From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 1 05:45:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA03198; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 05:45:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 17:49:19 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Statistical patterns In-Reply-To: <199709010630.CAA02878@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: 2324 Here are the figures which I alluded to before: NOS = number of states = number of readings in a variation unit. FRQ = frequency = how often a given number of states occurs in the sampled variation units. FIT = fitted value using the equation F(n) = C x exp[-(a + bn)^2/2], C = 399, a = 1.50, b = 0.23. Hebrews + Romans (for variation units listed in the UBS 4th edn apparatus) NOS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ FRQ ? 58 36 21 11 5 3 FIT 89 58 36 21 12 6 6 As you can see, the fit is quite good for 2 to 6 states. Jimmy Adair is right to point out that the curves that are generated will depend to a very large extent on the sampling technique. If there is an underlying law which obeys this equation, then using a different edition, or simply widening the scope from Hebrews and Romans to the whole Pauline corpus in the UBS edition, will change the constants of the equation but not its shape. In other words, changing the sample size or sampling technique will generate new members of one family of equations. Bob Waltz is right to say that the definition of a variation unit will also affect the results. This is a sticky problem. (Perhaps someone will one day come up with an indisputable way of defining the density of variation at consecutive places in the text). Nevertheless, no matter how the UBS Committee arrived at the given arrangements of variation units and their readings, it still seems strange to me that they should appear to fit such an equation. Hence my request for a statistician to enlighten us concerning possible causes. On the significance of the predicted 89 units with 1 state, I take this to mean that if 228 sections of the UBS text (89 + 58 + 36 + 21 + 12 + 6 + 6) with a certain standard size were examined, on average 89 (39%) would display no variation, 58 (25%) would have two possible readings, 36 (16%) would have three, and so on. Romans and Hebrews together have about 12,036 words, resulting in this standard size being about 53 words. One last note. The figure of 6 I inserted for 7 or more states is the sum to infinity of a geometric progression which starts with half the preceding value of 6 and halves at every step (3 + 1.5 + .75 + ... = 6). 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 Mon Sep 1 14:59:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04213; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:59:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:03:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199709010630.CAA02878@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: 5267 On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Timothy John Finney >Here are the figures which I alluded to before: > >NOS = number of states = number of readings in a variation unit. >FRQ = frequency = how often a given number of states occurs in the sampled >variation units. >FIT = fitted value using the equation F(n) = C x exp[-(a + bn)^2/2], C = >399, a = 1.50, b = 0.23. > >Hebrews + Romans (for variation units listed in the UBS 4th edn apparatus) > >NOS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ > >FRQ ? 58 36 21 11 5 3 >FIT 89 58 36 21 12 6 6 > >As you can see, the fit is quite good for 2 to 6 states. Almost too good to be true. :-) But I'll return to this point below. >Jimmy Adair is right to point out that the curves that are generated will >depend to a very large extent on the sampling technique. If there is an >underlying law which obeys this equation, then using a different edition, >or simply widening the scope from Hebrews and Romans to the whole Pauline >corpus in the UBS edition, will change the constants of the equation but >not its shape. In other words, changing the sample size or sampling >technique will generate new members of one family of equations. > >Bob Waltz is right to say that the definition of a variation unit will >also affect the results. This is a sticky problem. (Perhaps someone will >one day come up with an indisputable way of defining the density of >variation at consecutive places in the text). Nevertheless, no matter how >the UBS Committee arrived at the given arrangements of variation units and >their readings, it still seems strange to me that they should appear to >fit such an equation. Hence my request for a statistician to enlighten us >concerning possible causes. As an experiment, I took a bunch of data which I had on hand -- the readings of all uncials and papyri, plus the minuscules 330 1739, in Colossians 1. This proved to be a bit more complicated than it sounds, because of nonsense readings and scribal errors. I did my best to treat these realistically, and came up with the following numbers (out of 71 variants): NOS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ FRQ - 49 17 3 2 0 0 Let's rewrite the above formula as my calculator understands it: 2 -(.23n + 1.5) -------------- 2 FIT = 399 e This gives a total of 58+36+21+12+6+6 = 139 readings. Normalizing to percents gives us NOS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ FIT - 42 26 15 9 4 4 Over 71 readings, this gives us NOS 2 3 4 5+ Expected 30 18 11 12 Actual 49 17 3 2 So the fit doesn't work -- although I agree that the data does look exponential. (I'm too lazy to fit my own data. :-) The problem is, we are dealing with *three* variables: 1. The definition of a variant 2. The method of selecting variants 3. The number and nature of the manuscripts in the sample set. Given that (1) had a vague definition, (2) has as yet no definition at all, and (3) is something that needs to be explored, perhaps we shouldn't expect much at this point. Also keep in mind that we are dealing with very few data points here -- in Tim's set, only six (data for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7+-order variants); in mine, an even smaller 4-point data set (or, arguably, 5; we could throw in the results for 6+). I suspect Tim is right, and there is an exponential fall-off. But with only six data points, and a monotonically decreasing function, we could get a good fit for an exponential even if the actual function were of some other form. Now note: I think this is a very important subject to pursue. The mean number of significant variant readings at each point of variation has an immense impact on the statistics we can use to compare manuscripts. I just think we need a greater degree of rigour here (sorry, Tim. :-) >On the significance of the predicted 89 units with 1 state, I take this to >mean that if 228 sections of the UBS text (89 + 58 + 36 + 21 + 12 + 6 + 6) >with a certain standard size were examined, on average 89 (39%) would >display no variation, 58 (25%) would have two possible readings, 36 (16%) >would have three, and so on. Romans and Hebrews together have about 12,036 >words, resulting in this standard size being about 53 words. I think this last is a statement that needs to be clarified. Your actual claim is that 39% of your 53 word samples would show *no variant of interest to the UBS committee*. (The fact is, of course, that there are variants in just about every word of the NT). But this, in turn, gives us some problems. There are instances in the UBS text of as many as 3 variants in a single verse. (UBS3 had four variants in Hebrews 13:21; one of them was dropped in UBS4). Taking Hebrews 13:21 as an example, the verse is 30 words long. The variants show 3, 2, and 2 readings. Would this be considered a single point of variation with 12 readings (3x2x2) or something else? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mon Sep 1 15:18:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04298; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 15:18:34 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970901121854.007cd2f0@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 12:18:54 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: TC in Isaiah 53 Cc: dwashbur@nyx.net In-Reply-To: <199709010630.CAA02878@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> 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: 3541 David Washburn wrote: >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. GKC #103f, n. 3 and 91,l,3 notes that in some cases this form *must* be singular (eg., Isa 44:15). Waltke-O'Connor 11.1.2d just says that it can either be singular or plural, with the singular "...'to him'(as if lemo + pronoun -o..." and the plural "...'to them' (as if le + pronoun -hem/-am..." The enclitic mem (W-O'C 9.8) is not all that uncommon with prepositions, eg., B.:MOW, K.:MOW, MIM.EN.W. >Recently, I >also noticed that the Westminster BHS Morph database consistently >lists it as L with a singular pronoun suffix. This is one of those things that I'm fixing in the MorphBHS revision I'm currently doing; namely, I'm changing those which are plural to plural and leaving the ones that are singular as singular (some are clearly judgment calls, and you all will be at the mercy of my judgment for this next release...in the following release, I'll be putting for the first time alternates into the MorphBHS and so those will have alternates tags). >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. I personally don't have a problem with the translation of the last clause as "...because of [MIN] the transgression of my people [he received the] stroke due [or "for", ie., advantage] them." Aside from the GKC, etc., info, there is a lot of discussion about this in KBS, in which LFMOW is listed as a *separate* word/lemma (??), with copious references to several grammars and articles. >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. Such elisions would normally be the result of speakers hurrying the pronounciation of some word and thus would historically follow the occurrence of the word being shortened. GKC seems pretty sure that the LFMOW form is an ancient form of suffix which has been dropped in later Classical Hebrew, and only re-appears in the poets because they are trying to "sound" old or archaic or "high" in their language. W-O'C p. 189, n. 5, point out that Ugaritic also has the long variant form of bm, km, and lm. I really don't see much reason to resort to the LXX variant here. XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 1 16:17:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04462; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 16:17:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:21:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff 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: 3276 On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Timothy John Finney wrote: > Here are the figures which I alluded to before: > > NOS = number of states = number of readings in a variation unit. > FRQ = frequency = how often a given number of states occurs in the sampled > variation units. > FIT = fitted value using the equation F(n) = C x exp[-(a + bn)^2/2], C = > 399, a = 1.50, b = 0.23. > > Hebrews + Romans (for variation units listed in the UBS 4th edn apparatus) > > NOS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ > > FRQ ? 58 36 21 11 5 3 > FIT 89 58 36 21 12 6 6 > > As you can see, the fit is quite good for 2 to 6 states. Tim, You do have an excellent fitting equation there. But with four parameters at your disposal, (C, a, b, and the ^2 rather than some other power), and only 5 or 6 data points, it had better fit pretty well! The amount of data you have above is around 50% (though still less in one case) of what the Gospel parallels provide for duplicate word strings. If it were of comparable length, it's quite possible that if you were to require a fit by a two-parameter curve, the simple exponential or geometric progression would work better than anything else, once you decided on just what the rules are for counting variants, etc. But I don't see what gain in knowledge that would produce. Surely those verses or sentences that exhibit an unusally large number of variants will be relatively rare, if for no other reason than from definition of "unusual." So you're almost bound to find some monotonically decreasing curve that will approximate the distribution. In one case the very few rare values of FRQ=1 or 2 for large n may occur at n = 8,9, and 11, say, and in another at n = 8,10 & 13, say -- this I have been referring to as "sampling error." Although a similar statement could be said of the Gospels' duplicate word-string parallels, there we run into the peculiarity that what occurs in the region you labelled "7+" exhibits far too many occurrences to be at all consonant with the monotonic fall-off shown for n=3,4,5,6. After finding zero occurrences for n = 8 or 10 or 12, do you then notice one or two instances of an occurrence for n=13 and another for n=16 and 17? If so, I think you'd be interested in knowing why -- was the sentence so difficult to understand, relative to almost all other sentences in the gospel/book, that it caused a huge number of variants? Or was the grammar of the sentence so bad in the earliest ms that it caused later dependent mss to correct it in many various ways? If so, why were these anomalous sentences so much more anomalous than others that it caused a disruption in the monotonic decrease of FRQ with n, with an upturn after many zeroes? Or can such anomalies be simply explained as inevitable sampling error? With the Gospels' duplicate word-string parallels, one can also examine the anomalies, with the importance being that one can see if they fit into any proposed solutions of the Synoptic Problem -- bolster one and rule others out. Although this latter problem may not be of particular interest to TC, I still wonder if TC can hazard any guesses as to whether or not harmonistic corruption could have caused the anomalies in the frequency distribution at large values of n or "I," as I called it. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 1 16:41:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04511; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 16:41:06 -0400 Message-Id: <9709012143.AA00880@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Masser's edition of St-Gall Codex 56 Date: Lun, 1 Sep 97 22:45:48 +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: 2692 A few months ago, I bought Masser's edition of the St-Gall bilingual Diatessaron, codex 56. I find it a beautiful edition, though it has one drawback: it has no tables helping me to find quickly a Gospel text when I find it. This is probably because the author is a germanist, and maybe he didn't think to us biblicists (I remember several remarks about cloisoning of specialities in Dr Petersen's book about the Diatessaron, this is probably another case). I have two questions about this: (1) Has this book been welcomed by the specialists, and are there reviews I could read about it? I'd be thankful to have some references. (2) After months of complaining about the lacks of tables, I finally found a method for finding a given Gospel passage, and I post it today just in case it can help others (and also to have remarks in case it seems inaccurrate or if there's something simpler): (a) first step: using C.C. De Bruin "Het Luikse Diatessaron, Registers" (Leiden, 1984), I look at my reference in the tables of Codex Fuldensis. These tables give the page and line numbers in Ranke's edition of Codex Fuldensis. (b) second step: I take Ranke's edition, I find my passage and I look at the chapter number. (c) third step: Masser's edition gives also the chapter numbers of his manuscripts. Here there is a subtlety: - If it's chapter I to XX, the chapter numbers are the same. - If it's chapter XXI in codex Fuldensis, it's still chapter XX in Codex St-Gall. - If it's chapter XXII in codex Fuldensis, it's chapter XXI, and so on till the end of the book. Just substract a unity from the chapter number in Codex Fuldensis, and you have the right number in Codex St-Gall. I have tried other things, for example looking at Eusebius' canons in the margins of my Nestle-Aland, then trying to see if it corresponds to something in the tables of Eusebius' canons in the edition of the St-Gall manuscript. I was not able to find the texts I was searching with that method, but may be I didn't do it correctly. Greetings to all, 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 Mon Sep 1 21:36:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05109; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 21:36:58 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 21:40:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970901213921_-400950650@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: TC in Isaiah 53 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4488 In a message dated 97-08-31 20:29:47 EDT, Dave Washburn wrote: << Subj: TC in Isaiah 53 << 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 >> It is correct that the word LMW is often plural [to them]. However, the grammatical and lexical authorities indicate that this word sometimes is singular [see GKC 103f n.3]. A good example of this is found in Isaiah 44:15, 17, where essentially the same expression is used, one with LMW [to him/it] and the other with LW [to him/it]. The word LMW occurs 59 times, usually rendered in the plural. Here are a few examples where the pronoun may be singular: Genesis 9:26 "And he said: "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem, And may Canaan be his [lamo] servant." Genesis 9:27 May God enlarge Japheth, And may he dwell in the tents of Shem; And may Canaan be his [lamo] servant." Job 14:21 "His sons come to honor, and he does not know it; They are brought low, andhe does not perceive it [lamo]." Job 27:14 "If his children are multiplied, it [lamo] is for the sword; And his offspring shall not be satisfied with bread." Isaiah 44:15 "Then it shall be for a man to burn, For he will take some of it and warm himself; Yes, he kindles it and bakes bread; Indeed he makes a god and worships it; He makes it (singular) a carved image, and falls down to it [lamo]." 44:15 yisgod-lamo "he bows down to it" [JPS] 44:17 ysigod-lo "he bows down to it" [JPS] These are examples that involve the pronoun suffix MW (mo) attached to the preposition L (= to). There are a few other contexts where the pronoun suffix MW is attached to other words (nouns and prepositions) where the antecedent is clearly singular. Psalm 11:7 For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance [paneymo] beholds the upright. Job 20:23 When he is about to fill his stomach, God will cast on him [bo] the fury of His wrath, And will rain it on him ['aleymo] while he is eating. Job 22:2 "Can a man be profitable to God, Though he who is wise may be profitable to himself ['aleymo]? Job 27:23 He shall clap his hands [cappeymo] at him ['aleymo], And shall hiss him ['alayw] out of his place. All these instances provide sufficient justification for the pronoun to be singular in Isa. 53:8, particularly when it has the same singular antecedent as the three other masculine singular pronouns in the same verse. As for variant readings, BHS records the LXX as reading LMWT [lammawet] "to death." Otherwise, no other variants are recorded. James D. Price ==================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ==================================================== From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 2 16:25:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08260; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:25:56 -0400 Message-ID: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:29:59 -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: Canons of Criticism 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: 873 Helge, Awhile ago you penned the following: > Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 22:29:25 -0700 > From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" > Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > 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. For clarification, what exactly is your _method_ for determining the _Original Text_?? I ask simply because of the many TR/KJV defenders that "use" some textual canons in defending the TR, no one (to my knoledge) has actually stated what the several "Canons" are, and how they are to be used. Tks. Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 3 05:38:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA17434; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 05:38:21 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:40:11 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Masser's edition of St-Gall Codex 56 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1558 Regarding Valentin's questions about Masser's edition of the bilingual gospel harmony (Latin & OH German) Codex Sangallensis: Yes, the edition is welcome, and we will be using it here at NIAS this year in our Diatessaron project on Tatian's text of John. I don't know about reviews, but they would probably have appeared first in European journals in Germanics and medieval lit. Yes, the lack of an *index locorum* is probably due to specialization, for Masser is interested in the MS, its language, and the translation techniques to be inferred from the MS, not the textual complexion of the individual pericopes (which means you need to *find* the bloody things to study them...). Yes, the techniques you are using to navigate are the best I know: Codex Sangallensis has a sequence which is very similar to Codex Fuldensis--although not exactly. Moreover, the Latin and the OH German columns of Codex Sangallensis do not always agree, and it is quite consistently the OH German which seems to preserve the Diatessaronic reading (two examples: at John 2:1: + "a city [called]" = SG-OHG, Peshitta, Arabic Harmony, the Liege Harmony, and Venetian Harmony, *contra* the Vulgate, SG-Latin, Fuldensis, etc.; "in Rama"] "in the heights" in Matt 2:18 in SG-OHG, Venetian Harmony, Tuscan Harmony, Cambridge Harmony, Zuerich Harmony, *contra* Greek MSS, Vulgate, SG-Latin). So use Ranke's index and, as a second step, de Bruin's for the Liege Harmony. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS), Wassenaar, NL From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 3 17:41:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01261; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:41:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Duplicate strings within parallel passages 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: 5030 I worked up some standard deviations for the exponential distributions that the computer simulation can give; it was Vinton Dearing, I think, who urged that they be presented. This was from the computer runs that simulated the frequency distribution (FRQ in Tim's notation) of duplicate strings of identical words within the many parallels of 1 Esdras and Ezra. What this latter test case yielded, by my tallies from the Septuagint, is: n= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 FRQ= 232 114 44 36 24 12 6 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 The computer runs, for a probability of .577, on the average, that each successive word choice would be the same as in the parallel passage, gave: n = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 FRQ 339 162 97 67 39 27 10 5 5 5 0 2 1 1 0 0 FRQ 319 184 96 68 35 23 11 12 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 FRQ 325 200 107 63 39 21 13 8 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 FRQ 336 177 119 65 36 21 10 7 3 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 etc. MEAN 322 187 108 62 37 21 12 7.2 4.1 2.3 .80 .39 .25 .13 .07 1.4 FIT 322 186 107 62 36 21 12 6.9 4.0 2.3 .76 .44 .25 .15 .08 1.3 STD 28 17 11.5 6.4 4.2 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 .52 .36 4.6 .79 The mean was taken from the average of 320 runs, four of which are shown for the four FRQ rows of data shown. The standard deviation (STD) was taken from only 16 runs (since I had to hand-calculate them). For n=5, for example, STD is 4.6, so one expects that the FRQ you may get from an independently translated data set of the length involved here for n=5 has a 95% chance of lying between 27 and 45 (+- 2 std's from the mean). This indicates the difficulty of estimating the best fitting mean curve to represent FRQ from any one real data set. The FIT is given by FRQ = 559 exp(-0.55n), where n is the number of words in the duplicate-word string. (The 0.55 value for b is related to the .577 conditional-probability value by .577 = exp(-.55).) The STD decreases with increasing n, along with the FRQ, but not quite as fast. In fact, for n>12 STD becomes larger than the mean. This is why I couldn't give any firm estimate of the STDs from the Biblical cases, which each had to be considered separately, except for what one can estimate by fitting the data with a mean curve and noting the scatter of the individual data points from the mean curve of FRQ(n), which I previously called Y(I). But if I were to simulate the Gospel cases, for which the curve with b=-.45 fit their initial portions, I think I could end up with pretty good estimates of their STDs also. I think the STDs from the computer runs above are a little larger than for the runs in which the probability of the translator's choosing the same word as did the other translator (or drawing a black ball from the mixed bag) was fixed at 0.577 rather than randomly fluctuating about 0.577. The point of it all is in noting if the data exhibits departures, especially for large n, that are significantly in excess of random variations, in which case it is due to purposeful variations by the writer/scribe. For the synoptic problem, where the assumption of independence is often assumed between Matthew and Luke, this has clear implications. The one writer is assumed not to have used the other's work, but the analysis may preclude this. For TC, it seems much less clear to me that this kind of analysis would have any point, since there the goal had been complete dependence, not independence -- the head scribe or lector usually didn't want independent readings to crop up. But when they did, it was sometimes due to accidental mistakes and other times due to purposeful changes or attempted corrections, all by different persons. The question of the existence of variants is not at issue, one knows they exist. With the synoptic problem, the question of whether Mt & Lk were independently written is still at issue. I do need to assume that the TC of the past half century has been good enough to allow analyses of duplicate-string FRQ distributions from the Gospel parallels within N-S to represent the Gospels as they stood shortly after their writing/translation. The representation doesn't need to be perfect, though, since the FRQ distributions will tend to be little changed if both unsuspected variants and unsuspected harmonistic corruptions exist and tend to counterbalance each other. >From reading W. R. Farmer's work, the long strings of duplicate words between Mt and Lk (not in Mark) were known to Herbert Marsh back in 1798, causing him even then to postulate a verbal dependence between those two gospels. I wonder if Marsh used the Textus Receptus to deduce this, does anyone know? And would the TR be similar to N-S 27 in this respect? Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 4 18:51:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11783; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:51:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:55:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate 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: 1533 I heard back from the statistician I had asked about this problem. The procedure for subjectively fitting data that looks like it falls off exponentially with increasing n is pretty simple. One first converts the data (frequencies of occurrence in this case) into their (natural) logarithms, causing the converted data (y) to look roughly linear with "n", which is called x; that is, y = a0 + a1 x. Then one does the least-squares analysis on that data, using the standard technique, as in CRC's Standard Mathematical Tables, e.g., to determine a0 and a1. The coefficient (a1) for the slope of the best fitting line is then the exponential decline coefficient b. The constant (a0), when exp is raised to that power, gives the constant C, in FRQ(n) = C exp(-bn). Using the data for n=4,5,....10 or 12 or so, my eyeball fit for the 1Esdras-Ezra duplicated-strings data had given: FRQ(n) = 510 exp(-.55n). Using the data for n=4,5...12, least squares gives FRQ = 528 exp(-.578n). Using the data for n=4,5...13, least squares gives FRQ = 335 exp(-.510n). It seems that one can't escape some subjectivity because you need to decide just how far out in n to go in your analysis. But in the least-squares fitting, you can't include n so large that FRQ = 0, since its logarithm is -infinity. My paper describing the use of the duplicate-strings frequency distributions in the Gospel priority problem is now in the electronic Journal of Biblical Studies, http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/Articles.htm . Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 4 19:33:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12083; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:33:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:37:39 -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: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate strings Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2265 On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >I heard back from the statistician I had asked about this problem. The >procedure for subjectively fitting data that looks like it falls off >exponentially with increasing n is pretty simple. One first converts the >data (frequencies of occurrence in this case) into their (natural) >logarithms, causing the converted data (y) to look roughly linear with >"n", which is called x; that is, y = a0 + a1 x. Then one does the >least-squares analysis on that data, using the standard technique, as in >CRC's Standard Mathematical Tables, e.g., to determine a0 and a1. [ ... ] >It seems that one can't escape some subjectivity because you need to >decide just how far out in n to go in your analysis. But in the >least-squares fitting, you can't include n so large that FRQ = 0, since >its logarithm is -infinity. This isn't exactly "subjectivity." There is a difference between saying "assume a solution of the form" and "I guess the answer is." What you are doing is *assuming* an exponential distribution and a particular value for n. Having achieved the results, you should calculate a correlation coefficient. If this is close enough, you can consider your fit adequate.(I should note that "close enough" is a rather uncertain term; in biology, a CC of 50% is good, whereas in Freshman Physics even the worst klutzes among us -- I being one of them -- could achieve at least 95% CC. From where I sit, unfortunately, I can't give you a fixed number -- but I won't be too impressed if you're much short of 90%.) If you do not get a good enough Correlation Coefficient, it's back to the curve-fitting board. In this case you might try another n. If that doesn't work, you'll need a different equation of fit. Ultimately this is a sort of scientific method: Hypothesise, test, hypothesise again. There is "guesswork" in forming the hypothesis, there is none in testing it. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 4 21:25:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA12517; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:25:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:29:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate 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: 2230 On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > > >It seems that one can't escape some subjectivity because you need to > >decide just how far out in n to go in your analysis. But in the > >least-squares fitting, you can't include n so large that FRQ = 0, since > >its logarithm is -infinity. > This isn't exactly "subjectivity." There is a difference between saying > "assume a solution of the form" and "I guess the answer is." Robert, You may have misunderstood what n is here. It's not anything subjective, but is the independent coordinate which the frequency of occurrence is a function of. Large n defines the exponential tail of the frequency distribution where the occurrence is either 1 (or sometimes 2) or 0. The curve fit should be in the region where n is smaller than that and the number of occurrences for a given n is several or many. The decision on where n becomes too large is subjective, and depends partly upon the scatter of the data. > What you are doing is *assuming* an exponential distribution and > a particular value for n. So one doesn't assume anything for n. But one does need to examine the data and make your assessment on whether it looks linear, quadratic, Gaussian, exponential or whatever before you try to curve-fit it. I think Tim Finney pointed this out a little while back. One's guess on this should make use of any other available information, such as an aymptotic value that FRQ may approach as n becomes very large. > Having achieved the results, you should > calculate a correlation coefficient. If this is close enough, you > can consider your fit adequate.(I should note that "close enough" > is a rather uncertain term; in biology, a CC of 50% is good, whereas > in Freshman Physics even the worst klutzes among us -- I being one > of them -- could achieve at least 95% CC. From where I sit, unfortunately, > I can't give you a fixed number -- but I won't be too impressed if you're > much short of 90%.) I suspect that for the relatively small data sets available in the Biblical-parallels duplicate-strings study, the results will behave more like in biology than in physics. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 4 22:12:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA12772; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:12:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:16:19 -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: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate strings Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3929 On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, in part: >On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >> >> >It seems that one can't escape some subjectivity because you need to >> >decide just how far out in n to go in your analysis. But in the >> >least-squares fitting, you can't include n so large that FRQ = 0, since >> >its logarithm is -infinity. > >> This isn't exactly "subjectivity." There is a difference between saying >> "assume a solution of the form" and "I guess the answer is." > >Robert, > >You may have misunderstood what n is here. It's not anything subjective, >but is the independent coordinate which the frequency of occurrence is a >function of. Understood. But as you yourself point out, you can choose which values for n you examine. But that's minor. [ ... ] Accepting that, what pre >> What you are doing is *assuming* an exponential distribution and >> a particular value for n. > >So one doesn't assume anything for n. But one does need to examine the >data and make your assessment on whether it looks linear, quadratic, >Gaussian, exponential or whatever before you try to curve-fit it. Yes and (more to the point) NO! That is, you look at that data, assume a solution, and try to make it work. But the fact that you've assumed it doesn't make it right or wrong. Try an exponential; fine. But if you're being thorough, you should also try polynomials of various orders, and perhaps other functions. The data may look exponential (as Tim's and mine both did). So what? At values close to zero or multiples of pi over two, trig functions mimic linear functions. Doesn't make them the same. Look at your subject line: "Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate strings." You can fit an exponential. You could, for that matter, fit a Bessel Function. But unless you give us a measure of goodness-of-fit, and a comparison with other fits, we don't know whether that's really the correct form or not. >I think >Tim Finney pointed this out a little while back. One's guess on this >should make use of any other available information, such as an aymptotic >value that FRQ may approach as n becomes very large. True, of course. But you must be willing to try other forms. That's all I'm saying. >> Having achieved the results, you should >> calculate a correlation coefficient. If this is close enough, you >> can consider your fit adequate.(I should note that "close enough" >> is a rather uncertain term; in biology, a CC of 50% is good, whereas >> in Freshman Physics even the worst klutzes among us -- I being one >> of them -- could achieve at least 95% CC. From where I sit, unfortunately, >> I can't give you a fixed number -- but I won't be too impressed if you're >> much short of 90%.) > >I suspect that for the relatively small data sets available in the >Biblical-parallels duplicate-strings study, the results will behave more >like in biology than in physics. Probably true. But if you only get a 50% correlation coefficient, you should at least try some other functions, e.g. polynomials (Tim's and my data also look like they might fit a 1/x type curve after all). BTW (this addressed to any innocent bystanders still reading this :-) -- let's be careful not to compare apples and oranges. Jim Deardorff's data on repetitions and Tim's and mine on number of readings per variant are completely different problems. The only thing we have in common is that we're curve fitting. There is no reason to assume, e.g., that the same sort of functions are used. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 5 01:08:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA13388; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 01:08:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:11:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate 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: 3244 On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, > in part: Robert wrote, in part: > Accepting that, what pre > >> What you are doing is *assuming* an exponential distribution and > >> a particular value for n. > >So one doesn't assume anything for n. But one does need to examine the > >data and make your assessment on whether it looks linear, quadratic, > >Gaussian, exponential or whatever before you try to curve-fit it. > Yes and (more to the point) NO! > > That is, you look at that data, assume a solution, and try to make > it work. But the fact that you've assumed it doesn't make it right > or wrong. Try an exponential; fine. But if you're being thorough, > you should also try polynomials of various orders, and perhaps other > functions. The data may look exponential (as Tim's and mine both > did). So what? At values close to zero or multiples of pi over two, > trig functions mimic linear functions. Doesn't make them the same. Robert, Polynomials are obviously no good, as they don't approach zero as n grows large. And I'm still interested in fitting them with a 2-parameter curve, not 3 or 4 or more. Trig functions also don't asymptotically approach zero. I did briefly look at FRQ = a/(b+n), fitting it at two points, but then an intermediate point was a factor of 5 too small, and the approach to zero way too slow. Also tried FRQ = a/n^p, but it's too steep a curve at small n. If a 3rd parameter were added here, one might get a fit about as good as with the exponential, but 2 is to be preferred over 3. It's also important to me that the function be derivable through a feasible underlying mechanism. Such exists for the 2-parameter exponential curve: the independent translator or editor, at each step in his work after each duplicate string has by chance been initiated, has a certain conditional probability of selecting as his next word either the same next word as exists in the parallel text, or a different word. This leads to the exponential form, even when the conditional probability jumps around in value from one word choice to another. > Look at your subject line: "Fitting the Exponential distribution > for duplicate strings." You can fit an exponential. You could, > for that matter, fit a Bessel Function. But unless you give us > a measure of goodness-of-fit, and a comparison with other fits, > we don't know whether that's really the correct form or not. Why don't you suggest a two-parameter function that has the proper asymptotic limit for large n -- yet something other than an exponential, and one that has a plausible, explainable mechanism underlying it. Then I would have something reasonable against which to compare the exponential. In the meantime, I could see what I can learn about goodness-of-fit. When speaking of correlations, I'm only used to correlating one variable against another variable: obtaining the average product of their fluctuations divided by the product of the two standard deviations. Something different is needed here, perhaps just comparing the rms of the deviations of the FRQ data from the fitted curve #1 against the same relative to fitted curve #2. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 5 09:26:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA14262; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:26:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:30:22 -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: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate strings Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5378 On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >Polynomials are obviously no good, as they don't approach zero as n grows >large. Not quite true... a full-fledged polynomial is of the form -3 -2 -1 2 3 f(x) = ... a x + a x + a x + a + a x + a x + a x.... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 And even *this* leaves out fractional or irrational exponents. Of course, we prefer positive integral powers. They're so much *easier*! But they set of all polynomials with positive integral powers is only a subset of the set of all polynomials. >And I'm still interested in fitting them with a 2-parameter curve, >not 3 or 4 or more. This is understandable, but it's not good math. If you are fitting a function to data, the assumption is that there is an underlying formula for the data that you are trying to fit. What if it isn't something that can be fitted with two parameters. Assume, for the sake of the argument, that the actual formula were -x .5 f(x) = ae - bx + c How do you fit *that* with two parameters? Note that I am not speaking of your particular distribution. With only a few data points, it's hard to determine more than two (or even one) parameter. But there is a principle involved here: You cannot simply say "I believe the solution to be of this form" and expect anyone to accept the results as having any validity. (At least not without a really impressive correlation coefficient -- say 98%.) >Trig functions also don't asymptotically >approach zero. True in the specific case, but I was speaking of the general case. >I did briefly look at FRQ = a/(b+n), fitting it at two points, but then an >intermediate point was a factor of 5 too small, and the approach to zero >way too slow. Also tried FRQ = a/n^p, but it's too steep a curve at small >n. If a 3rd parameter were added here, one might get a fit about as good >as with the exponential, but 2 is to be preferred over 3. I assume you were trying this for p an integer? How about trying a square or cube root. (I don't know if this is better, but it sounds like it might help.) >It's also important to me that the function be derivable through a >feasible underlying mechanism. Such exists for the 2-parameter >exponential curve: the independent translator or editor, at each step in >his work after each duplicate string has by chance been initiated, has a >certain conditional probability of selecting as his next word either the >same next word as exists in the parallel text, or a different word. This >leads to the exponential form, even when the conditional probability jumps >around in value from one word choice to another. This sounds like hand-waving. Can you give a rigorous argument for that? BTW -- Be it noted that it think you're probably right and the distribution *is* exponential. I am merely demanding an adequate standard of proof. >> Look at your subject line: "Fitting the Exponential distribution >> for duplicate strings." You can fit an exponential. You could, >> for that matter, fit a Bessel Function. But unless you give us >> a measure of goodness-of-fit, and a comparison with other fits, >> we don't know whether that's really the correct form or not. > >Why don't you suggest a two-parameter function that has the proper >asymptotic limit for large n -- yet something other than an exponential, >and one that has a plausible, explainable mechanism underlying it. Then I >would have something reasonable against which to compare the exponential. BZZT! Why does it have to be explainable? The explanation for a function is that it works! The data should be telling you how it behaves; you shouldn't be telling it. The best fit is the best fit -- even if it's a fourth-order Bessel function. Now I'll admit that I've been throwing out the past letters in this conversation; remember, my interest is not in the answers but in the rigour with which they are computed. But if you want to send me (off-list) the data and a graph, I will see if I can offer alternate suggestions. I already offered one, which would generalize to a f(x) = ---------- p/q (b+x) For this form, I would just try values for p/q (e.g. 1/2, 1/3, 2/3). Then you only have two parameters to find. >In the meantime, I could see what I can learn about goodness-of-fit. When >speaking of correlations, I'm only used to correlating one variable >against another variable: obtaining the average product of their >fluctuations divided by the product of the two standard deviations. >Something different is needed here, perhaps just comparing the rms of the >deviations of the FRQ data from the fitted curve #1 against the same >relative to fitted curve #2. That's how you calculate a correlation coefficient: Comparing the actual data against the calculated value. It should be in your CRC handbook. (I hope, because my books on the subject are too deeply buried for me to find easily. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 5 20:17:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA18849; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 20:17:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:21:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate 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: 7756 On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote, in part: > On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > >I did briefly look at FRQ = a/(b+n), fitting it at two points, but then an > >intermediate point was a factor of 5 too small, and the approach to zero > >way too slow. Also tried FRQ = a/n^p, but it's too steep a curve at small > >n. If a 3rd parameter were added here, one might get a fit about as good > >as with the exponential, but 2 is to be preferred over 3. > I assume you were trying this for p an integer? How about trying a > square or cube root. (I don't know if this is better, but it sounds > like it might help.) Hello Robert, No, I fit FRQ = a/n^p to two points on a smooth curve passing through the data points, and so naturally obtained non-integer p, as in FRQ=23091/n^4.19 . > >It's also important to me that the function be derivable through a > >feasible underlying mechanism. Such exists for the 2-parameter > >exponential curve: the independent translator or editor, at each step in > >his work after each duplicate string has by chance been initiated, has a > >certain conditional probability of selecting as his next word either the > >same next word as exists in the parallel text, or a different word. This > >leads to the exponential form, even when the conditional probability jumps > >around in value from one word choice to another. > This sounds like hand-waving. Can you give a rigorous argument for > that? My apologies to others who may be tiring of the repeated explanation! It should be clear that each word the independent translator chooses as his next word following a string of duplicate words will either be the same or will be different from what exists in the parallel text unknown to him. Is that where the difficulty lies? This point is what brings in the analogy of drawing a red or a black ball from a bag of mixed balls, or of tossing a coin, say. The toss will turn out either heads or tails. Whether a mathematician or not, you know that the odds of getting three heads in a row is .5x.5x.5. And so the odds of getting four heads in a row is .5x.5x.5x.5, and so on. So this gives a geometric progression, or exponential decline, for the frequency distribution of length of strings of heads. Now if the coin is lopsidedly weighted and the odds are 0.6, say, for getting "heads," one replaces .5 above with .6. Obviously you still have a geometric progression for the frequency distribution of successive heads, the odds then being .6x.6x.6 for three heads in a row, .6x.6x.6x.6 for four heads (n=4), etc. The exponential form for it is FRQ(n) = C exp(-.51n), since FRQ(n+1)/FRQ(n) = exp(-.51) = 0.6. Next we generalize the thought experiment to have the increased order of complexity of the case of the translator. Instead of always tossing the same weighted coin, we have dozens of coins of different weightings for heads versus tails. For each toss of the coin, the coin tosser chooses one of these coins at random and keeps track of how many strings of how many heads in a row he gets. Whatever the average weighting of all the coins, he will still obtain an exponential distribution for the frequency of these strings of successive heads. And if the average weighting turns out to be 0.6 as before, then FRQ(n) = C exp(-.51n) as before, upon averaging together the results of a very large number of tosses. With the weighting randomized, I don't know how to mathematically prove the resulting frequency distribution will still be exponential. Perhaps a mathematician wouldn't have too much trouble proving this. But I had to resort to the computer, where I had 320 runs calculated in which the weighting was allowed to vary randomly with each toss of the coin (or each draw of a red or black ball from a mixed bag of balls). Each run contained several thousand tosses of the coin, to correspond to the amount of data in the test case I had analyzed (1Esdras-Ezra parallels). The resulting distribution was indeed exponential, with only a tiny scatter from the mean, as you may have noted in a posting of mine a day ago. The computer program kept track of the average weighting that occurred in each of the 320 sets of runs, which was designed to be 0.577 on the average, but ranged from .570 to .584. In each individual coin toss, however, this weighting randomly varied between .254 and 0.900. Is it difficult to see the analogy here with the independent translator of Aramaic text into Greek, and comparing his word choices with that of another translator? I don't see why. His each successive word is either identical or not with what the other translator chose. The conditional probabilities involved in each word choice range widely, depending upon where you are in the phrase/clause/sentence/word-string. How then could this lead to any distribution of duplicate word strings other than the exponential, unless the one translator made use of the other's work in some systematic fashion? > >Why don't you suggest a two-parameter function that has the proper > >asymptotic limit for large n -- yet something other than an exponential, > >and one that has a plausible, explainable mechanism underlying it. Then I > >would have something reasonable against which to compare the exponential. > BZZT! Why does it have to be explainable? The explanation for a function > is that it works! The data should be telling you how it behaves; you > shouldn't be telling it. The best fit is the best fit -- even if it's > a fourth-order Bessel function. Science and scholastics just don't work that way, since we want to answer how & why as well as what. Recall during the 1700s when meteorites were noticed by a few astronomers as being unearthly. They couldn't convince their peers of it for about a century, since it wasn't considered desirable for dirty rocks to fall from the heavens. It wasn't until after some astronomer could postulate a mechanism whereby such chunks of rock could be out there and occasionally fall to earth that meteorites could be accepted as real. Other examples abound. > Now I'll admit that I've been throwing out the past letters in this > conversation; remember, my interest is not in the answers but in the > rigour with which they are computed. But if you want to send me (off-list) > the data and a graph, I will see if I can offer alternate suggestions. > I already offered one, which would generalize to > a > f(x) = ---------- > p/q > (b+x) > > For this form, I would just try values for p/q (e.g. 1/2, 1/3, 2/3). > Then you only have two parameters to find. Sorry, but you haven't set forth an explainable mechanism how that form could come into being, and since it is 3-parameter instead of 2, it can't compete with the 2-parameter exponential. But if you're interested in spending more time on this, it would really be valuable to me if you could mathematically prove that the exponential distribution arises for the distribution of successive identical yes-or-no outcomes when the probability of each outcome is allowed to vary randomly rather than be fixed. In this problem you have duplicate strings involved where the individual progression of terms in each string is A, A*ri, A*ri*rj, A*ri*rj*rk, A*ri*rj*rk*rl, etc., where the r's lie between 0 and 1 but themselves have some mean intermediate value, and (subscripts) i,j,k.. denote the randomly different values of r. After averaging or summing over a huge number of such strings, you examine the ratio Avg(ri*rj*rk*rl)/Avg(ri*rj*rk), and see if you can show that in the limit it becomes just Avg(ri) = Avg (rj).. If so, it produces an exponential distribution. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 6 09:53:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20310; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:53:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:56:58 -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: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate strings Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11050 On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote, in part: > >> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > >> >I did briefly look at FRQ = a/(b+n), fitting it at two points, but then an >> >intermediate point was a factor of 5 too small, and the approach to zero >> >way too slow. Also tried FRQ = a/n^p, but it's too steep a curve at small >> >n. If a 3rd parameter were added here, one might get a fit about as good >> >as with the exponential, but 2 is to be preferred over 3. > >> I assume you were trying this for p an integer? How about trying a >> square or cube root. (I don't know if this is better, but it sounds >> like it might help.) > >Hello Robert, > >No, I fit FRQ = a/n^p to two points on a smooth curve passing through the >data points, and so naturally obtained non-integer p, as in >FRQ=23091/n^4.19 . OK, you were using p as a parameter. Sorry. I would be interested in knowing whether this was a better or worse fit than the other. To me, though, the result above suggests (and note that this is NOT PROOF, merely a suggestion for something you should fit) that you actually have an inverse fourth power result. In other words, you should try fitting a f(x) = ------- (b+x)^4 with a and b being parameters. *** I was hoping to keep the next part brief. It didn't work too well. I'm tempted to say that we should drop this whole subject. It seems I can't convince Jim Deardorff, since he dislikes rigour, and he can't convince me, because I refuse to accept non-rigorous arguments. >> >It's also important to me that the function be derivable through a >> >feasible underlying mechanism. Such exists for the 2-parameter >> >exponential curve: the independent translator or editor, at each step in >> >his work after each duplicate string has by chance been initiated, has a >> >certain conditional probability of selecting as his next word either the >> >same next word as exists in the parallel text, or a different word. This >> >leads to the exponential form, even when the conditional probability jumps >> >around in value from one word choice to another. > >> This sounds like hand-waving. Can you give a rigorous argument for >> that? > >My apologies to others who may be tiring of the repeated explanation! > >It should be clear that each word the independent translator chooses as >his next word following a string of duplicate words will either be the >same or will be different from what exists in the parallel text unknown to >him. Is that where the difficulty lies? Yes, I suppose. You're saying that things "ought" to work this way. I say, so what? If you want to use math, and scientific technique, the word "ought" must not be in your vocabulary. You must proof rigorously, or else you must give statistical evidence. (Usually, in the sciences, you give statistical evidence.) Your argument may be strong, but it is not rigorous. And your statistical evidence is insufficient. I am sorry if I am not saying this gently. But you must either offer rigour, or disclaim scientific accuracy for your results. I'm going to make comments below on the rigour of your arguments. I don't know how you're going to feel about this. But I hope they'll show why I don't approve of your approach. >This point is what brings in the analogy of drawing a red or a >black ball from a bag of mixed balls, or of tossing a coin, say. The toss >will turn out either heads or tails. You are beginning your argument with an analogy. That is very dangerous. Analogies serve to help us understand what we see. They do not explain it. >Whether a mathematician or not, you know that the odds of getting three >heads in a row is .5x.5x.5. And so the odds of getting four heads in a >row is .5x.5x.5x.5, and so on. So this gives a geometric progression, or >exponential decline, for the frequency distribution of length of strings >of heads. No problems so far. >Now if the coin is lopsidedly weighted and the odds are 0.6, say, for >getting "heads," one replaces .5 above with .6. Obviously you still have >a geometric progression for the frequency distribution of successive >heads, the odds then being .6x.6x.6 for three heads in a row, .6x.6x.6x.6 >for four heads (n=4), etc. The exponential form for it is FRQ(n) = C >exp(-.51n), since FRQ(n+1)/FRQ(n) = exp(-.51) = 0.6. OK, I'll freely concede you lost me, though this may just be a difference in terminology. Assume the frequency for an event (for convenience, call it a "head") is .6. Then, as you say, the table of probabilities is event probability ----- ----------- 1 head .6^1 = .6 2 heads .6^2 = .36 3 heads .6^3 = .216 4 heads .6^3 = .1296 etc. This is the *binomial* distribution; it has nothing to do with exponentials. (BTW -- you're having a minor problem with significant digits here. How many are you carrying? It doesn't matter in an analogy, but it will matter in an actual proof.) [ ... ] >With the weighting randomized, I don't know how to mathematically prove >the resulting frequency distribution will still be exponential. Perhaps a >mathematician wouldn't have too much trouble proving this. On the contrary, I don't have any idea how you can prove it. In fact, I was inclined to believe it until I read this argument. I *never* trust an argument by analogy. You are not called upon to prove your argument rigorously. You can validate it statistically with enough data. *If* you analyse the data sufficiently. >But I had to >resort to the computer, where I had 320 runs calculated in which the >weighting was allowed to vary randomly with each toss of the coin (or each >draw of a red or black ball from a mixed bag of balls). Each run >contained several thousand tosses of the coin, to correspond to the amount >of data in the test case I had analyzed (1Esdras-Ezra parallels). The >resulting distribution was indeed exponential, with only a tiny scatter >from the mean, as you may have noted in a posting of mine a day ago. The >computer program kept track of the average weighting that occurred in each >of the 320 sets of runs, which was designed to be 0.577 on the average, >but ranged from .570 to .584. In each individual coin toss, however, this >weighting randomly varied between .254 and 0.900. If the result was indeed exponential (and *where* is your measure of goodness-of-fit?) then your analogy to a binomial distribution goes out the window. [ ... ] >> >Why don't you suggest a two-parameter function that has the proper >> >asymptotic limit for large n -- yet something other than an exponential, >> >and one that has a plausible, explainable mechanism underlying it. Then I >> >would have something reasonable against which to compare the exponential. > >> BZZT! Why does it have to be explainable? The explanation for a function >> is that it works! The data should be telling you how it behaves; you >> shouldn't be telling it. The best fit is the best fit -- even if it's >> a fourth-order Bessel function. > >Science and scholastics just don't work that way, since we want to answer >how & why as well as what. Are you kidding me? Scholastics may work that way (I'm tempted to say that's their problem, not mine). But in sceince, the question is *what* is the behavior. Explanations come afterward, if at all. Often there is no explanation (go ahead, ask someone to explain the "why" of quantum physics. The only answer you'll get is "because that's the way it is"). Let me give you an analogy. The Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction and and the constant velocity of light are observed phenomena. We accept those based on collected data. To explain these, we have Einstein's theories of relativity. Note the word *theories*. Relativity is a theory -- a very solid one; it has passed experimental test. But it is *only a theory.* >Recall during the 1700s when meteorites were >noticed by a few astronomers as being unearthly. They couldn't convince >their peers of it for about a century, since it wasn't considered >desirable for dirty rocks to fall from the heavens. It wasn't until after >some astronomer could postulate a mechanism whereby such chunks of rock >could be out there and occasionally fall to earth that meteorites could be >accepted as real. Other examples abound. Agreed in part. Certainly it was a long time before meteors were accepted. But the "mechanism," as you describe it, was worked out by Newton, centuries before meteors were accepted. The fact that even scientists are prejudiced against certain things doesn't mean that they *should be* prejudiced. Don't turn the faults of the few into an excuse for being non-rigorous! >> Now I'll admit that I've been throwing out the past letters in this >> conversation; remember, my interest is not in the answers but in the >> rigour with which they are computed. But if you want to send me (off-list) >> the data and a graph, I will see if I can offer alternate suggestions. >> I already offered one, which would generalize to >> a >> f(x) = ---------- >> p/q >> (b+x) >> >> For this form, I would just try values for p/q (e.g. 1/2, 1/3, 2/3). >> Then you only have two parameters to find. > >Sorry, but you haven't set forth an explainable mechanism how that form >could come into being, and since it is 3-parameter instead of 2, it can't >compete with the 2-parameter exponential. I don't need to offer an explanation; if it works, it WORKS. If your way works (as demonstrated by a measure of goodness-of-fit) then it works, no explanations needed. But I repeat, for the I don't know how many-eth time, that you CANNOT START WITH THE EXPLANATION. You start with the data. Also, you have no basis whatsoever for rejecting three-parameter fits. (Though I didn't ask you to fit three; I asked you to fit two given certain assumptions.) You may not need a third parameter (if your two-parameter fit is good enough). But first you must demonstrate the goodness of the fit. (Yes, I'm repeating myself. You can't repeat the truth too often.) >But if you're interested in spending more time on this, it would really be >valuable to me if you could mathematically prove that the exponential >distribution arises for the distribution of successive identical yes-or-no >outcomes when the probability of each outcome is allowed to vary randomly >rather than be fixed. Since I don't necessarily believe it, how can I prove it? Sorry. [ ... ] My apologies to the list for dragging this on so long. I believe I've said all I can possibly say on the subject. Unless someone has a purely mathematical query, I will drop this thread. