a significant textual variant there. But before addressing my thoughts on the variant, I wonder if anybody on the list has more solid info on the singular/plural nature of the word as it stands in MT. My thought is that it is sort of an elision or phonetic ellipsis, kind of like the English phoneme 'm. If one says "I'll go get 'm" context is necessary to know whether 'm is standing for "him" or "them." My initial reaction is that LFMOW is a similar phenomenon, but I have no idea how strongly this idea might be supported by other grammatical-transcriptional features of the actual text. In any case, does anyone have any thoughts on the meaning of LFMOW in this verse? Again, my hope is that we can kick that around a little and from there, address the textual variant. Thanks, Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html