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 6 15:31:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21146; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:31:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:35:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate 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: 7573 On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote, in part: > On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > > >On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote, in part: > > > >> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > >No, I fit FRQ = a/n^p to two points on a smooth curve passing through the > >data points, and so naturally obtained non-integer p, as in > >FRQ=23091/n^4.19 . > OK, you were using p as a parameter. Sorry. I would be interested in > knowing whether this was a better or worse fit than the other. Robert, The relative deviations of my 1Esdras-Ezra (Greek) test data from FRQ=23091/n^4.19 are: n 4 5 6 7 8 9 -37% +32% +89% +81% +58% -57% The relative deviations of the same data from FRQ=510 exp(-.55n) are: n 4 5 6 7 8 9 -22% +10% +28% +11% -4% -72% The exponential is clearly better, though I had previously overstated the degree to which a/n^b fails. The degree of scatter from the exponential is of the magnitude expected from examination of the std's in the synthetic computer runs that simulated the test data. If deviations of this general magnitude had *not* been observed, one would have to be especially suspicious of the data analysis. If I had utilized the n=4 data point, rather than a larger value, in fitting FRQ=a/n^b, the large positive deviations for n=5 to 8 would have been larger still for the a/n^b trial. These two different, but parallel, Greek texts were translated into English by two different translators, the latter of whom apparently did not make use of, or plagiarize, the former's work. (Details in my paper.) So I regard it also as an independent translation against which to test the exponential hypothesis. It contains over twice as much duplicate-string data, since there are fewer degrees of freedom for different word arrangements, choices and spellings in English than in Greek. So the scatter in those test results for the English, which I'll show below, is considerably less than for the Greek (above). Consequently, the non-zero data below extend to larger values of n: n 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Obs FRQ 122 63 47 34 13 14 3 6 2 1 4 2 0 Here, Obs FRQ is the freq of observed duplicate strings of length n words each appearing in my analysis of the English 1Esdras-Ezra data. Below, Exp is the (eyeball) fit given by FRQ=900 exp(-0.5n), and a/n^b is the fit to the data points at n=4 and n=12 (FRQ=21846/n^3.74). (These two data points appear to lie close to any mean curve faired through them all.) n 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exp 122 73.9 44.8 27.2 16.5 10.0 6.1 3.7 2.23 1.35 0.82 0.50 0.30 % Dev 0% -15% +5% +25% -21% +40% -51% +62% -10% -26% +388 +300 -100% a/b^n 122 53.1 26.8 15.1 9.2 5.9 4.0 2.8 2.0 1.49 1.13 0.87 0.69 % Dev 0% +19% +75% +125 +41% +137 -25% +114 0% -33% +254 +130 -100% Again the exponential is much better, until n is large enough that the scatter of the data exceeds the mean, around n=13. Since a/b^n approaches infinity as n --> 0, this causes its curve to be too steep at small n, whereas the exponential is often pretty good at n = 3 and 2, also, since its n=0 value is well behaved. > To me, though, the result above suggests (and note that this is > NOT PROOF, merely a suggestion for something you should fit) that > you actually have an inverse fourth power result. In other words, > you should try fitting > a > f(x) = ------- > (b+x)^4 > > with a and b being parameters. This should indeed do better. However, you can't really say it's a 2-parameter family, since if the power of 3 gave better results than 4, then you'd use 3, etc. So the power parameter was a third parameter. > >My apologies to others who may be tiring of the repeated explanation! > > > >It should be clear that each word the independent translator chooses as > >his next word following a string of duplicate words will either be the > >same or will be different from what exists in the parallel text unknown to > >him. Is that where the difficulty lies? > Yes, I suppose. You're saying that things "ought" to work this way. > I say, so what? If you want to use math, and scientific technique, > the word "ought" must not be in your vocabulary. You must proof > rigorously, or else you must give statistical evidence. (Usually, > in the sciences, you give statistical evidence.) Your argument > may be strong, but it is not rigorous. And your statistical evidence > is insufficient. > >Whether a mathematician or not, you know that the odds of getting three > >heads in a row is .5x.5x.5. And so the odds of getting four heads in a > >row is .5x.5x.5x.5, and so on. So this gives a geometric progression, or > >exponential decline, for the frequency distribution of length of strings > >of heads. > No problems so far. > >Now if the coin is lopsidedly weighted and the odds are 0.6, say, for > >getting "heads," one replaces .5 above with .6. Obviously you still have > >a geometric progression for the frequency distribution of successive > >heads, the odds then being .6x.6x.6 for three heads in a row, .6x.6x.6x.6 > >for four heads (n=4), etc. The exponential form for it is FRQ(n) = C > >exp(-.51n), since FRQ(n+1)/FRQ(n) = exp(-.51) = 0.6. > OK, I'll freely concede you lost me, though this may just be a > difference in terminology. Assume the frequency for an event > (for convenience, call it a "head") is .6. Then, as you say, the > table of probabilities is > > event probability > ----- ----------- > 1 head .6^1 = .6 > 2 heads .6^2 = .36 > 3 heads .6^3 = .216 > 4 heads .6^3 = .1296 > etc. > > This is the *binomial* distribution; it has nothing to do with > exponentials. In still simpler terms it's also a geometric progression, and thus has everything to do with exponentials. Let "r" generalize the "0.6" above. The geometric progression is the 2nd line below: n = 0 1 2 3 4 a ar ar^2 ar^3 ar^4 etc. 1 .6 .36 .216 .1296 If a = 1 and r = 0.6, this last line (above) is what you've listed above. The exponential that gives these values is Exp = a*exp[n(ln r)]. (For those whose college math is rusty, "ln" stands for natural logarithm. We use ^3 to represent the cube power, etc.) For r = 0.6 and a=1, the above exponential becomes exp(-.5108n). If one raises e=2.718282 to the power -.5108n, one gets the 2nd line below: n = 0 1 2 3 4 Exp: 1 .6 .36 .216 .1296 which of course is the same geometric progression. If this somehow slipped by you, then I can understand some of the confusion. But this is why we've been calling the estimated fit to the frequency distribution a geometric progression or exponential, interchangeably. In ending this little exchange, I'd like to remind other readers that I'm still interested in hearing opinions on the extent to which the lengthy strings of duplicate words between parallels of Luke and Matthew (Q verses) could reflect the way the Gospels appeared within a decade or so of their appearance, as opposed to the possibility that the long strings were generated through scribes' harmonistic corruptions and/or the manner in which the majority text was deduced. Whether the duplicate strings obey an exponential or some other frequency distribution was just a digression. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 6 16:05:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21245; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:05:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:09:11 -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: Fitting the Exponential distribution for duplicate strings Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 758 Only one, very brief, mathematical comment which should illustrate why Deardorff and I are not getting anywhere. On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, in part: > Exp = a*exp[n(ln r)]. Did it really never occur to you to *simplify* that expression and observe that it's n Exp = a*r ????? Try it, you'll like it. And there is no use of logarithms or the exponential function. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 6 21:27:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA22369; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:27:40 -0400 Message-ID: <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 04:20:26 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 13780 Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > > Helge, > > Awhile ago you penned the following: > > > > 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. > > For clarification, what exactly is your _method_ for determining the _Original Text_?? > I ask simply because of the many TR/KJV defenders that "use" some textual canons in defending the TR, no one > (to my knoledge) has actually stated what the several "Canons" are, and how they are to be used. Tks. > > Mike A. Dear Mike, I will be glad to answer your question and explain my method of how to determine the original readings. (Please understand that the following comments are not intended as a contribution to the textual debate. They are only to be regarded as my answer to your question. I apologize for the lenght of my "answer"). First, let me warn that my method does not concur with the normal methods and principles of "established" modern textual criticism. And please note that I did not say that I used any of the established TC canons for determining the original readings (although some of them _may_ be used in certain cases). Therefore, I am well aware that I place myself under your as well as others' criticism at the outset. Note also that I did not mention "canons" of any sort. I am talking about a *method*. And that method I will explain below. As you may have expected, I appeal to the later works of Dr. Edward Hills in my evaluation of the NT text, that is his two books "Believing Bible Study" and "The KJV Defended". These works, I believe, represent a sound *method* of how to determine the readings of the autograph text. I know of course that Hills is criticized for *beginning* with the presupposition that the TR is the original text. But the fact is that he didn't. What I mean is that he came to his conclusion after several years of textual work. He finally found himself unable to continue to support the naturalistic method of textual criticism. Hills cannot be blamed for not knowing the facts of textual criticism. He was well competent to pass judgment in textual matters. He was in fact a trained textual critic. I am not an expert myself, so I appeal to *his* "theories" of criticism rather than those of other scholars who hold to a naturalistic view of the text. I suspect that you yourself are following certain main rules in your own textual criticism made up by other scholars. Thus, the difference between you and me consists in following the methods, theories or conclusions of different scholars. You may assert that your method is "better" or "more scientific", etc. but you cannot *prove* yours to be better than mine. So it is a matter of preference and following dissimilar *methods*! The word "naturalistic" leads me to my main point here: I believe, as Hills did, that the original readings cannot be determined by way of naturalistic science, because it leaves out the supernatural aspect and the providence of God in the copying-process. Established NT textual criticism uses fundamentally the same principles in determining the text as those used in the textual criticism of other ancient books. Since the Bible is divine (which no other book is) I believe we cannot give naturalistic principles first priority when we shall determine what the original God-inspired readings are. I do not say, however, that none of the established TC principles can be useful in textual work. But in determining the original readings, I do not think they can be relied on. At the same time, there is room for textual criticism within the TR text. That is, we must determine what readings to follow in those few places where the TR editions differ from each other. Here too, I believe Hills' method is sound. (See "The KJV Defended", pp.221-223). In his "KJV Defended", Hills stated the following at the very beginning of the book: "The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the doctrine of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not so believe. The man who regards these doctrines as merely the mistaken beliefs of the Christian Church is consistent if he gives them only a minor place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so minor as to leave his New Testament textual criticism essentially the same as that of any other ancient book. But the man who holds these doctrines to be true is inconsistent unless he gives them a prominent place in _his_ treatment of the New Testament text, a place so prominent as to make _his_ New Testament textual criticism _different_ from that of other ancient books, for if these doctrines are true, they demand such a place. Thus there are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the _consistently Christian_ method and the _naturalistic_ method. These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book. Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort" (p.3). My reason for quoting this much of Hills, is that I feel his statements here accurately represent my own view on the matter. In fact, I have gotten my view mainly from Hills. (You guessed it!). Generally, I agree with Hills in his overall position. I am not saying that all those who use the naturalistic method of textual criticism are unbelievers or unorthodox; neither did Hills assert such a thing. The *method* is meant, not the *persons* who use the method! The method itself is clearly an inheritance from unbelieving scribes and scholars in the past, though. I believe the above statements by Dr. Hills lay a good foundation for a sound *method* of textual criticism. Hills explains throughout his book *why* the traditional text/TR is the text which best meets the requirements of the Biblical promise of providential preservation. So there's no use for me to go through that here. (I'm sure you have read Hills' works). I will just remind you of Hills' logic (which I believe is sound) by giving one quote from "The KJV Defended": "If we believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print. To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give the impression that God's providential preservation of the New Testament text ceased with the invention of printing" (p.192). After having established the traditional text as the true text by appeal to the doctrine of providential preservation, we must turn to the area of textual criticism of that text. I do not use "canons" here. Who said I *had* to? My TC is taking other things into consideration, namely the Biblical teaching of preservation. To my mind, the logical conclusion with regard to the promise of preservation is that God's preserved word is to be found in a time honored traditional text. The Lord Jesus Christ has promised to always preserve His Word in the New Testament church. And the only unbroken historical textual tradition is to be found in the traditional text. When I say "the traditional text", I mean the Byzantine text *and* the TR. They are *both* "traditional", unlike the Egyptian and the other text types. And I believe that the TR is the complete restoration of the true text, as I have already indicated above. The minor textual differences that still remain between the witnesses (printed editions) of the "true" text, is a matter for textual criticism. And consistent Christian textual criticism does not necessarily *choose* between *readings* in the different TR editions. Rather it finds the true text in the *current* edition of the TR. Hills also appealed to the KJV-text as the God-approved text in his decision as to what edition of the TR to follow (KJVD, p.223). On pages 111-112 in his KJVD Hills lists six principles of a consistent Christian method of NT textual criticism. These are introduced by the following words: "For a believer,....the only alternative is to follow a consistently Christian method of New Testament textual criticism in which all the princoples are derived from the Bible itself and none is borrowed from the textual criticism of other ancient books". The six principles can be summarized thus: 1) The OT text preserved by the OT priesthood, scribes and scholars 2) The NT text preserved by the universal NT priesthood of believers 3) The Traditional Text, found in the majority of MSS, is the True NT text, because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood 4) The first printed text of the Greek NT represents a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek text were corrected by the providence of God....... 5) Through the usage of Bible-believing protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Received text 6) The KJV is an accurate translation of the TR and God placed the stamp of His approval on it through the long continued usage.......and it should therefore be defended today by Bible-believing Christians (The above is just an abbreviated summary) I am, of course, well aware that the method described above is completely unacceptable in most textual criticism circles. But this method is accepted, in slightly varied forms, among several scholars and other modern theologians. To mention two of them, John H. Skilton and Henry Morris. I may also add the syriac scholar Peter Johnston, professor Theodore Letis and George W. Anderson. But I do not expect that Hills' method will be accepted by most modern text critics, since their whole approach to the NT text is based on the naturalistic method, not on the believing principle. Hills' method is usually regarded as either "unscholarly" or "unscientific", even though he was a trained textual critic and a competent scholar himself. His method is not tolerated as valid because it does not conform to the naturalistic principles generally accepted. What then about the majority text principle? I do not count either MSS nor scholars in order to find the true NT text. So the "majority principle" does not impress me all that much. What matters in my judgment is which text is *traditional*?. At the same time I *do* believe that the number of MSS is of importance. For if a textform is "traditional", it is usually found in a majority of MSS. But if a certain reading can be traced down through history, I am ready to regard that reading a "traditional". I do not think the majority principle can be decisive in every case. (And even most Byz txt advocates do not think that the majority principle is sufficient in every case. For instance, if a reading does not have continuity, it is suspected). For the simple reason that I follow a method which leads me to interpret the Biblical doctrine of providential preservation to mean that the traditional text which is now current (and has been since the MS tradition ceased, i.e. when it shifted from handwritten copies to printed copies) is the text that is providential preserved up to this day. You may say: "Why not choose the latest editions of the Byzantine text, i.e. the H/F and R/P text editions, since they represent the traditional text found in the Greek MSS?". But these editions are not "traditional". The Byzantine text ceased to be "traditional" after the invention of printing, just shortly after the publication of Erasmus' printed edition. The recent printed editions of the Byz text do not, therefore, represent an unbroken and historical continued tradition. By way of conclusion, let me add this: I am willing to consider textual theories and preferences other than my own, and to evaluate the cons and pros of the competing theories and views, and even to *test* the _possibility_ of other readings' primacy over those of the TR. Therefore, I do not see textual criticism and textual theories and canons of criticism as useless. But my conviction that the TR is the God-preserved text stands, as long as there is no other convincing Biblical and consistent Christian alternative to replace it. As I see it, naturalistic textual criticism is not a sound tool in evaluating the NT text. It may be scientific, but that does not make it fit for use in determining the original readings. I am well aware that you will sharply disagree with me in what I have written above. I do not try to convince you in any way. I have just tried to answer your question and to explain my position. As you certainly have noted, I do not find it easy to give a brief answer. I hope this has clarified for you my position. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 6 22:13:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA22527; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 22:13:43 -0400 Message-ID: <34120EDD.56FF0272@concentric.net> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:18:05 -0700 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: The text of the LXX in the 1st century CE X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> 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: 939 I've been doing a lot of reading for my disseration's first chapter the last several weeks, and several works deal at length with the form of citations which appear in Luke-Acts, with arguments being made about how closely Luke adhered to the text of the Septuagint. I would have thought that, given that we don't have any LXX MSS that old, and that there were appraently competing version of the LXX (the one relfected in Siniacicus, Aquila, etc.) that it owuld be essentially impossible to state that there was such a thing even as "the text" of the Septuagint in the 1st century CE. Rather, there wer texts and it is imposible at this distance to state, when Luke or any other NT author "quotes the Scriptures of Israel, which, if any Greek transaltion he might have been using. Is this an accurate assessnebt if tge textual data or am I being toio pessimistic? Thanks. Ken Litwak University of Bristol (living in California) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 7 06:51:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA23327; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 06:51:38 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 12:53:51 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: The text of the LXX in the 1st century CE Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 867 Re Ken Litwak's questions about the LXX text in the 1st cent CE (and the related problems of the "Old Greek," the MT, and the Qumran texts, which have from time to time figured on the list in relation to other matters): A very helpful exploration is the dissertation of Krister Stendahl, *The School of Matthew* (1954; reissued 1968). His analysis is properly open-ended, examining each and every Matthean citation from the HB (Hebrew Bible), and then comparing each with the MT, LXX, Qumran, Syriac OT, Targums, etc. Only then does he come to a conclusion. It is, both in its method and in its conclusions, a model study which any scholar would be wise to consider in contemplating how to proceed, and what evidence one examination of a particular text (here, Matthew) produced. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 7 07:14:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA23397; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:14:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:18:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism In-Reply-To: <34128DFA.4C3A@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: 15888 The following is also a long response, but I need to clarify my own position and make sure the Byzantine-priority and 'majority text" proponents are not lumped in with the nonsensical claims of the TR/KJV advocates. Feel free to skip this epistle if none of this is of concern to you. On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > First, let me warn that my method does not concur with the normal methods > and principles of "established" modern textual criticism. Nor does it concur with any pro-Byzantine or "majority text" position, and I want to make it _abundantly_ clear that my own position accepts _none_ of this rhetoric which I consider to be equivocative nonsense regarding the TR as original. I only want to comment on a couple of points in Helge's post which seem to call his entire position into question: > You may assert that your method is "better" or "more > scientific", etc. but you cannot *prove* yours to be better than mine. So > it is a matter of preference and following dissimilar *methods*! I suspect that here "prove" is being used in a semantically deceptive manner. One cannot "prove" the autograph text by _any_ theory, for example, if we are talking in absolutist terms. However, various theories and methods _can_ be assessed in regard to their procedure, weaknesses in method can be discerned and question, and various degrees of reliability can be assigned to each method. The Hills' type of TR defense will utterly fail on every sound principle of analysis (and I actually think Helge will admit this, since he admits assumption is a "faith" assumption from beginning to end), and, unless Hills or those who advocate the "providential preservation" of the original text via the Textus Receptus are themselves endowed and imbued with infallibility to make such sweeping decrees, such claims can be rightly dismissed by everyone else as readily as Christians dismiss the Islamic claims regarding the utter perfection of the Qur'an as divine revelation. > The word "naturalistic" leads me to my main point here: I believe, as > Hills did, that the original readings cannot be determined by way of > naturalistic science, because it leaves out the supernatural aspect and > the providence of God in the copying-process. This is the real crux: God NEVER said that his providence was directly operable in the copying process, nor that he would providentially preserve as true and accurate only the TR text. Other textual scholars may freely admit the providence of God in preserving ALL the textual data we currently possess, whether in MSS, lectionaries, versions, or fathers; but very few if any (including myself) would claim that only *one* MS or one type of text is the sole result of divine preservation. The TR/Hills crowd makes the biggest and most fault-ridden leap of faith right here at this very point, and they don't even see that they are so doing from a purely human perspective which does _not_ reflect good theology in any manner. > Established NT textual criticism uses fundamentally the same principles > in determining the text as those used in the textual criticism of other > ancient books. Since the Bible is divine (which no other book is) I > believe we cannot give naturalistic principles first priority when we > shall determine what the original God-inspired readings are. Since there is absolutely _no_ evidence that the transmission (NOT the revelation) of the canonical books proceeded under any special divine care or control (had it been so, then _all_ copies of the Greek NT MSS would have been preserved in identical form), the whole premise stated above is without foundation. Unless Helge or other TR (and usually KJV) advocates can _demonstrate_ that the transmission of the Greek NT proceeded differently than by "naturalistic" means (i.e. human copyists with no divine superintendence preventing false or erroneous readings from occurring), then his whole claim toward "providential preservation" vanishes into thin air, and becomes (as Burgon would have said), "moonshine". > At the same time, there is room for textual criticism within the TR text. > That is, we must determine what readings to follow in those few places > where the TR editions differ from each other. Now this part is indeed amusing to me: the TR supporters seem to have _no_ problem in "performing textual criticism" _if_ the only decisions to be made are among the _printed_ TR editions. Who gave forth this revelation, and why is not a _single_ TR edition (whether Erasmus, Stephens, Elzevir, or Scrivener) not "the" one true text? But further, _if_ textual criticism can be practiced where there are differences between TR editions, why oh why can textual criticism _not_ be practiced in the earlier stages where there are differences among the _Greek_ MSS, versions, and fathers themselves? The illogic of such a position is blatant on its face, and it has _nothing_ to do with any conflict between "rationalistic" and "faith-based" textual criticism. One might just as well make a faith-based claim that the current Nestle/UBS text is "the" only true and preserved form of the text, since it is the latest in a long line of text which have reflected divine providential superintendence toward restoring the most pure form of the text as originally intended. That faith claim has as much rationale behind it as what is proposed by the TR advocates, and neither claim has any legitimate merit whatsoever. > I am not saying that all those who use the naturalistic method of textual > criticism are unbelievers or unorthodox; neither did Hills assert such a > thing. The *method* is meant, not the *persons* who use the method! The > method itself is clearly an inheritance from unbelieving scribes and > scholars in the past, though. Since my own method differs from that of modern eclectics and I also likely hold to the same basic evangelical doctrinal position as does Helge (I know -- I have seen yours stated elsewhere), it does not follow that a "consistently Christian" approach to textual criticism has to come down on either a TR or KJV-only position, nor does evangelical Christianity force acceptance of any single text-type, as is clearly demonstrated by the various schools of textual criticism which exist. "Consistently Christian", properly applied, should mean dealing with the evidence preserved to us in ALL manuscripts, versions, and fathers, and trying to make sense out of them in light of what is known or reasonably can be discerned in regard to true historical data regarding copying and transmission of the text. The Hills' position and that of the modern TR/KJV defenders does none of the above, and makes textual criticism into a mere charade for their own pre-determined ends. As I stated, I will have nothing to do with such a faulty position. > "If we believe in the providential preservation of the New > Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the > Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the > Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has > circulated in print. To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give > the impression that God's providential preservation of the New Testament > text ceased with the invention of printing" (p.192). This quote from Hills is also interesting: one cannot defend BOTH the TR and the "majority text", since they differ in over 1800 places, many of them quite substantial. Also, Hills wrote that before either the Hodges/Farstad or Robinson/Pierpont text had appeared. By the same logic Hills uses, every TR defender ought now to be using a majority text edition exclusively and shun the TRs, which were merely what had previously been the "only" available form of the "Traditional Text". I do not exactly see any of the TR/KJV advocates moving or attempting to move in that direction, even if Hills hinted that such should occur were there a better "Traditional Text" edition available. Of course, since the "majority text" advocates really do _not_ want or need the TR/KJV crowd as bedfellows, the current situation remains best for all concerned. > My TC is taking other things into consideration, namely the > Biblical teaching of preservation. To my mind, the logical conclusion > with regard to the promise of preservation is that God's preserved word > is to be found in a time honored traditional text. Again totally illogical. _Which_ "time honored traditional text"? _Why_ the TR and not the mass of Greek manuscripts? Why not the Latin Vulgate? Why not the NIV? It is only by a decree of fiat that one selects the TR to the exclusion of all other contenders. This is not "theology"; this is not "providential preservation", but this is textual fixation by infallible decree, such decree made by those who are not qualified to administer such. > The Lord Jesus Christ > has promised to always preserve His Word in the New Testament church. And > the only unbroken historical textual tradition is to be found in the > traditional text. Which, even granting the claim above (which seriously can be disputed when it applies to the historical transmission of the text through MSS, versions, and fathers), would NOT point to the TR in any way, but to the text found in the majority of Greek MSS. The TR advocates once more are totally inconsistent on this point. > When I say "the traditional text", I mean the Byzantine text *and* the > TR. They are *both* "traditional", unlike the Egyptian and the other text > types. Seems to me that the Egyptian text was quite "traditional" in Egypt, and it may have been the primary texttype they knew for quite a while in certain areas of that region. Seems like the Old Latin was quite "traditional" in the Western portion of the Empire to the total or near-total exclusion of the Greek text. The analogy does not hold up. > And I believe that the TR is the complete restoration of the true > text, as I have already indicated above. But with no historical, transmissional, or factual basis to be offered for such an assertion. This is a "faith" claim, plain and simple, and even the theology underlying such a faith claim is highly flawed in every way and misinterprets theology and the biblical data itself. A very weak reed to lean one's hand upon. > And consistent Christian textual > criticism does not necessarily *choose* between *readings* in the > different TR editions. Rather it finds the true text in the *current* > edition of the TR. Which again should imply that the TR advocates should now all be "majority text" supporters, which in fact they are not. Instead, they currently lean on the _artificially-produced_ Scrivener "TR" (reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society) which is a reverse-rendered reconstruction of the text purportedly underlying the KJV, starting first with the KJV text and then picking and choosing among various TR editions existing before 1604 to find the closest match among available readings, even when the KJV translators actually followed the Latin Vulgate and none of their available Greek texts. I suppose _this_ is what is meant by selecting among variants in the TR editions to determine the "final" form of the text -- and if so, the whole procedure is illegitimate from square one. This is no "faith-presumption" at all, nor is it based on any legitimate theological presuppositions, but it is all stemming from the KJV-only position which has no legitimate basis whatsover. Helge says as much when mentioning Hills: > Hills also appealed to the KJV-text as the > God-approved text in his decision as to what edition of the TR to follow > (KJVD, p.223). When God specifically told Hills or anyone else that the KJV text alone was the "God-approved" text and that only the TR underlying the KJV should be followed will of course remain a mystery to even the TR/KJV advocates; however, they all seem to think that by repeating the same claims over and over again that eventually people will recognize the claims to be correct. Nothing could be further from the truth, and every time such a line of argument comes up, such TR/KJV defenders continually make themselves look bad and even ignorant by comparison. > 3) The Traditional Text, found in the majority of MSS, is the True NT > text, because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal > priesthood I must note that NO "majority text" or Byzantine-priority defender makes this type of claim. This is peculiar to the TR/KJV crowd, and I do NOT want to become in any way mislabled or associated with such a line of argument. > 5) Through the usage of Bible-believing protestants God placed the stamp > of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Received > text And since the printed TR text came out of a long line of Greek Orthodox believers, their usage did not put the stamp of approval on the text they used? The Reformation had not even begun when Erasmus' first edition came out, and I don't recall any TR edition ever claiming God's stamp of approval (though maybe more copies would have been sold had any claimed "Textum ergo habes receptum ab Deus"). > 6) The KJV is an accurate translation of the TR and God placed the stamp > of His approval on it through the long continued usage.......and it > should therefore be defended today by Bible-believing Christians And the New KJV is an accurate translation of the TR also. When does God's stamp of approval get placed on it? The NIV is leading in sales currently; does it have God's stamp of approval? These are _ad hominem_ arguments claiming a (false) theological basis. There is really no room for such nonsense within textual criticism. > i.e. the H/F and R/P text editions, since they represent the traditional > text found in the Greek MSS?". But these editions are not "traditional". > The Byzantine text ceased to be "traditional" after the invention of > printing, just shortly after the publication of Erasmus' printed edition. This becomes total nonsense and indicates unawareness of the fact that Greek MSS continued to be copied by hand into the 19th century (so Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste), and few if any of these post-XVIth century MSS were copied from printed TR texts, but continued to be copied from the _same_ "traditional text" which long before had obtained currency in the Greek church. Had the above claim been correct, then the scribes after 1516 should all have copied printed TR texts, and the Greek Orthodox church today should be reprinting only the "true" Reformation-era printed TR copies instead of those which reflect more accurately _their_ "traditional text." > I am well aware that you will sharply disagree with me in what I have > written above. I do not try to convince you in any way. I have just tried > to answer your question and to explain my position. > I hope this has clarified for you my position. The sharp disagreement from all sides is only to be expected. I do not expect ever to convince TR/KJV defenders of the errors of their ways, not would I bother to try. I long ago learned that this is a waste of time and bears no fruit. But for the sake of the others on the tc-list, I am pleased that they had opportunity to see the TR/KJV position presented, since they then will know how its thinking functions, even if they regard it as totally nonsensical and illogical as do I. I intend for this to be the end of the discussion on my part, since there is little else which needs to be said. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 7 10:08:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23599; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:08:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199709071408.KAA23594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: The text of the LXX in the 1st century CE Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:16:13 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 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: 1282 From: William L. Petersen Subject: Re: The text of the LXX in the 1st century CE Re Ken Litwak's questions about the LXX text in the 1st cent CE (and the related problems of the "Old Greek," the MT, and the Qumran texts, which have from time to time figured on the list in relation to other matters): A very helpful exploration is the dissertation of Krister Stendahl, *The School of Matthew* (1954; reissued 1968). His analysis is properly open-ended, examining each and every Matthean citation from the HB (Hebrew Bible), and then comparing each with the MT, LXX, Qumran, Syriac OT, Targums, etc. Only then does he come to a conclusion. It is, both in its method and in its conclusions, a model study which any scholar would be wise to consider in contemplating how to proceed, and what evidence one examination of a particular text (here, Matthew) produced. STEVE CR Stendahl's book is not in my library. I found instead 'The Use of the OT in St. Matthew's Gospel' by Robert H. Gundry (1975). It's the only book I've found on Matthew's use of the OT. Do you know of it? and if so, how does it compare with Standahl's work? Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia "Surfing's the source, it'll change your life, swear to God", Point Break (1991) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 7 12:10:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA23879; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 12:10:25 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:12:40 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: LXX in the 1st century CE & Gundry & Stendahl Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 760 Gundry undoubtedly references Stendahl, as his is a classic work. I can't recall having seen Gundry, but it should be OK. Try to get Stendahl via interlibrary loan, as it is a an exemplary piece of scholarship (it got him a post at Harvard as a young man; he's now retired). --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies > >STEVE CR >Stendahl's book is not in my library. I found instead 'The Use of the OT in >St. Matthew's Gospel' by Robert H. Gundry (1975). It's the only book I've >found on Matthew's use of the OT. Do you know of it? and if so, how does it >compare with Standahl's work? > >Steve Carson-Rowland >Brisbane, Australia >"Surfing's the source, it'll change your life, swear to God", Point Break >(1991) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 7 18:52:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA24865; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:52:13 -0400 Message-ID: <3413BB0F.5C7E@sn.no> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 01:45:03 -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: Canons of Criticism 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: 610 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > The following is also a long response, but I need to clarify my own > position and make sure the Byzantine-priority and 'majority text" > proponents are not lumped in with the nonsensical claims of the TR/KJV > advocates. Feel free to skip this epistle if none of this is of > concern to you. This is not a response to Robinson's post on this subject, just a short comment on his first paragraph quoted above: I doubt that there's *anybody* on this list who would confuse the majority/Byzantine text position with that of the TR/KJV advocates. :-) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 7 19:49:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA25202; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:49:07 -0400 Message-ID: <341368A8.3426@total.net> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 19:53:28 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> 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: 1353 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > > > > Helge, > > > > Awhile ago you penned the following: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > For clarification, what exactly is your _method_ for determining the _Original Text_?? > > I ask simply because of the many TR/KJV defenders that "use" some textual canons in defending the TR, no one > > (to my knoledge) has actually stated what the several "Canons" are, and how they are to be used. Tks. > > > > Mike A. > > Dear Mike, > > I will be glad to answer your question and explain my method of how to > determine the original readings. (Please understand that the following > comments are not intended as a contribution to the textual debate. They > are only to be regarded as my answer to your question. I apologize for > the lenght of my "answer"). Thank you for your response Helge. I cannot respond right now, since your post is long AND I now must read Robinson's also AND I'm off to work in one hour.;-) I will answer very soon. Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 8 04:07:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA26465; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:07:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:11:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism In-Reply-To: <3413BB0F.5C7E@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: 1223 On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > > The following is also a long response, but I need to clarify my own > > position and make sure the Byzantine-priority and 'majority text" > > proponents are not lumped in with the nonsensical claims of the TR/KJV > > advocates. Feel free to skip this epistle if none of this is of > > concern to you. > > This is not a response to Robinson's post on this subject, just a short > comment on his first paragraph quoted above: > > I doubt that there's *anybody* on this list who would confuse the > majority/Byzantine text position with that of the TR/KJV advocates. > > :-) Thank you, Helge, but unfortunately there is an unwarrnted linkage frequently made between the TR/KJV position and those who advocate the Byzantine Textform and/or "majority text" position, and the distinction between the two viewpoints needs to be preserved. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 8 17:24:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02625; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:24:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:28:13 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: number of NT MSS. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 769 I am trying to determine the number of extant NT mss. Aland TEXT sometimes (as I do) uses 5400 as a round number. I understand why his p. 83 totals only 4102; there are some mss. that are Gospels/Paul, etc. Aland TEXT, p. 81 indicates 5197 Aland TEXT, p. 82 indicates 5269, but he may be omitting some combinations which are really only one mss. or some others I am unaware of. I do not have it readily available, but I have read that in 1994, Aland _Kurzgefasste Liste der grieschen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments_, gives a total of 5656. Is this correct and is it accurate? Thanks for any help anyone can offer. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 8 18:34:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03044; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:34:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:38:18 -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: number of NT MSS. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1880 On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >I am trying to determine the number of extant NT mss. >Aland TEXT sometimes (as I do) uses 5400 as a round number. I understand >why his p. 83 totals only 4102; there are some mss. that are Gospels/Paul, >etc. >Aland TEXT, p. 81 indicates 5197 >Aland TEXT, p. 82 indicates 5269, but he may be omitting some combinations >which are really only one mss. or some others I am unaware of. >I do not have it readily available, but I have read that in 1994, Aland >_Kurzgefasste Liste der grieschen Handschriften des Neuen >Testaments_, gives a total of 5656. Is this correct and is it accurate? >Thanks for any help anyone can offer. I'm not the one to answer this, but I must ask for a point of clarification. Are you asking for the *actual* number of manuscripts, or the *nominal* number? The two aren't the same. For example, the uncials 070, 0110, 0124, 0178, 0179, 0180, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0202 are all (regarded as) one manuscript, but they have separate numbers. This works both ways: For a while 0121 was applied to two different manuscripts (one of them now merged with 0243). And a series of ostraca are merged under one number. And does one count the harmony 0212 as a manuscript? Before one can say how many manuscripts there are, one must determine the meaning of the phrase "how many manuscripts." :-) And, of course, the number is constantly changing. If it were me, though, I'd go with the number in the _Kurzgefasste Liste_. It is, if nothing else, the most current. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 9 04:51:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA04609; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 04:51:58 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:54:08 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: number of NT MSS. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2370 Re Ron Minton's query about the precise number of NT MSS: I doubt if anyone knows the exact number, for it is constantly changing. For example, among the Oxyrhynchus papyri, about 10 small fragments have just been identified as perserving parts of the gospels (all are *small* and will be released in October, as I recall [they were viewed and discussed in the textual criticism seminar of the SNTS, meeting in Birmingham in August]). While it may be that one or two of these papryi belong to known (and, therefore, numbered) papyri, some appear to be "new"--or are at least tought to "stand on their own" (as opposed to being parts of another papyrus). Further, research often is known only to those working on the find (e.g., the editor of these Oxyrhynchus fragments knew of them, as did selected experts he consulted in the UK), until it is announced. Therefore, even if one could stipulate the number *publicly* known at noon today, that number would be inaccurate, for somewhere in the world, someone is probably working on preparing an edition of fragments or manuscripts which will change this number. Additionally, the number changes as MSS are reconsidered: an example given me by Tjitze Baarda is MS 372, which Hatch dates to the XV or XVI cent. It may well be, however, that MS 372 is actually a *manuscript* copy of a *printed edition*--that is, a *BOOK*--of the gospels, perhaps one of the early editions of Erasmus. Variant readings suggest this, as does Gregory's remark that it "sieht wie ein gedrucktes Buch aus." The question then arises: Is this a "manuscript" of the NT? Or is it simply, from a text-critical perspective, worthless, with no textual tradition behind it at all, but simply a copy by a scribe from a *printed* edition? Depending on how one decides this matter, the number of NT MSS will be one MS greater or lesser. It is because of this sort of constant discovery--and sometimes reappraisal (these two papryi, now numbered separately, are actully from the same MS; this is not a MS from antiquity, but a copy from a printed edition)--that fixing the *exact* number of witnesses is impossible. Having said this, I cannot imagine what possible value there could be to knowing (or wanting to know) the *exact* number of extant NT MSS... --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 9 09:09:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05307; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:09:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 08:13:22 -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: number of NT MSS. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1149 On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) wrote: >Re Ron Minton's query about the precise number of NT MSS: > >I doubt if anyone knows the exact number, for it is constantly changing. [ etc. ] While I agree with everything Petersen says (imagine that!), it strikes me that this is the sort of information that ought without any question to be on-line. 25 years between editions of the _Liste_ is too much, and even the supplements (if you can find them) are too widely spaced. If this information were on-line, the catalog could be updated every time a new number is assigned. Of course this would mean that the list would be modified more often (as, e.g., fragments are discovered to belong to the same manuscript), but that's a small price to pay. Is there any way we can start a campaign for this? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 9 09:50:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05699; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:50:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:54:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: number of NT MSS. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1240 On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > Re Ron Minton's query about the precise number of NT MSS: > > I doubt if anyone knows the exact number, for it is constantly changing. > Further, research often is known only to those working on the find. > Somewhere in the world, someone is probably > working on preparing an edition of fragments or manuscripts which will > change this number. I might add to this that even with non-fragmentary MSS there still are copies known to exist which have not yet been catalogued with a Gregory-Aland number. When I visited the Scriptorium in Grand Haven, Michigan, last spring to view the Van Kampen collection, I was shown two or three 12th-14th century copies of the four gospels which they said had not yet been catalogued at Muenster, and, indeed, they suggested that Muenster might not even be aware of their existence (perhaps someone from Muenster can correct me on that point). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 9 09:57:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05748; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:57:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:01:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709091401.JAA15187@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: number of NT MSS. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 938 Re Ron Minton's query about the number of MSS: Petersen and Waltz have nicely stated the difficulties in determining the number of extant MSS of the Greek NT. But Ron may still wish to know the *nominal* number of MSS listed in the latest ed. of the Kurzgefasste Liste: 5664 (99 papyri; 306 majuscules; 2856 minuscules; 2403 lectionaries). In terms of actual MSS represented by this number, it needs to be reduced by at least two in the papyri (p33+58; p64 + 67), and perhaps four (p11+14?; p4 = 64/67?). In the majuscules, at least 39 numbers (1 of every 8!) are bracketed, indicating that they are part of another MS. In view of these corrections, I would hazard a guess that the nominal number above overstates the actual number by perhaps 10%? But that is only a guess; it is worth noting that the Kurzgefasste Liste, fully aware of the nominal character of 5664, declines to offer an estimate of the actual number. Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 9 10:18:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05898; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:18:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:22:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: number of NT MSS. In-Reply-To: <199709091401.JAA15187@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: 899 On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Michael Holmes wrote: > *nominal* number of MSS listed in the latest ed. of the Kurzgefasste Liste: > 5664 (99 papyri; 306 majuscules; 2856 minuscules; 2403 lectionaries). In > terms of actual MSS represented by this number, it needs to be reduced by at > least two in the papyri (p33+58; p64 + 67), and perhaps four (p11+14?; p4 = > 64/67?). In the majuscules, at least 39 numbers (1 of every 8!) are > bracketed, indicating that they are part of another MS. My own listing of the MSS in chronological order (perparation for my upcoming sabbatical research) also contains a list of MSS which have been combined with other MSS, manuscript numbers which are not use, and also MSS cited which are apparently now lost. Should anyone want a copy of this list, I will be happy to either post it on the tc-list or forward it to Jimmy Adair to be put up as a download file. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 9 11:35:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07378; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:35:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:40:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199709091401.JAA15187@homer.bethel.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: number of NT MSS. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 939 On Maurice Robinson wrote: >My own listing of the MSS in chronological order (perparation for my >upcoming sabbatical research) also contains a list of MSS which have been >combined with other MSS, manuscript numbers which are not use, and also >MSS cited which are apparently now lost. > >Should anyone want a copy of this list, I will be happy to either post it >on the tc-list or forward it to Jimmy Adair to be put up as a download >file. I'll defer to Jimmy Adair on this one, since his site is more official than mine. But if TC doesn't want it, I will post it on my web site. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 9 18:11:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12104; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 18:11:27 -0400 Message-ID: <3416548B.7FCF@sn.no> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:04:27 -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: number of NT MSS. 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: 547 Maurice Robinson wrote (in part): > My own listing of the MSS in chronological order (perparation for my > upcoming sabbatical research) also contains a list of MSS which have been > combined with other MSS, manuscript numbers which are not use, and also > MSS cited which are apparently now lost. > > Should anyone want a copy of this list, I will be happy to either post it > on the tc-list or forward it to Jimmy Adair to be put up as a download > file. I definitely would like to have a copy of that list. Thanks -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 9 21:32:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA12734; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 21:32:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:36:05 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Mr. Helge Evensen" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism In-Reply-To: <34128DFA.4C3A@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: 809 On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > ... > In his "KJV Defended", Hills stated the following at the very beginning > of the book: > "The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the > doctrine of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the > Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not > so believe.... Mr. Helge. I missed some of the discussion, but I do have a question. In your view of textual preservation at Acts 19:20 is "God" (KJV) or "Lord" (Most mss. and most TRs) correct, and how would you decide between the TR and the KJV when they differ (O.T. or N.T.)? Many thanks. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 10 12:36:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA15005; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:36:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:36:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: F. E. Deist obituary 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: 424 My thanks to Johann Cook for providing us with an obituary for F. E. Deist, a respected OT text critic, who passed away in July. The obituary is accessible from the table of contents page for TC volume 2, or it may be accessed directly at http://purl.org/TC/vol02/Deist1997obit.html. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 10 15:47:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15849; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:47:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:47:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: review of Wevers, Notes ... Leviticus 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: 338 David Washburn has written the latest review to appear in TC. His review of John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, is accessible from the table of contents page for TC volume 2. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 10 15:56:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15884; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:56:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:56:46 -0400 From: de.anderson@ukonline.co.uk Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970910205751.4997b1e8@mail.ukonline.co.uk> X-Sender: de.anderson@mail.ukonline.co.uk (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: number of NT MSS. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 253 Count me in, too. Thanks! Deb Anderson At 10:22 9/09/97 -0400, Maurice Robinson wrote: > >Should anyone want a copy of this list, I will be happy to either post it >on the tc-list or forward it to Jimmy Adair to be put up as a download >file. > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 10 16:52:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA16304; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:52:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:52:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: number of NT MSS. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 515 Maurice Robinson has provided us with his summary of some of the data in Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste, and I've added it to the TC Links page, accessible from the TC home page. The direct address is http://purl.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html. This document lists the number of papyri, uncials, and minuscules assigned to each century, as well as a summary for each century. 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 Sep 11 13:09:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19448; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:09:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:13:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: The German Bible 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: 870 In working my way into Metzger's 1968 book, I am wondering if more is known now about which texts the classical German bible depends upon. Metzger mentions that Luther's translation was of Erasmus's 2nd edition, but his footnotes indicate uncertainty on whether it relied more upon Erasmus's Greek or his Latin text, or even upon Luther's memorization of the Vulgate. But since Erasmus relied upon (unspecified?) Greek texts as well as the Vulgate, this may indicate a stronger dependence still for the German bible upon the Vulgate. Perhaps Ulrich could give an opinion here. I'm interested mainly in the German Bible's Gospel of Matthew. I've noticed from N-A that it seems to share a few more commonalities with Vaticanus on major variants in Matthew than with other mss, and wonder, if this should be significant, how it might have come about. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 11 17:14:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA20661; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:14:05 -0400 Message-ID: <34188A82.79F1@total.net> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:19:14 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> 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: 1484 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > I will be glad to answer your question and explain my method of how to > determine the original readings. Helge, Sorry for the late reply. In light of the scorching critique of your views by Maurice Robinson, there's not much left for me to say... ;-) ;-) However, some minor questions. In your original post, you said (in defense of the TR at Rev. 1:4): > 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. In light of your more recent post, your 'method' of determining the original reading, then, is by _faith_. So, in reality, the MSS evidence takes a back seat to your faith in the providence of God--and in the TR/KJV. If this is the case (and it is), we can now say: 1) the providence of God brought the TR into being, and the TR corrects the errors in the Traditional text 2) the KJV is the only correct translation (in current use) of the TR--better than the NKJV, KJV II etc. 3) therefore, regardless of the MSS evidence supporting the TR--whether it now follows 'only' the Byz, or 'only' the Egyptian, or 'only' the Western, or has support among a handful of MSS--the TR should ALWAYS be defended no matter what. Correct? Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 09:04:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22874; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:04:54 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 09:11:35 -0500 From: "ROLAN, BRET R" Organization: Reliance To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: I Corinthians 11:10 X-mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.00 MHS to SMTP Gateway Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1190 I have come across a reading in Irenaeus that is interesting, and I wonder if there is any NT manuscript support extant. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 8:2 has: - "A woman ought to have a VEIL upon her head, because of the angels." (KALUMMA) Where the printed Greek NT versions I have access to would support the more familiar: I Corinthians 11:10 - "For this cause ought the woman to have POWER on her head because of the angels." (EXOUSIAN) I understand that Irenaes was quoting verses that the gnostic Valentinians used in support of their particular doctrines, but he does not challenge this particular reading. I have a few questions: 1) Are there any non-trivial variations in any extant manuscript? 2) If so, what are they, and what elucidation do you have on them? 3) Is it likely that Irenaeus' reading is a gloss, and the principle of "the hardest reading is preferred" applies? (as the phrase "power on her on the head" seems to generate some confusion.) 4) I am not conversant in Greek, so could anyone who is tell me if this verse could be understood as "a woman ought to have authority over her, because of the angels."? Thank You, Bret R. Rolan From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 09:50:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23029; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:50:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:54:07 -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: I Corinthians 11:10 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2614 On Fri, 12 Sep 97, "ROLAN, BRET R" wrote: >I have come across a reading in Irenaeus that is interesting, and I >wonder if there is any NT manuscript support extant. > >Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 8:2 has: > - "A woman ought to have a VEIL upon her head, because of the angels." >(KALUMMA) > >Where the printed Greek NT versions I have access to would support the >more familiar: >I Corinthians 11:10 > - "For this cause ought the woman to have POWER on her head because of >the angels." (EXOUSIAN) > >I understand that Irenaes was quoting verses that the gnostic >Valentinians used in support of their particular doctrines, but he does >not challenge this particular reading. Question (since I don't have an edition of Irenaeus to consult): Is this from the *Greek* Irenaeus? If it's from the Latin or the Armenian, it doesn't mean much; many of the versions gloss this reading. >I have a few questions: > >1) Are there any non-trivial variations in any extant manuscript? Based on the information available to me, there are no variations in the Greek manuscripts. The gloss you cite is, however, common in the versions. Even today, most English versions render the word "veil." >2) If so, what are they, and what elucidation do you have on them? > >3) Is it likely that Irenaeus' reading is a gloss, and the principle of >"the hardest reading is preferred" applies? (as the phrase "power on her >on the head" seems to generate some confusion.) Clearly a gloss. No one would ever change the clear reading "veil" to the unclear "authority." And in any case, all the manuscripts read "authority." >4) I am not conversant in Greek, so could anyone who is tell me if this >verse could be understood as "a woman ought to have authority over her, >because of the angels."? There are those who would read this as "a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels." ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ Others would read it as ...have [a symbol of] authority upon her head. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ I would say that the phrase just isn't very clear. I will freely admit that I would like to read it "a woman ought to have authority over her own head," but I doubt that's how Paul meant it.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 12 10:25:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23179; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:25:53 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 10:28:43 -0500 From: "ROLAN, BRET R" Organization: Reliance To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1 Cor 11:10 - Irenaeus X-mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.00 MHS to SMTP Gateway Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 509 Mr. Waltz: Thank you for your reply, and your request for clarification. The quote from Irenaeus was taken from Vol. 1 of "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Ed. (Trans?) Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. The introductory notes (Cleveland Coxe?) indicate that the verse in question (in book 1) was extant in Greek, and the translator provides the Greek work used (KALUMMA) in a footnote. You also state that "many of the versions gloss this reading". Which ones, and are they consistant? Bret R. Rolan From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 11:04:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23341; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:04:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:08:24 -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: 1 Cor 11:10 - Irenaeus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1399 On Fri, 12 Sep 97, "ROLAN, BRET R" wrote: >Mr. Waltz: > >Thank you for your reply, and your request for clarification. > >The quote from Irenaeus was taken from Vol. 1 of "The Ante-Nicene >Fathers", Ed. (Trans?) Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. The >introductory notes (Cleveland Coxe?) indicate that the verse in question >(in book 1) was extant in Greek, and the translator provides the Greek >work used (KALUMMA) in a footnote. Just a note: That series is not overly reliable. The translations are made from old, non-critical editions. In this case you can probably trust it, but don't rely on it too much. >You also state that "many of the versions gloss this reading". Which >ones, and are they consistant? The ones I can find in my library (not a comprehensive list) are: * Certain Vulgate manuscripts: colb harl** wil? al * mss of the Bohairic Coptic * The Armenian Also several Fathers: * Irenaeus-lat (Greek?) * Tertullian-pt * Jerome * Augustine-pt * Bede * Also several brands of heretics according to Irenaeus My guess -- only a guess! -- is that this was an Old Latin reading that somehow propagated into various other texts. Note that that somewhat dubious citation from Irenaeus is the only Greek support. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 11:08:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23385; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:08:00 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:10:19 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: I Corinthians 11:10 (re Rolan & Waltz) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6122 On Bret Rolan's question (and, indirectly, Robert Waltz's reply): While there appears no *extant* GREEK evidence for the reading, according to Merk's editon of the NT (bilingual), it is found in: (1) some MSS of the Vulgate ("velamen" in place of "potestatem" ) (2) some MSS of the Bohairic (a Coptic version) (3) Irenaeus (the reference which piqued your curiosity) (4) Jerome (5) Augustine The Greek word would be "kalumma." Vogels' edition adds Origen to this list, but in brackets, indicating that the reading may be from Rufinus' translation of Origen (in Latin), or there is some other problem which urges caution. Souter resolves that problem by telling us in his edition that Origen *in the Latin translation of Rufinus* reads "uelamen et potestatem"--a conflation of the present standard Greek reading and the reading you found in Irenaeus. Thus, contrary to Waltz's assertion, the reading does not seem to be a "gloss." Rather, as far back as the second century, it appears to have been known (Irenaeus); in the third century it was known to Origen--who also knew the reading we now have (if we rely on Rufinus to be translating accurately, which a study of F. Stanley Jones suggests he generally does [there will always be places where we think something else should be read, but on the whole...]). In the fourth century it was known to Jerome and Augustine. The reading seems to be western (geographically speaking), prominent in the West, esp. in the Latin tradition. This may be deceiving, however, for the *corpus paulinum* is poorly preserved in the east before the Peshitta (fifth cent. and later). Given the array of MSS and fathers with this reading, there is no question but that it stood in a Greek MS at some date (the Bohairic, for example, is certainly based on the Greek, not the Latin... ditto for Origen, and probably also for Irenaeus...). That date was probably rather early, given the early texts/fathers with it. How it came to be stand in the English verions is interesting to speculate: I don't have Erasmus at hand, but the Vulgate MSS with it are both in London (Harley, VIII cent, and Williams, anni 1245). They may have influenced the English translations or the Vulgate traditions in England. As Waltz noted, "the phrase just isn't very clear." But to state as he does that it is >Clearly a gloss. No one would ever change the clear reading "veil" to >the unclear "authority." And in any case, all the manuscripts read >"authority." seems, to me, precipitous, given the early testimony for the reading "veil." Waltz's statement that "all the manuscripts read 'authority'" is correct--but only for the Greek MSS surviving *today*. It does not apply to the Fathers, or the versions, most notably the Latin and Bohairic. And as I remarked before, we can be quite certain, given this constellation of witnesses, it once stood--probably in the second or third century--in a Greek MS of I Cor. So the argument that "all the [Greek] manuscripts read 'authority'" is moot: one should say "all the Greek MSS *extant today* read 'authority'." At a practical level, the idea of wearing a veil is rather quaint, a bit like the idea of giving to anyone who asks, or forgiving all debts in the 7th year... (In other words, which reading is original is of no practical interest to me, only a puzzling textual problem...) --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. >On Fri, 12 Sep 97, "ROLAN, BRET R" >wrote: > >>I have come across a reading in Irenaeus that is interesting, and I >>wonder if there is any NT manuscript support extant. >> >>Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 8:2 has: >> - "A woman ought to have a VEIL upon her head, because of the angels." >>(KALUMMA) >> >>Where the printed Greek NT versions I have access to would support the >>more familiar: >>I Corinthians 11:10 >> - "For this cause ought the woman to have POWER on her head because of >>the angels." (EXOUSIAN) >> >>I understand that Irenaes was quoting verses that the gnostic >>Valentinians used in support of their particular doctrines, but he does >>not challenge this particular reading. > >Question (since I don't have an edition of Irenaeus to consult): Is this >from the *Greek* Irenaeus? If it's from the Latin or the Armenian, it >doesn't mean much; many of the versions gloss this reading. > >>I have a few questions: >> >>1) Are there any non-trivial variations in any extant manuscript? > >Based on the information available to me, there are no variations >in the Greek manuscripts. The gloss you cite is, however, common >in the versions. Even today, most English versions render the >word "veil." > >>2) If so, what are they, and what elucidation do you have on them? >> >>3) Is it likely that Irenaeus' reading is a gloss, and the principle of >>"the hardest reading is preferred" applies? (as the phrase "power on her >>on the head" seems to generate some confusion.) > >Clearly a gloss. No one would ever change the clear reading "veil" to >the unclear "authority." And in any case, all the manuscripts read >"authority." > >>4) I am not conversant in Greek, so could anyone who is tell me if this >>verse could be understood as "a woman ought to have authority over her, >>because of the angels."? > >There are those who would read this as "a woman ought to have authority >over her head, because of the angels." >^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ > >Others would read it as ...have [a symbol of] authority upon her head. > ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ > >I would say that the phrase just isn't very clear. I will freely admit >that I would like to read it "a woman ought to have authority over >her own head," but I doubt that's how Paul meant it.... > >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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 Sep 12 12:02:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA23754; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:02:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3419F2A0.2B07@sn.no> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:55:44 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4123 Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > > Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > > Dear Mike, > > > > I will be glad to answer your question and explain my method of how to > > determine the original readings. > > Helge, > > Sorry for the late reply. > > In light of the scorching critique of your views by Maurice Robinson, there's not much left for me to say... > ;-) ;-) > > However, some minor questions. In your original post, you said (in defense of the TR at Rev. 1:4): > > > 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. > > In light of your more recent post, your 'method' of determining the original reading, then, is by _faith_. > So, in reality, the MSS evidence takes a back seat to your faith in the providence of God--and in the TR/KJV. > If this is the case (and it is), we can now say: > > 1) the providence of God brought the TR into being, and the TR corrects the errors in the Traditional text > > 2) the KJV is the only correct translation (in current use) of the TR--better than the NKJV, KJV II etc. > > 3) therefore, regardless of the MSS evidence supporting the TR--whether it now follows 'only' the Byz, or > 'only' the Egyptian, or 'only' the Western, or has support among a handful of MSS--the TR should ALWAYS be > defended no matter what. > > Correct? A remarkably correct representation of my views! :-O For the sake of clarity, I would add this: 1) It is not "by faith" alone. That might have opened the possibility of several textual choices of my own which corresponds better with my personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings. I do not let *my* faith alone determine which readings are original. The TR is a historical sanctioned text that has been defended by orthodox christians for a very long time. It is a *traditional* text. Had it only been for *my* faith, I probably would have preferred other readings at times. Especially if I consider the fact that my faith or convictions may vary from decade to decade. Actually, I am trusting in a historical sanctioned and received text, and that this text is the fulfilment of the divine promise of preservation. Yes, seen in this context, it *is* "by faith"! This is nothing new under the sun, though! 2) The MS evidence does not take a back seat. Without MS evidence, there would not have been any ground for believing in *any* preserved text! The question is: *what* MS evidence do I depend on? I depend on MS evidence, but what *I* find as convincing evidence is not identical to what *you* consider as convincing evidence. So it is not a matter of "no MS evidence" vs. "MS evidence". Rather, it is a question *which* MS evidence? To my mind, the TR editions (*and* the Scrivener reconstruction of the text underlying the KJV) is as good MS evidence as any other, ancient or late. (Yes, I know this is heresy!) :) 3) I would not say that the KJV is the "only correct" translation of the TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR. And, as Hills pointed out, it is a variety of the TR, in that its textbase is not identical to any Greek TR edition. My reason for accepting the KJV textbase (the Scrivener edition) can be explained thus: I prefer to follow the decisions of the numerous scholars who worked on the KJV committee rather than the decisions of any one of the TR editors. (However, this is slightly modified by the fact that the Scrivener edition goes as far as the *Greek* evidence that was available to the KJV translators). 4) I believe the TR is to be defended in the face of all other MS evidence! (Sorry!) :-) And, as I have stated earlier, the area of TC is within the TR editions. And I agree with Hills that the Scrivener edition (now the TBS edition) is the "best" available TR edition, by the providence of God! (Again, Sorry!) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 13:15:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24138; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:15:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:19:53 -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: I Corinthians 11:10 (re Rolan & Waltz) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3239 On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) wrote, in part: >Thus, contrary to Waltz's assertion, the reading does not seem to be a >"gloss." Note that a gloss *can be* in the same language as the original. A dictionary, for instance, is a whole book of formalized glosses. Thus I would ask Petersen: If you do not consider this a gloss, does that mean you actually consider it *original*? (Of course the third possibility is that it is an accidental error, but that seems unlikely in this case.) [ ... ] >Given the array of MSS and fathers with this reading, there is no question >but that it stood in a Greek MS at some date (the Bohairic, for example, is >certainly based on the Greek, not the Latin... ditto for Origen, and >probably also for Irenaeus...). That date was probably rather early, given >the early texts/fathers with it. There is some basis for this argument, but I'm not sure it is complete. Let's list the evidence again, noting the degree of Latin (especially Old Latin) influence: Definite Latin influence: vg-mss Augustine Bede Hippolytus Jerome Origen-lat (UBS4 says 2 of 3 of the Latin citations of UBS read "authority") Tertullian Possible Latin influence: eth-ro (has many vulgate readings) No obvious Latin influence: arm bo-mss I note with interest that UBS4 does not list Irenaeus-Gk for either reading here; only the Latin. If accurate (and I concede I cannot check it), then the reading may be from the Greek. Thus we need only explain the reading of the armenian and the bohairic. But note that only *part* of the bohairic reads "veil." All other Egyptian texts (that we know of, if one wishes to be pedantic) read "authority." Since Irenaeus says that this is Ptolemy's reading, the Bohairic variant may come from that. And I think the Armenian rendering could be explanatory, given the context and the difficulty of the other reading. On consideration, Petersen is probably right that it did not originate in the Latin. But I suspect that, among the orthodox, almost all (except the two versions cited) ultimately derived it from the Latin. [ ... ] >seems, to me, precipitous, given the early testimony for the reading >"veil." Waltz's statement that "all the manuscripts read 'authority'" is >correct--but only for the Greek MSS surviving *today*. Which is, of course, what I meant. I can't say much about manuscripts that no longer exist. :-) [ ... ] >At a practical level, the idea of wearing a veil is rather quaint, a bit >like the idea of giving to anyone who asks, or forgiving all debts in the >7th year... (In other words, which reading is original is of no practical >interest to me, only a puzzling textual problem...) I don't think we can treat it as moot. It is moot in most denominations today -- but given the American propensity to shoot up strange cults every few years, I think this is the sort of thing we need to settle. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 12 13:15:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24153; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:15:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:19:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3419F2A0.2B07@sn.no> References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.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: Canons of Criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1302 On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote in part: >4) I believe the TR is to be defended in the face of all other MS >evidence! (Sorry!) :-) And, as I have stated earlier, the area of TC is >within the TR editions. And I agree with Hills that the Scrivener edition >(now the TBS edition) is the "best" available TR edition, by the >providence of God! (Again, Sorry!) Let me, then, ask a question. First, three presuppositions. 1. You state that the TR is the best Greek Testament, and that it was, more or less, providently preserved. 2. Presumably it was providently preserved for the sake of the church and/or the human race. (At least, I can think of no other explanation in this scenario. Unless we're supposed to be bringing the Bible to the dolphins....) 3. The TR does not agree with *any* known manuscripts except a handful copied from it after it was published. Thus, prior to the publication of the TR, it was impossible for a Christian to use what you define as the "best" edition. So my question is, What is the theological position of all the people prior to 1516 who not only did not use the TR, but COULD NOT use the TR? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 14:13:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA24567; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:13:44 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:16:19 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: The German Bible Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1291 On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >In working my way into Metzger's 1968 book, I am wondering if more is >known now about which texts the classical German bible depends upon. >Metzger mentions that Luther's translation was of Erasmus's 2nd edition, >but his footnotes indicate uncertainty on whether it relied more upon >Erasmus's Greek or his Latin text, or even upon Luther's memorization of >the Vulgate. But since Erasmus relied upon (unspecified?) Greek texts as >well as the Vulgate, this may indicate a stronger dependence still for the >German bible upon the Vulgate. Perhaps Ulrich could give an opinion here. > >I'm interested mainly in the German Bible's Gospel of Matthew. I've >noticed from N-A that it seems to share a few more commonalities with >Vaticanus on major variants in Matthew than with other mss, and wonder, if >this should be significant, how it might have come about. > >Jim Deardorff Since my name came up, I should at least react. Sorry, I can't go into this issue, mainly for two reasons: 1) I never worked on the German Bible(s). 2) Being detached from my admired sources (both written and "in the flesh") in Muenster I can't even ask for assistance. Sorry. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 15:24:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25088; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:24:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:24:47 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: The German Bible To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199709121524_MC2-2030-791@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: 526 Here are a few items relating to Luther's translation and his base text: Heinz Bluhm, _Martin Luther: Creative Translator_ (St. Louis: Concordia,1965). Chapters 1 and 3 deal with relevant issues in Matthew Erwin Muelhaupt, _Testament Luthers_ (Witten: Von Cansteinsche Bibelanstalt, 1972). Chapter 3 compares selected passages in Erasmus 151= 8, the Vulgate, earlier German translations and Luther's Septembertestament.= Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 15:31:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25190; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:31:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:35:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Subject: Re: The German Bible In-Reply-To: <199709121524_MC2-2030-791@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: 532 On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Harold P. Scanlin wrote: > Here are a few items relating to Luther's translation and his base text: > > Heinz Bluhm, _Martin Luther: Creative Translator_ (St. Louis: > Concordia,1965). Chapters 1 and 3 deal with relevant issues in Matthew > > Erwin Muelhaupt, _Testament Luthers_ (Witten: Von Cansteinsche > Bibelanstalt, 1972). Chapter 3 compares selected passages in Erasmus 1518, > the Vulgate, earlier German translations and Luther's Septembertestament. Thanks for the tips, Harold. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 15:37:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25307; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:37:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3419C666.24EF@total.net> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:47:02 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> <3419F2A0.2B07@sn.no> 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: 2991 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > A remarkably correct representation of my views! :-O > Cool. :-) > For the sake of clarity, I would add this: > > 1) It is not "by faith" alone. That might have opened the possibility of > several textual choices of my own which corresponds better with my > personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings. For example? > I > do not let *my* faith alone determine which readings are original. The TR > is a historical sanctioned text that has been defended by orthodox > christians for a very long time. It is a *traditional* text. Its been 'traditional' for 481 years. The Byz text has been 'traditional' fot circa 1300-1400 years. > 2) The MS evidence does not take a back seat. Without MS evidence, there > would not have been any ground for believing in *any* preserved text! The > question is: *what* MS evidence do I depend on? I depend on MS evidence, > but what *I* find as convincing evidence is not identical to what *you* > consider as convincing evidence. So it is not a matter of "no MS > evidence" vs. "MS evidence". Rather, it is a question *which* MS > evidence? Well that WAS my point, actually. My point was: a) The TR follows the Byz text most of the time, b) occasionally it follows the other textypes (to the exclusion of Byz), c) NO existing text-critical canons can vindicate the TR in all these places, d) since you defend the TR in every place, then your _primary_ argument is faith, and your _secondary_ argument is the MSS evidence. > To my mind, the TR editions (*and* the Scrivener reconstruction of the > text underlying the KJV) is as good MS evidence as any other, ancient or > late. (Yes, I know this is heresy!) :) > Is this a typo of yours, or are you REALLY stating that the TR should have the same authority as a MS?? > 3) I would not say that the KJV is the "only correct" translation of the > TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR. That was my point, again. ;-) > And, as Hills pointed > out, it is a variety of the TR, in that its textbase is not identical to > any Greek TR edition. My reason for accepting the KJV textbase (the > Scrivener edition) can be explained thus: I prefer to follow the > decisions of the numerous scholars who worked on the KJV committee rather > than the decisions of any one of the TR editors. But what about those places, as Ron Minton asked, where the KJV and TR differ? > In your view > of textual preservation at Acts 19:20 is "God" (KJV) or "Lord" (Most mss. > and most TRs) correct, and how would you decide between the TR and the KJV > when they differ The KJV reads "God" here, but Scrivener's text reads "Lord" (along with the NKJV). Perhaps Ron has a 'ready list' of other examples which he can supply us with?? > 4) I believe the TR is to be defended in the face of all other MS > evidence! (Sorry!) :-) No need to apoligize Helge. I'm thankful you are being straightforward in answering. ;-) Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 15:53:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25499; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:53:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <3419F2A0.2B07@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: 1329 On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: [snip] > > I > do not let *my* faith alone determine which readings are original. The TR > is a historical sanctioned text that has been defended by orthodox > christians for a very long time. What? How could it have been so defended for "a very long time" when it has been published for only about 500 years? Even this is too long for many TR supporters, who insist on using the 19th century edition of the TR. The closely related Byzantine Text has been around for MUCH longer, so has a much better claim to be the "historical sanctioned text" (whatever that really means). > It is a *traditional* text. Only for a narrow group of Christians west of the Danube has it been traditional, and even there only for such a short time. [snip]> > 3) I would not say that the KJV is the "only correct" translation of the > TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR. Then how did they screw up Titus 2:13 so badly? Even Moulton admits that "the Greeks were right after all" in reading it as I have it in my sig file. See "Grammar of New Testament Greek" by J.H. Moulton (this volume by Nigel Turner). The LC# is PA813M71908v.3. 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 Fri Sep 12 16:26:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25963; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:26:39 -0400 Message-ID: <341A30A4.1C5C@sn.no> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:20:20 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4848 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote > in part: > > >4) I believe the TR is to be defended in the face of all other MS > >evidence! (Sorry!) :-) And, as I have stated earlier, the area of TC is > >within the TR editions. And I agree with Hills that the Scrivener edition > >(now the TBS edition) is the "best" available TR edition, by the > >providence of God! (Again, Sorry!) > > Let me, then, ask a question. First, three presuppositions. > > 1. You state that the TR is the best Greek Testament, and that it was, > more or less, providently preserved. > 2. Presumably it was providently preserved for the sake of the church > and/or the human race. (At least, I can think of no other > explanation in this scenario. Unless we're supposed to be > bringing the Bible to the dolphins....) > 3. The TR does not agree with *any* known manuscripts except a handful > copied from it after it was published. > > Thus, prior to the publication of the TR, it was impossible for a > Christian to use what you define as the "best" edition. So my > question is, What is the theological position of all the people > prior to 1516 who not only did not use the TR, but COULD NOT > use the TR? Mr. Waltz, I'll be glad to answer your question. First, let me remind of the fact that *no* resultant text of *any* text editor or bible translator is reflected in any known manuscript. You say that "the TR does not agree with *any* known manuscripts except a handful copied from it after it was published". But the MSS used by Erasmus were *very* close to his resultant Greek text. It has even been called by some "a late form of the Byzantine text". Erasmus' text was, of course, to a certain extent, an "eclectic" text. But Clark noted that "the Erasmus text is a typical Byzantine text", and he also stated that "the Erasmus text is largely a printing of Codex 2". And I am aware that no MS exactly agrees with Erasmus' edition or any other TR edition (or for that matter, any *other* printed Greek NT on the face of the earth). But Clark's statements seem to point to a very close similarity between Erasmus' printed edition and the MSS that formed the basis of his edition. While I'm at it, I will use the opportunity to ask if anyone has seen a complete collation of Codices 1 and 2 with the TR/Erasmus' text. That would have been very useful in detecting the difference between these MSS and the earlier Byz MSS. I am not aware that there exists such a collation. I would appreciate if anyone could help me find it, if such a collation is available. Does anybody know? (I seem to recall that K. Lake has done something in that direction!?) Now to your question, which, to my mind, has serious problems. Christians in the time prior to Erasmus' edition *may* in fact have had a "TR text" available through several MSS. It does not necessarily have to be found in just *one* MS! It may be true that they did not have any one MS with such a text. But we really do not know that for sure, either. It is clearly to overstate the case to say that it was *impossible* for a Christian to use a "TR edition" before 1516. I think it would be better to use terms like "probably" or "more/less likely" in cases such as these! It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind, it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. (More heresy!) :~) You say that people prior to the time of Erasmus' edition did not and could not use the TR. How can you be so sure? Since the TR was based on several sources that were extant at the time of its formation, is it any wonder if these sources (and the predecessors of these sources) would have been available to the peoples' use in the time prior to 1516? Dr. Hills has long ago answered your question. By way of conclusion, consider this quote from his "KJV Defended": ".....the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life (1 Peter 2:9). ....the Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. ....The first printed text of the Greek New Testament was not a blunder or a set-back but a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. Hence the few significant departures of that text from the Traditional Text are only God's providential corrections of the Traditional Text in those few places in which such corrections were needed" (p.193). -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 17:10:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26260; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:10:15 -0400 Message-ID: <341A3AB6.7CB1@sn.no> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:03:18 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> <3419F2A0.2B07@sn.no> <3419C666.24EF@total.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4588 Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > > Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > > > > A remarkably correct representation of my views! :-O > > > > Cool. :-) > > > For the sake of clarity, I would add this: > > > > 1) It is not "by faith" alone. That might have opened the possibility of > > several textual choices of my own which corresponds better with my > > personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings. > > For example? To add an example may start a theological debate regarding my personal beliefs, but this is a TC list, so I shall spare ye all! > > > I > > do not let *my* faith alone determine which readings are original. The TR > > is a historical sanctioned text that has been defended by orthodox > > christians for a very long time. It is a *traditional* text. > > Its been 'traditional' for 481 years. The Byz text has been 'traditional' fot circa 1300-1400 years. My argument is similar to that of Hills. He acknowledged that the Byz MS tradition was the product of providential preservation. But also that this Traditional text had its flaws and that the TR (in God's providence) corrected those flaws. Hills stated clearly that providential preservation was not a miracle which produced a "perfect" transmission. Who said that providential preservation had to be hundred percent *perfect* all the time, all through history? Hills even believed that the Roman Vulgate to a certain degree was a product of providential preservation. But was it perfect? In other words, a text can be providential preserved without being 100% perfect! > > > 2) The MS evidence does not take a back seat. Without MS evidence, there > > would not have been any ground for believing in *any* preserved text! The > > question is: *what* MS evidence do I depend on? I depend on MS evidence, > > but what *I* find as convincing evidence is not identical to what *you* > > consider as convincing evidence. So it is not a matter of "no MS > > evidence" vs. "MS evidence". Rather, it is a question *which* MS > > evidence? > > Well that WAS my point, actually. My point was: > > a) The TR follows the Byz text most of the time, > > b) occasionally it follows the other textypes (to the exclusion of Byz), > > c) NO existing text-critical canons can vindicate the TR in all these places, No "existing" text-critical canons?? I may have several you have never heard about. > > d) since you defend the TR in every place, then your _primary_ argument is faith, and your _secondary_ > argument is the MSS evidence. No! As I indicated, without MS evidence, you have nothing to work with. MS evidence *has* to be primary! > > > To my mind, the TR editions (*and* the Scrivener reconstruction of the > > text underlying the KJV) is as good MS evidence as any other, ancient or > > late. (Yes, I know this is heresy!) :) > > > > Is this a typo of yours, or are you REALLY stating that the TR should have the same authority as a MS?? Yes, since the TR editions *are* _copies_, the only difference being that they are in *printed* instead of *handwritten* form!! The early printed editions is a kind of MS transmission, for they reflect the then extant handwritten MS evidence! They are *copies*! Or....? > > > 3) I would not say that the KJV is the "only correct" translation of the > > TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR. > > That was my point, again. ;-) Good, then we agree. :-\ > > > And, as Hills pointed > > out, it is a variety of the TR, in that its textbase is not identical to > > any Greek TR edition. My reason for accepting the KJV textbase (the > > Scrivener edition) can be explained thus: I prefer to follow the > > decisions of the numerous scholars who worked on the KJV committee rather > > than the decisions of any one of the TR editors. > > But what about those places, as Ron Minton asked, where the KJV and TR differ? I suggest that you ask Ron to mail you my off-list reply to his question. > > > In your view > > of textual preservation at Acts 19:20 is "God" (KJV) or "Lord" (Most mss. > > and most TRs) correct, and how would you decide between the TR and the KJV > > when they differ > > The KJV reads "God" here, but Scrivener's text reads "Lord" (along with the NKJV). > > Perhaps Ron has a 'ready list' of other examples which he can supply us with?? That would be helpful. > > > 4) I believe the TR is to be defended in the face of all other MS > > evidence! (Sorry!) :-) > > No need to apoligize Helge. I'm thankful you are being straightforward in answering. ;-) Thanks... -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 17:24:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26348; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:24:46 -0400 Message-ID: <341A3E20.1ED@sn.no> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:17:52 -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: Canons of Criticism 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: 1753 Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I > > do not let *my* faith alone determine which readings are original. The TR > > is a historical sanctioned text that has been defended by orthodox > > christians for a very long time. > > What? How could it have been so defended for "a very long time" when it > has been published for only about 500 years? Even this is too long for > many TR supporters, who insist on using the 19th century edition of the > TR. > > The closely related Byzantine Text has been around for MUCH longer, so has > a much better claim to be the "historical sanctioned text" (whatever that > really means). See my latest response to Mike > > > It is a *traditional* text. > > Only for a narrow group of Christians west of the Danube has it been > traditional, and even there only for such a short time. You miss the point. It is the traditional *Greek* text, in which language the NT was originally written. > > [snip]> > > 3) I would not say that the KJV is the "only correct" translation of the > > TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR. > > Then how did they screw up Titus 2:13 so badly? Well, did they? That *assertion* demonstrate nothing except the fact that "Good godly men differ"! Even Moulton admits that > "the Greeks were right after all" in reading it as I have it in my sig > file. See "Grammar of New Testament Greek" by J.H. Moulton (this volume > by Nigel Turner). The LC# is PA813M71908v.3. Some time in the future, I will send a list of Scripture examples to Mike, in which I will demonstrate that the KJV has a more correct rendering than the NKJV. I may send you a copy if you are interested! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 12 17:46:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26435; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:46:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:50:39 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <341A30A4.1C5C@sn.no> References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.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: Canons of Criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5701 Let me thank Evensen for his honesty -- and also his patience in the face of many people who argue, with justice, that he has no view of *textual criticism*; he merely has a view on the text. Clearly this is a pointless discussion, but for the sake of any lurkers out there I wish to point out the logical inconsistency of Mr. Evensen's position. Note that this does not "prove" him wrong; I can offer no proof that God is logical. (In fact, I could offer a pretty strong case for the reverse.) So Evensen may be right. "God knows; I do not know." He merely cannot claim to practice anything resembling a scientific method of criticism. Thus, I would note to the readers that I am arguing logic and Evensen is arguing faith. I can only hope you'll make the right choice between the two. To me, it's obvious -- but then, I am trained as a physicist and mathematician. No doubt I'm biased. :-) On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote, in part: >Mr. Waltz, > >I'll be glad to answer your question. > >First, let me remind of the fact that *no* resultant text of *any* text >editor or bible translator is reflected in any known manuscript. True, because of slips of the pen. However, I suspect (and I have not checked this with Robinson) that you could find manuscripts that agree almost completely (i.e. except for clear errors and orthographic differences) with Maurice Robinson's text. Also, didn't somebody try to create an exact English translation of B (or was it Aleph?) a while back? (I will admit I could be wrong on this -- the memory is very vague.) What's more, this is not a faith issue for me. Since I don't believe in providential preservation in any form, I don't *expect* the text to be preserved in any one manuscript (although B comes close in the Gospels, and 1739 in the Epistles). I don't *want* to adopt the text of any one manuscript -- so I don't. :-) >You say that "the TR does not agree with *any* known manuscripts except a >handful copied from it after it was published". But the MSS used by >Erasmus were *very* close to his resultant Greek text. Not entirely true. Obviously 2e and 2apc and 1r were -- but not 1eap! >It has even been >called by some "a late form of the Byzantine text". Erasmus' text was, of >course, to a certain extent, an "eclectic" text. But Clark noted that >"the Erasmus text is a typical Byzantine text", and he also stated that >"the Erasmus text is largely a printing of Codex 2". The latter is true. The former is not. As the apparatus of Hodges and Farstad shows, there are thousands of differences between the TR (*any* TR) and *the* Byzantine text. It is true that the TR is more Byzantine than anything else, and by a large margin. But it is by no means typically Byzantine. If the Byzantine text is adopted as a standard, then the best text is either H&F or R&P. Which editions Evensen has explicitly rejected. [ ... ] >Now to your question, which, to my mind, has serious problems. Christians >in the time prior to Erasmus' edition *may* in fact have had a "TR text" >available through several MSS. It does not necessarily have to be found >in just *one* MS! But how, in that case, were people to identify it? Divine inspiration? In that case, why did they need the Bible in the first place? >It may be true that they did not have any one MS with such a text. But we >really do not know that for sure, either. It is clearly to overstate the >case to say that it was *impossible* for a Christian to use a "TR >edition" before 1516. I think it would be better to use terms like >"probably" or "more/less likely" in cases such as these! You're right. There are some 3,000 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts of the Bible. Not one of which agrees with the TR. (Excluding lectionaries, etc.) None of which match the TR. That's 13,000 manuscripts. None of which agree with the TR. Let's assume that the majority of all manuscripts ever copied were TR-equivalent. So that's at least 13,001 manuscripts equivalent to the TR that have been lost. The odds of losing one, therefore, are given by 13,001/26,001, or for all intents and purposes .5. That makes the odds that the TR was once the majority text no better than .5 to the 13,001 power. This number is so small that, even using logarithms, I cannot get a value off my calculator. Let's put it in colloquial terms: "One in a gazillion gazillion." In other words, for the TR to be the true Byzantine text, someone would have had to go out and deliberately destroy all the copies. >It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through >extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that >were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind, >it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as >a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. (More heresy!) All I can say is, Do the math! It should be easy, since I already did it. :-) >You say that people prior to the time of Erasmus' edition did not and >could not use the TR. How can you be so sure? Since the TR was based on >several sources that were extant at the time of its formation, is it any >wonder if these sources (and the predecessors of these sources) would >have been available to the peoples' use in the time prior to 1516? But, again, how were they to know which reading was right? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 12 19:34:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26679; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:34:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism In-Reply-To: <341A30A4.1C5C@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: 2797 Although I am not going to continue in a debate over ridiculous matters coming from the TR/KJV-only quarters, the point below really asks far too much of even the most credulous TR/KJV supporter: On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through > extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that > were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind, > it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission > of the text of MSS which now have perished. > (More heresy!) > :~) Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished." And there is nothing preventing such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and interpretation of factual data. This type of assertion, Helge, is the biggest crock of nonsense I have EVER heard coming from the TR/KJV-only crowd, and I cannot imagine how you can make such a suggestion with a straight face. With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed "thousands of MSS" which perished (I would suggest hundreds), let alone that the text EXCLUSIVELY of those "thousands" would happen to agree with the printed TR, and all that today remain extant are somehow "different" --- this type of assertion makes your whole concept of God's "divine preservation" of the "true text" in totally lost MSS the TR/KJV-only equivalent of Joseph Smith finding the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, which, once translated, were forever removed from view, leaving only the PRINTED Book of Mormon as the "evidence" that such ever existed. You said precisely as much in your last sentence: > To my mind, > it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as > a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. I might as well even claim that "thousands" of MSS from the 13th-15th centuries which contained a text like Codex Bezae have similarly perished, and that ALL of those which perished in fact were systematically destroyed because they contained a pre-publication version of the Book of Mormon between their covers. This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain and simple. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 12 22:56:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA27014; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:56:11 -0400 Message-ID: <341A2A53.27BE@total.net> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:53:23 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> <3419F2A0.2B07@sn.no> <3419C666.24EF@total.net> <341A3AB6.7CB1@sn.no> 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: 909 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > > 1) It is not "by faith" alone. That might have opened the possibility of > > > several textual choices of my own which corresponds better with my > > > personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings. > > > > For example? > > To add an example may start a theological debate regarding my personal > beliefs, but this is a TC list, so I shall spare ye all! Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list? > > Well that WAS my point, actually. My point was: > > > > a) The TR follows the Byz text most of the time, > > > > b) occasionally it follows the other textypes (to the exclusion of Byz), > > > > c) NO existing text-critical canons can vindicate the TR in all these places, > > No "existing" text-critical canons?? I may have several you have never > heard about. Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list (again)? :-) Tks. Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 13 04:10:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA27733; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:10:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199709130810.EAA27728@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:17:37 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 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: 1434 Maurice Robinson said: Although I am not going to continue in a debate over ridiculous matters coming from the TR/KJV-only quarters, the point below really asks far too much of even the most credulous TR/KJV supporter: On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through > extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that > were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind, > it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission > of the text of MSS which now have perished. > (More heresy!) > :~) Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished." And there is nothing preventing such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and interpretation of factual data. [snip the rest] STEVE CR (a hitherto unknown lurker): That's the thing about faith positions - facts and reason are irrelevant. I enjoyed the posts on this subject. Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia "Surfing's the source, it'll change your life, swear to God", Point Break (1991) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 13 14:59:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28845; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:59:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:03:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism In-Reply-To: <199709130810.EAA27728@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: 2481 On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Steve Carson-Rowland wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through > > extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that > > were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind, > > it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission > > of the text of MSS which now have perished. ... Maurice, I believe it was, then wrote: > Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed > that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were > extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even > possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of > the text of MSS which now have perished." And there is nothing preventing > such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and > interpretation of factual data. > STEVE CR (a hitherto unknown lurker): > That's the thing about faith positions - facts and reason are irrelevant. > > I enjoyed the posts on this subject. These thoughts lead me to wonder how much faith is involved in the assumption of most text critics that the latest edition of N-A gives a good representation of not only the earliest Gospels but of the teachings of Jesus. Or is this latter assumption not usually made? If the assumption is not made, I then wonder of what relevance is it for the text critic to try to get the Gospel words and teachings just right as they trace back to the 2nd century, if those were merely the distortions fed in by the writers/redactors of the Gospels. The work of the Jesus Seminar is one example, of course, which leads to the conclusion that the assumption should not be made, and that liberal redaction criticism could claim to have obviated the need for TC. I should add that in my own independent studies I find that the Jesus Seminar is incorrect in a large share of its individual red-pink-grey-black decisions, but that nevertheless it is correct in its overall assessment that some 80% (or similar figure) of the Gospel's teaching discourses represent redactions. Where TC is very valuable to me is in its reconstruction of the Gospel texts back to the earliest possible date, complete with redactions and all, so that the redaction critic may then attempt to sort out all the redactions from the rest of the text. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 13 16:04:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA29057; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:04:26 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:08:33 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199709130810.EAA27728@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: Words of Jesus (Was: Re: Canons of Criticism) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3727 On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >These thoughts lead me to wonder how much faith is involved in the >assumption of most text critics that the latest edition of N-A gives a >good representation of not only the earliest Gospels but of the teachings >of Jesus. Or is this latter assumption not usually made? The assumption *is* usually made, at least by the churches, but I don't really see that this is a matter of TC. Although the various editions of the Bible (TR vs. Majority Text vs. UBS vs. WH vs. whatever) differ slightly, there really isn't much difference that affects the meaning of Jesus's teachings. Even the most radically different editions (say Robinson vs. Westcott & Hort) agree 90+% of the time, and the differences are usually (not always, but usually) trivial. It is usually said that textual variants have no effect on Christian doctrine. I wouldn't go that far -- but certainly the effect is slight. >If the assumption is not made, I then wonder of what relevance is it for >the text critic to try to get the Gospel words and teachings just right as >they trace back to the 2nd century, if those were merely the distortions >fed in by the writers/redactors of the Gospels. The work of the Jesus >Seminar is one example, of course, which leads to the conclusion that the >assumption should not be made, and that liberal redaction criticism could >claim to have obviated the need for TC. I don't quite agree, since redaction criticism must start with *some* sort of decent approximation of the text. If, for instance, someone released an edition of the New Testament in which Jesus never said "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," it would lead to a *very* different view of Jesus, and with it a very different redaction of the sayings attributed to him. In any case, it is the belief of the Church that the Bible represents the true teachings of Jesus, whatever he actually said. Else we would have people clamouring to add the Gospel of Thomas to the canon. >I should add that in my own independent studies I find that the Jesus >Seminar is incorrect in a large share of its individual >red-pink-grey-black decisions, No argument with that.... >but that nevertheless it is correct in its >overall assessment that some 80% (or similar figure) of the Gospel's >teaching discourses represent redactions. I'm simply curious: How did you come up with that figure? I'll say frankly that I don't see it as you do. While I think that much of the material in the gospels is not taken verbatim from the words of Jesus (who presumably did most of his speaking in Aramaic, after all!), I think most of them represent what one would expect of the words of a prophet which had gone through some decades of oral tradition. The amount of *deliberate* redaction, even on the part of the gospel writers, was, I think, slight. >Where TC is very valuable to me >is in its reconstruction of the Gospel texts back to the earliest possible >date, complete with redactions and all, so that the redaction critic may >then attempt to sort out all the redactions from the rest of the text. Well, I think most of us would agree that that is the whole point of TC. It's to get back to the earliest *written* forms. There are scholars who want to get back beyond that point -- but they aren't TCers. Or, at least, they aren't TCers when they go beyond the text. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 13 18:08:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29402; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:08:20 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:10:41 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: I Corinthians 11:10 (re Waltz) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5787 Re Waltz's comments: >Note that a gloss *can be* in the same language as the original. >A dictionary, for instance, is a whole book of formalized glosses. I am confused: (1) *I* said nothing about glosses having to be in the same language as the original; indeed, I did not introduce the word gloss into this discussion: it is *your* description of the reading. Your statement makes no sense to me. (2) Your example of a dictionary is a *non liquet*, for dictionaries *also* contain the *word* they are "glossing." If "veil" is a gloss, then it has replaced the word/phrase it is explaining: what we have--to borrow your metaphor--is a dictionary of definitions, *without the words being defined.* It is precisely this reason (no word in the text being "glossed" by "veil") which leads me, at least, to regard this variant as a simple *substitution.* It is either A or B. No manuscript give "A, that is, B"--which would be the classic definition of a gloss (cp. John 9:7 "Go wash in the pool of *Siloam*"--followed in the text by a gloss on the word Siloam: "which means 'having been sent'." [Whether the gloss is from the author or from a later scribe is irrelevant for these purposes of illustration here.]) The reading in I Cor. 11:10 is simply a garden variety substitution--*it has nothing to do with glossing* at any obviuos level. (If it *were* a gloss, then it is a case where the gloss has completely replaced the thing it was glossing--a rather unusual situation. Why not call it what it is: a substitution?) Anyone interested in glossing should look up the word in a dictionary, and then look at some clear examples in mss, where the phenomenon is abundant. (Check out the edition of the *Liege Diatessaron* in either the edition of D. Plooij, or of C.C. de Bruin.) >Thus I would ask Petersen: If you do not consider this a gloss, >does that mean you actually consider it *original*? (Of course >the third possibility is that it is an accidental error, but >that seems unlikely in this case.) I have no idea whether it is original or not, nor do I care which is original. I would note, however, that the topic of "covering the head" both preceeds and follows this verse. Verses 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15 specifically speak of a woman covering her head and/or a man not covering his. The standard head covering for prayer would be some sort of cloth, i.e. something within whose semantic range the word "veil" certainly fits. No great theological issue related to "power" (mystical, divine) seems to be at play here, save for the authority/power of a man over a woman (as per Paul). Thus *kalumma* fits the context perfectly--and the context (set in vv. 4, 5, 13, etc.) presumably stems from the author of the document, not later scribes glossing the text. But that still does not mean *I* think it is original, for before I could say that, I would have to devote at least a month to researching the matter. (What was--according to ancient sources--standard woman's headgear in Corinth at this time? Among Greeks? Among Jews? What practices were followed in pagan temples in Corinth? In Jewish synagogues in Corinth? What do the fathers say [checked not through an apparatus, but by looking up each reference in the *Biblia Patristica*]? Etc.) There is nothing which, a priori, suggests that *kalumma* is not original, other than the dearth of *Greek* MSS with the reading *extant today*; equally, there there is nothing which suggests that the standard Greek reading is not original, other than the early and rather wide dissemination of the reading "veil." >On consideration, Petersen is probably right that it did not originate >in the Latin. Thank you. >>At a practical level, the idea of wearing a veil is rather quaint, a bit >>like the idea of giving to anyone who asks, or forgiving all debts in the >>7th year... (In other words, which reading is original is of no practical >>interest to me, only a puzzling textual problem...) > >I don't think we can treat it as moot. It is moot in most denominations >today -- but given the American propensity to shoot up strange cults >every few years, I think this is the sort of thing we need to settle. I used the word "moot" in reference to your argument that the reading must be Latin because no (extant) Greek MSS contained it, not that the issue was moot. I appended this remark lest someone on the list (whose theological baggage is legion) think that I am for or against "veil" on theological grounds. Not so. Addressing the issue you raise, note: (1) the Roman Catholic tradition--which used to require a head covering for women in church--can hardly be characterized as a "strange cult"--recall that all of the reformers were originally Catholic, and that all MSS of the NT were copied by "great church" "catholics" (or Eastern Orthodox ater 1054). (I am not nor ever have been RC, just to set the record straight.) (2) There are some issues--even textual ones--which *cannot* be settled, because the evidence is so complex, and because *no one* has assembled the relevant evidence for even *beginning* a competent study of the material. History is full of examples of people "wanting" to "settle" something--only later to rue their decision. The "clear," "Biblically-ordained" inferority of blacks is one such example; the "necessity" of lobotomies as a treatment for certain mental problems is another. I see no need to--and, indeed, I see many dangers in--settling a matter which has not been adequately reserached, and which, in the final analysis, may not *have* an answer. And if it ever does get answered, it most certainly will not be on this list. (Ever heard of apophatic theology??) --Petersen, Penn State University. Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 13 18:16:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29452; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:16:39 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:19:02 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: The German Bible Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 187 For Jim Deardorff: Another title for you: W. Kurrelmeyer, *Die erste deutsche Bibel* (Tuebingen 1904). --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 13 18:21:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29479; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:21:32 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:23:54 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3012 Maurice, is it possible that the shoe you are fitting so comfortably on Evensen's foot could also fit a Byzantine foot? (A one-word reply will suffice...) --Petersen. >Although I am not going to continue in a debate over ridiculous matters >coming from the TR/KJV-only quarters, the point below really asks far too >much of even the most credulous TR/KJV supporter: > >On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > >> It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through >> extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that >> were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind, >> it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission >> of the text of MSS which now have perished. >> (More heresy!) >> :~) > >Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed >that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were >extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even >possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of >the text of MSS which now have perished." And there is nothing preventing >such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and >interpretation of factual data. > >This type of assertion, Helge, is the biggest crock of nonsense I have >EVER heard coming from the TR/KJV-only crowd, and I cannot imagine how you >can make such a suggestion with a straight face. > >With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed "thousands of MSS" >which perished (I would suggest hundreds), let alone that the text >EXCLUSIVELY of those "thousands" would happen to agree with the printed >TR, and all that today remain extant are somehow "different" --- this type >of assertion makes your whole concept of God's "divine preservation" of >the "true text" in totally lost MSS the TR/KJV-only equivalent of Joseph >Smith finding the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, which, once >translated, were forever removed from view, leaving only the PRINTED Book >of Mormon as the "evidence" that such ever existed. You said precisely as >much in your last sentence: > >> To my mind, >> it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as >> a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. > >I might as well even claim that "thousands" of MSS from the 13th-15th >centuries which contained a text like Codex Bezae have similarly perished, >and that ALL of those which perished in fact were systematically destroyed >because they contained a pre-publication version of the Book of Mormon >between their covers. > >This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain >and simple. > >_________________________________________________________________________ >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 Sep 13 19:29:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA29693; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 19:29:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 19:34:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism 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: 224 On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > Maurice, is it possible that the shoe you are fitting so comfortably on > Evensen's foot could also fit a Byzantine foot? (A one-word reply will > suffice...) ....NOT. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 13 19:35:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA29738; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 19:35:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:39:08 -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: I Corinthians 11:10 (re Waltz); also Canons of Criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2438 I'm not going to continue this discussion with Petersen about the origin of this reading, as I think our differences are primarily based on the way we use the language. (At least, that's the politest way I can think of to say "He's twisting what I said." :-) But there is one thing he said which utterly confuses me: >I have no idea whether it is original or not, nor do I care which is >original. You "do not care" which reading is original in this passage? Is not the purpose of textual criticism to do our best to determine the original reading? If that is *not* the purpose, then what is? I am obviously missing something fundamental here In another message (not directed at me, thankfully), Petersen wrote: >Maurice, is it possible that the shoe you are fitting so comfortably on >Evensen's foot could also fit a Byzantine foot? (A one-word reply will >suffice...) >>Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed >>that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were >>extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even >>possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of >>the text of MSS which now have perished." And there is nothing preventing >>such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and >>interpretation of factual data. [ etc. ] I must spring to Robinson's defense here. Be it noted that I do not agree with Robinson's theory of the text, or with the text he prints, or with his theology, or almost anything else (except, perhaps, his taste in music). But the difference between Robinson's theory and Evensen's is vast. Evensen offers a text on the basis of faith. Robinson offers a text on the basis of evidence. Whether or not we agree with his theory (and few if any of us do), Robinson *has* a theory, and follows it consistently. Thus he differs from Evensen as fundamentally as Petersen or I do. The fact that his text resembles Evensen's more than ours is irrelevant. Robinson is a textual critic, even if an unorthodox on. Evensen is not. What more need one say? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 13 20:51:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA29876; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 20:51:23 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Words of Jesus 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: 5579 On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > > >These thoughts lead me to wonder how much faith is involved in the > >assumption of most text critics that the latest edition of N-A gives a > >good representation of not only the earliest Gospels but of the teachings > >of Jesus. Or is this latter assumption not usually made? > The assumption *is* usually made, at least by the churches, but I don't > really see that this is a matter of TC. Although the various editions > of the Bible (TR vs. Majority Text vs. UBS vs. WH vs. whatever) > differ slightly, there really isn't much difference that affects the > meaning of Jesus's teachings. Even the most radically different > editions (say Robinson vs. Westcott & Hort) agree 90+% of the time, > and the differences are usually (not always, but usually) trivial. > It is usually said that textual variants have no effect on Christian > doctrine. I wouldn't go that far -- but certainly the effect is > slight. This agrees with what I believe. But don't worry, dear reader, it won't last! > >If the assumption is not made, I then wonder of what relevance is it for > >the text critic to try to get the Gospel words and teachings just right as > >they trace back to the 2nd century, if those were merely the distortions > >fed in by the writers/redactors of the Gospels. The work of the Jesus > >Seminar is one example, of course, which leads to the conclusion that the > >assumption should not be made, and that liberal redaction criticism could > >claim to have obviated the need for TC. > I don't quite agree, since redaction criticism must start with *some* > sort of decent approximation of the text. If, for instance, someone > released an edition of the New Testament in which Jesus never said > "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," it would lead to a > *very* different view of Jesus, and with it a very different > redaction of the sayings attributed to him. ... Yes, if scholars and others were to pay serious attention to the new edition! > >I should add that in my own independent studies I find that the Jesus > >Seminar is incorrect in a large share of its individual > >red-pink-grey-black decisions, > No argument with that.... > >but that nevertheless it is correct in its > >overall assessment that some 80% (or similar figure) of the Gospel's > >teaching discourses represent redactions. > I'm simply curious: How did you come up with that figure? I once went through the Seminar's voting records on the teachings within Mark and within Matthew, and the percentage of verses in black and grey (not spoken by Jesus, or probably not) turned out to have a figure like 80%; I don't recall exactly now. For example, the "Love your neighbor as yourself" verses they placed in the gray category. In my own studies I've been assessing the apparent genuineness of a document in Aramaic discovered near Jerusalem in 1963, which is a candidate to have been the Logia known to Papias, if that had been a very extensive writing of Jesus' teachings and ministry, and not just sayings. It indicates a similar figure of only some 20% fidelity for Matthew, which parallels it. However, its originals were destroyed in 1974 due to its heresies for Judeo-Christianity, and only the translation into German survives, plus a later retranslation into English. For this reason (lack of originals), plus others, reputable Biblical scholars assume it must be a hoax and aren't interested in studying it. I may have mentioned the document -- the Talmud of Jmmanuel -- to one or two of you on this list some years ago. Francis Beare's Commentary on Matthew also indicates a fairly low fidelity rate for that gospel, even if his criticisms of it that are based merely on the assumption that Mark has priority are set aside. > I'll say frankly that I don't see it as you do. While I think that > much of the material in the gospels is not taken verbatim from > the words of Jesus (who presumably did most of his speaking in > Aramaic, after all!), I think most of them represent what one > would expect of the words of a prophet which had gone through > some decades of oral tradition. The amount of *deliberate* > redaction, even on the part of the gospel writers, was, I think, > slight. ... I think that very extensive redaction is the reason why there was no plethora of writings describing who wrote the Gospels, when & where they were written, and their motivations for having been written. And similarly the reason why the Logia, about which Papias wrote five treatises, did not survive. If this reasoning is correct, persons like Justin must have been a bit dubious as to who wrote the Gospels, if they came out almost a century after the fact yet were attributed to mid-1st-century persons; and so he avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew, Mark.... . In calling it deliberate redaction, I would add that the redactors were merely following their faith, and thus simply "correcting" what they "knew" to be wrong. Their faith, in turn, had evolved out of Paul's beliefs a half century earlier. Some of this comes close to W. Bauer's hypothesis, except that I see the Logia as having inspired the first Gospel, but not until early 2nd century, at which time it also reenergized the Gnostic movement. I find it consistent that Papias trusted oral tradition rather than the written word (in the Gospels), and that Marcion felt free to choose a gospel to doctor up and then reject the other Gospels. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 07:26:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA00820; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 07:26:05 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:28:21 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Entre nous... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5686 Robert Waltz wrote: >I'm not going to continue this discussion with Petersen about the >origin of this reading, as I think our differences are primarily >based on the way we use the language. (At least, that's the politest >way I can think of to say "He's twisting what I said." :-) > >But there is one thing he said which utterly confuses me: > >>I have no idea whether it is original or not, nor do I care which is >>original. > >You "do not care" which reading is original in this passage? Is not >the purpose of textual criticism to do our best to determine the >original reading? If that is *not* the purpose, then what is? > >I am obviously missing something fundamental here Yes, you are. The point of textual criticism is--according to one well-known definition--recovering the text which is "closest to the original." But *which* of the many readings extant (or capable of triangulation among the extant witnesses) should not be of concern to the textual critic. To take an example, the textual critic should have *no* personal investment in whether the "original" is "veil" or "power" in I Cor. 11:10; nor should the textual critic care (from a personal or theological point of view) whether the "Great Commission" is part of the original text of Matthew or not. However, as the repeated intrusion of *personal faith perspectives,* and the patent cutting of the evidence to fit pre-conceived theories of textual transmission evident on this list (an Evenson is not the only one doing this), it seems that the operative theory for many on the list is: "this is what I believe, now let me argue it." A textual critic, however, begins with "I don't know what is going on; let me assemble the evidence and see if it points in a direction; it may, or it may not." And if the evidence points in a particular direction, that direction should have *no* relevance for the critic's life (otherwise he/she will be tempted to shape the evidence to fit his/her beliefs). Clear? >In another message (not directed at me, thankfully), Petersen >wrote: > >>Maurice, is it possible that the shoe you are fitting so comfortably on >>Evensen's foot could also fit a Byzantine foot? (A one-word reply will >>suffice...) > >>>Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed >>>that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were >>>extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even >>>possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of >>>the text of MSS which now have perished." And there is nothing preventing >>>such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and >>>interpretation of factual data. > >[ etc. ] > >I must spring to Robinson's defense here. Be it noted that I do not >agree with Robinson's theory of the text, or with the text he prints, >or with his theology, or almost anything else (except, perhaps, his >taste in music). > >But the difference between Robinson's theory and Evensen's is vast. >Evensen offers a text on the basis of faith. Robinson offers a text >on the basis of evidence. Whether or not we agree with his theory >(and few if any of us do), Robinson *has* a theory, and follows it >consistently. Thus he differs from Evensen as fundamentally as >Petersen or I do. The fact that his text resembles Evensen's more >than ours is irrelevant. > >Robinson is a textual critic, even if an unorthodox on. Evensen is >not. > >What more need one say? One might say that I, personally, find the descriptions that you and Robinson use--and I will quote--a bit "over the top." Robinson: "ridiculous matters," "the biggest crock of nonsense I have EVER heard coming from the TR/KJV-only crowd, and I cannot imagine how you can make such a suggestion with a straight face," "With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed 'thousands of MSS' which perished," "This is NOT textual criticism; it's not 'heresy'; it's absurdity, plain and simple." Waltz: "Evensen offers a text on the basis of faith. Robinson offers a text on the basis of evidence," "Robinson is a textual critic, even if an unorthodox on. Evensen is not." Should I note this vocabulary, and use it the next time I hear the Byzantine text being projected back into the early centuries, *without any manuscript, versional, or patristic support*? I am a very dumb man, and--esp. on this list--have never been sure who is a textual critics and who is not (I suspect most are not). But I find it amusing to note that Robinson now gleefully uses the charge of an "argument-ex-silentio" (the incorrect hyphens are Robinson's: in Latin it is "argumentum ex [or: e] silentio") against Evenson, but complained bitterly when I used it against him. While there certainly are differences between Robinson and Evenson, I was struck by one of Robinson's charges against Evensen: "With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed 'thousands of MSS' which perished"; but is this not the same argument I used against Robinson, pointing out the empirical dearth of evidence for the Byzantine text before the fourth century? And now, one of your's: "Robinson *has* a theory, and follows it consistently"; but so does Evenson--although most of us would not accept his presuppositions, even as most of us do not accept Robinson's presuppositions. Beyond that, *mutatis mutandis,* the rhetorical/argumentative parallels are striking (I have already given one example above: "With absolutely NO evidence...", etc.). But then, I must not--by the recent standard of exchange on this list--be a textual critic. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 08:07:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00876; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 08:07:09 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:09:46 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: Words of Jesus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6819 [long message] On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorf wrote (inter alia): >I think that very extensive redaction is the reason why there was no >plethora of writings describing who wrote the Gospels, when & where they >were written, and their motivations for having been written. And similarly >the reason why the Logia, about which Papias wrote five treatises, did not >survive. I must confess that I do not fully understand the reasoning behind this argument. 1. What sort of redaction do you mean referring to what part of the tradition? 2. Why should there have been a "plethora of writings describing who wrote the Gospels..."? Besides, we have at least the testimony of a certain "Prebyter" prior to Papias describing at least two of the Gospels. 3. The "reason why the the Logia, about which Papias wrote five treatises, did not survive" apparently is that they never existed apart from Papias work. Papias collected them out of written and oral sources adding his comments to them. The gathering of this sources must have been a work sui generis never intended to be published seperately but only incorporated in his five treatises. Why this work did not survive is a totally different question. >If this reasoning is correct, persons like Justin must have been >a bit dubious as to who wrote the Gospels, if they came out almost a >century after the fact yet were attributed to mid-1st-century persons; and >so he avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew, Mark.... . Again, I don't fully understand what you mean. 1. It is a well known fact that Justin displays knowledge of at least the Synoptic Gospels usually calling them Apomnemoneumata, once glossing this term with Euangelia (1 Apol 66.3). 2. Once Justin refers to Peter's Apomnemoneumata (Dial. 106.2-3) giving evidence that he knows the Presbyter tradition related to the Gospel of Mark (c.f. Papias). 3. Once Justin refers to the Apomnemoneumata of the Apostles and of their followers (Dial. 103.8) giving evidence that he knows two different groups of written Gospels. One group was written by apostles (e.g., Matthew and John) and another group was written by followers of the apostles (e.g., Mark and Luke). 4. The existence of multiple writings of the same genre (Apomnemoneumata, Gospels) necessarily points to designations of these writings that need to have at least two features: a. A unifying feature denoting that they belong to the same genre. b. A distinctive feature denoting that yet they are distinct entities. 5. The unanimously attested Gospel superscriptions in the manuscript tradition is "euaggelion kata..." (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) satisfying both features. Moreover, there is not the slightest hint that any of the canonical Gospels was ever attributed to anyone else than the known names. The "euaggelion kata..." expression even serves another purpose: Emphasizing that in theological terms there is and can be only one Gospel, though there are (at least) four written accounts of it. 6. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude: Justin knew the titles as they are found in the manuscript tradition (c.f., the plural "Euaggelia", the Memoirs of Peter, i.e. Gospel of Mark). 7. In assuming that Justin "avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew, Mark..." you seem to imply that he should have used these designations. But why should he have done so? In my view there is simply no reason for this assumption: a. Justin chose for whatever reason to refer to the Gospels mainly as Apomnemoneumata. The grammatical construction of Apomnemoneumata simply is with the genitive. b. He used the term euaggelion only three times. Without going into more detail at this point, it seems unnatural or even inappropriate to me had he used the "kata" name(s) in these cases (cf. 1 Apol. 66.3; Dial. 10.2; 100.1). c. Besides, the most frequent term to introduce Gospel material (either written oder oral) in patristic writings from the early times (Apostolic Fathers) up to the time of Justin was: "the Lord says (said), etc." From the time of Irenaeus on there is an increasing use of the formula "it is written" (gegraptai) though not completely superseding the former. The formula "it is written (said) in the Gospel", as far as I can tell, never completely superseded any of the former. Moreover, the formula "it is written in the Gospel according to Matthew, Marc, etc.", though occasionally used, never played a prominent role in the patristic writers I am familiar with (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Epiphanius). There might have been a variety of reasons why these writers chose to refer to the Gospel material the way they did. But it's simply anachronistic to assume they _should_ have done it in one or another other way. Therefore, even the outline of your argument not to mention your extrapolations seems highly questionable to me. [snip] > >Some of this comes close to W. Bauer's hypothesis, except that I see the >Logia as having inspired the first Gospel, but not until early 2nd >century, at which time it also reenergized the Gnostic movement. If the Logia you refer to are those of Papia's work, see my argument above. >I find >it consistent that Papias trusted oral tradition rather than the written >word (in the Gospels), Where does Papias say that he "trusted" oral tration rather than the written word? >and that Marcion felt free to choose a gospel to >doctor up and then reject the other Gospels. Marcion is a perfect example of the relatively long period of _written_ accounts of the Gospel tradition and of the relatively well established position of at least one of the Synoptics. a. He never referred to oral tradition to overcome or replace what he held to be interpolated by judaizers. b. He even accused the desciples of Jesus as having tempered his message. c. He used one of the lateron canonical Gospels to regain the authentic teaching of Jesus. Very briefly I may conclude therefrom that by performing his task the very way he did it, Marcion gives evidence to a strong counterposition referring to one (or probably more) _written_ account(s) of the _Synoptic_ Gospel tradition based on the claim of apostolic origin. It is noteworthy that Marcion never introduced "apocryphal" figures or secret teachings or oral tradition to rely on. Quite to the contrary, Marcion seemed to have acknowledged his counterparts claim of apostolic offspring with respect to their writings, though accusing the apostles, save for Paul, of having tempered Jesus teaching after he has left them. Marcion even supports his counterparts' claim by using one of "their" Gospels as an appropriate starting point for regaining the "original" teaching of Jesus. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 09:16:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00980; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:16:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199709141316.JAA00975@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Justin Martyr (was Re: Words of Jesus) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:24:04 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 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: 1348 From: U. Schmid ------------------------------------------------------------ >(Comment previously) If this reasoning is correct, persons like Justin must have been a bit dubious as to who wrote the Gospels, if they came out almost a century after the fact yet were attributed to mid-1st-century persons; and so he avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew, Mark.... . Again, I don't fully understand what you mean. [arguments snipped] 6. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude: Justin knew the titles as they are found in the manuscript tradition (c.f., the plural "Euaggelia", the Memoirs of Peter, i.e. Gospel of Mark). STEVE CR Is the argument based on the contrast between Dial 106 ("..And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of **Him** that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges..") and the other places in Justin's writings where the term 'Memoirs of the apostles' is used? And therefore, Justin clearly has two groups of gospels in mind? I'd not noticed that point in Dial 106 before. But first I want to make sure I understand that that is your basis. Is this off-topic anyhow? (I'm new to the list) Regards, Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 09:45:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01030; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:45:13 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:49:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Robinson business as usual In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970910205751.4997b1e8@mail.ukonline.co.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: 7049 I will not be replying in detail to the diatribe regarding my own position (even though I could provide answers, which, if not persuasive to all concerned, would at least reflect a reasonable application of praxis within the "normal" parameters of NT textual criticism in a manner which Evensen's non-logical faith-position does not attempt to do). My non-reply comes about for various reasons, some of which should sound quite familiar to the regular readers of the tc-list: (a) I was requested to provide a one-word comment rather than discuss the issues. I did precisely that. (b) "It would take me more than a month of research to prepare an adequate response", and I certainly would not want to be speaking off the top of my head, or I might make other typos like leaving the -um off "argumentum" (the hyphens were there to keep the Latin terms together). (c) "We textual scholars have better things to do with our time". (d) I leave for my sabbatical in Muenster next Wednesday and will be occupied with more pressing and significant matters of research beyond rehashing points of my theory to those who really do not care an iota about such; also my current occupation with packing luggage for such an extended stay precludes much more time to be spent on the computer. Yet for the record, I happen to _agree_ with Petersen on the following items (written to Waltz), even if Petersen might not think I do: >The textual critic should have *no* personal investment in whether the >"original" is "veil" or "power" in I Cor. 11:10; nor should the textual >critic care (from a personal or theological point of view) whether the >"Great Commission" is part of the original text of Matthew or not. > ....................... >A textual critic, however, begins with "I don't know what is going on; >let me assemble the evidence and see if it points in a direction; it >may, or it may not." And if the evidence points in a particular >direction, that direction should have *no* relevance for the critic's >life (otherwise he/she will be tempted to shape the evidence to fit >his/her beliefs). Those who at least attempt to understand my theory of Byzantine-priority will also realize that the "personal faith" issue has NO bearing on which text I support (and I freely acknowledged that my position originally was within the "reasoned eclectic" model, which similarly was unrelated text-critically to my own personal faith). In the same manner, the theory regarding Byzantine-priority and a history of transmission model was first developed before engaging in praxis with the data of the variant units and modifying the theory whenever the data required. There was _no_ "patent cutting of the evidence to fit pre-conceived theories of textual transmission", whether one prefers to think so or not. It is true that, once the theory became established and was set into place, the evaluation of data did take place within the framework and perspective of that theory; but the theory itself did not depend on a preliminary "cutting of the evidence". I, along with many of the eclectic critics, happen _not_ to think that a versional or patristic reading standing alone without Greek MS support is likely to be original. This is no reason for objection regarding bias in methodology, but the method instead reflects a reasonable conclusion held by many different textual theorists and practitioners. So even if one considers "veil" to have been in the actual main text of some now non-extant Greek MS which found its way into the main text of a number of Latin MSS, this still does not overturn the point that no known Greek MS extant today (or even mentioned patristically) seems ever to have had such a reading in its main text. Similarly, there is no reason why a true marginal gloss in a now-lost Greek MS may have been the source of the reading in the Latin copies. The argumentum-ex-silentio (correct this time, but still with my favored misplaced hyphens) is just as severe regarding the speculation that one, some, or many Greek MSS "must" have had such a reading for it to have spread among the Latins, when in fact the alteration may have been made directly into the first Latin copy bearing it by a scribe who asked someone "what is this _exousia_ supposed to mean?". Merely because one does not choose to accept certain degrees of evidence within his own approach to NT textual criticism does not invalidate the method. (Seems like some time ago the discussion went this very direction in regard to conjectural emendation, which many of us similarly reject due to the amount of evidence preserved to us). I will acknowledge that my response regarding Helge's (admittedly) non-scientific, non-logical views regarding the text are strong, but "absurd", "ridiculous" and "non-sensical" are correct terms to use when describing non-logical positions. ("Crock" I will grant may be pejorative, though any offense taken should be from Helge, who has not complained either publicly or privately to me about that post; if so, I will recant). For those who have not seen the type of language which normally comes from the TR/KJV-only crowd, my comments come out as tame indeed, especially regarding an illogical, absurdist "faith-based" position claiming some affinity with legitimate textual criticism. Such a position I utterly reject. Helge, to his credit, does _not_ write like a Waite, a Riplinger, or a Ruckman (names which to those in normal text-critical circles are unknown), and this at least is to the good; if he wrote like them, I would wager not one person on this list would bother replying. Petersen further asks: >Should I note this vocabulary, and use it the next time I hear the >Byzantine text being projected back into the early centuries, *without >any manuscript, versional, or patristic support*? Feel free, since it seems this objection previously was stated fairly strongly, but without the same words (which perhaps you wanted to say in the first place). My answers will remain the same in any case. One point of final agreement: >I am a very dumb man, and--esp. on this list--have never been sure who is >a textual critics and who is not. I confess I fit the first part of that statement quite well, and am in agreement with the second part. >against Evensen: "With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed >'thousands of MSS' which perished"; but is this not the same argument I >used against Robinson, pointing out the empirical dearth of evidence for >the Byzantine text before the fourth century? As stated in my one word response: NOT. But as promised at the beginning of this post, I am not going to bother with the detailed response for the reasons 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 Sun Sep 14 12:32:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01351; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:32:34 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:35:13 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: Justin Martyr (was Re: Words of Jesus) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3241 On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Steve Carson-Rowland wrote: >From: U. Schmid >------------------------------------------------------------ >>(Comment previously) If this reasoning is correct, persons like Justin >must have been a bit dubious as to who wrote the Gospels, if they came out >almost a century after the fact yet were attributed to mid-1st-century >persons; and so he avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew, Mark.... . > >Again, I don't fully understand what you mean. > >[arguments snipped] >6. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude: Justin knew the titles as >they are found in the manuscript tradition (c.f., >the plural "Euaggelia", the Memoirs of Peter, i.e. Gospel of Mark). > >STEVE CR >Is the argument based on the contrast between Dial 106 ("..And when it is >said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it >is written in the memoirs of **Him** that this so happened, as well as that >He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to >Boanerges..") and the other places in Justin's writings where the term >'Memoirs of the apostles' is used? And therefore, Justin clearly has two >groups of gospels in mind? > >I'd not noticed that point in Dial 106 before. But first I want to make >sure I understand that that is your basis. Justin uses not only the singular "Euaggelion" but also the unusual plural "Euaggelia" denoting written Gospel accounts. He even identifies one of the Apomnemaneumata = Euaggelion/Euaggelia as that of Peter's which points by inferrence from the Presbyter tradition (cf. Papias) to the Gospel of Mark. This Gospel is in the MSS tradition known as the "Euaggelion _kata_ Markon". Moreover, Justin makes a distinction between two groups of Apomnemoneumata = Gospels, one group was written by "apostles" and another group by "followers of theirs" (which, BTW, fits perfetly well with the canonical Gospels). This inevitably leads to the conclusion that Justin (a) knew written Gospel accounts that have been labelled individually as "Euaggelion" denoting their common genre, although he preferred to call them Apomnemoneumata, and (b) that they had to have beared names of writers on them who could be and already had been identified as _either_ "apostles" _or_ "followers of the apostles". Note, I'm not taking side in the discussion about "historicity" of all these identifications made by Papias or Justin. I'm simply concluding that by the time of Justin those traditions already existed for quite some time and that Justin could refer to them just in passing by. Now, since there is no other title, combining the term "Euaggelion" with the name of an individual, of the Gospel of Mark nor of the other lateron canonical Gospels known to us than the famous "Euaggelion kata..." (apart from pious expansions like "holy gospel...", etc.), there is no need to assume that Justin knew Mark's Gospel and the others under a different title. Maybe you should not have omitted my point 5 related to the unanimously attested Gospel superscriptions in the form "euaggelion kata...". But this is it, basically. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 13:05:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01427; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:05:13 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:09:17 -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: Scientific systems (Was: Re: Entre nous...) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1835 Here we go again... Once again, I will keep this short. On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) wrote, in part: >One might say that I, personally, find the descriptions that you and >Robinson use--and I will quote--a bit "over the top." [ ... ] >Waltz: "Evensen offers a text on the basis of faith. Robinson offers a text >on the basis of evidence," "Robinson is a textual critic, even if an >unorthodox on. Evensen is not." Should I note this vocabulary, and use it >the next time I hear the Byzantine text being projected back into the early >centuries, *without any manuscript, versional, or patristic support*? Not relevant to what I am saying. Remember that I do not agree with Robinson's text or method. But he *has* one. That is, he has a system. It's *wrong,* but it's a system. Let me give an analogy. The Ptolemaic system of astronomy assumed that the earth was the center of the universe, and calculated the positions of the planets on that basis. It was wrong -- the earth is *not* the center of the universe. But it was systematic; anyone could repeat the results. Similarly, you or I could follow Robinson's principles and reproduce his text. Evensen, by analogy, is a reader of horoscopes. He believes what he believes because it says so. If the TR did not exist, we could not by any means reconstruct his text. All I maintain is that Robinson has a logically consistent system. That is not the same as a correct system. But it's far better than an illogical one! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Sep 14 18:09:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02065; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:09:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199709142209.SAA02058@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: Justin Martyr (was Re: Words of Jesus) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 08:17:13 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 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: 1914 From: U. Schmid Justin uses not only the singular "Euaggelion" but also the unusual plural "Euaggelia" denoting written Gospel accounts. He even identifies one of the Apomnemaneumata = Euaggelion/Euaggelia as that of Peter's which points by inferrence from the Presbyter tradition (cf. Papias) to the Gospel of Mark. This Gospel is in the MSS tradition known as the "Euaggelion _kata_ Markon". Moreover, Justin makes a distinction between two groups of Apomnemoneumata = Gospels, one group was written by "apostles" and another group by "followers of theirs" (which, BTW, fits perfetly well with the canonical Gospels). This inevitably leads to the conclusion that Justin (a) knew written Gospel accounts that have been labelled individually as "Euaggelion" denoting their common genre, although he preferred to call them Apomnemoneumata, and (b) that they had to have beared names of writers on them who could be and already had been identified as _either_ "apostles" _or_ "followers of the apostles". Note, I'm not taking side in the discussion about "historicity" of all these identifications made by Papias or Justin. I'm simply concluding that by the time of Justin those traditions already existed for quite some time and that Justin could refer to them just in passing by. Now, since there is no other title, combining the term "Euaggelion" with the name of an individual, of the Gospel of Mark nor of the other lateron canonical Gospels known to us than the famous "Euaggelion kata..." (apart from pious expansions like "holy gospel...", etc.), there is no need to assume that Justin knew Mark's Gospel and the others under a different title. STEVE CR Thanks for the explanation. I'm going on a 3 week business trip in a few hours so I'll have to think about it properly when I get back. I will have some more questions I think. Regards, Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 19:28:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02344; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 19:28:41 -0400 Message-ID: <341CFE51.3A7E@sn.no> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:22:25 -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: Canons of Criticism 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: 6052 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > Although I am not going to continue in a debate over ridiculous matters > coming from the TR/KJV-only quarters, the point below really asks far too > much of even the most credulous TR/KJV supporter: > > On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through > > extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that > > were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind, > > it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission > > of the text of MSS which now have perished. > > (More heresy!) > > :~) > > Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed > that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were > extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", Notice that I did *not* *claim* that the TR text was to be found in the "thousands of MSS" that may have perished! All I said was that "MSS with such a text could have perished through extensive use". As to the "thousands of MSS", I did not say that these could have contained a "TR" text. Of course, it is indicated in my statement that at least some of them *maybe* did. > and "it is even > possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of > the text of MSS which now have perished." None of the Nestle editions represent an unbroken tradition back to the time when many MSS still were handwritten, i.e. in the transition from handwritten to printed "transmission". The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically. Erasmus' edition was based on handwritten copies, for the most part. As I see it, the 1516 edition was a continuation of the MS tradition. It should be kept in mind that the foundation of my argumentation is a belief in providential preservation, which I interpret to mean that the providential preserved text is to be found in a historical continued textual tradition. (And as far as I can see, the Byz text is the ancestor of the TR). > And there is nothing preventing > such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and > interpretation of factual data. "Normal logic"? "Normal laws of evidence"? "Interpretation"? Again, "good godly men differ"! > > This type of assertion, Helge, is the biggest crock of nonsense I have > EVER heard coming from the TR/KJV-only crowd, and I cannot imagine how you > can make such a suggestion with a straight face. What a privilege to be the one to widen your understanding of the "TR/KJV-only crowd"! :-) > > With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed "thousands of MSS" > which perished (I would suggest hundreds), let alone that the text > EXCLUSIVELY of those "thousands" would happen to agree with the printed > TR, I never asserted nor suggested such a thing! > and all that today remain extant are somehow "different" --- this type > of assertion makes your whole concept of God's "divine preservation" of > the "true text" in totally lost MSS the TR/KJV-only equivalent of Joseph > Smith finding the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, which, once > translated, were forever removed from view, leaving only the PRINTED Book > of Mormon as the "evidence" that such ever existed. This is a bad comparison, indeed. *No* MSS *at all* exist to verify the book of Mormon. But there *are* many MSS which verify the TR. Although the Byz txt is not in complete harmony with the TR, it is close. That cannot be said of the book of Mormon's relation to the "plates". Also, I do not claim that an angel or a heavenly vision showed me the "original readings". There are even ancient sources for nearly *every word* in the TR! There are MSS, Fathers, Versions, Lectionaries, etc. Is anything similar the case with the book of Mormon? And, BTW, the "plates" were *translated*, not *copied*! It seems that this "comparison" fails on each and all points! (Maybe it was just meant as a joke?!) :-) > You said precisely as > much in your last sentence: > > > To my mind, > > it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as > > a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. > > I might as well even claim that "thousands" of MSS from the 13th-15th > centuries which contained a text like Codex Bezae have similarly perished, > and that ALL of those which perished in fact were systematically destroyed > because they contained a pre-publication version of the Book of Mormon > between their covers. You are not responding to any of *my* statements, are you? This cannot possibly be a reply to any of *my* posts! (Or maybe someone have tampered with some of the words in it.) :-( :-/ :-) Let me clarify: I did not say "thousands of MSS which now have perished". Also, note that I said it is *even* *possible* for me to regard it thus. I did not say I believed it was so, it was meant as an expression of possibility. No, not even a *likelihood*. What I had in mind was that since the Erasmus edition is very close to the MSS he used for his edition (at least some of them), it may be that a few MSS even *closer* to his printed edition may have perished. I did not mean to suggest that they were *many*! (I believe it is possible that Erasmus used MSS for his edition which do no longer exist or at least are no longer available to us. It seems that his 1516 edition bears witness to the use of other MSS which we no longer know about. I can't see why this is so illogical!) But again, I should have explained myself better, but I did not imagine that it would arouse such reactions. (I *should* have known, though. I must agree with the statement quoted at the end of one of Mr. Waltz's posts:) "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." :-) > This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain > and simple. Please feel free to maintain that opinion. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 19:31:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02367; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 19:31:15 -0400 Message-ID: <341CFEE8.6BB9@sn.no> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:24:56 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail1.sn.no id BAA03791 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 10675 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > Let me thank Evensen for his honesty -- and also his patience > in the face of many people who argue, with justice, that he > has no view of *textual criticism*; he merely has a view on > the text. Thanks. Although I usually disagree with Mr. Waltz, I appreciate his overall impartial attitude. In my opinion, he is the most honest TCer on this list (even though he's a "non-specialist"; .....hmm...Is there a connection here....?) :-) It's too late now, of course, to ask Dr. Edward Hills about his opinion on what is to be called "textual criticism" or not. For he was certainly a textual critic, but his position was a "TR priority position" and he believed in providential preservation and that the TR was the providential preserved New Testament text. He believed in what he called a "consistent Christian textual criticism". And since I largely agree with Dr. Hills, I believe in his view of textual criticism, at least to a considerable degree. So I *have* a view of textual criticism as much as Hills had a view of textual criticism. In my mind, textual criticism is to try to establish the original text of the Bible. Hills did that, and he concluded (with the help of the Scriptures themselves) that the TR is the textform which best fulfils the scriptural promise of providential preservation. I freely admit that I follow Hills' in this. (I do not, however, necessarily agree with Hills at every point). (While writing this post, I am listening to Mozart in my Walkman, in fact, it is his Piano Concerto No.12 in A Major. This is the kind of music that will give you relaxation and peace even right in the middle of the most boring debates. Try it some time!) :-) > Clearly this is a pointless discussion, but for the sake of any > lurkers out there I wish to point out the logical inconsistency > of Mr. Evensen's position. Note that this does not "prove" him > wrong; I can offer no proof that God is logical. (In fact, I could > offer a pretty strong case for the reverse.) So Evensen may > be right. "God knows; I do not know." A honest admission. Appreciated... > He merely cannot claim to > practice anything resembling a scientific method of criticism. It seems that you are right. At least, it may not be "scientific" in the usual sense. > > Thus, I would note to the readers that I am arguing logic and > Evensen is arguing faith. I can only hope you'll make the right > choice between the two. To me, it's obvious -- but then, I am > trained as a physicist and mathematician. Again, I would appeal to Dr. Hills' view. He was talking about a "logic of faith". > No doubt I'm biased. :-) Who isn't? :) > > On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote, in par= t: > > >Mr. Waltz, > > > >I'll be glad to answer your question. > > > >First, let me remind of the fact that *no* resultant text of *any* tex= t > >editor or bible translator is reflected in any known manuscript. > > True, because of slips of the pen. However, I suspect (and I have not > checked this with Robinson) that you could find manuscripts that > agree almost completely (i.e. except for clear errors and orthographic > differences) with Maurice Robinson's text. That may be so. There is, however, a problem in the *historical* area. Since the invention of printing, the only form of the traditional text that would be of any real help to ordinary Christian people (the "lay people" or the non-specialists) is a *printed* edition. It was first in the early 1980s that a printed edition of the Majority/Byzantine text was made available. Robinson's followed later. Thus, a useful edition of the Byzantine text has not been available all between the invention of printing up to 1982. Only in the form of the TR has it continued as a text all the way through that intermediate period. > > Also, didn't somebody try to create an exact English translation of > B (or was it Aleph?) a while back? (I will admit I could be wrong > on this -- the memory is very vague.) Again, it does not help much as long as almost no one have heard about it, much less *read* it! > > What's more, this is not a faith issue for me. Since I don't > believe in providential preservation in any form, I don't > *expect* the text to be preserved in any one manuscript (although > B comes close in the Gospels, and 1739 in the Epistles). I don't > *want* to adopt the text of any one manuscript -- so I don't. :-) With all due respect, but I seem to find a "faith statement" here. If I am interpreting Mr. Waltz correctly, he is stating (as a fact) that B comes close to the original text in the Gospels, and that 1739 does so in the Epistles. I must ask: What canons of criticism verify that this is so? As far as I can see, it's not stated as a "likelihood". (Sorry if I have interpreted you wrongly, Bob). [.....] > As the apparatus of Hodges and > Farstad shows, there are thousands of differences between the TR > (*any* TR) and *the* Byzantine text. A little too strong statement there. It's not "thousands" of differences. I think the appr. number of total differences is somewhere between 1800 and 2000. Well, "thousands" could of course apply to 2000, but for the person who does not know the appr. number of differences, the above statement may easily be interpreted to mean far more than just 2000. [....] > > >Now to your question, which, to my mind, has serious problems. Christi= ans > >in the time prior to Erasmus' edition *may* in fact have had a "TR tex= t" > >available through several MSS. It does not necessarily have to be foun= d > >in just *one* MS! > > But how, in that case, were people to identify it? Divine inspiration? > In that case, why did they need the Bible in the first place? My point was not that everybody *knew* that this was the original text. I said that it might have been *available* through several MSS (and I may add, several *sources*). In other words, the TR was not *non-existent* before 1516. Its readings can be found before that time. And I know this does not testify to the TR as a *text*, but only to its readings. I admit that I should have expressed myself more clearly at this point. But remember that I was responding to the following statements of yours: << Thus, prior to the publication of the TR, it was impossible for a Christian to use what you define as the "best" edition. So my question is, What is the theological position of all the people prior to 1516 who not only did not use the TR, but COULD NOT use the TR? >> I objected to your assertion that it was *impossible* for a Christian to have *used* the "TR" before 1516 or that he *could not* have used it, because no existing MS contains such a text. As to the *theological position* of those before 1516 I clearly believe that they regarded the Byzantine textual tradition as the God-preserved text. Note in this context that I never said that they held any "TR" text to be the providential preserved text. I do not think that they did, but only that they *had* the TR available through different sources. There is a difference. As I have stated elsewhere, concurring with Dr. Hills, I think that the Byzantine text was the providential preserved text *at the time of its dominion*! > >It may be true that they did not have any one MS with such a text. But= we > >really do not know that for sure, either. It is clearly to overstate t= he > >case to say that it was *impossible* for a Christian to use a "TR > >edition" before 1516. I think it would be better to use terms like > >"probably" or "more/less likely" in cases such as these! > > You're right. There are some 3,000 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts > of the Bible. Not one of which agrees with the TR. (Excluding lectionar= ies, > etc.) None of which match the TR. That's 13,000 manuscripts. > None of which agree with the TR. Let's assume that the majority of > all manuscripts ever copied were TR-equivalent. So that's at least > 13,001 manuscripts equivalent to the TR that have been lost. > The odds of losing one, therefore, are given by 13,001/26,001, > or for all intents and purposes .5. Note that I did not make a strong point out of any existing TR in any one MS before 1516. I clearly admitted that "It may be true that they did not have any one MS with such a text". All I did was to open for the *possibility* that there may have existed MSS with such a text. > > That makes the odds that the TR was once the majority text no > better than .5 to the 13,001 power. I never stated that I believed the TR was at any time a "majority text" in handwritten copies. Again, I only said it was *available* in MSS sources and that it *existed* before 1516. > > This number is so small that, even using logarithms, I cannot > get a value off my calculator. Let's put it in colloquial terms: > "One in a gazillion gazillion." You should know! > > In other words, for the TR to be the true Byzantine text, someone > would have had to go out and deliberately destroy all the copies. That would have been a bad deed, indeed! :-=D8 > > >It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished thro= ugh > >extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that > >were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my min= d, > >it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as > >a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. (More heres= y!) > > All I can say is, Do the math! It should be easy, since I already > did it. :-) Note my use of the word "possible" in both statements above. Even more important, remember that I did *not* say that manuscripts with such a text probably were in *majority*. My whole point had to do with the *possibility* of the *existence* of such MSS! The quantity was not mentioned. It seems that Mr. Robinson interpreted me as having asserted that "thousands" of MSS now lost may have agreed with the TR. But by reading my words carefully, anyone should be able to see that I did no such thing. > > >You say that people prior to the time of Erasmus' edition did not and > >could not use the TR. How can you be so sure? Since the TR was based o= n > >several sources that were extant at the time of its formation, is it a= ny > >wonder if these sources (and the predecessors of these sources) would > >have been available to the peoples' use in the time prior to 1516? > > But, again, how were they to know which reading was right? I don't know. Most of them probably never did. If somebody did, he may have attained to that benefit by comparing the MSS and praying God to show him. (But I'm not God. Thank God I'm not!) :-) --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 19:38:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02411; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 19:38:00 -0400 Message-ID: <341D0089.1CCE@sn.no> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:31:53 -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: Canons of Criticism References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> <3419F2A0.2B07@sn.no> <3419C666.24EF@total.net> <341A3AB6.7CB1@sn.no> <341A2A53.27BE@total.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1050 Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: > > Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > > > > > 1) It is not "by faith" alone. That might have opened the possibility of > > > > several textual choices of my own which corresponds better with my > > > > personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings. > > > > > > For example? > > > > To add an example may start a theological debate regarding my personal > > beliefs, but this is a TC list, so I shall spare ye all! > > Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list? Yes, I will do so. > > > > Well that WAS my point, actually. My point was: > > > > > > a) The TR follows the Byz text most of the time, > > > > > > b) occasionally it follows the other textypes (to the exclusion of Byz), > > > > > > c) NO existing text-critical canons can vindicate the TR in all these places, > > > > No "existing" text-critical canons?? I may have several you have never > > heard about. > > Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list (again)? :-) Tks. I will. > > Mike A. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 14 23:22:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA02797; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:22:52 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:26:53 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Mr. Helge Evensen" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism In-Reply-To: <3419E6E4.195F@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: 518 Thank you for the fair answer. You seem to say the KJV is always correct except where there is no TR or Greek Ms known for it. Do I understand you properly? If so there will likely never be a place where the KJV is wrong in your view; if there is, they will be in extremely few places. Please tell me all the places where you consider the KJV is wrong. many thanks -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 00:20:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA02904; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:20:07 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:24:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Words of Jesus 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: 13009 On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote (inter alia): > > >I think that very extensive redaction is the reason why there was no > >plethora of writings describing who wrote the Gospels, when & where > >they were written, and their motivations for having been written. > >And similarly the reason why the Logia, about which Papias > >wrote five treatises, did not survive. > I must confess that I do not fully understand the reasoning behind > this argument. > > 1. What sort of redaction do you mean referring to what part of the > tradition? I am inferring that Matthew is rife with redactions, as most redaction critics suspect, and I don't see how this fact, if it is a fact, could have been kept totally secret from those within the church where the writer of Matthew was located. So, within that church, this would have been an embarrassment they would not wish to talk about or write about. Hence there would be a great paucity of writings on how the Gospel of Matthew came into being, as outside of this church or region even less would be known on how Matthew originated. Next I presume that the tradition of Matthew coming first, Mark second, is truthful, as this was just a matter of chronology and nothing that Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine would have had any theological need to falsify. Hence when Mark came out, presumably in Rome, those who compared it against Matthew (though Matthew may still have been written only in Hebraic/Aramaic at that time) would have been able to see that Mark was a redacted abbreviation of Matthew. This would not have spoken well for its authenticity, and again would not have inspired persons at the church in question (in Rome) who knew about the situation to write about its origin. Hence there is a great shortage of information about Mark's origin also. Might this not explain why Justin, who spent his last 25 years or so in Rome, rarely if ever quoted from Mark in his Apologies or Dialog (a possible allusion to Mk 12:30 may instead have been to Lk 10:27), though very frequently quoting from Matthew and sometimes from Luke? Justin would not likely have known of the detailed situation in Antioch or wherever Matthew (and Luke) originated, and could more easily assume that these other gospels were authentic and suitable to quote from or allude to. So after Luke came out, according to the same tradition, it should have been known to those closest to that writer not only how heavily he borrowed from Mark, but that he borrowed from Matthew and placed many of those verses in improper context (causing scholars many centuries later to postulate existence of Q). So the very persons who could have written about the origins of the Gospel of Luke from first-hand information similarly did not wish to do so as it would have been embarrassing to the early church. I can think of another possibility or two as to why Justin did not quote from Mark, and these also involve Marcan redactions. > 2. Why should there have been a "plethora of writings describing who wrote > the Gospels..."? The era when the Gospels first came out should have been the most glorious period in the history of the early church -- to finally have the written teachings of the Lord made available to the church when before there had been only oral tradition and the epistles of Paul, who was no first-hand witness. (Or, if he had been a witness to Jesus, that fact must have been what turned him into the key persecutor of Jesus' followers.) So, by all reasonable expectations, various early church fathers should have written about how and where, why and by whom, the Gospels were written, within a few decades of the Gospels' appearances. Instead, there is only silence on these matters -- silence that I see explained as per above. I believe this should have been much too momentous an era in the history of the early church for the argument of silence to be casually dismissed as untrustworthy. > Besides, we have at least the testimony of a certain > "Prebyter" prior to Papias describing at least two of the Gospels. The very little that Eusebius said that Papias said the Presbyter John had told Papias is about it -- about all we have. There should have been much more if there had been nothing embarrassing about the Gospels' origins. But what little survived even from Papias can be interpreted as having posed embarrassments to the early church: (1) Something about the Logia caused "difficulty" in interpretation; (2) some parts of Mark were written in improper order -- improper order relative to some preexisting written gospel that I take to have been Matthew. > 3. The "reason why the the Logia, about which Papias wrote five treatises, > did not survive" apparently is that they never existed apart from Papias > work. Papias collected them out of written and oral sources adding his > comments to them. ... That's an assumption that needn't be made. The Logia could have been an extensive *written* document known to Papias, or sayings he recalled from such a document or from those who had read the document. If so, the written source did not survive even though, with this interpretation, it formed the basis for Matthew. The exception to this I'm aware of is the late-emerging candidate to have been these written Logia that I have been studying (Talmud of Jmmanuel). > 1. It is a well known fact that Justin displays knowledge of at least the > Synoptic Gospels usually calling them Apomnemoneumata, once glossing this > term with Euangelia (1 Apol 66.3). There is no dispute that Justin knew of the Gospels, and so probably also that they were attributed to apostles or more distant disciples. But in this example you cited, was it Justin or a later copyist who made the Euangelia gloss? > 2. Once Justin refers to Peter's Apomnemoneumata (Dial. 106.2-3) giving > evidence that he knows the Presbyter tradition related to the Gospel of > Mark (c.f. Papias). Yes, and Clement of Alexandria further places Peter and (John) Mark in Rome. In this regard, you might be interested in studying the Talmud of Jmmanuel, because from it one can deduce what these "memoirs" of Peter consisted of, and how they tie in with the good agreement of order of Mark against Matthew from Mt 12 on and the great disagreement in order before that point. I believe that is what Papias referred to when mentioning incorrect order in Mark. And from it one can also explain why it was that Peter & Mark in Rome had a document ("memoirs") in the 50s or 60s while the Gospels did not come out until decades later, if one infers that well before the time of Eusebius it had become totally unacceptable to regard the Gospels as having been written by any others than the men whose names are attached to them. (That is, I think it was likely Eusebius, not Papias, who in quoting from Papias equated the writer of Matthew with the disciple, and the writer of Mark with the person Mark.) > 3. Once Justin refers to the Apomnemoneumata of the Apostles and of their > followers (Dial. 103.8) giving evidence that he knows two different groups > of written Gospels. One group was written by apostles (e.g., Matthew and > John) and another group was written by followers of the apostles (e.g., > Mark and Luke). Yet, the point that he didn't identify any of these gospels by name seems deserving of an explanation. I do wonder if it was not because he knew that the Gospels themselves had not been written by their "kata's", and so didn't wish to come right out and particularize his sources by name. I regard Justin as being in the transition period after the Gospels had appeared but before the embarrassing aspects of their origins had faded in time and they could be definitely attributed to their "kata's" (later in the 2nd century, and no later than the time of Irenaeus). I appreciate your comprehensive replies, Ulrich. This may be getting too long, however, and so I do need to cut more from here on. > .... 6. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude: > Justin knew the titles as they are found in the manuscript tradition > (c.f., the plural "Euaggelia", the Memoirs of Peter, i.e. Gospel of > Mark). Yes, probably so. However, I don't equate these "Memoirs" with GMark. > 7. In assuming that Justin "avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew, > Mark..." you seem to imply that he should have used these designations. > But why should he have done so? In my view there is simply no > reason for this assumption: > a. Justin chose for whatever reason to refer to the Gospels mainly as > Apomnemoneumata. The grammatical construction of Apomnemoneumata simply is > with the genitive. The "whatever reason" deserves consideration. I suppose it's possible that when Matthew, Mark & Luke first came out they each didn't come accompanied by their "kata" designations. These might have been added a little later than in Justin's time, or the time when the Gospels available to Justin had been copied. But this seems too conjectural to dwell upon. > b. He used the term euaggelion only three times. Without going into more > detail at this point, it seems unnatural or even inappropriate to me had he > used the "kata" name(s) in these cases (cf. 1 Apol. 66.3; Dial. 10.2; > 100.1). .... But if Justin *had* referred to Matthew, Mark or Luke by name, in referring to one or another gospel, rather than referring to memoirs of the apostles, we all would have accepted that and not thought it strange at all. However, whatever way you look at it, in his references to the Gospels he used language that would not require him to state which "kata" gospel he was referring to in which allusion. If the four Gospels had been written around 70-90 C.E., it is incomprehensible that they would not have been mentioned by name within a time period of three generations later, unless there was a very good reason for it. Even if they were not written until around 120, a good reason is still needed why they were not mentioned by name for another 3 decades or so. > Where does Papias say that he "trusted" oral tradition rather than > the written word? .... That's the way I interpret Papias's "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." I equate "books" here with "the Gospels" and "the living and abiding voice" with oral tradition, and find it plausible that Eusebius would soften any of Papias's statements that in any way cast doubt on the authority of the Gospels. Eusebius treated the writers of the Gospels as if they were practically divine. > Marcion is a perfect example of the relatively long period of _written_ > accounts of the Gospel tradition and of the relatively well established > position of at least one of the Synoptics. ... I wouldn't call it "relatively long," however. It might have been only 20 years or so. But a lot can happen in 20 years. > a. He never referred to oral tradition to overcome or replace what he held > to be interpolated by judaizers. This doesn't address the time period. (And he may not have agreed with some of the oral tradition.) > b. He even accused the desciples of Jesus as having tempered his message. If I believed that certain portions of the Gospel of Matthew came from that disciple, I would agree with Marcion. I instead believe that the tempering and tampering came from the writer of the gospel. > c. He used one of the lateron canonical Gospels to regain the authentic > teaching of Jesus. > Very briefly I may conclude therefrom that by performing his task the very > way he did it, Marcion gives evidence to a strong counterposition referring > to one (or probably more) _written_ account(s) of the _Synoptic_ Gospel > tradition based on the claim of apostolic origin. But this tradition need not have dated back more than 20 years. > It is noteworthy that > Marcion never introduced "apocryphal" figures or secret teachings or oral > tradition to rely on. Quite to the contrary, Marcion seemed to have > acknowledged his counterparts claim of apostolic offspring with respect to > their writings, though accusing the apostles, save for Paul, of having > tempered Jesus teaching after he has left them. Marcion even supports his > counterparts' claim by using one of "their" Gospels as an appropriate > starting point for regaining the "original" teaching of Jesus. Certainly by the time Marcion began setting up his own church he knew of the Gospels and of Luke, but not necessarily for more than 20 years before then. There is much we don't disagree on. This discussion is out of scope of tc if tc's ultimate goal, relative to the Gospels, is to recover them as they were in the time of Justin or Irenaeus. If, however, the goal is to get back to the teachings of Jesus, then redaction criticism and (early) source criticism come into play, and this discussion may have relevance for this list. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 00:23:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA02927; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:23:34 -0400 From: "Peter R. Burton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Methods: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: POPmail 2.3b7 Message-Id: <341cb9410e42004@mhub1.tc.umn.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 97 23:27:46 -0500 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4521 (This long note does not have conclusions about the comparative significance of extant NT texts.) Concerning methods: In the course of quite another discussion Robert B. Waltz has written: <> Whatever Robert Waltz and others are arguing about, this is indeed a curious choice of words. Does this mean that both logic and faith are different fields in which logical argument occurs? Or does it imply that logic and faith are categorically distinct fields, where reason is logically applied to what are often called facts and where non-logical operations are applied to details of belief? Or something else? On a quick reading the appeal to training in physics and mathematics might seem to help us know what is. One normally thinks of mathematics as the height of logical rigour applied to numbers: no needed beliefs here, just facts about numbers and their manipulation according to strict, valid operations. The trouble is this is not what mathematics is. Nor more basically is it what formal logic is either. We have to take it for granted that there is such a thing as a number and that we understand what that means before we can have even the most simple meaningful mathematical statement. This unprovable understanding we have of a number is something we have to put our trust in to engage in mathematical reasoning. (Although it might not seem obvious this type of assumption is required for our accurate use of ordinary human language as well.) Another common feature of mathematics is the appeal to intuition in the course of proofs. Accepted statements similar to and riddle the pages of great mathematicians' works and today's textbooks alike. Mathematicians are thus stating of the transition from one statement to the next, - just as Robert Waltz has written above. From time to time, some mathematical genius comes up with statements that replace the appeal to intuition at some stage of a famous proof. In the meantime mathematicians live confident that their established proofs, intuition and all, are correct and so reliable. The faith required of mathematicians in mathematical procedures to do mathematics is of course even more extensive than this. As the logical aspects of physics may be deemed to be mathematics applied to the physical world that we see, so may physicists be obliged to note that they must also have significant faith in their work to be able to do their work. An absolutely categorical distinction between reason (including logic) and faith (including how we do things and ought to do them) has been explored now for centuries, but in every discipline it has failed. As a result the choice offered by Robert Waltz in his statements above is not at all clear to me. Similarly, easily stated claims by some about suspending one's beliefs to engage in text criticism should be refined. We all depend upon our beliefs to engage in whatever we engage in. Clearly also an atheist might argue for theism for some purpose (e.g. participate in a formal debate) without being committed to theism and vice versa. The claims need to be refined. I have engaged here in meta-physics, drawing on ordinary conclusions of philosophy of mathematics and epistemology - not physics, not mathematics, not text criticism, not religious doctrine. Perhaps discussions in every field, including text criticism, would be more helpful if we were to be clearer about the extents of our own commitments while presenting our observations and arguments and avoided indefensible distinctions. Much easier said (as it is so often now) than done. Actively trying to examine one's activity is one of the most difficult activities one knows. To be well aware of the actual extent of one's commitments while engaged in an academic field like text criticism is even more difficult, possibly impossible. I am not, by the way, pessimistic about our knowing things, just dissatisfied with some long held analyses and the ways in which they are used in discussions. Another has said, Peter Burton burto009@maroon.tc.umn.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 05:24:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA03355; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:24:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:28:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism In-Reply-To: <341CFE51.3A7E@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: 8260 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Notice that I did *not* *claim* that the TR text was to be found in the > "thousands of MSS" that may have perished! All I said was that "MSS with > such a text could have perished through extensive use". > > With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed "thousands of MSS" > > which perished (I would suggest hundreds), let alone that the text > > EXCLUSIVELY of those "thousands" would happen to agree with the printed > > TR, > > I never asserted nor suggested such a thing! So what text then did you want us to presume was among those "thousands" of MSS which perished after the 15th century, since you specifically and only mentioned MSS containing a TR-type text which likely had perished? What point was there even in making such a hypothetical if MSS containing a TR text which differed from the normal Byzantine/majority text were not the issue? If even "thousands" of normal Byzantine MSS from the 13th-15th centuries perished, nothing would change in regard to the TR. Your suggestion had no relevance unless you were suggesting MSS which significantly differed from the normative Byzantine in the direction of the TR were the ones which were "lost". This is once more playing subtle rhetorical games with words, changing the intent as soon as a major weakness is exposed. > Of course, it is indicated in my statement that at least some of > them *maybe* did. It seems that the intent of your statement was to plant the suggestion that so many "thousands" of TR-like MSS perished since the 15th century that there was a reasonable assumption that the TR text in fact represented that text of those recently-perished MSS. If that was not what you intended, there was no point whatsoever in the statement. > What I had in mind was that since the Erasmus edition is very close to > the MSS he used for his edition (at least some of them), it may be that a > few MSS even *closer* to his printed edition may have perished. > I did > not mean to suggest that they were *many*! This is a MAJOR backtrack on your previous statements. Had you said only that instead of making the grand implication regarding "thousands", none of this discussion would have been taking place. > None of the Nestle editions represent an unbroken tradition back to the > time when many MSS still were handwritten, i.e. in the transition from > handwritten to printed "transmission". The text found in the Nestle editions, even though primarily Alexandrian, still agrees at least 90% in the gospels and 95% in the epistles with the TR or the Byzantine text. Anyone should be able to note even among those MSS an "unbroken line of tradition" in their transmission and preservation, especially if the TR text itself is nowhere to be found in any known Greek MS, but that all have degrees of variance from it. The Alexandrian text merely has a slightly greater degree of variance from the Byzantine majority than does the TR; but this does not change its basic reliability in transmitting the original text for 90% or more of the NT. > The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of > three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically. Irrelevant. The Scrivener TR on which you base your faith-assumption that it is basically or even totally equivalent to the autographs is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions and reconstructions of F.H.A. Scrivener, who himself was not making any claims to autograph authenticity in the TR-type of text he reconstructed "eclectically" from previously-existing TRs. There is no difference. > It should be kept in mind that the foundation of my argumentation is a > belief in providential preservation, which I interpret to mean that the > providential preserved text is to be found in a historical continued > textual tradition. (And as far as I can see, the Byz text is the ancestor > of the TR). If the TR agreed with the "Byzantine consensus text" (which could be determined even from taking 20 minuscule MSS and going with the "majority" reading of those), then this statement might have a little more credibility. Since the TR differs from _any_ Byzantine consensus in over 1800 places, the Byzantine Textform is NOT the "ancestor" of the TR; rather the TR is a close but not identical "cousin" of the Byzantine majority. > This is a bad comparison, indeed. *No* MSS *at all* exist to verify the > book of Mormon. But there *are* many MSS which verify the TR. Please show me the first MS which is identical to the TR. If none, show me the MSS which comes closest to the TR and has something far less than the 1800 differences between itself and the Byzantine majority. I would be especially interested in knowing of the "many MSS" which read "book of life" in Rev.21:19 or the KJV/TR addition in Ac.9:6 or the Johannine comma in 1 Jn 5:7. I still consider the Book of Mormon comparison as apt, since within its pages certain KJV passages can be verbally confirmed in many places, which demonstrates that the now-lost Golden Plates similarly had access to some of those very same "thousands" of MSS which had perished.... (And I am being facetious). > Although > the Byz txt is not in complete harmony with the TR, it is close. That > cannot be said of the book of Mormon's relation to the "plates". How can you say yea or nay in their absence? It is a faith assumption, plain and simple. Ask any Mormon. > Also, I > do not claim that an angel or a heavenly vision showed me the "original > readings". You claim instead of an angel that God Himself directly molded the text into the TR form under Erasmus and later printed TR successors through his "divine providential preservation" mechanism. Since God thus altered the text in over 1800 places from the reigning Byzantine majority by this hypothesis, the parallel to the angel and the book of Mormon is still apt. > There are even ancient sources for nearly *every word* in the TR! There > are MSS, Fathers, Versions, Lectionaries, etc. Is anything similar the > case with the book of Mormon? There doesn't have to be, since it is a faith assumption. But don't forget all those KJV passages within the Book of Mormon. As for the "ancient sources", it seems that the same could be said of the Byzantine Textform far more than the TR, but also for the Alexandrian and Western texttypes also. So this proves nothing, except what Bentley said about "pick and choose as you will" among the variant readings, choosing even the worst by design if you prefer, yet the main thrust and message of the NT will remain intact, and no major doctrinal shift will occur. If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was a "reasonably adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era scholarship and practice, which still could be used today with profit -- I think none of us would have a major objection. The problem comes in claiming what amounts to an unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the Scrivener edition) "is" the autograph text, and that all other texts are not what God has "providentially preserved". But for whatever reason (and I suspect the modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the TR-as-autograph issue has come to the fore among a small faction, and a warped view of textual transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into the support of their theory. Why must this take place? Why is it not sufficient merely to claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use the TR or KJV without making those two items into the one and only touchstone? That is the part that is beyond me. > And, BTW, the "plates" were *translated*, not *copied*! So was the Latin Vulgate, yet it also provides a "reasonably adequate" reflection of the autographs. > > This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain > > and simple. > > Please feel free to maintain that opinion. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 15 09:35:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03811; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:35:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 08:39:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <341CFE51.3A7E@sn.no> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Nestle text, etc. (Was: Re: Canons of Criticism) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4629 Replies, I hope brief, to several messages of Evensen. The first is a technical footnote only (I may get back into this debate later, but I hope not :-): On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote, in part: >The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of >three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically. Not quite true. Nestle1 and Nestle 2 were based on the editions of WH, Tischendorf, and Weymouth -- and Weymouth itself was a resultant edition. Nestle3-Nestle25 were, of course, based on WH, Tischendorf, and Weiss (with some minor alterations). But NA26 and NA27, while eclectic, are *not* based on earlier editions; they represent the text determined by the UBS committee. Evensen wrote in another letter: >> What's more, this is not a faith issue for me. Since I don't >> believe in providential preservation in any form, I don't >> *expect* the text to be preserved in any one manuscript (although >> B comes close in the Gospels, and 1739 in the Epistles). I don't >> *want* to adopt the text of any one manuscript -- so I don't. :-) > >With all due respect, but I seem to find a "faith statement" here. >If I am interpreting Mr. Waltz correctly, he is stating (as a fact) >that B comes close to the original text in the Gospels, and that >1739 does so in the Epistles. I must ask: What canons of criticism >verify that this is so? As far as I can see, it's not stated as a >"likelihood". (Sorry if I have interpreted you wrongly, Bob). That isn't the point I wanted to convey. I merely meant that, *IF* I had to adopt the text of single manuscripts, it would appear that B has the best text of the gospels and 1739 the best text of the Epistles. This is based on the fact that B has fewer harmonizations in the gospels than any other manuscript known to me, and 1739 seems generally to agree more with the other seemingly-early text types than any of them agree with each other. But I repeat that I would not follow these manuscripts blindly; I have a fairly rigorous system, and it just happens that these mamuscripts most nearly approximate the results of that system. It is, of course, true that I make certain assumptions in assessing manuscripts and reading. I believe, for instance, that unharmonized readings are usually more original than harmonized readings. We cannot, as yet, objectively "prove" such assumptions. But we at least can apply them systematically. Such a system may be *wrong,* but at least it is repeatable. (Which, btw, cannot be said of many of the modern eclectic systems.) As one who is scientifically trained, this is the first test I make of a system -- and one which the TR fails. Of course, you can ignore science. All you have to do is move into the backwoods, and live without electric lights and electricity itself and television and any metal more advanced than iron and automobiles and bicycles and.... :-) [ ...On the differences between the TR and HF... ] >A little too strong statement there. It's not "thousands" of differences. >I think the appr. number of total differences is somewhere between >1800 and 2000. Well, "thousands" could of course apply to 2000, but for >the person who does not know the appr. number of differences, the above >statement may easily be interpreted to mean far more than just 2000. >From the information available to me, editions of the TR typically differ at between 100 and 300 points. Thus the minimum number of differenced between HF and a TR edition is 1500; the maximum is over 2000. Such a number can reasonably be described as "thousands." Now I do not wish to imply that the TR is un-Byzantine. Most of those thousands of differences are trivial (though not all; witness the ending of Romans). The TR is strongly Byzantine. It is just not *purely* Byzantine -- and there is no evident pattern to the departures that would allow us to reconstruct it. Put it this way: If all printed evidence were destroyed, could you reconstruct the TR? I strongly doubt it. Whereas my text would not be affected at all.... *** For everyone's peace of mind, I will not pursue the mathematical argument. This was, of course, just a simple projection. We all interpret the argument differently, based on our faith assumptions and/or scientific training. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mon Sep 15 09:58:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03927; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:58:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:02:37 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <341cb9410e42004@mhub1.tc.umn.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: Methods: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5828 On Sun, 14 Sep 97, "Peter R. Burton" wrote: >(This long note does not have conclusions about the comparative significance of >extant NT texts.) But it *does* have significance for how we conduct textual criticism. >Concerning methods: > >In the course of quite another discussion Robert B. Waltz has written: > ><Evensen is arguing faith. I can only hope you'll make the right >choice between the two. To me, it's obvious -- but then, I am >trained as a physicist and mathematician. No doubt I'm biased. :-) >> > >Whatever Robert Waltz and others are arguing about, this is indeed a curious >choice of words. > >Does this mean that both logic and faith are different fields in which logical >argument occurs? Or does it imply that logic and faith are categorically >distinct fields, where reason is logically applied to what are often called >facts and where non-logical operations are applied to details of belief? Or >something else? I am willing to accept that my statements could have been clearer. I think my point is valid anyway. But let me state my position on this as clearly as I can. Hebrews says "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." In other words, faith operates where evidence is lacking. To someone of my background, that means *only* where evidence is lacking. A simple example: The Old Testament lists bats among the birds, and porpoises among the fish. Both, according to the biologist, wrong. And we have evidence. Therefore no amount of faith will make me believe a bat is a bird! There are many matters about which we have no verifiable evidence -- e.g. the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, the existence of an afterlife. Faith may legitimately operate in these areas. But where external evidence exists -- as, say, in the matter of the existence of New Testament manuscripts -- I cannot admit faith. My only recourse is to examine the evidence with all the physical, mathematical, and logical resources at my disposal. Being human, of course, I may fall into the trap of listening to faith. But it is not my objective. >On a quick reading the appeal to training in physics and mathematics might seem >to help us know what is. One normally thinks of >mathematics as the height of logical rigour applied to numbers: no needed >beliefs here, just facts about numbers and their manipulation according to >strict, valid operations. > >The trouble is this is not what mathematics is. Nor more basically is it what >formal logic is either. We have to take it for granted that there is such a >thing as a number and that we understand what that means before we can have even >the most simple meaningful mathematical statement. This unprovable >understanding we have of a number is something we have to put our trust in to >engage in mathematical reasoning. I most strenuously disagree. This may seem heresy, but I would argue that mathematics is more fundamental than God. That is, I can conceive of a universe without God. I can conceive of a system which contains no universe. (It's not even *nothing*; it's just *not*.) But mathematics exists whether God, or the universe, exist at all. Since mathematics has *no objective reality*, it does not need *any* objective universe or supposition to exist. It exists, uncreated -- though most of it remains undiscovered. [ ... ] >Another common feature of mathematics is the appeal to intuition in the course >of proofs. Accepted statements similar to >and riddle the pages of great mathematicians' >works and today's textbooks alike. Mathematicians are thus stating of the >transition from one statement to the next, - just as Robert Waltz >has written above. From time to time, some mathematical genius comes up with >statements that replace the appeal to intuition at some stage of a famous proof. I must dispute *this*, too. Yes, a mathematician will often state that "it is obvious that," etc. But that just means that the proof of the steps taken is (in the eyes of the lecturer, of course) so obvious that it need not be stated. The lecturer could spell out the proof -- but it's a waste of time. [ ... ] >As the logical aspects of physics may be deemed to be mathematics applied to the >physical world that we see, so may physicists be obliged to note that they must >also have significant faith in their work to be able to do their work. With this I agree. Once we apply mathematics to the "real world" we have to start making assumptions about its validity. >An absolutely categorical distinction between reason (including logic) and faith >(including how we do things and ought to do them) has been explored now for >centuries, but in every discipline it has failed. I do not consider the quest to have failed. I think the failure lies in human beings who are incapable of operating without faith. Yet another reason, IMHO, for trying for objective methods of criticism: If the computer does it, it will be victim to the peculiarities of its programmers, but at least it will obey those peculiarities rigorously. :-) >As a result the choice offered by Robert Waltz in his statements above is not at >all clear to me. I hope this makes things clearer. (Clear enough, at least, that I've snipped the rest of this letter.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mon Sep 15 12:31:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04741; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:31:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism 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: 1050 In responding to Helge Evensen, on Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: > But don't forget all those KJV passages within the Book of Mormon. This piece of their discussion raises a question in my mind. If the document a translator has before him in places reads very much the same as certain passages he recalls from his favorite Bible, is it not likely that the translator will call upon his memory of the Bible, if not the particular Bible itself, to render the translation in those places? (This would be a translator who is not a modern scholar and who would not feel obliged to try to make a totally independent translation.) I've noticed in Metzger's 1968 book that he references H. Bornkamm having maintained that Luther did this with respect to using a memorized version of the Vulgate during his translation. Is there some long, Greek or Latin word I should learn that describes this process? (In asking this, I don't wish to imply that I in any way defend any true legitimacy of the Book of Mormon.) Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 12:35:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04789; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:35:14 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:37:44 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: Words of Jesus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 10284 On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote (inter alia): [quoting Schmid:] >> 1. What sort of redaction do you mean referring to what part of the >> tradition? > >I am inferring that Matthew is rife with redactions, as most redaction >critics suspect, and I don't see how this fact, if it is a fact, could >have been kept totally secret from those within the church where the >writer of Matthew was located. So, within that church, this would have >been an embarrassment they would not wish to talk about or write about. >Hence there would be a great paucity of writings on how the Gospel of >Matthew came into being, as outside of this church or region even less >would be known on how Matthew originated. Are you arguing then that the writer of Matthew, having redacted (written) Gospel material prior to him while incorparating it into his own work, should have been hidden because his redactional work must have offended others? But why then should people be offended by that? Luke openly admitted that he used written sources prior to him. This apparently did not prevent him from even becoming canonized. BTW -- Are you talkin about the Greek Matthew or its supposed Aramaic/Hebrew Vorlage? If you are talking about redactional criticism, you should have had the Greek Matthew in mind, for this is what redaction critics usually work on persuing their interrests. >Next I presume that the tradition of Matthew coming first, Mark second, is >truthful, as this was just a matter of chronology and nothing that >Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine would have had any theological need to >falsify. Hence when Mark came out, presumably in Rome, those who compared >it against Matthew (though Matthew may still have been written only in >Hebraic/Aramaic at that time) would have been able to see that Mark was a >redacted abbreviation of Matthew. Why should a comparison of Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew with Greek Mark immediately should have pointed to a _literary_ connection between both texts? A perfectly feasable explanation would be that, although both are basically referring to the same story, they had different sources they chose to follow. E.g., Mark followed Peter's teaching, but due to teaching purposes on Peter's side and slight defects of memory on Mark's side the outcome was different when compared to Matthew, who was a follower of Jesus. This is simply paraphrasing Papias and that's it. No more explanation is needed. I have the strong suspicion that your inferrence from modern times redaction critical theories is hopelessly anachronistic when applied to 1/2 centuries reasoning which we find in the sources. >This would not have spoken well for its >authenticity, and again would not have inspired persons at the church in >question (in Rome) who knew about the situation to write about its origin. >Hence there is a great shortage of information about Mark's origin also. Quite to the contrary with respect to the sources preserved to us. The Presbyter tradition given by Papias going way back into the first century is the longest and detailed information we have on any of the Gospels from those early times. >Might this not explain why Justin, who spent his last 25 years or so in >Rome, rarely if ever quoted from Mark in his Apologies or Dialog (a >possible allusion to Mk 12:30 may instead have been to Lk 10:27), though >very frequently quoting from Matthew and sometimes from Luke? Justin >would not likely have known of the detailed situation in Antioch or >wherever Matthew (and Luke) originated, and could more easily assume that >these other gospels were authentic and suitable to quote from or allude >to. 1. Please, go back to Justin and read carefully Dial. 106.2-3. Even a critic as sharp as Helmut Koester holds this to be at least a possible referrence to the Gospel of Mark (c.f., Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 273-274). Though there is an old discussion (at least as old as Karl Semisch's monograph published in 1848!) whether Justin referred to Mark or to the Gospel of Peter, I'm inclined to think that Claus-Juergen Thornton, Justin und das Markusevangelium; in: ZNW 84 (1993) 93-110 put the case to rest in favour of the former. 2. I'm even inclined to suggest you should go back and read all of Justin with special focus on the Gospel material (of course you can also go back and read Arthur J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, 1967 [NT.S 17] who did the job). In so doing you could make the observation that Justin as indicated by the title of Bellinzoni's book almost exclusively cites sayings material, which is most prominent among Matthew and Luke when compared to Mark. Besides, since Justin never cites one of the Gospels by their "kata" names, and since there is only very few markan Sondergut, there is no need to assume that Justin deliberately refrained from using Mark. In fact, the only possible _explicit_ referrence Justin gives points to the Gospel of Mark. 3. I'm really struck by the fact that you are speculating so much on the absence of evidence, while at the same time so easily dismissing existing evidence. >So after Luke came out, according to the same tradition, it should have >been known to those closest to that writer not only how heavily he >borrowed from Mark, but that he borrowed from Matthew and placed many of >those verses in improper context (causing scholars many centuries later to >postulate existence of Q). So the very persons who could have written >about the origins of the Gospel of Luke from first-hand information >similarly did not wish to do so as it would have been embarrassing to the >early church. No that strikes me. Again, Luke, freely and plainly admitting having used other _written_ sources (Lk 1.1-4!!!) maybe even with a grain of critic towards the job they did, ended up in the NT. On the basis of your reasoning I totally fail to understand why noone tried to remove his prologue. >I can think of another possibility or two as to why Justin did not quote >from Mark, and these also involve Marcan redactions. > >> 2. Why should there have been a "plethora of writings describing who wrote >> the Gospels..."? > >The era when the Gospels first came out should have been the most glorious >period in the history of the early church -- to finally have the written >teachings of the Lord made available to the church when before there had >been only oral tradition and the epistles of Paul, who was no first-hand >witness. (Or, if he had been a witness to Jesus, that fact must have been >what turned him into the key persecutor of Jesus' followers.) So, by all >reasonable expectations, various early church fathers should have written >about how and where, why and by whom, the Gospels were written, within a >few decades of the Gospels' appearances. Instead, there is only silence >on these matters -- silence that I see explained as per above. "The era when the Gospels first came out" was the era of the passing of the eye-witnesses. Why should any glory be ascribed to that sad situation. Again your reasoning strikes me as notoriously anachronistic. [snip] >> 3. The "reason why the the Logia, about which Papias wrote five treatises, >> did not survive" apparently is that they never existed apart from Papias >> work. Papias collected them out of written and oral sources adding his >> comments to them. ... > >That's an assumption that needn't be made. The Logia could have been an >extensive *written* document known to Papias, or sayings he recalled from >such a document or from those who had read the document. If so, the >written source did not survive even though, with this interpretation, it >formed the basis for Matthew. The exception to this I'm aware of is the >late-emerging candidate to have been these written Logia that I have been >studying (Talmud of Jmmanuel). No doubt, the Logia *could* have been a written document. But this assumption is both improbable and unnecessary, for a) Noone ever referred to the Logia. b) Logia as a book title seems unusual. c) Logia has a good, consistent, and unique meaning in the work of Papias. I'm very thetic here, but prepared to add the evidence. However, since you usually do not present evidence, I feel free to just sum up. >> 1. It is a well known fact that Justin displays knowledge of at least the >> Synoptic Gospels usually calling them Apomnemoneumata, once glossing this >> term with Euangelia (1 Apol 66.3). > >There is no dispute that Justin knew of the Gospels, and so probably also >that they were attributed to apostles or more distant disciples. But in >this example you cited, was it Justin or a later copyist who made the >Euangelia gloss? Do you REALLY think a later copyist introduced hA KALEITAI EYAGGELIA in 1. Apol. 66.3. Helmut Koester might like the idea. However, not even he mentioned this possibility in his Ancient Christian Gospels. [snip] >However, whatever way you look at it, in his references to the Gospels he >used language that would not require him to state which "kata" gospel he >was referring to in which allusion. If the four Gospels had been written >around 70-90 C.E., it is incomprehensible that they would not have been >mentioned by name within a time period of three generations later, unless >there was a very good reason for it. Even if they were not written until >around 120, a good reason is still needed why they were not mentioned by >name for another 3 decades or so. This is anachronistic to the extreme. As I already mentioned, even in later times Church Fathers only rarely refer to the names of the Gospel writers. This is a modern prejudice to assume they should have done so. It was the "Lord", the "Gospel", "Scripture" that said/says. Moreover, one always has to consider the genre of writing they performed, the intended audience, etc., etc. Besides, only parts of Justin's writings had been preserved. We know, e.g., that he wrote a Syntagma against all heresies, and a work against Marcion. I'm convinced that in those works and especially in the notes taken from his teaching in Rome he gave detailed answer to all of our modern questions related to the origin of the Gospels. Unfortunately, this is all lost and gone. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 16:43:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06257; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:43:47 -0400 From: habrehm@ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <341D49A0.636F@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:43:52 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-NC320 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC List Subject: Mss vs. Eclectic Text 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: 2243 With all due respect, I would like to take issue with Mr. Evensen's opinion that: > None of the Nestle editions represent an unbroken tradition back to the > time when many MSS still were handwritten, i.e. in the transition from > handwritten to printed "transmission". > The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of > three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically. > Erasmus' edition was based on handwritten copies, for the most part. > As I see it, the 1516 edition was a continuation of the MS tradition. The view that an eclectic text is somehow inferior to the mss tradition because nobody in the early church actually used a ms of the NT that looked like the NA27 is a "red herring." The church has used an "eclectic" text since the days of Jerome, whose task it was to "clean up" the textual transmission in the latin versions. This involved a kind of reconstruction of the NT text. The edition of Erasmus, though based on a skimpy textual basis, was also an "eclectic" text in the sense that its text was "reconstructed" [that's putting it mildly for the last leaf of Revelation!]. Simply put, there is not one "providentially preserved" textform in the NT, but several! At the risk of drawing Bill Petersen's ire for expressing a *faith conviction*, I see no necessary contradiction between the recognition that the transmission of the NT text has produced a variety of textforms and the conviction that, in all essentials, God has preserved the text. I rather think that one of the stature and learning of Erasmus would, if he were here today, be an advocate of the NA27 rather than the TR. The NA27 represents the same effort to reconstruct the text, though with a greatly expanded textual base. -- H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of NT 3000 6th Avenue Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem. Fort Worth, Texas 76110 P. O. Box 22000 817-923-3008 Ft. Worth, TX 76122 817-922-9005 FAX 817-923-1921, ext. 6800 habrehm@ix.netcom.com 817-921-8760 FAX hab@swbts.swbts.edu Visit My Home Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html "The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what he becomes by it" --John Ruskin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 18:40:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA06568; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:40:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:44:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC List Subject: Re: Mss vs. Eclectic Text In-Reply-To: <341D49A0.636F@ix.netcom.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: 871 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 habrehm@ix.netcom.com wrote: > I rather think that one of the stature and learning of Erasmus would, if > he were here today, be an advocate of the NA27 rather than the TR. The > NA27 represents the same effort to reconstruct the text, though with a > greatly expanded textual base. I appreciate Brehm's comments, though I would suggest that it would be more likely that Erasmus even today would be more likely an advocate of the text which was more "traditional" within the Greek church, though not in regard to the early printed TR editions. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 15 19:19:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06663; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:19:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:23:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1269 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: [snip] > > Since the TR differs from _any_ Byzantine consensus in over > 1800 places, the Byzantine Textform is NOT the "ancestor" of the TR; > rather the TR is a close but not identical "cousin" of the Byzantine > majority. I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premise. All the number of disagreements can prove is that they are in fact now separate text-types. I don't see how it can prove that one is not the ancestor of the other. In particular, in making this claim you seem to be implying that the history of the Byzantine text-type of von Soden has been over-turned. Now I realize that von Soden's entire theory of the transmission of the NT text has never been widely accepted (and never will be), but even in 1991 Amphoux wrote that no more modern history of the _Byzantine_ text-type has yet been written. So are you claiming that a more modern history _has_ been now written? What book/monograph would that be? [snip] > So was the Latin Vulgate, yet it also provides a "reasonably adequate" > reflection of the autographs. Eheu, eheu, pulchre dixisti! 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 Sep 15 19:45:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06724; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:45:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:49:14 -0700 (PDT) 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: Ralph Nielsen Subject: Still waiting? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 367 >Matthew Johnson >Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our >great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). RALPH NIELSEN "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28, etc.). You've been waiting a long time, haven't you, Mr. Johnson? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 19:56:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06753; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:56:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:00:51 -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: Canons of Criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2824 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: >On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > >[snip] >> >> Since the TR differs from _any_ Byzantine consensus in over >> 1800 places, the Byzantine Textform is NOT the "ancestor" of the TR; >> rather the TR is a close but not identical "cousin" of the Byzantine >> majority. > >I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premise. All the >number of disagreements can prove is that they are in fact now separate >text-types. I don't see how it can prove that one is not the ancestor of >the other. > >In particular, in making this claim you seem to be implying that the >history of the Byzantine text-type of von Soden has been over-turned. Now >I realize that von Soden's entire theory of the transmission of the NT >text has never been widely accepted (and never will be), but even in 1991 >Amphoux wrote that no more modern history of the _Byzantine_ text-type has >yet been written. So are you claiming that a more modern history _has_ >been now written? What book/monograph would that be? Since Maurice is frantically trying to get packed to head to Germany, I'll try to tackle this for him as best I can. This is *not* the official response of a Byzantine-prioritist -- but dealing with the TR is generally an easier problem. :-) First, let's not confuse our terms. The TR *does* belong to the Byzantine type -- but is not a good representative of the type. It's similar to the situation of, say, P66 and P75 in the Alexandrian type. P75 is *the* best representative of the text -- very pure and close to the original. P66, by contrast, clearly belongs to the type but is *not* a good representative. Too much mixture. Similarly, the (original) TR has a basically Byzantine text but with mixture from other sources -- notably 1 and the vulgate. Thus the TR is not a *descendent* of the Byzantine text; it is a cross. As far as the history of the Byzantine type, we aren't really referring to that. All we are working from is the information about Erasmus's sources. But if the history of the Byzantine type is to be written -- yes, it's true, von Soden is the basic work to consult. But even that has to be modified in the light of Wisse and the Claremont Profile Method. The basic history is still good (the three basic groups -- Kx, Kr, and Family Pi -- all endure) -- but there are many detailed modifications in Luke. (Which implies, btw, that we need to examine the situation in other books as well....) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mon Sep 15 20:20:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06841; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:20:45 -0400 Message-ID: <341DD379.55BFA3F6@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:31:53 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <340CA177.3B4B@total.net> <34128DFA.4C3A@sn.no> <34188A82.79F1@total.net> <341CFEE8.6BB9@sn.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns2.accesscomm.net id TAA25019 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2955 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > It's too late now, of course, to ask Dr. Edward Hills about his > opinion > on what is to be called "textual criticism" or not. For he was > certainly > a textual critic, but his position was a "TR priority position" and he > > believed in providential preservation and that the TR was the > providential preserved New Testament text. He believed in what he > called > a "consistent Christian textual criticism". And since I largely agree > with Dr. Hills, I believe in his view of textual criticism, at least > to > a considerable degree. So I *have* a view of textual criticism as much > as > Hills had a view of textual criticism. In my mind, textual criticism > is > to try to establish the original text of the Bible. Hills did that, > and > he concluded (with the help of the Scriptures themselves) that the TR > is > the textform which best fulfils the scriptural promise of providential > > preservation. As a somewhat "informed" layman, I usually just sit back and keep my mouth.....er....fingers quiet and learn from the pros on the tc-list. I have been following this thread with some interest and no small amount of curiosity over the TR/KJV position. Although it is true that the AV is by and large a Byzantine descendant, I do not equate your position with that of Dr. Robinson's Byzantine priority. It is the "providential" thingy that makes me wonder. There were few Greek witnesses around for the construction of the AV. Now there are over 5,000 uncial and miniscule papyri, fragments, codices, etc. These early exemplars of the NT and portions thereof contain more than 70,000 significant variants. The art/science of textual criticism has been responsible for reducing these disparities significantly to a critical text. This text is not identical to any other extant text...however, Aleph is not either...nor B, nor W, nor D, etc. Why should the TR or KJV or AV be any more "providential" than Aleph? Aleph contains a number of scribal errors corrected marginally by later scribes, even a correction by a later scribe that was incorrect. In fact, the development of the finished Alpha itself was a praxis of textual criticism. Where was providence when the "wicked Bible" of 1641 was published? The Sistine Bible? All of the texts were the creation of human copyists with human failings. If there is indeed a "providence" involved, I vote for it amongst our hard-working and knowledgeable TCs. The distillation of the many mss into a critical text would be the one smart place for "providence" to kick in...or better yet, when one picks up any edition to read and ask for providence in his/her interpretation. There is but a short step between "God told me to do it" and "the devil made me do it." I will place my confidence in the scholars. Jack -- D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 22:05:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA07142; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:05:48 -0400 From: habrehm@ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <341D9679.217E@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:11:42 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-NC320 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC-list Subject: Re: Mss vs. Eclectic Text 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: 1217 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > I appreciate Brehm's comments, though I would suggest that it would be > more likely that Erasmus even today would be more likely an advocate of > the text which was more "traditional" within the Greek church, though not > in regard to the early printed TR editions. > Fair enough! No slam intended. I didn't really intend to get into the argument about eclectic vs. majority text methodology. Even the majority text is reconstructed. I simply wanted to point out that Erasmus would have moved beyond the TR given the vastly increased amount of evidence--he did after all utilize even Bezae, the text of which seemed strange to him. And I wanted to point out that even the TR was a reconstructed text. -- H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of NT 3000 6th Avenue Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem. Fort Worth, Texas 76110 P. O. Box 22000 817-923-3008 Ft. Worth, TX 76122 817-922-9005 FAX 817-923-1921, ext. 6800 habrehm@ix.netcom.com 817-921-8760 FAX hab@swbts.swbts.edu Visit My Home Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html "The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what he becomes by it" --John Ruskin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 15 23:47:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA07366; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:47:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:52:03 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Maurice Robinson cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism 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: 2117 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > ... > If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was a "reasonably > adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era scholarship and practice, > which still could be used today with profit -- I think none of us would > have a major objection. The problem comes in claiming what amounts to an > unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the Scrivener edition) "is" > the autograph text, and that all other texts are not what God has > "providentially preserved". But for whatever reason (and I suspect the > modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the TR-as-autograph issue > has come to the fore among a small faction, and a warped view of textual > transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into the support of their > theory. Why must this take place? Why is it not sufficient merely to > claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use the TR or KJV > without making those two items into the one and only touchstone? That is > the part that is beyond me. It is not beyond me. The answer is that religious people who do not have a foundation for their faith that is based on truth will always invent artificial supports. Certainty is more important to them than truth. In the case of KJVOs, evidence is of no concern, because no matter what it consists of, it will be discarded if it does not fit their need for certainty. They can and will do incredible hermeneutical gymnastics to rescue their version from every peril or possibility of tarnishing. The sad thing is that those who need this certainty the most do not even have it because their premise is wrong. The truth is, there is not one verse in the Bible that speaks of preserving any copy, edition, or translation. I am tempted to include a paper I read last year at the ETS national "The Role of the Spirit in Bible Copying and Translating," but I have rambled on too long as it is. (Sorry, I almost got to preching) -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 08:00:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08075; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:00:51 -0400 Message-ID: <6BAED8410116B2D1@c2smtp.reliance.rockwell.com> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 08:05:03 -0500 From: "ROLAN, BRET R" Organization: Reliance To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: 1 Cor 11:10 - Thanks X-mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.00 MHS to SMTP Gateway Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1189 I wish to thank those of you who obviously spent some time locating citations of this variant, and discussing them. My question was purely to see if textual criticism could shed a little light on a somewhat awkward verse. I was more than a little bit suprised, though, that the applicability of this verse was quickly dismissed as "quaint", and as somehow related to "strange cults", especially since the exact rendering of this verse in no way weakens Paul's argument. I don't think many people seriously question that Paul commanded the Corinthians to practice this symbol of headship order, nor that this practice has been in continious use by at least some portion of Christianity for neary 2000 years. (The East European "babushka", the Catholic nun's "habit", and the Western woman's "Sunday hat" all being vestiges of this once universal practice.) While modern Western Christianity may call this practice "quaint", I hardly think that it could be called "moot", or in any way cultic. Since this line of discussion is now off topic for this list, please feel free to E-mail me directly if you have comments. Bret R. Rolan Rolan@RcsHvyIn.Reliance.Rockwell.Com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 13:05:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09729; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:05:28 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424BD8@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: KJV Only Debate Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:11:32 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3163 I for one would be interested in "The Role of the Spirit in Bible Copying and Translating." It may be others would like a copy too. It seems the issue of authority and revelation in the copying of manuscripts keeps coming up. Even more so, the issue of God's providence behind the KJV comes up increasingly. Why not the Geneva's Bible as God's uniquely given text? And what about Spanish readers? Must they learn English? Or is the Reina Valera version their Godly given text - a "Spanish King James?" This whole thing seems ludicrous to me. Your paper may help those tc-voyeurs out there who have not made up their minds on these issues. Prof. Mike Kennedy MAP Institute 8524 East Thomas Road Scottsdale, AZ 85251 "The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates (Still Waiting? 1 Peter 3:2-4) -----Original Message----- From: Ronald L. Minton [SMTP:rminton@mail.orion.org] Sent: Monday, September 15, 1997 8:52 PM To: Maurice Robinson Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Cano On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > ... > If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was a "reasonably > adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era scholarship and practice, > which still could be used today with profit-I think none of us would > have a major objection. The problem comes in claiming what amounts to an > unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the Scrivener edition) "is" > the autograph text, and that all other texts are not what God has > "providentially preserved". But for whatever reason (and I suspect the > modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the TR-as-autograph issue > has come to the fore among a small faction, and a warped view of textual > transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into the support of their > theory. Why must this take place? Why is it not sufficient merely to > claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use the TR or KJV > without making those two items into the one and only touchstone? That is > the part that is beyond me. It is not beyond me. The answer is that religious people who do not have a foundation for their faith that is based on truth will always invent artificial supports. Certainty is more important to them than truth. In the case of KJVOs, evidence is of no concern, because no matter what it consists of, it will be discarded if it does not fit their need for certainty. They can and will do incredible hermeneutical gymnastics to rescue their version from every peril or possibility of tarnishing. The sad thing is that those who need this certainty the most do not even have it because their premise is wrong. The truth is, there is not one verse in the Bible that speaks of preserving any copy, edition, or translation. I am tempted to include a paper I read last year at the ETS national "The Role of the Spirit in Bible Copying and Translating," but I have rambled on too long as it is. (Sorry, I almost got to preching) -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 14:58:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10330; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:58:38 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970916185842.00678068@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:58:42 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: RE: KJV Only Debate Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3792 I would interested as well Kevin W. Woodruff Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University Chattanooga, TN 37404 At 10:11 AM 9/16/97 -0700, you wrote: >I for one would be interested in "The Role of the Spirit in Bible >Copying and Translating." It may be others would like a copy too. > >It seems the issue of authority and revelation in the copying of >manuscripts keeps coming up. Even more so, the issue of God's providence >behind the KJV comes up increasingly. Why not the Geneva's Bible as >God's uniquely given text? And what about Spanish readers? Must they >learn English? Or is the Reina Valera version their Godly given text - a >"Spanish King James?" This whole thing seems ludicrous to me. Your paper >may help those tc-voyeurs out there who have not made up their minds on >these issues. > > >Prof. Mike Kennedy >MAP Institute >8524 East Thomas Road >Scottsdale, AZ 85251 > > > >"The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates > >(Still Waiting? 1 Peter 3:2-4) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald L. Minton [SMTP:rminton@mail.orion.org] > Sent: Monday, September 15, 1997 8:52 PM > To: Maurice Robinson > Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Cano > > On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > ... > > If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was >a "reasonably > > adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era >scholarship and practice, > > which still could be used today with profit-I think >none of us would > > have a major objection. The problem comes in claiming >what amounts to an > > unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the >Scrivener edition) "is" > > the autograph text, and that all other texts are not >what God has > > "providentially preserved". But for whatever reason >(and I suspect the > > modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the >TR-as-autograph issue > > has come to the fore among a small faction, and a >warped view of textual > > transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into >the support of their > > theory. Why must this take place? Why is it not >sufficient merely to > > claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use >the TR or KJV > > without making those two items into the one and only >touchstone? That is > > the part that is beyond me. > > It is not beyond me. The answer is that religious people who do >not have a foundation for their faith that is based on truth will always >invent artificial supports. Certainty is more important to them than >truth. In the case of KJVOs, evidence is of no concern, because no >matter what it consists of, it will be discarded if it does not fit >their need for certainty. They can and will do incredible hermeneutical >gymnastics to rescue their version from every peril or possibility of >tarnishing. The sad thing is that those who need this certainty the >most do not even have it because their premise is wrong. The truth is, >there is not one verse in the Bible that speaks of preserving any copy, >edition, or translation. I am tempted to include a paper I read last >year at the ETS national "The Role of the Spirit in Bible Copying and >Translating," but I have rambled on too long as it is. (Sorry, I almost >got to preching) > > -- > Prof. Ron Minton: W (417)268-6053 H >833-9581 > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO >65803 > > 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 Tue Sep 16 16:28:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10932; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:28:03 -0400 Message-Id: <9709162131.AA22349@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: RE: tradition reintroduced (was: Canons of Criticism) Date: Mar, 16 Sep 97 22:33:42 +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: 4089 Though I have refrained from commenting on the KJV-issue until now, there are several remarks that I would like to share about it with the members of the list, as some of the points made by the adherents of these theories seem, to say the least, quite inconsistent to me. First. There is something quite illogical in the whole thing. I remark that KJV-onlyism comes most frequently from the side of hard fundamentalists. Such people usually have an anti-catholic and anti-orthodox position, usually expressed in a polemical (if not frankly aggressive) way. Their way of making theology and using the sources is: the Bible only, no tradition ("sola scriptura" in its most extreme form). No tradition whatsoever. And what do I see in Helge's argumentation? Tradition reintroduced! God has miraculously preserved a certain form of text, which we should follow blindly! This is nothing else than tradition... But what tradition then! Not the venerable tradition of the Fathers of the early centuries, but a tradition going back, and not earlier than, the XVIth century. And, amusingly, a tradition taking its roots in the humanism of the western XVIth century. BTW let's remind that Erasmus never became a protestant, even though he had many contacts with the leaders of the Reformation. No doubt that if the hard-core fundamentalists and KJVists of today met a man like Erasmus living in our century, they would call him an apostate ecumenist or something like that, and would directly reject his text... Secondly. Tradition, and also the tradition of the text, has always been diverse. As the diversity of the text-types reflected in Greek and versional manuscripts show, there is in the Holy Gospel a core of truth that always finds its expression in the diversity of cultures and of theological approaches. The need of having a single text to be followed at whatever cost may be comforting to some simple believers, but the richness of God is manyfold, and that finds its expression also in the texts that are transmitted to us in the diversity of the living tradition. Diversity is inherent to christianity - though some will probably disagree with this, if we believe God is a Trinity, then diversity is part of His essential attributes... Negating diversity is negating God. This is why fundamentalism is a _heresy_ to me, as it is not rooted in the triune nature of God. Thirdly. If KJVism is right, then we have to wrestle with some more questions - and they have already been raised by participants of the list. What about the believers that did not have the chance of being born in or after the XVIth century? They had no access to the "real" text? But then God has not preserved the text for them... Where was his providence in all that time? Was He sleeping ? This idea of the providence of God caring for the good text being transmitted is illogical too, for during many centuries the text was not available to anyone. Very strange providence indeed, that left millions of believers with "wrong" texts. And of course, but this is going off-topic, it goes together with the myth of those marvellous Reformers who gave finally gave us the "true" Gospel that was forgotten before, for centuries, in East and West! Let's not be so naive and illogical! I can't believe that for fifteen centuries of Christian history there was no text to trust and no Gospel to believe... Once again, what's too simple is wrong... Now I go back to my manuscripts and I hope `that next time, I will resist the temptation of voicing my convictions again on a list that is supposed to discuss books and variants. If I offended anyone, please forgive me and let us keep our humour. Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "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" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 18:56:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11618; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:56:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:00:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Words of Jesus 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: 5102 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote (inter alia): > > >I am inferring that Matthew is rife with redactions, as most redaction > >critics suspect, and I don't see how this fact, if it is a fact, could > >have been kept totally secret from those within the church where the > >writer of Matthew was located. So, within that church, this would have > >been an embarrassment they would not wish to talk about or write about. > >Hence there would be a great paucity of writings on how the Gospel of > >Matthew came into being, as outside of this church or region even less > >would be known on how Matthew originated. > Are you arguing then that the writer of Matthew, having redacted (written) > Gospel material prior to him while incorparating it into his own work, > should have been hidden because his redactional work must have offended > others? But why then should people be offended by that? To be more specific, I'm saying that the writer of Matthew had a written source in front of him that he was redacting very heavily in producing his gospel. This interpretation comes from Papias's quote on the Logia after study of the Talmud of Jmmanuel. Matthew's redactions are so extensive as to imply that his source was quite heretical in many places. So the writer of Matthew would not wish to make this source (which I argue was either the Logia scrolls themselves or the source of Papias's knowledge about them) generally available to others. He would wish to keep the number of other early Christian scribes, priests, church officials... who knew about his source to a bare minimum, as he wouldn't wish many to know he had extracted from a heretical text that contained a good deal of Gnostic-like material for his gospel. He wouldn't keep himself hidden, but would have kept his source hidden from most eyes. And why wouldn't he wish to let everyone know, you might ask? (By now I know you are not afraid to ask questions!) If others were to see this source and its many indications of genuineness and extensive details of Jesus' ministry previously known only in scattered bits of oral tradition, it could persuade them that the new Messianic form of Judaism was based upon false assumptions, stemming mostly from Paul. Obviously, this was unacceptable and unthinkable, and the fewer who knew about it the better. But the writer of Matthew would have had to let some few who insisted know about his source, and among these few were the writers of Luke and John, from what one can infer from the Talmud of Jmmanuel. The former evangelist seems to have taken the matter in stride to the extent of agreeing that it was fair game to try to make an "orthodox" writing or gospel out of this source. So also the latter, except it may have promoted a Gnostic leaning to his gospel. These two I regard as being among the "each [who] interpreted them [the Logia] as best he could," re Papias. But it seems that the writer of Matthew kept control over his source and only briefly allowed the writer of Luke to read it and make notes, and even more briefly, the writer of John to read it. He would not have wished to circulate such a heretical document. Thus, few would have known of the story behind the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, and none of them would wish to make it public. If you should ask: just what is the evidence that Matthew is so replete with redactions? perhaps that's been discussed enough here already, earlier. But there's a lot that could be said about that. If you should ask: what is the evidence from Matthew that it was constructed from a source of a Gnostic character, there's scant evidence. The whole idea was to omit all of that and, through insertions and substitutions, to write a gospel that reflected the views of the early church and of the writer of Matthew. However, there were 8 or 10 clues left behind in Matthew suggestive that in its source Jesus (or rather Immanuel, as the Talmud of Jmmanuel indicates) taught rebirth and karma, among other things. This Talmud also indicates that Jesus survived the crucifixion, which of course can explain his post-resurrection appearances, traditions of having traveled in Anatolia and to India, etc. But as others on this list have pointed out, whether such a turn of events would be "unacceptable" or "unthinkable" to today's textual critic, or might contradict his basic beliefs or faith, is irrelevant to their scholastic analyses. I hope this is so, and also that seeking the historical truth would take precedence over fear of ridicule. If you should ask: what's this Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) all about? you could always search the Web to find sources. Or e-mail me separately if you think it's too off subject. But I find it's the Rosetta stone for all of NT studies, including tc. The available German translations are only 1 or 2 generations removed from the original Aramic scrolls, and can be studied for Aramaisms, etc. This has gotten too lengthy; sorry. Will respond to more of your concerns in a following message. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 19:21:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA11729; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:21:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Words of Jesus 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: 7722 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote (inter alia): > Luke openly admitted that he used written sources prior to him. That writer openly admitted he was aware of written sources before him. But how can one interpret the Prologue to mean he admitted to using them in constructing his gospel, as in "plagiarizing" them? He claimed to have investigated matters from their source, which is consistent with his having had first-hand knowledge of the source for Matthew. However, Lk 1:3-4 indicates to me that this writer was not satisfied with the way the two gospels preceding him had presented their information, and so felt a need to present a more reliable gospel -- his own. (IMO, he felt that the writer of Mark had left out way too much from Matthew, and that the latter writer had improperly put an anti-gentile spin on it all. So he had strong motivation to correct both of these deficiencies in the gospel he attributed to Luke.) > This apparently did not prevent him from even becoming canonized. I'm dubious of the reliability of that possibility. Where does that come from, if I may ask? If it came from a church father who assumed that the writer of Luke was the physician known to Paul, then anyone who perceives that the Gospels weren't written by their "kata"s should be doubly dubious of it. > BTW -- Are you talkin about the > Greek Matthew or its supposed Aramaic/Hebrew Vorlage? If you are talking > about redactional criticism, you should have had the Greek Matthew in mind, > for this is what redaction critics usually work on persuing their > interrests. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the tradition that Matthew was (first) written in the Hebrew tongue, as well as being the first Gospel out. The two go together. So I'm talking about the latter (the Vorlage), as being where the heavy redactions were first introduced which then spread into the other gospels. I've postulated that it was the later translator of Semitic Matthew into Greek who duplicated many long strings of text from Mark and Luke during his translation. (Later I learned that a J.-M Voste and before him, Theodor Zahn, had postulated the same, at least with respect to Matthew-Mark; but we propose different reasons for this editorial behavior on the part of the translator of Matthew.) But of course even those who trust the tradition of a Semitic Vorlage have only the Greek Matthew to work from. > Why should a comparison of Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew with Greek Mark > immediately should have pointed to a _literary_ connection between both > texts? A perfectly feasable explanation would be that, although both are > basically referring to the same story, they had different sources they > chose to follow. E.g., Mark followed Peter's teaching, but due to teaching > purposes on Peter's side and slight defects of memory on Mark's side the > outcome was different when compared to Matthew, who was a follower of > Jesus. This is simply paraphrasing Papias and that's it. No more > explanation is needed. The trouble with that reasoning is that the order of pericopes, and even of verses within pericopes, within Mark follows that of Matthew *much* too closely from Mt 12 on to be any accident, allowing for Mark's many abbreviations. (To see this, one lists Mt first and places Mk's parallels alongside, rather than listing Mk first and placing Mt's parallels alongside. Only about 8 out of some 450 parallel Marcan verses in that region are out of order.) If John Mark was writing down Peter's reminiscences, much more of Mark would have been out of order from Mt 12 on, and of course the two texts (Mk & Mt) wouldn't be nearly as close either. (Of course, Mark-Q priorists would argue it the other way around, and see no need for Peter to be in the picture at all.) One great value of the Talmud of Jmmanuel is it allows one to deduce just what role Mark/Peter's document (or "memoirs") in Rome played in the later making of Mark, while allowing an explanation as to why Mark suddenly follows Matthew's order from Mt 12 on. This is despite the fact that most exegetes view the agreement in order as commencing at Mt 14 instead of Mt 12, due to their ordering Matthew after Mark. The argument concerning order may not have been known to many, and not immediately, it is true, though I contend it was known to Papias. However, those few who did know all about the origins of Mark then did know that its writer used Matthew very heavily (if you follow along the Augustinian hypothesis) and did not have much going for him as to original sources. And they of course knew that (John) Mark hadn't written it. All this would have been more than sufficient, in my opinion, to cause them to keep as quiet as possible about the true origins of Mark. So posterity would hear very little about the origins of this gospel also. But perhaps Justin learned something of this, and so didn't quote from the sections of Mark that derived strictly from Matthew. > I have the strong suspicion that your inference from modern times > redaction critical theories is hopelessly anachronistic when applied to 1/2 > centuries reasoning which we find in the sources. The 1/2-century reasoning or writings that survived, and which you apparently have in mind, was carried out by those who professed the Christian faith. This means that by the time of Irenaeus, for sure, they automatically assumed that the Gospel writers were the same persons as the "kata's". Any other belief was not tolerated within the church. So we find some distortions in the surviving statements from Papias via Eusebius, and from Clement of Alexandria, and others (?), which collapse the time when Mark was written back into the time when Peter and Mark were in Rome. What you view as anachronistic opinions on my part I view as distorted reporting on the part of certain dedicated church fathers -- dedicated to upholding the faith. > >This would not have spoken well for its > >authenticity, and again would not have inspired persons at the church in > >question (in Rome) who knew about the situation to write about its origin. > >Hence there is a great shortage of information about Mark's origin also. > Quite to the contrary with respect to the sources preserved to us. The > Presbyter tradition given by Papias going way back into the first century > is the longest and detailed information we have on any of the Gospels from > those early times. Unfortunately, it's anything but detailed on Matthew. The statement from Papias via Eusebius about Matthew is so terse and ambiguous that NT scholars have found up to 72 different ways to interpret it (taking all possible combinations). I blame this on Eusebius, not Papias. But it's indeed all we have on Matthew. I don't agree with your 1st-century assessment, however. The Presbyter John could have learned relevant information about the origin of Matthew around 125 C.E., could have told Papias about it around 130 C.E., and Papias could have reported this around 150 C.E. (all rough estimates, of course). I don't equate the Presbyter John with the apostle John, though the latter apparently did live a long life and may have once been personally known to the Presbyter. It seems improbable to me that Papias, at age 20, say, would have known the apostle John then at age 90 or so. But if so, that still need not imply that the apostle John wrote the gospel by that name; it takes another assumption to reach that conclusion, since it was the Presbyter, not the apostle John, who told Papias about the origins of Matthew and Mark. This may get too lengthy also; will finish with a third response. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 19:56:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA11832; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:56:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:00:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Words of Jesus 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: 11064 On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote (inter alia): > >Might this not explain why Justin, who spent his last 25 years or so in > >Rome, rarely if ever quoted from Mark in his Apologies or Dialog (a > >possible allusion to Mk 12:30 may instead have been to Lk 10:27), though > >very frequently quoting from Matthew and sometimes from Luke? Justin > >would not likely have known of the detailed situation in Antioch or > >wherever Matthew (and Luke) originated, and could more easily assume that > >these other gospels were authentic and suitable to quote from or allude > >to. > 1. Please, go back to Justin and read carefully Dial. 106.2-3. Even a > critic as sharp as Helmut Koester holds this to be at least a possible > referrence to the Gospel of Mark (c.f., Ancient Christian Gospels, p. > 273-274). I don't have this book of Koester's, and I use the ANF, which has the chapter headings but no more. So I need to ask if you are referring to Justin's reference to Boanerges (for some reason the ANF did not stick in a footnote referencing this as alluding to Mark). If so, thanks for persisting on this. I suppose the ANF, Koester and Bellinzoni tend to attribute this to oral tradition. If so, from my own vantage point I could view this as oral tradition that stemmed from the document (mislabeled Peter's Memoirs; but I'd call it Ur-Marcus) that Mark & Peter had in Rome, and which did play a small role in the formation of Mark. Or it could as easily be a Justin allusion to a section of Mark that he knew to be authentic. (From the Talmud of Jmmanuel one can estimate which parts of Mark authentically derived from Ur-Marcus, and which from Matthew; the Boanerges bit was in Ur-Marcus). Or were you referring to something else that pointed to Mark? > Though there is an old discussion (at least as old as Karl > Semisch's monograph published in 1848!) whether Justin referred to Mark or > to the Gospel of Peter, I'm inclined to think that Claus-Juergen Thornton, > Justin und das Markusevangelium; in: ZNW 84 (1993) 93-110 put the case to > rest in favour of the former. I must confess not seeing the connection between anything in Justin's Dialog and the Gospel of Peter. I regard the latter as being based upon the Gospels, especially upon Matthew. > 2. ... > I'm even inclined to suggest you should go back and read all of Justin > with special focus on the Gospel material (of course you can also go back > and read Arthur J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of > Justin Martyr, 1967 [NT.S 17] who did the job). In so doing you could make > the observation that Justin as indicated by the title of Bellinzoni's book > almost exclusively cites sayings material, which is most prominent among > Matthew and Luke when compared to Mark. Besides, since Justin never cites > one of the Gospels by their "kata" names, and since there is only very few > markan Sondergut, there is no need to assume that Justin deliberately > refrained from using Mark. Yes, I can now agree, thanks, that the minimal numbers of Marcan Sondergut, and Mark's strong parallels to Matthew, leave some of Justin's allusions in doubt, as to Matthew or Mark. I wonder if the ANF listed Matthew in the questionable cases, and not Mark, simply because so many other allusions are to Matthew in material that Mark omits. In the article by Bellinzoni, _The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century_, in _The Second Century_ journal, 1992/93 (vol. 9, No. 4), p. 240, I see he says that Justin's quotations are from Matthew and Luke, and *possibly* Mark. So there seems to be some reluctance to attribute any of Justin's allusions to Mark that I now don't understand. > In fact, the only possible _explicit_ referrence > Justin gives points to the Gospel of Mark. I'd like to know just what you have in mind here. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Justin did allude to Mark a few times, relative to many, many times for Matthew. That still doesn't in any way explain to me why he did not wish to refer to these gospels by their "kata's". Any explanation like "That's just the way it is, and so I should get used to it," is no explanation as far as I'm concerned. If Justin had been quoting from a harmonization of the Gospels, then I could understand why he'd be content just to say the quotes came from the apostles (or supposed Gospel writers), but even then if he didn't say whose harmonization it was, one would have reason to question why. > 3. I'm really struck by the fact that you are speculating so much on the > absence of evidence, while at the same time so easily dismissing existing > evidence. However, I look at it as questioning why that evidence is lacking under circumstances when it should have been most plentiful (the most exciting, interesting events in the early church that should have been written about), and then showing how the dearth of evidence ties in with the embarrassments within the fragments we have from Papias and Clement of Alexandria re the origins of the Gospels. Doing this instead of just saying we're used to there being scarcely any description of when, where, why and by whom the Gospels were written, and so why wonder about it. At the same time, I am not one who would dismiss the Talmud of Jmmanuel evidence, since it helps greatly to explain the ambiguities in both the external and internal evidence. Which should have been more important: Gospels purportedly written from an eye-witness point of view telling of Jesus' teachings and ministry, or epistles by a non-witness (Paul)? And which came later and should have been much easier to preserve after the churches were better established: descriptions of the circumstances under which the Gospels arose, or Paul's epistles? Yet we know more about the circumstances of the writing of the epistles than of the Gospels. There is a gross imbalance there that I feel needs explaining. It could be connected to the orthodox position that Paul's writings quickly gained versus the strong tendency to destroy unorthodox & Gnostic writings. > >So after Luke came out, according to the same tradition, it should have > >been known to those closest to that writer not only how heavily he > >borrowed from Mark, but that he borrowed from Matthew and placed many of > >those verses in improper context (causing scholars many centuries later to > >postulate existence of Q). So the very persons who could have written > >about the origins of the Gospel of Luke from first-hand information > >similarly did not wish to do so as it would have been embarrassing to the > >early church. > No that strikes me. Again, Luke, freely and plainly admitting having used > other _written_ sources (Lk 1.1-4!!!) maybe even with a grain of critic > towards the job they did, ended up in the NT. On the basis of your > reasoning I totally fail to understand why noone tried to remove his > prologue. Perhaps someone tried that, we don't know. But from the viewpoint of the early church, it seems to me that it would have agreed, for the most part, with the writer of Luke that his gospel was needed. Matthew wasn't universal, with its writer desiring to restrict discipleship to the children of Israel. Mark wasn't universal, being slanted toward gentiles and omitting so many of Matthew's Judaisms. Luke *was* universal in those respects and so fulfilled a need. Its writer evidently felt a need (should I add "for whatever reason"?) to explain summarily why a third gospel was needed, and so wrote his prologue. If his had been the first gospel, then I presume he would not have written a prologue. It seems that the writer of Luke had enough "clout" or influence to have his prologue be accepted (by his priest?) along with the rest of his gospel. Other reasons for perceiving this writer had clout are the freedom with which he added a lot of Sondergut and incorporated parts of Matthew within some of it, and his readiness to conflate Matthew & Mark (within the Augustinian hypothesis, anyhow). >From the prologue, it would seem that its writer was posing as the writer of the rest of Luke, and thus presumably as Luke the physician. Well, then, one who believes that Luke and the other gospels were written much too late to have been written by their "kata"s needs to explain how he could get away with doing this at the time. Part of my explanation is that he had to keep his identity as author known to as few as possible. In this he was successful, and so posterity also knows very little about the origins of Luke. > .... > No doubt, the Logia *could* have been a written document. But this > assumption is both improbable and unnecessary, for > a) Noone ever referred to the Logia. If the Logia had been as heretical as I've laid out, no one within the church would wish to refer to it, ever (except for the references to it in Eusebius). Yet, it was too valuable in detailing Jesus' ministry to be passed up by the writer of Matthew. > b) Logia as a book title seems unusual. "Ta Logia" is just how Papias referred to it. I think its title was the Talmud of Jmmanuel. However, I've read that one of the many lost gospels whose titles only survived was entitled "Gospel of Judas [Iscariot]." This you would see is another possible way it had been referred to, if you were to look into it the TJ. > c) Logia has a good, consistent, and unique meaning in the work of Papias. We know very, very little of what Papias's treatises on the Logia consisted of. Just a few semi-gnostic items relayed by Eusebius. > >... in > >this example you cited, was it Justin or a later copyist who made the > >Euangelia gloss? > Do you REALLY think a later copyist introduced hA KALEITAI EYAGGELIA in 1. > Apol. 66.3. Helmut Koester might like the idea. However, not even he > mentioned this possibility in his Ancient Christian Gospels. I have no idea, and don't know anything about how Justin's works were transmitted through time. Is it known for sure to be a gloss, as indicated in some preserved manuscript? I take it you think it was Justin's own gloss. It certainly seems possible to me that a copyist may have done it, at the later time when there were more commonly called euaggelia, in which case I suppose one would need to hypothesize the same for the other two mentions of "gospel." But I was just trying to learn your opinion on that item. > ... Besides, only parts of Justin's writings had been preserved. We > know, e.g., that he wrote a Syntagma against all heresies, and a work > against Marcion. I'm convinced that in those works and especially in the > notes taken from his teaching in Rome he gave detailed answer to all of our > modern questions related to the origin of the Gospels. Unfortunately, this > is all lost and gone. If I were to agree I might be accused of having a conspiratorial outlook as to why those works did not survive. So I shall only remark that it is you who are now reading a lot into "absence of evidence." :-) Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 20:05:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA11889; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:05:24 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:08:45 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: Words of Jesus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 119 Jim Deardorff wrote: >If you should ask: what's this Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) all about? Oh good lord, not again.... From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 16 21:01:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA12066; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:01:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:05:45 -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: Is this really a TC issue? (Was: Re: Words of Jesus) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1938 On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, in part: >That writer openly admitted he was aware of written sources before him. >But how can one interpret the Prologue to mean he admitted to using them >in constructing his gospel, as in "plagiarizing" them? He claimed to have >investigated matters from their source, I must ask a serious question: Have you ever studied ancient literature, particularly historical literature? That would reveal that the ancients had no such concept as "plagairism." (In the manuscript age, you couldn't make a living as an author, the idea of "copyright" didn't exist.) It was quite normal for an author to simply compile extracts from earlier sources. In some cases (e.g. Livy's use of Polybius), we can actually see the source and what the later author did with it. For that matter, we can see it in the Bible, in the use made of Samuel/Kings by the author of Chronicles. Compare also Josephus's use of the Old Testament, or 1 Maccabees, or apparently Nicholas of Damascus. So Luke, like any other historian/biographer of the era, would have felt perfectly free to use whatever he wanted from any source, and would not have felt any qualms. What is more, he likely would *not* have told us; it was a rare ancient author who cited sources. So I would maintain that nothing can be said on the basis of Luke's prologue. I have another question: No matter how one interprets the quotations in the Gospels, has the question anything to do with textual criticism? This is *not* a literary criticism list. I'd hope we can get back to the point one of these days. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 16 23:57:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA12457; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:57:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:01:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Words of Jesus 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: 277 On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > Jim Deardorff wrote: > >If you should ask: what's this Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) all about? > > Oh good lord, not again.... Your sarcasm is not conveying any useful information, and is not needed on this list. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 01:22:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA12610; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:22:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:26:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is this really a TC issue? (Was: Re: Words of Jesus) 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: 4348 On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, > in part: > > >That writer openly admitted he was aware of written sources before him. > >But how can one interpret the Prologue to mean he admitted to using them > >in constructing his gospel, as in "plagiarizing" them? He claimed to have > >investigated matters from their source, > I must ask a serious question: Have you ever studied ancient literature, > particularly historical literature? That would reveal that the ancients > had no such concept as "plagairism." (In the manuscript age, you > couldn't make a living as an author, the idea of "copyright" didn't > exist.) It was quite normal for an author to simply compile extracts > from earlier sources. In some cases (e.g. Livy's use of Polybius), > we can actually see the source and what the later author did with > it. For that matter, we can see it in the Bible, in the use made > of Samuel/Kings by the author of Chronicles. Compare also > Josephus's use of the Old Testament, or 1 Maccabees, or apparently > Nicholas of Damascus. Robert, I think you're missing the main point. Within the hypothesis that the Gospels came out in early 2nd century, the writer of Luke wrote his prologue under the pretense that its writer, and that of the rest of the gospel, had been Luke the physician. I sense that this would have been offensive to many, for one reason because this was not righteous behavior -- it violates the standard of being more righteous than the scribes (Mt 5:20). It's also the behavior of a hypocrite; remember the woes against those who were called hypocrites? It's also bearing false witness, considered evil in Mt 15:19 as well as in the OT. Within the Augustinian framework, Matthew was known ahead of Luke, and so to those few who knew how the Gospel of Luke originated, these Matthean standards would have been known to have been violated. The less said about it by those in the know, the better, would have been the most likely behavior, I maintain. To others, it may not have been offensive, which would help explain how the Gospels did finally get accepted as sacred literature within Christianity. The minor point was that the prologue statement, of the writer being aware of other narratives or gospels having been written before his, does not necessarily mean that he utilized one or more of these preceding writings. It takes an assumption or other data to reach that conclusion. I'll grant you that he did, but that comes out of comparison of Luke against Mark (and Matthew). As you might guess, my knowledge of ancient literature is meager, coming mostly in the past 12 years after switching fields of interest. But of course I had learned that utilizing the works of others was commonplace in those days; that's why "plagiarizing" was in quotes. > So Luke, like any other historian/biographer of the era, would have > felt perfectly free to use whatever he wanted from any source, and > would not have felt any qualms. If the writer of Luke had any qualms, it didn't stop him. But he may well have sensed that others who learned of his authorship under the name of Luke would have qualms about his being hypocritical, bearing false witness, etc. > What is more, he likely would *not* have told us; ... That sounds like a conditional probability (or, after the fact). > I have another question: No matter how one interprets the quotations > in the Gospels, has the question anything to do with textual > criticism? This is *not* a literary criticism list. I'd hope we > can get back to the point one of these days. It impacts tc in at least a couple of ways. (1) If the gospels came out around 120 C.E., not 70 C.E., and hence could not have been written by their "kata"s, think how many fewer unknown mss you need to contend with in striving to reach back to their earliest forms. (2) These topics involving source & redaction criticism lie at the heart of trying to determine the relative priority of the Gospels, which in turn may be able to explain why duplicate strings of up to 30 or so consecutive words are found in some parallel passages between Mt-Mk and Mt-Lk. If that's explainable through redaction criticism, then it needn't be explained as due to later harmonistic corruption. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 04:54:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA13115; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:54:09 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:56:37 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Words of Jesus - My final Words on the thread Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 976 For some reason I initially thought there was something to learn in this discussion. Now I have to admit that I was wrong. For sure, everyone is free to think what he or she wants. No censorship intended. But I'm simply not curious enough to wrestle with a case that is build on: a) a "source" like the Talmud of Jmmanuel that the scholarly community universally dismisses, apparently used in an English translation taken from a German translation taken from a now lost Vorlage that noone will ever be able to assess; this is even worse than the Book of Mormon. b) the use of the ANF, a dated English translation of Greek and Latin sources, apparently not reliable when it comes to close arguments and certainly not reliable when it comes to its apparatus. c) a, in my view, notoriously anachronistic reading of ancient texts. This is it. My apologizes to the list for bothering it with fruitless discussions. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 08:46:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA13447; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:46:39 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:49:48 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Jim Deardorff and "Useful Information [was: Words of Jesus] Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1844 Jim Deardorff wrote: >Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: >> Jim Deardorff wrote: >> >If you should ask: what's this Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) all about? >> >> Oh good lord, not again.... > >Your sarcasm is not conveying any useful information, and is not needed on >this list. Very well, then, let me frankly convey some "useful information". This is not an issue of saracasm. This is a heartfelt cry of frustration that this gibberish of yours and its concomittant blather about alien abductions and the interventions of the saucer people, which has polluted at least a half dozen other lists that I know of, should rear its embarrassing head on yet one more list that at least attempts to maintain a facade of scholarly discussion. It may well be that my frustration --if not my saracasm-- is not needed on this list. But neither is this nonsense. Moreover, as you will no doubt point out, this approach is not very "polite" or "scholarly". But the history of this matter has shown, repeatedly, that politeness simply does not work in this issue: in each of the mailing-lists mentioned above your "views" were given a prolonged polite and intelligent hearing (much as Ulrich Schmid has been attempting to do here). But when, after this long tedious period it became all too clear that reasoned discussion wouldn't --indeed couldn't-- work, they were finally hooted into oblivion that they deserve. And the quicker we, too, get through this process here, the better. In short, enough. And, having had my say, I will take the only bit of useful advice that I have ever received with regards Dr Deardorff which is to simply ignore him in hopes that he will move onto some other list. I implore my fellow readers to do the same. (And that said, I'm now going to go have my morning caffeine and see if _that_ makes me feel any better...) N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 09:24:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13790; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:24:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:28:20 -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: Is this really a TC issue? (Was: Re: Words of Jesus) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3829 On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote, >> in part: >> >> >That writer openly admitted he was aware of written sources before him. >> >But how can one interpret the Prologue to mean he admitted to using them >> >in constructing his gospel, as in "plagiarizing" them? He claimed to have >> >investigated matters from their source, > >> I must ask a serious question: Have you ever studied ancient literature, >> particularly historical literature? That would reveal that the ancients >> had no such concept as "plagairism." (In the manuscript age, you >> couldn't make a living as an author, the idea of "copyright" didn't >> exist.) It was quite normal for an author to simply compile extracts >> from earlier sources. In some cases (e.g. Livy's use of Polybius), >> we can actually see the source and what the later author did with >> it. For that matter, we can see it in the Bible, in the use made >> of Samuel/Kings by the author of Chronicles. Compare also >> Josephus's use of the Old Testament, or 1 Maccabees, or apparently >> Nicholas of Damascus. > >Robert, > >I think you're missing the main point. Within the hypothesis that the >Gospels came out in early 2nd century, the writer of Luke wrote his >prologue under the pretense that its writer, and that of the rest of the >gospel, had been Luke the physician. All right, I'll concede that I missed part of the point. I was just reacting to the word plagairism. I would argue that, if you assume the author of Luke to have worked in the second century, he was not impersonating _Luke_ in particular, merely some unknown companion of Paul. But that's a nitpick. (And to others on this list: Be it noted that I believe Luke to have been written in the first century. But I will allow Jim Deardorff his opinions -- much as I'd like to see them on a list where they are relevant. :-) [ ... ] >> I have another question: No matter how one interprets the quotations >> in the Gospels, has the question anything to do with textual >> criticism? This is *not* a literary criticism list. I'd hope we >> can get back to the point one of these days. > >It impacts tc in at least a couple of ways. (1) If the gospels came out >around 120 C.E., not 70 C.E., and hence could not have been written by >their "kata"s, think how many fewer unknown mss you need to contend with >in striving to reach back to their earliest forms. There is truth in this -- but only if we can *prove* the dates of the books. I somehow doubt, after two thousand years of trying, that we're likely to settle the matter now. Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I conduct TC, I don't care about who the actual author of a book is. This is not to say that I don't study the author's style -- but I don't care if the author is "Mark of Alexandria" or someone we've never heard of. >(2) These topics involving source & redaction criticism lie at the heart >of trying to determine the relative priority of the Gospels, which in turn >may be able to explain why duplicate strings of up to 30 or so consecutive >words are found in some parallel passages between Mt-Mk and Mt-Lk. If >that's explainable through redaction criticism, then it needn't be >explained as due to later harmonistic corruption. I fear I would deny the relevance of that to TC. In that case, you are working from the results of TC -- effect, not cause. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 17 09:24:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13802; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:24:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:28:25 -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: Words of Jesus - My final Words on the thread Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1766 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) wrote: >For some reason I initially thought there was something to learn in this >discussion. Now I have to admit that I was wrong. This should tell us something, when someone as open-minded and knowledgeable as Ulrich Schmid gives up on a subject. :-) If he's giving up on it, I'll get off the topic also. [ ... ] >b) the use of the ANF, a dated English translation of Greek and Latin >sources, apparently not reliable when it comes to close arguments and >certainly not reliable when it comes to its apparatus. Having frequently been forced to use this series, for lack of access to anything better, I should note its various defects: 1. It is translated from 19th century editions of the Fathers -- which were, almost without exception, uncritical editions. And, of course, many important documents have been found since then. 2. For the most part, there *is* no apparatus. 3. Even if the above were not true, they are hard to use; the style of translation is very uneven, and many of the translations lack scripture indices. I would say that these volumes can be used to learn about an author's style, but should never be relied on for detail. It's too bad, because such a series would be very helpful if it were reliable. It would be nice if someone would produce a modern version. But such a series probably represents a lot of work for relatively modest sales. Sigh! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 17 09:28:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13839; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:28:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:28:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: KJV Only Debate In-Reply-To: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424BD8@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.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: 1444 On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Kennedy, Michael wrote: > I for one would be interested in "The Role of the Spirit in Bible > Copying and Translating." It may be others would like a copy too. I think others on the list might be interested in reading this paper as well, and if it's available in electronic form, I'd be glad to add it to our TC Extras page. > It seems the issue of authority and revelation in the copying of > manuscripts keeps coming up. Even more so, the issue of God's providence > behind the KJV comes up increasingly. Why not the Geneva's Bible as > God's uniquely given text? And what about Spanish readers? Must they > learn English? Or is the Reina Valera version their Godly given text - a > "Spanish King James?" And which Reina Valera? The original 1569 edition (yes, older than the KJV!)? The widely used 1960 edition? The Reina Valera Actualizada (1990 or so)? It also shouldn't escape our notice that all of the versions mentioned (KJV, Geneva, Reina Valera) are Protestant translations (although of course Erasmus himself remained within the Catholic church). Should we also posit an authoritative English-language Catholic version (Douay-Rheims, NAB), or just force Catholics to use Protestant Bibles? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 09:56:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA14082; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:56:17 -0400 Message-ID: <34206C92.7E44@sn.no> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:49:38 -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: KJV Only Debate References: <1.5.4.32.19970916185842.00678068@utc.campus.mci.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4339 Me too! Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > > I would interested as well > > Kevin W. Woodruff > Cierpke Memorial Library > Tennessee Temple University > Chattanooga, TN 37404 > > At 10:11 AM 9/16/97 -0700, you wrote: > >I for one would be interested in "The Role of the Spirit in Bible > >Copying and Translating." It may be others would like a copy too. > > > >It seems the issue of authority and revelation in the copying of > >manuscripts keeps coming up. Even more so, the issue of God's providence > >behind the KJV comes up increasingly. Why not the Geneva's Bible as > >God's uniquely given text? And what about Spanish readers? Must they > >learn English? Or is the Reina Valera version their Godly given text - a > >"Spanish King James?" This whole thing seems ludicrous to me. Your paper > >may help those tc-voyeurs out there who have not made up their minds on > >these issues. > > > > > >Prof. Mike Kennedy > >MAP Institute > >8524 East Thomas Road > >Scottsdale, AZ 85251 > > > > > > > >"The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates > > > >(Still Waiting? 1 Peter 3:2-4) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ronald L. Minton [SMTP:rminton@mail.orion.org] > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 1997 8:52 PM > > To: Maurice Robinson > > Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > Subject: Re: Cano > > > > On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > ... > > > If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was > >a "reasonably > > > adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era > >scholarship and practice, > > > which still could be used today with profit-I think > >none of us would > > > have a major objection. The problem comes in claiming > >what amounts to an > > > unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the > >Scrivener edition) "is" > > > the autograph text, and that all other texts are not > >what God has > > > "providentially preserved". But for whatever reason > >(and I suspect the > > > modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the > >TR-as-autograph issue > > > has come to the fore among a small faction, and a > >warped view of textual > > > transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into > >the support of their > > > theory. Why must this take place? Why is it not > >sufficient merely to > > > claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use > >the TR or KJV > > > without making those two items into the one and only > >touchstone? That is > > > the part that is beyond me. > > > > It is not beyond me. The answer is that religious people who do > >not have a foundation for their faith that is based on truth will always > >invent artificial supports. Certainty is more important to them than > >truth. In the case of KJVOs, evidence is of no concern, because no > >matter what it consists of, it will be discarded if it does not fit > >their need for certainty. They can and will do incredible hermeneutical > >gymnastics to rescue their version from every peril or possibility of > >tarnishing. The sad thing is that those who need this certainty the > >most do not even have it because their premise is wrong. The truth is, > >there is not one verse in the Bible that speaks of preserving any copy, > >edition, or translation. I am tempted to include a paper I read last > >year at the ETS national "The Role of the Spirit in Bible Copying and > >Translating," but I have rambled on too long as it is. (Sorry, I almost > >got to preching) > > > > -- > > Prof. Ron Minton: W (417)268-6053 H > >833-9581 > > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO > >65803 > > > > > > 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 -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 10:51:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14354; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:51:15 -0400 Message-ID: <3420797C.44F0@sn.no> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:44:44 -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: Canons of Criticism (part1) 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: 16930 (Response to Maurice Robinson - Part 1 of 2) (This message was too long, so I had to break it into two parts) I am aware that Maurice is soon leaving for Muenster, but I hope that he is able to read this post and comment on it before he leaves. Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > > Notice that I did *not* *claim* that the TR text was to be found in the > > "thousands of MSS" that may have perished! All I said was that "MSS with > > such a text could have perished through extensive use". > > > > With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed "thousands of MSS" > > > which perished (I would suggest hundreds), let alone that the text > > > EXCLUSIVELY of those "thousands" would happen to agree with the printed > > > TR, > > > > I never asserted nor suggested such a thing! > > So what text then did you want us to presume was among those "thousands" > of MSS which perished after the 15th century, since you specifically and > only mentioned MSS containing a TR-type text which likely had perished? I only wanted you to presume that there must have perished a considerable number of MSS. My mentioning of it in the particular context was to emphasize the point that many MSS most likely *have* perished, and that because of that, it should be possible to grant the possibility that there existed "TR MSS" among these. It was far from my intention to suggest that *all* of these "thousands of MSS" contained a "TR text". I wanted to make the point that *if* "thousands of MSS" that were extant in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries indeed *have* perished, the higher the likelihood would have been of the existense of a "TR text" among them. But if we, for instance, *knew* for a fact that only *90 MSS* from that time did perish, the likelihood of a "TR text" among them would have diminished considerably. Usually, I try to express myself in as few words as possible on this list hoping it will be understood in spite of it. :-) Notice my words "*At least*, it should be clear...." (emphasis added), and "it is *even* possible....." (emphasis added). My use of words here indicates that I did *not* intend to give the impression that *all* those "thousands of MSS" must have contained a "TR text". If I had, I would *not* have tried to *deny* it *now*! At least, I have tried to be honest and consistent as far as I know to be. You see, I am not just trying to be adamant in my position, I really *believe* that my position is a legitimate one! :-) > > What point was there even in making such a hypothetical if MSS containing > a TR text which differed from the normal Byzantine/majority text were not > the issue? Of course that was the *issue* in my discussion. And the reference to the hypothetical "thousands of MSS" was involved in the argumentation, but my point is that I never asserted (nor indicated) that all those "thousands of MSS" belonged to the "TR type". (It is interesting in this context to note that many *still* regard the TR as a "strongly Byzantine" text. If the TR had not existed and if a MS containing a text identical to one of the TR editions, it is clear to me that textual critics would have regarded it as "strongly Byzantine". Or.....?). As to my *point* in making such a hypothetical statement regarding lost MSS, I think I have explained that adequately above. > If even "thousands" of normal Byzantine MSS from the 13th-15th > centuries perished, nothing would change in regard to the TR. In my presumption I included in those "thousands" at least a few "TR MSS". (I seem to remember having read that some of the later Byzantine MSS are nearer to the TR than the earlier ones. Is this correct? Were not the MSS Erasmus used for his first edition Byzantine MSS?) > Your > suggestion had no relevance unless you were suggesting MSS which > significantly differed from the normative Byzantine in the direction of > the TR were the ones which were "lost". Not "the ones", but "*some* of the ones"! Of course it has *relevance* even if I did not suggest that *all* of them may have had such a text. (See above) > This is once more playing subtle > rhetorical games with words, changing the intent as soon as a major > weakness is exposed. If nothing else, this demonstrates that if we do not read each others words carefully in the course of the debate, we fail to grasp the *intent* of the words actually written. And I do not think that a "major weakness" has been exposed. I have not changed the intent, as I have explained above. > > > Of course, it is indicated in my statement that at least some of > > them *maybe* did. > > It seems that the intent of your statement was to plant the suggestion > that so many "thousands" of TR-like MSS perished since the 15th century > that there was a reasonable assumption that the TR text in fact > represented that text of those recently-perished MSS. If that was not what > you intended, there was no point whatsoever in the statement. "No point whatsoever"? Again, you fail to grasp my *intent*. > > > What I had in mind was that since the Erasmus edition is very close to > > the MSS he used for his edition (at least some of them), it may be that a > > few MSS even *closer* to his printed edition may have perished. > > > I did > > not mean to suggest that they were *many*! > > This is a MAJOR backtrack on your previous statements. Had you said only > that instead of making the grand implication regarding "thousands", none > of this discussion would have been taking place. "Grand implication"? Another way in which you could have avoided this discussion was to read my words carefully at the outset! :-) There is no backtrack here, much less a "MAJOR" one! The problem is not my statements, but your *implications* of them! I have not made as strong implications regarding the "thousands of MSS" as you have done regarding my previous statements. > > > None of the Nestle editions represent an unbroken tradition back to the > > time when many MSS still were handwritten, i.e. in the transition from > > handwritten to printed "transmission". > > The text found in the Nestle editions, even though primarily Alexandrian, > still agrees at least 90% in the gospels and 95% in the epistles with the > TR or the Byzantine text. Haven't you missed the whole point here? Remember, we are talking about those 90 and 95% respectively, when we discuss textual differences. > Anyone should be able to note even among those > MSS an "unbroken line of tradition" in their transmission and > preservation, especially if the TR text itself is nowhere to be found in > any known Greek MS, but that all have degrees of variance from it. The > Alexandrian text merely has a slightly greater degree of variance from the > Byzantine majority than does the TR; but this does not change its basic > reliability in transmitting the original text for 90% or more of the NT. As far as I know, there's no disagreement between us here. But that's not the subject of our discussion. What we are discussing here, is a transmission or preservation of a particular *form* of the text. In my thinking, providential preservation does not apply to "all MSS", no matter their textual form. I interpret providential preservation to apply to a textual tradition with substantial agreement. In my opinion, there is "substantial agreement" between the Byz txt and the TR editions. And we must not *only* look at the *number* of differences between those two texts, but also at the *nature* of the actual differences! Consequently, I do see a completely different pattern of textual deviation between the TR and the Alexandrian text. > > > The Nestle text is not a transmission, but is based on the decisions of > > three earlier editions, which in turn were constructed eclectically. > > Irrelevant. The Scrivener TR on which you base your faith-assumption that > it is basically or even totally equivalent to the autographs is not a > transmission, but is based on the decisions and reconstructions of F.H.A. > Scrivener, I know, of course, that the Scrivener edition *as such* is not a transmission, but its form of the *text* is, since it represent the much earlier TR editions which have been in current use up to 1881 when Scrivener first published his reconstruction. You know as well as I do, that the differences between the Scrivener reconstruction and the earlier editions are *very* few and *very* minor. These differences may not be greater than the differences between most Byzantine MSS. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Or do I have to ask?) Is a similar thing the case with the Nestle editions? If not, I think that my argumentation in this respect has some relevance. But again, "good godly men differ", and we certainly *interpret* things differently. For clarification, I add this: My view of providential preservation necessitates that the providential preserved text must have had a clear dominance and extensive use among the Christians through history. As far as I can see, this has only been the case with the Byz txt and the TR (as for the *Greek* text). In my view, a text which has been in "substantial" agreement for over 1600 years (from ca. 350 a.d. up to today), has a great on originality. In my line of thinking, the majority principle is secondary. Of course, you will argue about the differences between the Byz txt and the TR, but these differences are still comparatively small when viewed as a continual transmission from about 350 until today. I view the TR as both a continuation *and* a correction of the Byz txt. But the corrections are comparatively small. If the text of the Nestle editions (or a text very similar to them) can be shown to have been part of extensive use in the church and historical continuity, only then, in my view, is it to be regarded as a real providentially preserved transmission or textual tradition! > who himself was not making any claims to autograph > authenticity in the TR-type of text he reconstructed "eclectically" from > previously-existing TRs. There is no difference. Scrivener did not claim to reproduce the text nearest to the autograph text in his reconstruction of the KJV text, for he held (more or less) to the Byzantine traditional text. His goal was not to reconstruct an "original" text, but the KJV Greek text. But that does not mean that it *cannot be* nearest to the autographs! I doubt that even Paul the Apostle always knew that his epistles were *inspired* writings. In my opinion, a person can very well be an instrument for providential preservation without knowing it. > > > It should be kept in mind that the foundation of my argumentation is a > > belief in providential preservation, which I interpret to mean that the > > providential preserved text is to be found in a historical continued > > textual tradition. (And as far as I can see, the Byz text is the ancestor > > of the TR). > > If the TR agreed with the "Byzantine consensus text" (which could be > determined even from taking 20 minuscule MSS and going with the "majority" > reading of those), then this statement might have a little more > credibility. Since the TR differs from _any_ Byzantine consensus in over > 1800 places, the Byzantine Textform is NOT the "ancestor" of the TR; > rather the TR is a close but not identical "cousin" of the Byzantine > majority. A "Byzantine consensus text" is one thing, but Byzantine MSS is another! It depends on what you consider to be "a Byzantine text". In my view, *all* readings within the Byzantine tradition(s) must be taken into consideration, because I do not operate within a "Byzantine consensus" theory as you do. Let me put it this way: The "ancestor(s)" of the TR is/are "Byzantine MSS". (My "private interpretation"). It seems that our respective definitions of the word "ancestor" differ slightly. By that word I meant to indicate that in the same manner as I descend from my ancestors, so the TR descends from its ancestors: the Byz txt/MSS. There are differences between the two, as there are differences between me and my ancestors. (It may be an unscholarly definition, but it was, at least, what I meant by it). > > > This is a bad comparison, indeed. *No* MSS *at all* exist to verify the > > book of Mormon. But there *are* many MSS which verify the TR. > > Please show me the first MS which is identical to the TR. I did not say that any *one* MS verifies the TR! Even the Nestle text "verifies" over 90% of the TR text. There are MSS *extant* to verify the TR, that is, the TR can be reconstructed from MS sources. Can the book of Mormon be verified by *extant* MS sources?? Can *it* *today* be reconstructed from *extant* MS sources? If not, the comparison of my view to that of the Mormons is clearly false. Only if the book of Mormon had MS sources for *almost all* of its text, can my view be compared to the Mormon view. For it is known that the TR is attested by MS evidence for almost all of its text. Actually, there is MS evidence for all of it. Only some of it is weak, and a few are readings dependent on the Latin rather than the Greek. But even *Latin* evidence is "good" evidence compared to the Mormon view, which depends *without exception* on the "revelations" of Joseph Smith. There is no extant ancient (or otherwise) manuscript evidence for the book of Mormon. (I don't know how to put it any plainer). (Oops! I almost forgot that there are a very few "readings" in the TR which normally are described as emendations and mistakes). I never thought that I find the true text "in totally lost MSS", as you have stated. It is true that the exact text of the TR is not found in any one handwritten MS. But the sources and MSS Erasmus used, together with the different Byzantine MSS, *does* give us the TR text. > If none, show > me the MSS which comes closest to the TR and has something far less than > the 1800 differences between itself and the Byzantine majority. Here you fail to keep my statements within the *context*. The book of Mormon has *no* *extant* MSS to sustain it. The TR has! That's my reason for thinking that this is a bad comparison. When I said that there were "many MSS" to verify the TR, I was arguing in the context of your assertion that my view on the TR can be compared to the Mormon view on the book of Mormon. I did not say that each one of "many MSS" sustained every reading in the TR. I said that there are many MSS which **verify** the TR! There's a difference! For remember, this must be kept in context of your assertions that my view can be compared to the Mormon view. But the Mormon view cannot consult *any* MS evidence. They have only a "translation" of *non-existent* plates! (Which of course *never* existed). Their problems are not that they have an ancient MS text which does not sustain their text more than 98% of the time. Their problem is that they cannot even find 1% Ms attestation for the book of Mormon. There is a clear difference here. I would > be especially interested in knowing of the "many MSS" which read "book of > life" in Rev.21:19 or the KJV/TR addition in Ac.9:6 or the Johannine comma > in 1 Jn 5:7. (By Rev.21:19 you mean Rev.22:19?) Since I mostly follow Dr. Hills' views on the text, I might as well quote him here as my authority. On Rev.22:19 he says: "....._book_ for _tree_ in Rev. 22:19, a variant which Erasmus could not have failed to notice but must have retained purposely. Critics blame him for this but here he may have been guided providentially by the common faith to follow the Latin Vulgate" (KJV Defended, p.203). There is MS evidence for the reading, even "ancient" evidence, but it's not *Greek* evidence. On Acts 9:6 Dr. Hills notes that it is absent from the Greek MSS. He gives a list of Latin Vulgate readings, among which is found the rejected reading of Acts 9:6. In his introduction to that list, he says: "....[they] seem to have been placed in the Textus Receptus by the direction of God's special providence and therefore are to be retained" (ibid. p.200-201). Here too, there is evidence for the reading, but only Latin. He has a rather lenghty discussion on the Johannine Comma. I will only give a short quote from his conclusion: "....it is not impossible that the _Johannine comma_ was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek- speaking Church" (ibid. p.213). I do not go into the discussion on these readings, but I highly recommend the reading and study of this book by Dr. Edward Hills. In my view, I believe it is important to every textual critic to at least *read* Hills' works, in order to be familiar with what he rejects! :-) (continued) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 10:56:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14373; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:56:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: a failed experiment X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970917105615.23576b2c@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: 658 Colleagues, In scientific theology experiments are conducted. When such experiments fail their premises are best abandoned. So it is with some measure of sorrow that I announce that the Journal of Biblical Studies will cease operation today. The authors who have contributed have done an excellent job. That is not the failure. The failure lies in the attempt to democratize Biblical Studies by involving experts and lay-people. Further, (negative) criticism from many sides simply makes it an effort not worth the trouble. 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 Sep 17 10:57:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14390; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:57:02 -0400 Message-ID: <34207AF6.2F3C@sn.no> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:51:02 -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: Canons of Criticism (part2) 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: 7616 (Response to Maurice Robinson - Part 2 of 2) > I still consider the Book of Mormon comparison as apt, since > within its pages certain KJV passages can be verbally confirmed in many > places, which demonstrates that the now-lost Golden Plates similarly had > access to some of those very same "thousands" of MSS which had > perished.... (And I am being facetious). Do you still consider it apt? > > > Although > > the Byz txt is not in complete harmony with the TR, it is close. That > > cannot be said of the book of Mormon's relation to the "plates". > > How can you say yea or nay in their absence? It is a faith assumption, > plain and simple. Ask any Mormon. OK. It *is* a faith assumption (although I may call it something else), but it is *only* a "faith assumption" in those places in the TR which do *not* have manuscript attestation. And that's very few. There is not much "absence" with regard to the TR. There is *total* absence with regard to the book of Mormon. > > > Also, I > > do not claim that an angel or a heavenly vision showed me the "original > > readings". > > You claim instead of an angel that God Himself directly molded the text > into the TR form under Erasmus and later printed TR successors through his > "divine providential preservation" mechanism. Since God thus altered the > text in over 1800 places from the reigning Byzantine majority by this > hypothesis, the parallel to the angel and the book of Mormon is still apt. Isn't it even more *logical* to assume that God worked forth His will through *men* over a long period of time through many persons? The TR text has been transmitted by several sensible men, who in turn have gathered readings from ancient (and less ancient) sources. This is far from true with regard to the book of Mormon. As I said earlier, I do not consider providential preservation to be necessarily *miraculous* or *perfect*. It was not "mechanism". Dr. Hills stated that "....providential preservation did not cease with the invention of printing. Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided" (KJV Defended, p.113). Later in his book, Dr. Hills comments on the readings which Erasmus introduced from other sources than the Byz txt, especially from the Latin: "Are the readings which Erasmus thus introduced into the Textus Receptus necessarily erroneous? By no means ought we to infer this. For it is inconceivable that the divine providence which had preserved the New Testament text during the long ages of the manuscript period should blunder when at last this text was committed to the printing press. According to the analogy of faith, then, we conclude that the Textus Receptus was a further step in God's providential preservation of the New Testament text and that these few Latin Vulgate readings which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus, we may well believe, was guided providentially by the common faith to include these readings in his printed Greek New Testament text. In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts" (ibid. p.200). This is Hills' view. I have adopted his view, so consequently it's my view, too! :-) (Had Dr. Hills also a "Mormon view" on the text?) :-) Hills even goes so far as to say that "Since the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, the translation of it was God-guided also" (ibid.) > > > There are even ancient sources for nearly *every word* in the TR! There > > are MSS, Fathers, Versions, Lectionaries, etc. Is anything similar the > > case with the book of Mormon? > > There doesn't have to be, since it is a faith assumption. Don't forget that MSS, Fathers, Versions, Lectionaries, etc. *are* evidence! It's not *only* "faith assumption". Even the TR editions are "evidence" in my line of thinking! But in the final analysis, it *must* be accepted by faith. Even the Byzantine priority position must be accepted by "faith". For you have not seen any of the originals. True, there *is* evidence in the MS sources, but it is not absolute proof that these copies are representative of the original text, much less that *God* inspired the text. It must be received by faith. > But don't > forget all those KJV passages within the Book of Mormon. As for the > "ancient sources", it seems that the same could be said of the Byzantine > Textform far more than the TR, but also for the Alexandrian and Western > texttypes also. So this proves nothing, except what Bentley said about > "pick and choose as you will" among the variant readings, choosing even > the worst by design if you prefer, yet the main thrust and message of the > NT will remain intact, and no major doctrinal shift will occur. The acceptance of the TR is not a "pick and choose as you will" operation. TR is, in my view, a providential preserved text. That's not *your* view, so naturally you do not find the argumentation behind it convincing! > > If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was a "reasonably > adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era scholarship and practice, > which still could be used today with profit -- I think none of us would > have a major objection. The problem comes in claiming what amounts to an > unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the Scrivener edition) "is" > the autograph text, and that all other texts are not what God has > "providentially preserved". I admit that both the Byz txt and the TR have been providential preserved, and to a lesser degree the Latin Vulgate, as Dr. Hills did. But I reject (as Hills did) that *all* MSS are the fulfilment of providential preservation. But since most MSS have a Byzantine text, I would say that *almost* all MSS are providential preserved!! But for *our own* time, I believe (again, as Hills did) that the TR, in particular Scrivener's reconstruction, is the providential preserved text and that the Scrivener edition is the *best* form of the TR!! God has *preserved* a historical continued form of the text up to today, for our use. (Oh yes, I know you disagree *strongly*, but that's my view!) > But for whatever reason (and I suspect the > modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the TR-as-autograph issue > has come to the fore among a small faction, and a warped view of textual > transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into the support of their > theory. Why must this take place? Why is it not sufficient merely to > claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use the TR or KJV > without making those two items into the one and only touchstone? That is > the part that is beyond me. The reason for this is simple (I speak only for myself): I believe that the TR (the KJV TR) is the providentially preserved text for our use today. You may call it a "faith assumption", but that's not the whole picture. It is partly faith, but it's also *evidence*, namely the Byz MSS, Fathers quotations, Versions, Lectionaries, and the TR editions! > > > And, BTW, the "plates" were *translated*, not *copied*! > > So was the Latin Vulgate, yet it also provides a "reasonably adequate" > reflection of the autographs. But not relative to my point. The fully God-preseved text is in Greek. > > > > This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain > > > and simple. > > > > Please feel free to maintain that opinion. > > Thank you. I feel fine! Thanks... (end) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 11:08:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14499; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:08:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:08:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: KJV-onlyism and Talmud of Jmmanuel 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: 2569 The tc-list is an open, unmoderated list devoted to the _academic_ study of the biblical texts. Although students and interested amateurs are welcome to contribute, it is expected that only serious tc-related matters will be discussed. Helge Evenson was asked on the list about his textual views, which involve unwavering support for the TR and KJV-onlyism. I think it has been useful to discuss this matter in some detail, and since he was asked directly, Helge was certainly free to express his opinion. However, the discussion has now gone on long enough on the list (although people are free to discuss the matter off-list, of course). KJV-onlyism is _not_ a legitimate scholarly position, since the fact that its evidential basis is non-existent is obvious to all but the most die-hard advocates, so it is not a legitimate topic for discussion on this list. As I said, I don't fault Helge for providing his opinion in response to a direct question, and I think it has been interesting for some who have little knowledge of KJV-onlyism to see it advocated by a pundit, but by now we've thoroughly covered the subject, so let's drop it. Concerning Jim Deardorff's _Talmud of Jmmanuel_, I have the following comments. The _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ was written by noted UFOlogist and New Ager Eduard "Billy" Meier (not the NT scholar Eduard Meier!), and it is a testament of his personal beliefs, masquerading as a recently discovered ancient document. Meier himself is an interesting character, born in Switzerland in 1937 and traveling Europe, Asia, and Africa for many years. He claims to have been contacted by aliens called the "Pleiades" on several occasions, and he also thinks of himself as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. The _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ was purportedly written in Aramaic and translated into German. However, the German translation reportedly includes language taken directly from Luther's translation, the German standard. For more information on Meier (in Italian), see http://services.csi.it/~ufo/meier18.htm. The _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ is not a document that biblical text critics use, so references to it are not welcome on this list. Jim may, of course, continue to present his views of the development of the NT text on other bases, but the _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ itself is out of bounds for the list. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 12:07:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14897; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:07:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:07:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: IOSCS Oslo Call for Papers 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: 1513 CALL FOR PAPERS -- August 1997 The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies will meet next year in Oslo, 31 July - 1 August 1998, before the IOSOT - congress (2 - 7 august). Accommodation and booking forms should be obtained from the IOSOT - congress secretariate: Prof.H.M.Barstad IOSOT Congress Department of Biblical Studies Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo P.O.Box 1023 Blindern N-0315 Oslo, Norway E:Mail: h.m.barstad@theologi.uio.no Any IOSCS member, or candidate member, interested in presenting a paper should send me, as soon as possible, a proposal containing the author's name, academic institution, and the title of the proposed paper. A summary or abstract of the paper should also be included, or, when this is not yet possible, sent to me later. The deadline for receipt of these materials is March 1, 1998. The summary should be no more than 250 words in length and must be double spaced. It should state the problem, the essential background, and the conclusions. I am confident that we will continue our tradition of presenting a strong and interesting program at each of our meetings. I can be contacted through any of the following means: MAIL: Johan Lust Faculty of Theology, Dept. of Biblical Studies St. Michielsstraat, 2-6 B-3000 Leuven, Belgium E-Mail: johan.lust@theo.kuleuven.ac.be fax: 00-32-16-323858 Very sincerely, Johan Lust From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 12:54:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA15015; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:54:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:58:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3420797C.44F0@sn.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Robinson (Was: Re: Canons of Criticism (part1)) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1149 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: >(Response to Maurice Robinson - Part 1 of 2) > >(This message was too long, so I had to break it into two parts) > >I am aware that Maurice is soon leaving for Muenster, but I hope that he >is able to read this post and comment on it before he leaves. It's too late, I fear. He is already on his way (he may not be on the plane, but he is definitely away from his e-mail). I was also given to understand that he wants this thread to drop. Certainly I think we can stop. I think we've all reached the point where we are simply re-hashing our positions. Time to let the passive observers decide which of us have made the worst fools of ourselves. :-) In the spirit of that hope, I won't waste all your time with refutations of Evensen's supposed arguments. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 17 17:10:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17640; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:10:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: TC List Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism and Talmud of Jmmanuel 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: 1995 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, James R. Adair wrote: > The tc-list is an open, unmoderated list devoted to the _academic_ study > of the biblical texts. Although students and interested amateurs are > welcome to contribute, it is expected that only serious tc-related matters > will be discussed. > ... > Concerning Jim Deardorff's _Talmud of Jmmanuel_, I have the following > comments. The _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ was written by noted UFOlogist and New > Ager Eduard "Billy" Meier (not the NT scholar Eduard Meier!), and it is a > testament of his personal beliefs, masquerading as a recently discovered > ancient document. Meier himself is an interesting character, born in > Switzerland in 1937 and traveling Europe, Asia, and Africa for many years. > He claims to have been contacted by aliens called the "Pleiades" on > several occasions, and he also thinks of himself as the reincarnation of > Jesus Christ. The _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ was purportedly written in Aramaic > and translated into German. However, the German translation reportedly > includes language taken directly from Luther's translation, the German > standard. For more information on Meier (in Italian), see > http://services.csi.it/~ufo/meier18.htm. The _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ is not > a document that biblical text critics use, so references to it are not > welcome on this list. Jim may, of course, continue to present his views > of the development of the NT text on other bases, but the _Talmud of > Jmmanuel_ itself is out of bounds for the list. As you wish, Jimmy, but the TJ is very relevant for anyone who looks past its false debunkings, because it is only a translation and an editing away from its Aramaic original. In just the little that you presented from Verga's web site, Jimmy, there are three terrible falsehoods, one plain error and a misimpression. There are web sites that speak out for the truth of Mr. Eduard A. Meier's experiences, which a sincerely interested person could visit. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 17:28:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17759; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:28:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:32:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Jim Deardorff and "Useful Information [was: Words of Jesus] 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: 1063 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > Jim Deardorff wrote: > >Your sarcasm is not conveying any useful information, and is not needed on > >this list. > Very well, then, let me frankly convey some "useful information". > This is not an issue of saracasm. This is a heartfelt cry of frustration > that this gibberish of yours and its concomittant blather about alien > abductions and the interventions of the saucer people, which has polluted > at least a half dozen other lists that I know of, should rear its > embarrassing head on yet one more list that at least attempts to maintain a > facade of scholarly discussion. I know there's no point in trying to enlighten you at all, Nichael, but there could be a few on this list who know or suspect the reality that underlies the UFO phenomenon. The TJ sheds light on a bit of it that occurred nearly two millennia ago, and should be studied also by those who hold any interest in Merkabbah mysticism. But I won't be mentioning the Talmud Jmmanuel on this list in the future. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 17:32:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17793; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:32:30 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424BED@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Jim Deardorff and "Useful Information [was: Words of Jesus] Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:38:53 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1364 Thank you for not mentioning it again. -MK -----Original Message----- From: Jim Deardorff [SMTP:deardorj@ucs.orst.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 2:33 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Jim Deardorff and "Useful Information [was: Words of Jesus] On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > Jim Deardorff wrote: > >Your sarcasm is not conveying any useful information, and is not needed on > >this list. > Very well, then, let me frankly convey some "useful information". > This is not an issue of saracasm. This is a heartfelt cry of frustration > that this gibberish of yours and its concomittant blather about alien > abductions and the interventions of the saucer people, which has polluted > at least a half dozen other lists that I know of, should rear its > embarrassing head on yet one more list that at least attempts to maintain a > facade of scholarly discussion. I know there's no point in trying to enlighten you at all, Nichael, but there could be a few on this list who know or suspect the reality that underlies the UFO phenomenon. The TJ sheds light on a bit of it that occurred nearly two millennia ago, and should be studied also by those who hold any interest in Merkabbah mysticism. But I won't be mentioning the Talmud Jmmanuel on this list in the future. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 17:38:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17849; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:38:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:43:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: My final Words on the thread -- Mine too 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: 1172 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > For some reason I initially thought there was something to learn in this > discussion. Now I have to admit that I was wrong. > > For sure, everyone is free to think what he or she wants. No censorship > intended. But I'm simply not curious enough to wrestle with a case that is > build on: > a) a "source" like the Talmud of Jmmanuel that the scholarly community > universally dismisses, apparently used in an English translation taken from > a German translation taken from a now lost Vorlage that noone will ever be > able to assess... But it is much closer to its source, which itself is the source for the Gospels, than are any of the mss available to TC to the earliest Gospels. > b) the use of the ANF, a dated English translation of Greek and Latin > sources, apparently not reliable when it comes to close arguments and > certainly not reliable when it comes to its apparatus. ... You're no doubt correct there. When one starts out in NT studies, the ANF is the prime text one sees referenced over and over in the literature, and is what a colleague recommended to me. However he was no text critic. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 17:45:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17917; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:45:15 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424BEE@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Your final Words on the thread Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:51:36 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1546 Okay you had something more to say. I assume that is your final word on the subject. [I'm holding my breath.] Mike Kennedy Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: Jim Deardorff [SMTP:deardorj@ucs.orst.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 2:43 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: My final Words on the thread -- Mine too On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > For some reason I initially thought there was something to learn in this > discussion. Now I have to admit that I was wrong. > > For sure, everyone is free to think what he or she wants. No censorship > intended. But I'm simply not curious enough to wrestle with a case that is > build on: > a) a "source" like the Talmud of Jmmanuel that the scholarly community > universally dismisses, apparently used in an English translation taken from > a German translation taken from a now lost Vorlage that noone will ever be > able to assess... But it is much closer to its source, which itself is the source for the Gospels, than are any of the mss available to TC to the earliest Gospels. > b) the use of the ANF, a dated English translation of Greek and Latin > sources, apparently not reliable when it comes to close arguments and > certainly not reliable when it comes to its apparatus. ... You're no doubt correct there. When one starts out in NT studies, the ANF is the prime text one sees referenced over and over in the literature, and is what a colleague recommended to me. However he was no text critic. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 17 19:01:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA18182; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:01:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:05:50 -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: Time Out (Was: Re: Jim Deardorff and "Useful Information [was: Words of Jesus]) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1710 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff informed us: >I know there's no point in trying to enlighten you at all, Nichael, but >there could be a few on this list who know or suspect the reality that >underlies the UFO phenomenon. I think most of us do: The reality is, a lot of people are blowing a few minor happenings into a big deal. :-) The question is, why take this out on *us*? But this is symptomatic of something I find very disturbing. Twice this week Jimmy Adair -- who is at once more open-minded and more patient than most people on this list -- has had to step in and try to end a thread. The worst of it is, even *that* doesn't always end the thread. We need a better way, but I for one don't want to see us have to shift to a moderated list. I would trust Jimmy to moderate us (as I would not trust some others), but better that we can speak freely. So we need a way to control the noise and give control back to Jimmy, without turning to censorship. That means voluntary restraint. I, at least, am willing to make a pledge. If a thread gets so out of control that Jimmy Adair needs to tell us to cool it, I promise that I will not post to this thread for the period of at least one week. Nor will I retain messages on the thread for later reading or response. Even if I'm the guilty party. I'd suggest we all try it. Some threads need a time out. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 17 19:24:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA18223; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:24:30 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424BF5@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Time Out (Was: Re: Jim Deardorff and "Useful Information [was :Words of Jesus]) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:30:55 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 415 Some threads need to be dropped and not brought up again. I vote for a moderated list over conspiracy theories and loud-mouthed opinions any day. -MK Robert B. Waltz said: I'd suggest we all try it. Some threads need a time out. 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 Sep 17 19:50:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA18330; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:50:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:54:31 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424BF5@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: RE: Time Out... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 922 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, "Kennedy, Michael" wrote: >Some threads need to be dropped and not brought up again. I vote for a >moderated list over conspiracy theories and loud-mouthed opinions any >day. But a moderated list requires a moderator. Preferably an impartial one. I'd trust Jimmy Adair (or Ulrich Schmid, or one or two others), but I wonder if he wants the job. And could we all agree on a moderator? Before we resort to desperate measures, I'd vote for self control. As for my own loudmouthed opinions, at least they're on a web page, and you needn't read them. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 17 22:27:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA18639; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:27:21 -0400 From: habrehm@ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <34203DB6.6903@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:29:59 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-NC320 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC-list Subject: Alternatives 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: 1300 While I respect Jimmy's fairness and open-mindedness, I would vote for a closed list. Only those who "play by the rules" would be allowed to submit to the list. Those who do not wish to engage in scholarly discussion can continue in a free-for-all format. I know it sounds "elitist," but it is really intended to allow those who are interested in discussing serious matters of textual criticism [and those of us with enough formal training to benefit from listening in on the experts' discussions] to do so without all the interference from those who simply want an outlet for their peculiar views. Nobody says that they cannot have a list of their own. I simply don't have time to wade through all that static. If we must continue in this format, I will continue to exercise my democratic right to use the delete key! -- H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of NT 3000 6th Avenue Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem. Fort Worth, Texas 76110 P. O. Box 22000 817-923-3008 Ft. Worth, TX 76122 817-922-9005 FAX 817-923-1921, ext. 6800 habrehm@ix.netcom.com 817-921-8760 FAX hab@swbts.swbts.edu Visit My Home Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html "The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what he becomes by it" --John Ruskin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 10:14:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20415; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:14:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:18:41 -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 books for review Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 747 Jimmy, I hate to take you away from KJVonly-ism and alien Talmuds, but I noticed some books in the annual SBL/AAR program that MIGHT be relevant for TC review. Assuming you have a copy of the program handy, I'll go by pages: p. 203: Is Ehrman's "The New Testament and other Early Christian Writings" something we should review? Same for D. C. Parker's "The Living Text of the Gospels" on p. 221...And the Comfort-Barrett vol. on p. 224...and, on p. 255, "The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity." In the case of most of these, I am simply unable to tell whether they have substantial text critical discussions, but of course I do know that Ehrman and Parker deal in such matters (but not necessarily here).. hope all is well; thanks, leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 10:50:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20809; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:50:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:54:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34203DB6.6903@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Alternatives Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1937 On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, habrehm@ix.netcom.com wrote: >While I respect Jimmy's fairness and open-mindedness, I would vote for a >closed list. Only those who "play by the rules" would be allowed to >submit to the list. Those who do not wish to engage in scholarly >discussion can continue in a free-for-all format. I know it sounds >"elitist," but it is really intended to allow those who are interested >in discussing serious matters of textual criticism [and those of us with >enough formal training to benefit from listening in on the experts' >discussions] to do so without all the interference from those who simply >want an outlet for their peculiar views. Nobody says that they cannot >have a list of their own. I simply don't have time to wade through all >that static. > >If we must continue in this format, I will continue to exercise my >democratic right to use the delete key! I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to take both ends of this argument. I really want the garbage off this list. But on the other hand, I don't think closing the list is a good solution. Yes, it keeps out the riff-raff -- but it can also keep out those who want to learn, and those who have new ideas. It's not easy to learn about textual criticism if you aren't at one of the few schools that has an expert! I'm also concerned about this academic qualifications rule. Partly because I fail it, of course. And yet, while I know there are some who do not welcome my participation on this list, I also know that several other people on this list -- including "qualified" people -- have consulted me on the areas of expertise I do bring to the list (mathematics, oral tradition). Blocking off the crazies will keep the noise level on the list low -- but it also cuts off new ideas. Is it worth it? Not to me.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 12:05:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21216; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:05:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:05:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives 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: 691 The problem with a moderated list is that someone has to moderate it, and I don't really have the time (or inclination) to do so, at least at present. A closed list is an option, but since my proclivity is toward allowing free discussions, I wouldn't want to close membership to the list unless it really got out of control. I would make one recommendation to the list, however. The best way to kill an unproductive thread is to ignore it, plain and simple. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 12:06:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21233; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:06:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:11:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709181611.LAA06770@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: NT Graecum, editio critica maior Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 512 Colleagues, You may be interested to hear that the following has just been published: Novum Testamentum Graecum, Editio Critica Maior. IV: Catholic Letters, Installment 1: James. Part 1: Text; Part 2: Supplementary Material (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). Part 1, xii + 102 pp.; Part 2, vi + 39 pp. Title page and all introductory and supplemental material in both German and English. The UBS will no doubt distribute in in the U.S.; I've not seen anything about price. Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 12:40:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21438; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:40:20 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424BFE@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Alternatives Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:46:44 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4104 While I have a Seminary degree, I do not feel qualified in the realm of TC - perhaps with more study - and involvement on a list like this one - my skills will grow. I have also considered pursuing another advanced degree in this subject, or a related field. I am constantly using the results of TC but I do not deceive myself. I am not involved in the process of collation, nor am I adding knowledge to the field. Rather, I am an avid devotee who labors with the principles which others have laid down before me. I am thankful that their voices can be heard on this list. Therefore, I usually remain silent and just listen. I will return to my mute ways shortly... I am, however, deeply frustrated with the content of this list, and have at times considered completely withdrawing from it. The Internet embraces democratic ideals, but that does not mean that every road on the information highway should equally embrace this principle. Sometimes the "highest good" requires a little socialism. I believe that all should be allowed to participate (democracy), but that content should be our controlling guide as to what we say on this list. From time to time, if something is ruled to be "out of court" (socialism)- then please - do not replay the ball. Just let it lie. I enjoyed the KJV-only and TR debate up to a point - but then it grew quite old. I think it is time that further discussion about this should be moved off-line. This is exactly what I did when I had further questions about Helge's views on the TR; we had several enjoyable volleys over this subject. I have no interested in hearing about Aramaic TC issues underlying flying saucers stories, and the line judge has ruled this serve a net ball. So now let's return to the subject at hand: the disciplines of OT and NT TC; how they are related and can inform each other - as practiced by the majority of scholars. Mike Kennedy MAP Institute Professor of NT Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: Robert B. Waltz [SMTP:waltzmn@skypoint.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:55 AM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, habrehm@ix.netcom.com wrote: >While I respect Jimmy's fairness and open-mindedness, I would vote for a >closed list. Only those who "play by the rules" would be allowed to >submit to the list. Those who do not wish to engage in scholarly >discussion can continue in a free-for-all format. I know it sounds >"elitist," but it is really intended to allow those who are interested >in discussing serious matters of textual criticism [and those of us with >enough formal training to benefit from listening in on the experts' >discussions] to do so without all the interference from those who simply >want an outlet for their peculiar views. Nobody says that they cannot >have a list of their own. I simply don't have time to wade through all >that static. > >If we must continue in this format, I will continue to exercise my >democratic right to use the delete key! I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to take both ends of this argument. I really want the garbage off this list. But on the other hand, I don't think closing the list is a good solution. Yes, it keeps out the riff-raff -- but it can also keep out those who want to learn, and those who have new ideas. It's not easy to learn about textual criticism if you aren't at one of the few schools that has an expert! I'm also concerned about this academic qualifications rule. Partly because I fail it, of course. And yet, while I know there are some who do not welcome my participation on this list, I also know that several other people on this list -- including "qualified" people -- have consulted me on the areas of expertise I do bring to the list (mathematics, oral tradition). Blocking off the crazies will keep the noise level on the list low -- but it also cuts off new ideas. Is it worth it? Not to me.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 12:44:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21481; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:44:31 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:45:55 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Alternatives Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <34203DB6.6903@ix.netcom.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <24A3768067A@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1745 Perhaps the prior question is what a given e-list is designed to accomplish. If we want an open forum where anything can be discussed, the relevant and irrelevant, the trivial and the serious, and where anyone can speak, the qualified and unqualified, and anyone can voice an opinion (whether informed or not), that is one option. If some of us may want a list primarily concerned with the exchange of research-relevant information & opinions among various people with qualifications and competences to offer something, then obviously some restrictions are involved. If Jimmy Adair and any others with some special rights to leadership on this list can let us know what the line is here, then the rest of us can decide whether it is for us or not. I personally would prefer a list made up of people who for example can read biblical Greek, who have training (or demonstrated abilities) in critical historiography, in early Christian literature, and in textual criticism. I accept opportunities to speak and discuss with the general public, but I also need other settings and occasions for exchange of scholarly expertise, where I can have a good chance of receiving something in the nature of resarch-related benefit as well as giving something. In the same way as we require such things as passing an introductory-level course in order to enroll in a higher-level course, or Greek to take a given course, so it is not "elitist" to set requirements for participation in a colloquium or e-list . . . if the purpose of the event or list is scholarly interchange. 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 Thu Sep 18 12:57:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21602; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:57:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: open or closed X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970918125717.1a578514@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: 1170 The current discussion is fascinating. Both sides of the issue are clearly and professionally presenting their views. If this can be done in regards to the very essence of the list, why can it not be done on textual issues? I must say that I agree with Larry H. Colloquiums require expertise. I would further suggest that a minimum guideline for active participation on the list should be knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek. Further, perhaps those who are qualified can speak openly while those who have particular questions which are appropriate for a beginner or novice in the field should be encouraged to write privately to a particular scholar who participates on the list. In this way the list is both open and closed. Open for public discussion concerning advanced issues while closed to peripheral or novice questions. If someone were unsure about the appropriatness of a topic or question for public consumption, perhaps they could write Jimmy or Larry or Bart or another luminary for private guidance. Just some suggestions. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 13:30:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA21826; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:30:13 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424C03@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: open or closed Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:36:38 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2251 Actually at this point I think it may be time to close the list. However I feel that the minimum standards should be low enough so that a second year Greek student could be able to participate. However a Seminary student or TC-beginner should practice self restraint on such a list. A list like this is a wonderful forum where a newbie can ask questions and gain knowledge. I have studied Greek for ten years; I am now teaching biblical languages; I have studied TC in my graduate work. And yet I realize that I have much to learn. But I am not able to learn in a list filled with such clutter. Therefore closing the list may prove fruitful - as long as the entry requirement is kept low. Enthusiasts who abuse the governing rules of the group could then be asked to leave the "closed" mailing list. It may keep some of the debris off the TC-list. Mike Kennedy Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: Jim West [SMTP:jwest@Highland.Net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 10:01 AM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: open or closed The current discussion is fascinating. Both sides of the issue are clearly and professionally presenting their views. If this can be done in regards to the very essence of the list, why can it not be done on textual issues? I must say that I agree with Larry H. Colloquiums require expertise. I would further suggest that a minimum guideline for active participation on the list should be knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek. Further, perhaps those who are qualified can speak openly while those who have particular questions which are appropriate for a beginner or novice in the field should be encouraged to write privately to a particular scholar who participates on the list. In this way the list is both open and closed. Open for public discussion concerning advanced issues while closed to peripheral or novice questions. If someone were unsure about the appropriatness of a topic or question for public consumption, perhaps they could write Jimmy or Larry or Bart or another luminary for private guidance. Just some suggestions. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 14:44:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA22265; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:44:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:48:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives 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: 2179 On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, James R. Adair wrote: > The problem with a moderated list is that someone has to moderate it, and > I don't really have the time (or inclination) to do so, at least at > present. A closed list is an option, but since my proclivity is toward > allowing free discussions, I wouldn't want to close membership to the list > unless it really got out of control. I would make one recommendation to > the list, however. The best way to kill an unproductive thread is to > ignore it, plain and simple. Since I may be mostly responsible for this discussion having been initiated, perhaps I should submit my opinion. As you might expect, it agrees with that of Dr. Adair. Just let the subject drop when it's no longer of interest, and don't feel obligated to get in the last word. The offender will soon get the message and desist. However, my reason for feeling this way, and that list requirements should not be set up that could include, e.g., knowledge of Hebrew, is because one can't always be sure from where and from whom important advancements in understanding may come. They can sometimes come from research that is, for a few years, decades or longer, considered out of bounds by a majority within the profession. One modern example is the use of DNA analysis within anthropology. The initiators of this technique were not as skilled in anatomical structure as were the established professionals within the field. Within the TC field, an example may be the reception received by the diglot edited by Daniel Mace, around 1729, due to its use of readings stemming from a critical apparatus and its departures from the TR. I may not need to quote from Metzger, but he wrote, "Like the work of many other innovators, Mace's edition was either vehemently attacked or quietly ignored. ...But most theologians assumed an ostrich-like pose, and Mace's work was soon all but forgotten." It was simply unacceptable by the majority to think of departing from the TR. Of course, it is the majority's wishes that have to be followed on how to treat innovative material, yet I would urge this list to keep the above consideration in mind. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 15:05:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA22375; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:05:18 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424C05@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Alternatives Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:11:44 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2795 New advances win the day, not because of a climate of receptivity. Rather their critical explanation is deemed to be the best explanation of the facts. And this scholarly conversation may take place over years. With this in mind, it is unlikely that someone who does not know Greek or Heb is going to propose an idea that will advance our knowledge of OT or NT TC. -Mike Kennedy Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: Jim Deardorff [SMTP:deardorj@ucs.orst.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 11:49 AM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, James R. Adair wrote: > The problem with a moderated list is that someone has to moderate it, and > I don't really have the time (or inclination) to do so, at least at > present. A closed list is an option, but since my proclivity is toward > allowing free discussions, I wouldn't want to close membership to the list > unless it really got out of control. I would make one recommendation to > the list, however. The best way to kill an unproductive thread is to > ignore it, plain and simple. Since I may be mostly responsible for this discussion having been initiated, perhaps I should submit my opinion. As you might expect, it agrees with that of Dr. Adair. Just let the subject drop when it's no longer of interest, and don't feel obligated to get in the last word. The offender will soon get the message and desist. However, my reason for feeling this way, and that list requirements should not be set up that could include, e.g., knowledge of Hebrew, is because one can't always be sure from where and from whom important advancements in understanding may come. They can sometimes come from research that is, for a few years, decades or longer, considered out of bounds by a majority within the profession. One modern example is the use of DNA analysis within anthropology. The initiators of this technique were not as skilled in anatomical structure as were the established professionals within the field. Within the TC field, an example may be the reception received by the diglot edited by Daniel Mace, around 1729, due to its use of readings stemming from a critical apparatus and its departures from the TR. I may not need to quote from Metzger, but he wrote, "Like the work of many other innovators, Mace's edition was either vehemently attacked or quietly ignored. ...But most theologians assumed an ostrich-like pose, and Mace's work was soon all but forgotten." It was simply unacceptable by the majority to think of departing from the TR. Of course, it is the majority's wishes that have to be followed on how to treat innovative material, yet I would urge this list to keep the above consideration in mind. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 17:16:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23033; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:16:03 -0400 From: habrehm@ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <34214664.58A4@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:19:08 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-NC320 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives References: <34203DB6.6903@ix.netcom.com> <24A3768067A@div.ed.ac.uk> 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: 1558 I think Larry Hurtado's comments may help with the problems associated with "closing" the list. One may *either* have formal training in the various areas *or* sufficient expertise to profitably and appropriately interact with the group. I must confess I feel a bit ambiguous about keeping the requirements low. While a second-year Greek student could learn a great deal from those who typically contribute to the list, I doubt that student would have the background to be able to debate what are sometimes complicated issues. Asking questions is another matter--a question that is overly simplistic may be ignored, but I have known plenty of second year Greek students who have asked challenging questions. These students could not only learn from the experts on this list, but also all of us might learn from their questions, as I frequently do. The problem with simply ignoring extraneous material is that there has been quite a significant volume of it coming over the list. I simply wanted to raise the issue and add some additional comments. I'll listen to the group. -- H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of NT 3000 6th Avenue Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem. Fort Worth, Texas 76110 P. O. Box 22000 817-923-3008 Ft. Worth, TX 76122 817-922-9005 FAX 817-923-1921, ext. 6800 habrehm@ix.netcom.com 817-921-8760 FAX hab@swbts.swbts.edu Visit My Home Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html "The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what he becomes by it" --John Ruskin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 17:55:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23189; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:55:04 -0400 Message-Id: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424C0C@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com> From: "Kennedy, Michael" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Alternatives Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:01:32 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 534 In reply to H. Alan Brehm: I would definitely agree with you that a 2nd year Greek student is not ready to debate a highly-nuanced TC issue. A student's questions, on the other hand, as you suggested, are helpful to both the practicing scholar and the learner. Perhaps I was unclear on that point. Anyway, I'm going back to a "listening" posture - I've said enough for the last two days. I got tired of all the "extraneous stuff" on the list and snapped. I've said my peace. Mike Kennedy Professor of NT MAP Institute Phoenix, AZ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 18:42:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA23356; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:42:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:46:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: Alternatives In-Reply-To: <538E648131EFD01183E20060B0679B3D424C05@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.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: 964 Kennedy, Michael wrote: > New advances win the day, not because of a climate of receptivity. > Rather their critical explanation is deemed to be the best explanation > of the facts. And this scholarly conversation may take place over years. Exactly so. Moveover this myth of the the lone genius who stands opposed for years only to overturn the standard paradigm is by and large an element of folklore and sappy old movies. It's hard to think of any serious advance in science in the last few centuries that demostrates a history remotely like this. In short, one so tires of crankery hiding behind the age-old "But they laughed at Einstein, too" cant. Maybe there were a few giggles, but they sure laughed a heck of a lot more at VonDaniken and John Mack. > With this in mind, it is unlikely that someone who does not know Greek > or Heb is going to propose an idea that will advance our knowledge of OT > or NT TC. > > -Mike Kennedy > Phoenix, AZ N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 18 18:55:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA23378; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:55:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709182258.SAA19965@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="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: jracine@riq.qc.ca (Jean-Francois Racine) Subject: Mt 6:19 in Codex Bezae Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1184 On the one hand, Scrivener's edition of Codex Bezae (p. 429C) mentions the addition of a "kai" after "kleptai" by a reviser in Mt 6:19. On the other hand, Parker, _Codex Bezae_, Cambridge UP, 1991, p. 140 mentions the addition of a "kai" before "kleptai". I would like to know who is right, either Scrivener or Parker. Perhaps is the "kai" located exactly above the word "kleptai"? The only manner I could check would be to look at photographs or to other collations that I do not have at hand. There is no textual theory nor theology at stake here. The only issue is the accuracy of my collation of Basil of Caesarea' quotations of Mt against a spectrum of MSS. You may answer me off-list. Jean-Francois Racine Ph.D. Candidate University of St. Michael's College Toronto School of Theology ______________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 19 08:21:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA24867; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:21:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:25:38 GMT Subject: Mt 6.19 in Codex Bezae 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: 252 My error. The kai is added above the line after kleptai. My notes are correct; it must have been a carelessness in typing. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 20 06:06:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA29558; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 06:06:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:10:01 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: habas@netvision.net.il (E. Habas) Subject: Re: Alternatives Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1810 >I must confess I feel a bit ambiguous about keeping the requirements >low. While a second-year Greek student could learn a great deal from >those who typically contribute to the list, I doubt that student would >have the background to be able to debate what are sometimes complicated >issues. Asking questions is another matter--a question that is overly >simplistic may be ignored, but I have known plenty of second year Greek >students who have asked challenging questions. These students could not >only learn from the experts on this list, but also all of us might learn >from their questions, as I frequently do. The same goes for fully qualified scholars in different fields. And who will judge who among these have enough "overlapping" expertise and whose interests lie too far afield? And what about a scholar whose formal education is "different", but over the years developed an active interest in aspects of TC? Also, some of these people, scholars and scholars-in-the-making alike, are not in the habit of wasting the list-members' precious time and energy (I suppose Dr. Adair can tell how many of the list members, knowledgeable or not, actively participate in debates), so there is no real *need* to expel them. Is it really possible to identify unequivocally a list-member as 'un-suitable' on purely professional grounds, without personal opinions playing their part? I would think that extreme rudeness (not always unattested on this list, alas) should be the only grounds to close the list to anyone.That should include, IMHO, wasting other people's time and computor space on totally irrelevant matters, and sharing problems students may have with their homework (not serious research, but the type that can be solved by a quick visit to the library or the tutor's office). Effie From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 20 12:03:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00232; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:03:41 -0400 From: "Matt Bell" To: Subject: Question on Canaanite or Cananaean Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:07:54 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19970920161454562.AAA398@mbell.aapi.co.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 602 Hi all I am new to both Textual Criticism and this list so hope you will forgive the simplicity of my initial post which I hope is relevant to this list. I need the following information: The AV/KJV in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 translates the Gk. word Kananites/Kananiten as 'Canaanite'. Modern versions however translate this as Cananaean. Is one more correct than the other? What are the reasons for the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use of 'Cananite'? Apologies again if this is not relevant to this list and thank you in advance for your responses Matt Bell From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 20 12:25:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00293; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:25:13 -0400 Message-ID: <3423FB92.17ED5A2@accesscomm.net> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:36:35 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Question on Canaanite or Cananaean X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <19970920161454562.AAA398@mbell.aapi.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns2.accesscomm.net id LAA01559 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 847 Matt Bell wrote: > Hi all > > I am new to both Textual Criticism and this list so hope you will > forgive > the simplicity of my initial post which I hope is relevant to this > list. > > I need the following information: > > The AV/KJV in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 translates the Gk. word > Kananites/Kananiten as 'Canaanite'. Modern versions however translate > this > as Cananaean. Is one more correct than the other? What are the reasons > for > the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use > of > 'Cananite'? > The Aramaic q)n) "qana" was a "zealous one" or zealot with a qof and not a kaf (cough). Simon was apparently a member of the Qanaim and Canaanite was a mistranslation. -- D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Sep 20 12:58:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00411; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:58:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:02:29 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19970920161454562.AAA398@mbell.aapi.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Question on Canaanite or Cananaean Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2792 On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, "Matt Bell" wrote: >Hi all > >I am new to both Textual Criticism and this list so hope you will forgive >the simplicity of my initial post which I hope is relevant to this list. > >I need the following information: > > The AV/KJV in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 translates the Gk. word >Kananites/Kananiten as 'Canaanite'. Modern versions however translate this >as Cananaean. Is one more correct than the other? What are the reasons for >the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use of >'Cananite'? There are two possible problems here, textual and translational. The textual one is relevant. :-) I'll give Matthew 10:4 the full treatment, and then summarize Mark 3:18. The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is supported by the clear majority of manuscripts, including Aleph W Delta Theta Family 13 28 565 579 700 Byz hark. The reading "Cananaean" (KANANAIOS) occurs in most early manuscripts: B C (D CANANAIOS) L N Family 1 33 892 ol vg Thus "Cananaean" is the reading of the Alexandrian and "Western" texts (plus probably the "Caesarean" if it exists); "Canaanite" is Byzantine. Most would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports "Cananaean." But you'll notice that I didn't cite much versional evidence here. I believe a few versions have something like "Judas of James," but the reason is that the reading "Cananaean" is difficult; many translators must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite." Thus we cite only the Harklean Syriac (which is very literal) as supporting "Canaanite." Modern translators might be tempted to do the same thing. I suspect that all modern translations, except the NKJV, actually have a text that renders "Cananaean." But some may have interpreted this as "Canaanite." The situation is similar in Mark. Here we find the following: Canaanite (KANANITHN) supported by A Theta fam1 fam13 28 892 Byz hark Cananaean (KANANAION) supported by Aleph B C D Lvid (W) Delta 33 565 579 1241 1342 2427 ol vg bo Although it's possible that the "Caesarean" text has shifted to supporting "Canaanite" here, the evidence still points to "Cananaean" as original. (Though I would consider the matter much less certain; it is possible -- though hardly likely -- that the two texts originally differed, and were conformed. In this case, it is more likely that Matthew originally read Cananaean and Mark read Canaanite.) I hope this helps. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Sep 21 04:27:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA02101; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 04:27:36 -0400 From: "Matt Bell" To: Subject: Re: Question on Canaanite or Cananaean Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:30:20 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19970921083831734.AAA198@mbell.aapi.co.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2961 MATT Hi all I am new to both Textual Criticism and this list so hope you will forgive the simplicity of my initial post which I hope is relevant to this list. I need the following information: The AV/KJV in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 translates the Gk. word Kananites/Kananiten as 'Canaanite'. Modern versions however translate this as Cananaean. Is one more correct than the other? What are the reasons for the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use of 'Cananite'? ROBERT There are two possible problems here, textual and translational. The textual one is relevant. :-) I'll give Matthew 10:4 the full treatment, and then summarize Mark 3:18. The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is supported by the clear majority of manuscripts, including Aleph W Delta Theta Family 13 28 565 579 700 Byz hark. The reading "Cananaean" (KANANAIOS) occurs in most early manuscripts: B C (D CANANAIOS) L N Family 1 33 892 ol vg Thus "Cananaean" is the reading of the Alexandrian and "Western" texts (plus probably the "Caesarean" if it exists); "Canaanite" is Byzantine. Most would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports "Cananaean." MATT If "The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is supported by the clear majority of manuscripts" then why is it that 'Most would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports "Cananaean?" Is this an 'earlier=better' conclusion or is there more substantive reasons? ROBERT But you'll notice that I didn't cite much versional evidence here. I believe a few versions have something like "Judas of James," but the reason is that the reading "Cananaean" is difficult; many translators must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite." Thus we cite only the Harklean Syriac (which is very literal) as supporting "Canaanite." MATT Could you expand on why 'the reading "Cananaean" is difficult?' and also why ' many translators must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite"?' ROBERT Modern translators might be tempted to do the same thing. I suspect that all modern translations, except the NKJV, actually have a text that renders "Cananaean." But some may have interpreted this as "Canaanite." The situation is similar in Mark. Here we find the following: Canaanite (KANANITHN) supported by A Theta fam1 fam13 28 892 Byz hark Cananaean (KANANAION) supported by Aleph B C D Lvid (W) Delta 33 565 579 1241 1342 2427 ol vg bo Although it's possible that the "Caesarean" text has shifted to supporting "Canaanite" here, the evidence still points to "Cananaean" as original. (Though I would consider the matter much less certain; it is possible -- though hardly likely -- that the two texts originally differed, and were conformed. In this case, it is more likely that Matthew originally read Cananaean and Mark read Canaanite.) I hope this helps. MATT Thanks for the information so far - forgive the supplemntaries :) Thanks Matt From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Sep 21 13:56:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03161; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:56:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:00:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19970921083831734.AAA198@mbell.aapi.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Question on Canaanite or Cananaean Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6056 On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, "Matt Bell" wrote, in part (and quoting me in part): [ ... ] >I am new to both Textual Criticism and this list so hope you will forgive >the simplicity of my initial post which I hope is relevant to this list. > >I need the following information: > >The AV/KJV in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 translates the Gk. word >Kananites/Kananiten as 'Canaanite'. Modern versions however translate this >as Cananaean. Is one more correct than the other? What are the reasons for >the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use of >'Cananite'? > >ROBERT >There are two possible problems here, textual and translational. The >textual one is relevant. :-) > >I'll give Matthew 10:4 the full treatment, and then summarize Mark 3:18. > >The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is >supported by the clear majority of manuscripts, including >Aleph W Delta Theta Family 13 28 565 579 700 Byz hark. >The reading "Cananaean" (KANANAIOS) occurs in most early manuscripts: >B C (D CANANAIOS) L N Family 1 33 892 ol vg > >Thus "Cananaean" is the reading of the Alexandrian and "Western" texts >(plus probably the "Caesarean" if it exists); "Canaanite" is >Byzantine. Most would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports >"Cananaean." > >MATT >If "The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is >supported by the clear majority of manuscripts" then why is it that 'Most >would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports "Cananaean?" Is >this an 'earlier=better' conclusion or is there more substantive reasons? I guess we just established that you really *are* a textual beginner. (No harm in that, but it would appear that you haven't read any of the standard manuals. I will try to summarize, but remember that there are whole books devoted to what I am going to try to say in a few sentences.) The New Testament exists in many thousand manuscripts. All of these, of course, ultimately descend from what the New Testament authors originally wrote. But these manuscripts, of course, do not all agree. If they did, we wouldn't be having this problem. :-) It is generally agreed that some manuscripts are more closely related than others. The most closely related, obviouslym are those that are copied from each other. Others, less closely related, are descended from common ancestors, and so on. (This is simplistic, since manuscripts can suffer various forms of mixture and deterioration, but it will do for now.) If we proceed from the most closely related to the most distantly related, the most distantly related sort of grouping is the "text-type." These are manuscripts which are not copied from each other, and perhaps not even descended from a common ancestor, but which seem to have experienced some degree of common influence. (The exact definition of a text-type is a matter of debate, but we can leave *that* aside, too. If you feel like being really bored, I have a 90K article about it on my web site. :-) In the gospels, all critics concede at least two text-types (Alexandrian and Byzantine), most also recognize a "Western" type, and some recognize a fourth, the "Caesarean." Of the witnesses listed above, Aleph B 33 579 892 are purely or largely Alexandrian, D ol are "Western," and Theta family 1 family 13 565 700 are (mixed) "Caesarean." You'll notice that most of these names are geographical. That's because the Alexandrian text was popular in Egypt, while the Byzantine text was used in Byzantium. This doesn't mean that they originated there, but they were used there. As it happens, manuscripts of the Byzantine text outnumber manuscripts of the other types by about ten to one. Thus the Byzantine text represents the majority type. But before we anoint it as correct, we should note that, outside Byzantium, the Greek New Testament had more or less ceased to be used after the fourth century. The west used Latin translations, Egypt used Coptic translations or was converted to Islam, etc. Thus the numerical majority of the Byzantine text derives mostly from the fact that only Byzantium was still using Greek in the later centuries. If we go back to the period of the third to sixth centuries, Byzantine texts are much rarer. The earliest Greek manuscript of the type is A, from the fifth century. Whereas the Alexandrian text was in existence before the end of the second century. So age figures in here. (Although, be it noted, all of our oldest evidence comes from Egypt, which may bias things.) There is another reason that scholars dislike the Byzantine text, and that is its quality. Most scholars find it to be full of glosses and explanatory readings and simplifications. Combining the seemingly late date of the text with what appears to be its "smoothed out" quality, most scholars declare the Byzantine text, which contains the majority of manuscripts, to be late and inferior. (There are, of course, exceptions, most but not all of them Americans.) [ ... ] >MATT >Could you expand on why 'the reading "Cananaean" is difficult?' and also >why ' many translators must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite"?' Do *you* know what a "Cananaen" is? Does it mean "Canaanite?" "Resident of Cana"? Something else? (I know, Jack Kilmon gave us an explanation, but how many ancient scribes would know that?) Suppose you were copying something, and you came across a phrase that read something like "Cain kijjed his brother Abel." Since you presumably don't know what "kijjed" means (I hope you don't, anyway, since I just made it up :-), you would very likely, even unconsciously, change it to something more reasonable, like "killed." It's the same phenomenon. Next question? :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mon Sep 22 05:36:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA04858; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:36:58 -0400 From: "Matt Bell" To: Subject: Thanks to David Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:37:24 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19970922094758953.AAA406@mbell.aapi.co.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 184 Hi David Thanks for the lesson in tc :) Much appreciated. I have downloaded your website so hopefully will be a little better informed next time I have a question. Thanks Matt Bell From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 22 09:22:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05298; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:22:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:26:18 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Japanese Text In-Reply-To: <6BAED8410116B2D1@c2smtp.reliance.rockwell.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: 313 I need help in locating sources that discuss the history and textual base of the Japanese New Testaments. They can be in English or Japanese. Thanks ahead of time. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 22 09:45:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05429; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:45:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:50:02 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Liste TC-List Subject: RE: tradition reintroduced (was: Canons of Criticism) In-Reply-To: <9709162131.AA22349@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: 786 On 16 Mar -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > First. There is something quite illogical in the whole thing. I remark > that KJV-onlyism comes most frequently from the side of hard > fundamentalists.... Thanks for the note, but I do want to say that the modern KJVO movement does not have factual claim to historical fundamentalism. To quote Doug McLachlan, President of Central Seminary in Minneapolis, _The Bible Version Debate_, 1997, p. 4 (for information contact central@ibnet.org) "There is no evidence that previous generations of fundamentalists have used the translation issue as a hallmark of an authentic kind of fundamentalism." -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 22 20:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08568; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:37:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:37:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives 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: 3409 Over the weekend I have been thinking about the comments that people have made on this thread. On the one hand, there are some who want to see the list focused exclusively on non-introductory types of issues, such as evaluations of specific readings, and so would prefer a closed or moderated list. Others have pointed out the value of questions from novices, who sometimes see things from a perspective that those more acquainted with the subject might not notice. I have an idea that takes both positions into account and might satisfy the majority of people on the list (I doubt I can satisfy everyone!). I could set up a separate list called tc-pro (or some such) that would be a closed list, open only to people with certain minimum qualifications. People who only wanted to participate in the discussions on this list would be free to do so, but people could also choose to remain on the tc-list and participate in tc-pro as well (they would not receive duplicate messages). Furthermore, everyone on the tc-list could watch the discussions on tc-pro, but only members of tc-pro could respond on the tc-pro list itself. Such a setup would have the following benefits. (1) TC professionals could opt for a list with reduced traffic that would theoretically only deal with matters of interest to the majority on the list. (2) Students, interested amateurs, and those with less tc experience would benefit by watching discussions among tc professionals, which would demonstrate something of the way in which those who do tc on a regular basis go about their work. (3) Anyone on the tc-list could comment on, critique, or ask questions about discussions on the tc-pro list, and those on the tc-list could respond (hopefully many people on the tc-pro list will choose to remain on the tc-list as well). (4) The tc-list would remain open to anyone who is interested in the topic and is willing to follow the guidelines associated with the list. (5) Any general announcements relating to new TC articles, books for review, or other matter of interest to many on the list would be announced on the tc-pro list, and thus also on the tc-list, so everyone would see them. If we were to set up a tc-pro list, what would be the qualifications for membership? I think that we would want to set the qualifications fairly high, for a couple of reasons. First, since everyone on the tc-list will be able to observe the discussions on tc-pro, there is no danger of information being denied to those who are interested. Second, if we set the qualifications too low, everyone will abandon the tc-list and join the tc-pro list exclusively, and we won't have accomplished anything. I would suggest that the tc-pro list be limited to those who have published something in the area of biblical textual criticism and perhaps also those who teach textual criticism in a college or seminary setting. I would be interested to hear comments on the membership of the tc-pro list. If we decide to create a tc-pro list as described above, some computer programming will be required, so it won't be available immediately. I'll wait to see what the response is before I begin work on it. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 22 20:49:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08630; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:49:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Alternatives X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970922205127.3297dcf4@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: 2247 At 08:37 PM 9/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >I could set up a separate list called tc-pro (or some such) that would be >a closed list, open only to people with certain minimum qualifications. Excellent suggestion. Please do it. > >If we were to set up a tc-pro list, what would be the qualifications for >membership? I think that we would want to set the qualifications fairly >high, for a couple of reasons. First, since everyone on the tc-list will >be able to observe the discussions on tc-pro, there is no danger of >information being denied to those who are interested. Second, if we set >the qualifications too low, everyone will abandon the tc-list and join the >tc-pro list exclusively, and we won't have accomplished anything. I would >suggest that the tc-pro list be limited to those who have published >something in the area of biblical textual criticism and perhaps also those >who teach textual criticism in a college or seminary setting. I would be >interested to hear comments on the membership of the tc-pro list. I would also think that participants would need to be conversant in the Biblical languages. Your suggestion that participants be published or teach tc courses is alos excellent. I would wonder, however, if you meant such a person had to teach tc exclusively (which will make for a rather small list) or if you mean to include those who teach tc along with other classes like NT Theology or the like. > >If we decide to create a tc-pro list as described above, some computer >programming will be required, so it won't be available immediately. I'll >wait to see what the response is before I begin work on it. > I hope that the response is good and that many others will see the value of such a list. I wonder, too, concerning who will evaluate the applicants for the list- you, I believe, would do an excellent job but you may not want to do it alone. >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 <----------------- Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 22 21:05:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08716; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:05:06 -0400 Message-ID: <34271892.4C6622CF@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:17:07 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns2.accesscomm.net id UAA12720 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 661 James R. Adair wrote: > If we decide to create a tc-pro list as described above, some computer > > programming will be required, so it won't be available immediately. > I'll > wait to see what the response is before I begin work on it. > As an interested amateur, I think your suggestion is perfect to meet the needs of everyone interested in tc. The pros can discuss academic topics without interruption on tc-pro and still give generously of their time, as I find they always do, to us "informed" layman looking to learn. -- D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 22 21:35:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08776; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:35:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:39:46 -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: Alternatives Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3312 On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, "James R. Adair" wrote: >Over the weekend I have been thinking about the comments that people have >made on this thread. On the one hand, there are some who want to see the >list focused exclusively on non-introductory types of issues, such as >evaluations of specific readings, and so would prefer a closed or >moderated list. Others have pointed out the value of questions from >novices, who sometimes see things from a perspective that those more >acquainted with the subject might not notice. I have an idea that takes >both positions into account and might satisfy the majority of people on >the list (I doubt I can satisfy everyone!). > >I could set up a separate list called tc-pro (or some such) that would be >a closed list, open only to people with certain minimum qualifications. >People who only wanted to participate in the discussions on this list >would be free to do so, but people could also choose to remain on the >tc-list and participate in tc-pro as well (they would not receive >duplicate messages). Furthermore, everyone on the tc-list could watch the >discussions on tc-pro, but only members of tc-pro could respond on the >tc-pro list itself. [ etc. ] As a counter-proposal, what about a "tc-intro" list? That would allow people who know they are beginners to post their questions there, and avoid ridicule, but lets the "main" list still be open. This wouldn't eliminate all kookiness from the tc list, but would lower the noise level a bit.... My opposition to a closed list out of my own experience. I have never attended a seminary, have taken no courses in TC, and have no Hebrew (I also don't discuss Hebrew TC; I know my limitations). My Greek, such as it is, is self-taught. In other words, it would be very difficult for me to "qualify" for tc-pro. On the other hand, while I know that there are many here who disagree with my opinions, I would point out that I *do* know about NT manuscripts, I know the rules of internal evidence, I don't accept appeals to providential preservation, and I don't ring in specially revealed documents. I challenge opionions (a lot!), but I state my evidence and am willing to learn (as I have learned from this list). Also remember, folks, that you don't have to read postings to this list. Indeed, many of you have software that lets you do as I do and *filter* the list. If you don't want to listen to me, filter me out! So consider me as lightning rod. If you want me to go away forever (and I strongly suspect some of you do), then vote for a closed list. Automatic corollary: Be prepared to *never* learn from anyone whose experience doesn't match yours. If, on the other hand, you want free debate, vote for an open list. Sorry to go on for so long, but having suffered through this thread and the earlier Academic Imperialism thread, I would rather be told to just go away and not come back rather than being told that I'm a second class citizen.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 23 01:12:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA09120; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 01:12:29 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199709230516.WAA17249@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 22:16:10 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Alternatives 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: 1480 >I could set up a separate list called tc-pro (or some such) that would be >a closed list, open only to people with certain minimum qualifications. I would like to second Bob Waltz' alternate proposal for a tc-intro list instead. My reasons are totally selfish: I don't know for sure that I would qualify for the tc-pro list. While I did a lot of undergrad and Masters-level work in TC both Hebrew and Greek, my only publication on the topic is that one little note in TC (and my book reviews there); at the moment I teach computers, and that privately, not through any kind of academic institution. I have never taught a formal TC course. Hence, there are probably those who would disqualify me just as some would disqualify Bob (I definitely do not fall into this latter category, for whatever that is worth). Another possibility would be to create a FAQ that answers some of the more basic questions that would likely come up on a tc-intro list. This would allow regulars on that list to point questioners to a source of basic information. A pointer to this FAQ could easily be inserted into the tag that tc-list currently puts at the end of most every post: "To subscribe, do this; to unsubscribe, do that; be sure to check out the faq at dont.dumb.the.list.down.edu." A combination of the above two would, I suspect, go a long way toward solving the currently-perceived problem. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 02:38:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA09214; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 02:38:29 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:47:11 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: Alternatives X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <34822EC4F14@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4482 > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:37:03 -0400 (EDT) > From: "James R. Adair" > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Alternatives > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Over the weekend I have been thinking about the comments that people have > made on this thread. On the one hand, there are some who want to see the > list focused exclusively on non-introductory types of issues, such as > evaluations of specific readings, and so would prefer a closed or > moderated list. Others have pointed out the value of questions from > novices, who sometimes see things from a perspective that those more > acquainted with the subject might not notice. I have an idea that takes > both positions into account and might satisfy the majority of people on > the list (I doubt I can satisfy everyone!). > > I could set up a separate list called tc-pro (or some such) that would be > a closed list, open only to people with certain minimum qualifications. > People who only wanted to participate in the discussions on this list > would be free to do so, but people could also choose to remain on the > tc-list and participate in tc-pro as well (they would not receive > duplicate messages). Furthermore, everyone on the tc-list could watch the > discussions on tc-pro, but only members of tc-pro could respond on the > tc-pro list itself. > > Such a setup would have the following benefits. (1) TC professionals > could opt for a list with reduced traffic that would theoretically only > deal with matters of interest to the majority on the list. (2) Students, > interested amateurs, and those with less tc experience would benefit by > watching discussions among tc professionals, which would demonstrate > something of the way in which those who do tc on a regular basis go about > their work. (3) Anyone on the tc-list could comment on, critique, or ask > questions about discussions on the tc-pro list, and those on the tc-list > could respond (hopefully many people on the tc-pro list will choose to > remain on the tc-list as well). (4) The tc-list would remain open to > anyone who is interested in the topic and is willing to follow the > guidelines associated with the list. (5) Any general announcements > relating to new TC articles, books for review, or other matter of interest > to many on the list would be announced on the tc-pro list, and thus also > on the tc-list, so everyone would see them. > > If we were to set up a tc-pro list, what would be the qualifications for > membership? I think that we would want to set the qualifications fairly > high, for a couple of reasons. First, since everyone on the tc-list will > be able to observe the discussions on tc-pro, there is no danger of > information being denied to those who are interested. Second, if we set > the qualifications too low, everyone will abandon the tc-list and join the > tc-pro list exclusively, and we won't have accomplished anything. I would > suggest that the tc-pro list be limited to those who have published > something in the area of biblical textual criticism and perhaps also those > who teach textual criticism in a college or seminary setting. I would be > interested to hear comments on the membership of the tc-pro list. > > If we decide to create a tc-pro list as described above, some computer > programming will be required, so it won't be available immediately. I'll > wait to see what the response is before I begin work on it. > > 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 <----------------- > The idea of a tc-pro list on the face of it seems appealing. I would support the concept but with one reservation. It must not create the notion of exclusivism. Even novices and non-experts should feel welcome to TC. We have had enough negative reactions on the list in this regard. The criteria as to who would "qualify" should consequently be clear and be applied consistently. I have met post-graduate students in Europe who would perhaps not qualify as far as your suggestions go, but who are well-versed in matters TC. > > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 09:06:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10059; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:06:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:11:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Abigail Ann Young To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives In-Reply-To: <34822EC4F14@SEMT.sun.ac.za> 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: 902 I too am doubtful about the criteria for the proposed 'tc-pro' -- I am an interested on-looker for most of these discussions, rather than a participant and I would not qualify for 'tc-pro' because although my training has been extensive in palaeography and textual criticism, it has not been biblical textual criticism. I have profited a great deal from the discussions on this list but have also been dismayed by the extent to which biblical textual criticism and palaeography seem cut off from the wider world of palaeography and t.c.! I do think you would be better advised not to make the criteria so narrow. A. Dr Abigail Ann Young, Records of Early English Drama| young@chass.| Victoria College, University of Toronto | utoronto.ca | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html | REED's Home Page | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html|Our New Theatre Resource Page | From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 10:03:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA10299; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:03:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:07:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709231407.JAA21078@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: Alternatives Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1132 Dr Abigail Ann Young indicated her dismay at "the extent to which biblical textual criticism and palaeography seem cut off from the wider world of palaeography and t.c.! I do think you would be better advised not to make the criteria so narrow." I think her observation is valid, and her suggestion important. To make the criteria too narrow or formal would exclude too many outside of biblical t.c. from whom we in the field could learn, and would, I fear, needlessly exclude contributors like Vincent Broman and Robert Waltz, who regardless of their formal qualifications, have made significant contributions, such as the discussion of statistics earlier this year. For example, Broman's review (in the e-journal TC) of one of the recent volumes in the NT in the Greek Fathers series (Mullin's diss., I think) may be the only review of a volume in that series to make serious and informed proposals for improving the use of statistics in analyzing the text of a father. I'd rather make frequent use of my delete key on an open list than run the risk of running off colleagues from whom we might learn something. Mike Holmes From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 10:12:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA10388; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:12:18 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:15:09 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: Alternatives Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2728 Although I very much like the idea of having a closed list, I personally won't like the result according to the requirements proposed by Jimmy Adair: >I would >suggest that the tc-pro list be limited to those who have published >something in the area of biblical textual criticism and perhaps also those >who teach textual criticism in a college or seminary setting. 1. The mentioned criteria would include, e.g., R.F. Shedinger, who published an article in *New Testament Studies* (43, 1997, pp. 58-71), as well as E. Metzing, who published a *Miszelle* in *Zeitschrift fuer die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft* (88, 1997, pp. 126-129). Both authors give ample evidence that they don't know what they are talking about, yet they have something out on TC. 2. Since there are so many schools and seminaries in the US, I can hardly tell what qualifies, e.g., "Prof." XY, teaching TC at Bible Seminary YZ, for a TC-pro list. Although this notion may display European arrogance, it took me a hard time to learn that there are a lot of schools and seminaries that do not play in the same league as those I am more familiar with from my European perspective. This is not meant to disqualify each and every school and seminar or their teachers of which/whom I never heard. But the reverse isn't true either. 3. On the other hand, the mentioned criteria would disqualify some (e.g., Bob Waltz and, perhaps, Jean Valentin) who, in my view, already qualified themselves by virtue of their contributions to the list. Quite frankly, having a closed list would do me a great favour. As a German I am used to rather clear cut scholarly environments where I can easily locate most contributions related to TC. I may also come to terms with the European scale, but I fail to adequately deal with the US scale (see 2.). It's very easy to fool me with all sorts of degrees, titles, and institutions. Additionally, as a non-native speaker I'm inclined to overestimate native speakers' contributions. Even if I have some doubts right from the start, it usually takes more time for me to figure out the background of contributors I do not know. It might be due to my limited linguistic abilities to fully understand the issue. Therefore, I sometimes enter or prolong fruitless discussions. Having said all this, I would also like to emphasize point 3 (above). Apparently there are other qualifications for contributing to TC discussions as publishing or teaching. Training (formal as well as informal) does not always show up in publications or teaching duties. On the other hand, publishing and presumably teaching as well can be performed without displaying any sort of training. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 12:00:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10753; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:00:50 -0400 From: "Matt Bell" To: Subject: Re: Alternatives Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:50:44 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19970923161144031.AAB198@mbell.aapi.co.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 412 Hi all Hope you don't mind a newbie adding to this thread. I hope that accessibility to this list will remain open to people like myself who mainly lurk and learn, but occassionaly need to find information on a particular subject relevant to the list. I look on the list like and interactive resource just like my concordance or Online Bible etc. Spare a thought for people in my position. Thanks Matt Bell From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 13:45:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11242; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:45:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: the text of Romans X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970923134541.0d57381c@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: 513 Colleagues, I am going to be teaching a course on the text of Romans. I, of course, have Metzger's Commentary and Aland's "Text". I also have codex Sinaiticus. What I am wondering is if there is a textbook which covers this specific topic? I realize that nearly every commentary has textual notes- but what I am wanting is a commentary that is purely textual. Thanks for your help. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 13:50:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11295; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:50:31 -0400 Message-ID: <34282C72.F26@total.net> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:54:10 -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: Alternatives References: <199709231407.JAA21078@homer.bethel.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 218 Michael Holmes wrote: > I'd rather make frequent use of my delete key on an open list than run the > risk of running off colleagues from whom we might learn something. > > Mike Holmes Amen and Amen... Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 14:01:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA11409; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:01:10 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:04:04 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: NT Graecum, editio critica maior Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 782 >Colleagues, > You may be interested to hear that the following has just been >published: > >Novum Testamentum Graecum, Editio Critica Maior. IV: Catholic Letters, >Installment 1: James. Part 1: Text; Part 2: Supplementary Material >(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). Part 1, xii + 102 pp.; Part >2, vi + 39 pp. Title page and all introductory and supplemental material in >both German and English. > >The UBS will no doubt distribute in in the U.S.; I've not seen anything >about price. > >Mike Holmes In Germany the price is 28 DM for the two parts. The edition will be presented at the JBL meeting in San Francisco. Sorry for late dealing with this issue. I got hold of my copy last weekend. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 15:37:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11949; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:37:49 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970923134541.0d57381c@mail.highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:41:42 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: the text of Romans Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1171 On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Jim West wrote: >Colleagues, > >I am going to be teaching a course on the text of Romans. I, of course, >have Metzger's Commentary and Aland's "Text". I also have codex Sinaiticus. >What I am wondering is if there is a textbook which covers this specific topic? >I realize that nearly every commentary has textual notes- but what I am >wanting is a commentary that is purely textual. I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but Harry Gamble, Jr. wrote a book called _The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans_ (Studies & Documents 42, Eerdmans, 1977). I should add that I do not entirely agree with the concusions of this study. I think Gamble is wrong about both P46 and 1739 -- and that he absolutely has to study 1506, a manuscript which he does not even mention. But that's just me.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 23 17:04:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12399; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:04:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:08:27 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: NT Graecum, editio critica maior To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199709231708_MC2-2196-220E@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: 328 The American Bible Society will distribute NTG, editio critica maior in t= he US. It should be in stock in New York by December 1st, and we hope to have copies for sale at the SBL meeting in November. The price is $16.99= =2E Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 19:09:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12741; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:09:44 -0400 From: habrehm@ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <3427F838.425C@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:11:31 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-NC320 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives 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: 1402 I personally like Jimmy's plan. Despite the obvious ego blow to those of us who would not qualify for the tc-pro list [despite my reading and graduate seminar in TC, I have not published and have not taught our elective course], there is no sense in which *anyone* would be excluded. As I understand it, the tc-pro list would be open to professionals to debate questions. Members of the tc-list would still be able to ask questions and debate the issues with one another in an open forum. As Jimmy mentioned, the ideal situation would be for the members of tc-pro to continue to participate in the tc-list. I would favor such a plan, and I commend Jimmy for obviously putting a great deal of thought and effort into coming up with a good compromise. Should the group decide against it, I will withdraw my suggestion willingly but I would like for us to find a way to filter some of the problems that E. Habas mentioned. -- H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of NT 3000 6th Avenue Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem. Fort Worth, Texas 76110 P. O. Box 22000 817-923-3008 Ft. Worth, TX 76122 817-922-9005 FAX 817-923-1921, ext. 6800 habrehm@ix.netcom.com 817-921-8760 FAX hab@swbts.swbts.edu Visit My Home Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html "The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what he becomes by it" --John Ruskin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 20:42:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13047; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:42:54 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3427F838.425C@ix.netcom.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:46:15 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Alternatives Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2203 On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, habrehm@ix.netcom.com wrote: >I personally like Jimmy's plan. Despite the obvious ego blow to those >of us who would not qualify for the tc-pro list [despite my reading and >graduate seminar in TC, I have not published and have not taught our >elective course], there is no sense in which *anyone* would be excluded. One phrase: "Separate but equal is not equal." >As I understand it, the tc-pro list would be open to professionals to >debate questions. Members of the tc-list would still be able to ask >questions and debate the issues with one another in an open forum. As >Jimmy mentioned, the ideal situation would be for the members of tc-pro >to continue to participate in the tc-list. It's not really that simple. I haven't seen what happens when one closes a scholarly list, but I *have* seen the results on a list devoted to "folk music." Believe it or not, the list has evolved to the point where discussion of actual folk music (the traditional music of various peoples) is *excluded from the list.* It's not likely to happen here (there is a special circumstance involved in that case), but it's not impossible, either. >I would favor such a plan, and I commend Jimmy for obviously putting a >great deal of thought and effort into coming up with a good compromise. >Should the group decide against it, I will withdraw my suggestion >willingly but I would like for us to find a way to filter some of the >problems that E. Habas mentioned. Since I appear to be outvoted, I'm going to put in two special appeals. First, *DON'T* call it tc-pro. I'd still argue for "tc" and "tc-intro," but if that is unacceptable, how about "tc" and "tc-scholarly"? It's a little less judgmental. Second, how about a way to petition into tc-scholarly? That is, you can get in if you have the academic credentials, *or* if three accredited members of tc-scholarly ask to let you in. It seems to me that that would still succeed in keeping the radical sorts out, without imposing *quite* as severe a gag rule. (Translation: I think I could get in that way. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 23 21:53:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA13194; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 21:53:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:58:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Alternatives To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4225 On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, habrehm@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > >I personally like Jimmy's plan. Despite the obvious ego blow to those > >of us who would not qualify for the tc-pro list [despite my reading and > >graduate seminar in TC, I have not published and have not taught our > >elective course], there is no sense in which *anyone* would be excluded. > > One phrase: "Separate but equal is not equal." I am not sure our foreign list-members recognize this allusion to the Jim Crow laws of the US before Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education overthrew their last vestige. > >As I understand it, the tc-pro list would be open to professionals to > >debate questions. Members of the tc-list would still be able to ask > >questions and debate the issues with one another in an open forum. As > >Jimmy mentioned, the ideal situation would be for the members of tc-pro > >to continue to participate in the tc-list. > It's not really that simple. I haven't seen what happens when one > closes a scholarly list, but I *have* seen the results on a list > devoted to "folk music." Believe it or not, the list has evolved to > the point where discussion of actual folk music (the traditional > music of various peoples) is *excluded from the list.* It's not > likely to happen here (there is a special circumstance involved > in that case), but it's not impossible, either. I am glad Bob grought this issue up, mentioning the example of another list. What should we expect will happen to a closed "tc-pro" list, based on the experience of other closed lists? I very much doubt that it will be the unadulterated good the plan's proponents seem to expect. So, for example, if tc-pro and tc-list are separate, I expect the latter to either wither and die or quickly degenerate into a forum for nothing but meaningless blather. > >I would favor such a plan, and I commend Jimmy for obviously putting a > >great deal of thought and effort into coming up with a good compromise. > >Should the group decide against it, I will withdraw my suggestion > >willingly but I would like for us to find a way to filter some of the > >problems that E. Habas mentioned. > > Since I appear to be outvoted, I'm going to put in two special > appeals. In this matter, as in many matters (not just TC) opinions should be weighed, not counted. In particular, I recall the list-owner soliciting our opinions, I expect he will take them into serious consideration, but he is under no obligation to count our votes. But even more central to the issue, there are other means for us to deal with the "problems that E. Habas mentioned". The means I have been using all along is generous use of the delete key. Judging from the correspondence on the proposal to close the list, I would say many other list-members are quite content to do the same. For those of you whose mail-readers support it there is the even more user-friendly option of kill-files. The ability to tell, by reading no more than a few posts, whether a given contributor is capable of making meaningful contributions should definitely be among the qualifications for being in tc-pro. But if he has this capability, the list member can use the kill files to solve the "problems" anyway, so the need to separate the list vanishes. Finally, I do have one alternative concrete proposal. I have refrained from offering it before because I suspect that the list-owner's software does not offer this capability conveniently (if at all), in which case it is unreasonable to expect him to do it. The proposal is to keep the one list, but have different privileges for different members. The members who have proven themselves capable of meaningful contributions (but who will decide?) will have the privilege of posting to the list, others can receive posts but not originate them. Now if it were possible to judge a contributor's worth by the letters after his name, I would say that this is the clearly superior solution. But as it is, the judicious use of kill files is still the better way. 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 Tue Sep 23 23:06:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA13335; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:06:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:10:57 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Japanese Text 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: 425 I need help in locating sources that discuss the history and textual base of the Japanese New Testaments. They can be in English or Japanese. I received no help the first time, so I will try again. If you cannot help, can you suggest a possible source that may be useful? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 00:34:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA13533; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:34:02 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCC8F8.87F29D40@theeap.avondale.edu.au> From: Ed Parker To: "tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Subject: RE: Alternatives Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:45:39 +-1000 Encoding: 46 TEXT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1732 Greetings from Australia, I have sat on the side of TC list now for about 8 months and have not made a single reply. Today I have broken the ice. To me it has been both profitable and frustrating to see the discussion. At times I feel almost angry that some take so much space to say so little, as well as being so dogmatic. One insight that may be worthwhile is that the more one is assured as a person, the less they have to be dogmatic in their assertions. Furthermore, if the bible is worth anything at all it does not need defence that smacks of being unethical (unchristian if you like)! TC is a very interesting subject, and I for one would like access to the scholarly debate. When we have world ranking scholars from USA, British Isles, South Africa, Germany, Scandanavia etcetera, it enhances my level of thinking and my methodological finesse. If there are levels of entry to the debate, at least keep access to the discussions open to all. Thankyou for the insights that I have gained over the last two thirds of a year. Yours Ed Parker, Old Testament and Hebrew lecturer, Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW, 2265, Australia. ---------- From: Matt Bell[SMTP:mbkbell@aapi.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 1997 1:51 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives Hi all Hope you don't mind a newbie adding to this thread. I hope that accessibility to this list will remain open to people like myself who mainly lurk and learn, but occassionaly need to find information on a particular subject relevant to the list. I look on the list like and interactive resource just like my concordance or Online Bible etc. Spare a thought for people in my position. Thanks Matt Bell From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 00:48:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA13563; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:48:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 21:53:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: The ms dating evidence In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970918125717.1a578514@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: 2329 Having gotten farther along in Metzger's textbook, and with N-A 27 in hand now, it seems to me that the manuscript dating evidence supports the church-father dating evidence to indicate that the Gospel autographs originated relatively late, like around 120-130. In the rough chronological list below, I've had to mix together the mss, the church fathers and their mention of various Gospels, and had to omit the Gnostic gospels, Gospel of Thomas, and some church fathers. But have I omitted any early ms of importance to tc, or misdated any, allowing an uncertainty of a half century or so? The item marked with ? is one that Ulrich and I discussed some. If it is located where I place it below, I see greatest consistency between the ms evidence and the church-father evidence. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Year Estimated Placement of Witnesses to Gospels/Acts 001 *Ur-marcus/"Peter's Memoirs" (per Clem.of A., Tertullian, Papias) 101 ? (Matthew, Mark -- Presbyter John), G.Hebrews Papias, Marcion, Polycarp, Justin, 2 Clement, G.Naz., P52, P90 Diatessaron (Tatian), Didache, G.Ebion., G.Egypt., Ltr. to Flora Apollinarus, Athanag., Protoev. of James, Theophilus, Irenaeus 201 Clem. of Alex., Tertullian, P64, P66, 0189 |P1, P4, P5, P22, P28, Origen, |P29, P39, P45, P48, |P53, P69, P70, P75, |P80, P91, P95 301 P7, P37, P38, P77, 0171 Eusebius |P6, P8, P25, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, |P35, P62, P71, Ephraem Syrus |P88, 058, 0231 Ambrosiaster, Monarchian Prologues |P19, P21, P50, 401 Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, W (Freer), |P57, P82, P85, |P93, 057, 059, 0181 *Does not refer to a Gospel itself, but is clearly related in some way to the later formation of the Gospel of Mark Additional Note: Ignatius is not included, because his verses that look like allusions to Matthew, if not due to oral tradition, could just as well be due to the writer of Matthew having used Ignatius rather than vice versa. In that case, the most likely candidate to have been that writer seems to be Burrhus, Ignatius's scribe on his journey towards Rome. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 03:30:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA13910; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 03:30:48 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:33:28 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Japanese Text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 961 You might try Prof. Gohai Hata at (if I recall correctly) the Sophia University in Tokyo. He has edited some volumes on early church history, is Japanese, and a Christian. He regularly attends the SBL, and so Jimmy may have access to an e-mail address for him. He co-edited *Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism* (Brill and Wayne State UP) in 1990 or so, and also a volume on Josephus. I am sure he could give you a very competent answer. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. >I need help in locating sources that discuss the history and textual base >of the Japanese New Testaments. They can be in English or Japanese. > >I received no help the first time, so I will try again. If you cannot >help, can you suggest a possible source that may be useful? > > >-- >Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 >Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 07:37:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA14259; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:37:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:32:36 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: RE: Alternatives To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199709240732_MC2-219B-DD23@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: 1057 Hi, I, too, as a post-graduate part-time student have benefitted greatly from= being able to read this list. At times it has been frustrating because of= the volume of Emails arriving down my 14.4k line. I generally listen only, because I know my limitations and in most areas = I do not feel qualified to make a valuable contribution. However in one area I do feel qualified to speak. As a Computer Science graduate and someone who has worked in the software business for 20 years= I do feel that I can be valuable to TC professionals in this one area. The provision of a TC-pro list would prevent me from making a contributio= n = where it matters when the discussion wanders in my "home territory". TC does not exist in a vacuum, but is reliant on other disciplines, the current thinkings for the TC-pro list does not acknowledge this. Conversely, we all have to learn to refrain from contributing unless we a= re on "home territory".and can make a real and valuable contribution. Regards Mike Bossingham Maidenhead and Birmingham University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 08:19:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14391; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:19:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970924121652.00bb7cf0@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:16:52 -0400 To: rminton@mail.orion.org From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: Japanese Text Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1301 Ron: The Baptist Biblical Heritage volume 2 Number 4 has as it's cover story, "How People are Saved in Japan Without the KJV or the The Textus Receptus." It includes a letter printed on Trinitarian Bible Society letterhead testifying to the fact that there is no Japanese Bible that is based upon any printed edition of the Greek New Testament falling within the the Received Text Tradition. If you can supply me with a fax number, I'll be happy to fax the article and letter to you. Kevin W. Woodruff Tennessee Temple University At 08:26 AM 9/22/97 -0500, you wrote: >I need help in locating sources that discuss the history and textual base >of the Japanese New Testaments. They can be in English or Japanese. > >Thanks ahead of time. > >-- >Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 >Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 > > 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 Wed Sep 24 08:56:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14524; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:56:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: DC Parker X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970924085614.0c472c9e@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: 394 (sorry to address this to the whole list) DC Parker, I note that you have a new book titled "The Living Text of the Gospels". Is this an introductory text on the textual history of the Gospels or is it an introduction to textual criticism of the Gospels? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 08:59:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14542; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:59:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:04:15 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.16.19970918125717.1a578514@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: The ms dating evidence Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1302 On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >Having gotten farther along in Metzger's textbook, and with N-A 27 in hand >now, it seems to me that the manuscript dating evidence supports the >church-father dating evidence to indicate that the Gospel autographs >originated relatively late, like around 120-130. Since this is exactly the sort of post the current "alternatives" post is designed to suppress, I won't answer at length. But two comments: 1. The evidence of the manuscripts, fathers, etc. does not *indicate* such a late date; it merely fails to disprove the possibility. Manuscripts of a literary work are rarely contemporary with it. Consider that the earliest manuscript of Herodotus comes from *fifteen hundred years* after it was written.... 2. Our earliest manuscript of John is P52, now dated c. 125. On this argument, it would have to be the autograph. Which is hardly likely, considering that it was found in Egypt.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 24 10:17:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14877; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:17:32 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:18:45 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: new book Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <2D7C81B60A5@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 844 My colleague, Timothy Lim, has a new book just out that will be of interest to at least some on this list: _Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries & Pauline Letters_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). TC-list readers will particularly be interested to see how Lim draws upon recent scholarhip on the textual state of the Heb & Greek OT in the lst century in analyzing the interpretive practices evident in the Qumran and Pauline writings. He also helpfully notes (with some earlier scholars) how we need to avoid oversimplifying things by treating the LXX as *the* Greek text available in this early period, and avoid treating the MT as if it were already standardized then. 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 Sep 24 10:35:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14990; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:35:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:35:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: review of Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job 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: 681 Johann Cook has written a review of Peter John Gentry's _The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job_ (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). This review is now available in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, vol. 2. Let me take this opportunity to remind readers to inform either me or Leonard Greenspoon, our book review editor, of books that you think TC should review. In particular, if you have written a book recently that deals with textual criticism in a significant way, please ask your publisher to send Leonard a review copy. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 11:23:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15151; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:23:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: obscure text X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970924112349.272f381c@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: 302 Could someone provide me with bibliographic data concerning a text called "evangelii Johannei Templariorum" (which contains an interesting variant of John 19:26ff). Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 11:26:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15171; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:26:27 -0400 From: "Peter R. Burton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alternatives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: POPmail 2.3b7 Message-Id: <3429321d09c4025@mhub2.tc.umn.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 10:30:38 -0500 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2291 Will Jimmy Adair's suggestion of dividing the list achieve the desired results? Only partly, I suspect. Others have already given examples of unwanted consequences. It also seems to me that the criteria he suggests would not bring about a nearly noiseless closed list. (What guarantee does any grouping of mere mortals provide against making serious errors - in style or content?) Should there be an improved criterion for division? Why not instead try something much more difficult? Supposedly already tried but found wanting (consider the TC list rules). What I recommend depends on the good will of the members. There does seem to be enough to go around. 1) Leave the list open. 2) Expect all contributors to be genuinely self-restrained, thoughtful, and usually concise as they send well argued notes consistent with their knowledge to the other list members. - I do mean for that is the feature I miss in a number of posts, which, when quite long, are a waste of time for everyone. - With respect to conciseness, do respondents who, repeatedly, repeat replies already replete with repetition really regard their replies as being in the best interests of the readers? 3) Recommend to each contributor that the subject line of each note begin with some approved abbreviation to indicate the type of note. Such an arrangement can help identify notes for reading or removal on a given day. - Consider, for example, the Linguist list abbreviations such as Qs for question, Sum for a summary of responses received off list to an enquiry, Calls for a conference announcement, Jobs for an employment notice, Disc for discussions. There are others for book reviews and more. 4) Add to the table of contents in the TC list digest the name of the contributor after the subject. Unfortunately, this means extra programming for Jimmy Adair but only initially. It would enable digest members to be sure to read the notes by certain people, and decide according to the topic or stage of the discussion whether to read the others (programs cannot do that). If this recommedation to improve the character of the list is in the too hard basket, try the division as proposed. It might at least help some. Peter Burton burto009@maroon.tc.umn.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 13:29:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16082; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:29:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:29:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Ron Minton's paper 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: 466 Several people expressed an interest in seeing Ron Minton's paper on "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Giving Us the New Testament," which he delivered at the 1996 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. It is now accessible from the TC-Links page (under "Articles"), or go to http://purl.org/TC/extras/Minton-HS.html. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 13:40:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16143; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: <00CAD8410116B2D1@c2smtp.reliance.rockwell.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 13:42:09 -0500 From: "ROLAN, BRET R" Organization: Reliance To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Electronic Texts? X-mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.00 MHS to SMTP Gateway Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 422 I have been interested for some time in creating a verse-by-verse database of the early NT texts. I am, however, dreading typing them in myself, as well as picking the individual manuscript text out of the apparatus! Therefore, I would like to know if there are already text or database files available of individual manuscripts? Any help would be appreciated. Bret R. Rolan Rolan@RcsHvyIn.Reliance.Rockwell.Com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 14:04:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16710; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:04:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: Rolan@RcsHvyIn.Reliance.Rockwell.Com Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970924140648.254f5902@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: 863 At 01:42 PM 9/24/97 -0500, you wrote: >I have been interested for some time in creating a verse-by-verse >database of the early NT texts. I am, however, dreading typing them in >myself, as well as picking the individual manuscript text out of the >apparatus! Therefore, I would like to know if there are already text or >database files available of individual manuscripts? Any help would be >appreciated. TELA (the Scholars Press web site) has an electronic canon which consists of several texts like BHS and NA as well as the Vulgate and the LXX. Also, the Electronic NT Ms Project is actively transcribing various mss and will soon be making them available on the net. > >Bret R. Rolan >Rolan@RcsHvyIn.Reliance.Rockwell.Com > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Sep 24 15:36:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17145; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:35:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:40:15 -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: Tim Lim's book, courtesy of Larry Hurtado Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 422 Jimmy, the book Larry Hurtado mentioned in a recent posting should be reviewed by us...I'm sure you've got all the details.We seem to have had good luck when you request a review copy, which is sent to me, and then I "procure" a reviewer, and we take it from there...I hope you don't mind following that procedure here.. I read Tim's work, in an earlier form, several years ago when I was in England.. thanks, leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 25 01:02:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA18706; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:02:19 -0400 Message-Id: <199709250506.BAA20322@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:12:38 +0000 Subject: Re: Alternatives Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3853 Dear TC List Members, Several recent posts reacting to Dr. Adair's proposal for a modification of the list move in a direction that I would like to develop a bit further. I write from the perspective of one who has posted to the list less than he might have because of the tenor of some discussions. I would distinguish two issues that impinge of the value of exchanges on the list. One has to do with the substance of posts, e.g., two recent threads that the listowner determined were no longer appropriate for continuing discussion. The proposal for a dual list addresses this issue nicely, I think. However, so does individual use of the delete button and filters, as others have already noted. The possibility proposed by Matthew Johnson of limiting the ability of persons to post to the list when they violate the (rather broad and gently set) boundaries set by the listowner addresses this systemically without the issues attendant in two lists. Personally, I've already been using the delete button quite liberally for this sort of thing. I don't need a dual list to handle this. The second issue at stake here is the tenor of some exchanges on the list. By this I mean the sort of interaction that takes place when the firm -- in some cases blunt -- statements of some posters "hook" the sensitivities of other listers, and we get a sort of escalating exchange of increasingly personal character. This is a normal enough experience in human interaction, but several factors seem to aggravate this in the context of the list: the differing backgrounds and levels of experience among those of us on the list; the fact that -- as Ulrich Schmid pointed out -- we often may not know each other apart from posting on the list; and the tendency for the "walls" of our little electronic "room" to bounce emotional energy right back at us all too quickly. The various moderating influences inherent in face to face conversation seem not to be active in this environment so the esclation is very quick. This is a new environment with its own dynamics, and it seems that we are still learning how to modulate our communication within it. For me this second issue is the one that matters more. Thoughtful and useful posts take some time to formulate, and like most of us I have plenty of other demands on my time. When a productive discussion starts to disintegrate, I'm a lot less willing to pay the price in time to participate. (Not that there have been so many discussions in my area of specialty, TC of the Hebrew Bible.) The suggestions of Peter Burton seem to me to be more to the point than dividing the list. To his list I would add two queries: 1. Do the dynamics of this medium require us to self-consciously exercise greater deliberation and attention to tone and nuance in communication than we would invest in face to face communication? 2. Would a practice patterned after the ANE list be useful? I refer to the practice where subscription to the list implies acceptance of a brief code of civil exchange which is enforced by the de-listing of persons who violate it repeatedly and egregiously? Prior to the adoption of that practice the exchanges on that list got worse than anything I've seen on TC List, resulting in the closing of the list. This practice since the reopening of the list has done much to preserve the civility someone else remarked upon. Best wishes, Richard Weis ******************************************************************************* Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-732-246-5613 17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-732-249-5412 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA ******************************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 25 02:15:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA18891; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:15:07 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:24:44 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: review of Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <377C4853031@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1424 > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:35:43 -0400 (EDT) > From: "James R. Adair" > To: TC List > Subject: review of Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Johann Cook has written a review of Peter John Gentry's _The Asterisked > Materials in the Greek Job_ (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). This review > is now available in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, vol. 2. > > Let me take this opportunity to remind readers to inform either me or > Leonard Greenspoon, our book review editor, of books that you think TC > should review. In particular, if you have written a book recently that > deals with textual criticism in a significant way, please ask your > publisher to send Leonard a review copy. > > Jimmy Adair > General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism > -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- > I have requested Brill to let TC have a copy of my monograph on LXX Proverbs, as well as the concordance volume on Peshitta pentateuch. I'll also review TC for the next volume of JNSL (23/2, 1997) to be published by January 1998. > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 25 05:27:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA19304; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 05:27:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:31:32 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: habas@netvision.net.il (E. Habas) Subject: Re: Alternatives Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1136 >Hi all > >Hope you don't mind a newbie adding to this thread. I hope that >accessibility to this list will remain open to people like myself who >mainly lurk and learn, but occassionaly need to find information on a >particular subject relevant to the list. I look on the list like and >interactive resource just like my concordance or Online Bible etc. Spare a >thought for people in my position. > It all boils down to self-discipline, doesn't it? If everyone on the list undertook to be courteous, think before "talking", respect the others' formal or other qualifications (as seems to be happening under this new "threat" - all for the better!), display some humility, not expect busy scholars to do their homework for them, and on the other hand also show some patience to others - then a democratic list could just work. The moderator can be trusted to ask people who do not qualify *in these respects* to leave, and the remaining scholars, students and interested parties of every race, creed and credentials can do their thing in peace. If we are not self-disciplined, we *will* need someone to tell us what to do. Effie From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 25 08:01:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA19569; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:01:11 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 08:00:24 -0500 From: "ROLAN, BRET R" Organization: Reliance To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Electronic Texts? X-mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.00 MHS to SMTP Gateway Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1747 >>I have been interested for some time in creating a verse-by-verse >>database of the early NT texts. I am, however, dreading typing them in >>myself, as well as picking the individual manuscript text out of the >>apparatus! Therefore, I would like to know if there are already text or >>database files available of individual manuscripts? Any help would be >>appreciated. Jim West said: >TELA (the Scholars Press web site) has an electronic canon which consists of >several texts like BHS and NA as well as the Vulgate and the LXX. Also, >the Electronic NT Ms Project is actively transcribing various mss and will >soon be making them available on the net. Maurice Robinson said: >I would suggest gettinfgg the Online Bible CD-ROM, which contains the TR >Stepghens 1550, TR Scribvvener 1894, Westcott-Hort, and my own >Byazantine/Majority text. These can be easily cut-and-pasted into a word >processor, and then use one of these as a base from which to edit the text >containined in a given MS. Thank you, gentlemen, for responding. I already do have NA and the OLB texts electronically, and am presently working on importing them into a database structure, where I also hope to put the texts from individual manuscripts. Human nature being what it is, however, I was hoping to avoid editing to reproduce the individual manuscripts. Does anyone know when the ENTMP will have some MSS available? I also have Robinson's books of the mss texts of the gospels, which would seem to be a much easier source for mss reconstruction than a standard apparatus. (ugh!) Does anyone know the expected publication date of his book for Acts? (p?) (c?) (r?) Thank you, Bret R. Rolan Rolan@RcsHvyIn.Reliance.Rockwell.Com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Sep 25 12:46:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21024; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:46:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:46:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: German Bibliography (fwd) 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: 1863 If you are interested in responding to the message below, please do so off-list. I will ask Eric to summarize the responses he gets and send me a copy in a week or two, which I will then post to the list for those who are interested. If there is interest in discussing the results of his survey, we can do so at that point. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:11:59 -0500 From: Eric Weinberger To: jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: German Bibliography Dear Professor Adair: I am a translator from German to English and vice versa with over two decades of professional experience, most of it acquired in Germany. Much of that experience has been in the field of theology. Recently a theology professor at an east-coast university sent me a list of German theological books written in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, saying that they really needed to be translated into English. Before I approach publishers with the idea, I would like to get some input from other professors as to what German books they think need translating. I wonder if you would like to poll the members of your TC editorial board and possibly even subscribers to your service on this issue. You can have them write to me directly, if you wish. I would especially appreciate it if the respondents could justify their choices, to equip me with some persuasive arguments vis-a-vis publishers. Thank you very much for your trouble! Eric Weinberger German Language & Liaison Services S.78 W.18425 Lions Park Drive #12 Muskego, WI 53150-8703 Tel (414) 679-8244 Fax (414) 679-8242. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Sep 26 06:40:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA23764; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:40:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:45:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? 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: 789 On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, ROLAN, BRET R wrote: > when the ENTMP will have some MSS available? I also have Robinson's > books of the mss texts of the gospels, which would seem to be a much > easier source for mss reconstruction than a standard apparatus. (ugh!) > Does anyone know the expected publication date of his book for Acts? (p?) > (c?) (r?) Although I would like to take credit for such, the work is by Swanson. He last told me the Acts volume was due out this Fall sometime, _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 29 13:15:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05009; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:15:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 10:19:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The Papyrus 52 dating evidence 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: 1297 I'm trying to learn more about this evidence, the paleography behind it, and the conclusions stemming from it. An article that gets referenced on this is Kurt Aland's 1986 contribution in _Studien zum Text und zur Ethik..._, which I'm trying to acquire. Meanwhile, I've noticed that in his (translated) 1989 book, The Text of the New Testament_, he states in different spots that P52 was written "ca 125", "in the period around A.D. 125," and "about A.D. 125" twice. But then in still another spot, he wrote, "The critical significance of P52... lies in the date of 'about 125' assigned to it by leading papyrologists. Although 'about 125' allows for a leeway of about twenty-five years on either side, the consensus has come in recent years to regard 125 as representing the later limit, so that P52 must have been copied very soon after the Gospel of John was itself written in the early 90s A.D.." I gather that this is the consensus Robert Waltz referred to a few days ago in expressing the opinion that P52 could have been written no later than 125. Does someone on the list know if there is some matter of substance that argues for "no later than 125" instead of "between about A.D. 100 and 150? The argument of silence suggests that K. Aland didn't know of such. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 29 15:29:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06247; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:29:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:33:46 -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: The Papyrus 52 dating evidence Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2169 On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >I'm trying to learn more about this evidence, the paleography behind it, >and the conclusions stemming from it. An article that gets referenced on >this is Kurt Aland's 1986 contribution in _Studien zum Text und zur >Ethik..._, which I'm trying to acquire. Meanwhile, I've noticed that in >his (translated) 1989 book, The Text of the New Testament_, he states in >different spots that P52 was written "ca 125", "in the period around A.D. >125," and "about A.D. 125" twice. > >But then in still another spot, he wrote, "The critical significance of >P52... lies in the date of 'about 125' assigned to it by leading >papyrologists. Although 'about 125' allows for a leeway of about >twenty-five years on either side, the consensus has come in recent years >to regard 125 as representing the later limit, so that P52 must have been >copied very soon after the Gospel of John was itself written in the early >90s A.D.." I gather that this is the consensus Robert Waltz referred to a >few days ago in expressing the opinion that P52 could have been written no >later than 125. Please, don't quote *me* as making any sort of authoritative statements about the dates of manuscripts. I am not a paleographer, and I am not in a position to speak of "consensus." (If I used the word, I am sorry.) It *is* true that every reference I have ever seen dates P52 to the second century, and usually to the first half of that century. Most seem now to quote Aland's date of c. 125. Personally (and this is only personal opinion), I don't think one can date anything as small as P52 with an accuracy of +/- 25 years. However, the fact that we have so *many* early papyri of John (not just P52, but also P66 and many shorter fragments) are extremely strong evidence that that book is early. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Mon Sep 29 16:40:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06540; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:40:13 -0400 Message-Id: <9709292143.AB08983@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Addresses query Date: Lun, 29 Sep 97 22:46:44 +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: 540 I need two addresses, maybe some members of the list can help me: (1) For my work on the Arabic gospels, I need to get a microfilm of a ms of the Borgia collection. If I'm right, that's in the Vatican Library. Where whould I write to ask for this reproduction? (2) I'll be in Holland next week-end for a family visit. On the way I would like to stop in Leiden and visit Brill's bookstore. All I have here is a postal address with a P.O. Box, can anybody tell me their "real" address? Thanks for your help, Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 29 16:40:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06556; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:40:16 -0400 Message-Id: <9709292143.AA08983@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Kiraz's Harklean Date: Lun, 29 Sep 97 22:46:33 +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: 255 A question about the comparative edition of the Syriac Gospels by Mr Kiraz, and more specifically the Harklean part : is it simply reproducing the edition of White, or is it making a new text based on manuscripts ? Thank you, Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 29 16:43:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06593; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:43:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: Addresses query Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:49:44 -0500 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 876 Jean, For reproduction of mss located in the Vatican Library write: Reparto Fotografico Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 00120 Vatican City State Curt Niccum -----Original Message----- From: Jean VALENTIN [SMTP:jgvalentin@arcadis.be] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 3:47 PM To: Liste TC-List Subject: Addresses query I need two addresses, maybe some members of the list can help me: (1) For my work on the Arabic gospels, I need to get a microfilm of a ms of the Borgia collection. If I'm right, that's in the Vatican Library. Where whould I write to ask for this reproduction? (2) I'll be in Holland next week-end for a family visit. On the way I would like to stop in Leiden and visit Brill's bookstore. All I have here is a postal address with a P.O. Box, can anybody tell me their "real" address? Thanks for your help, Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 29 17:50:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07087; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:50:14 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:53:01 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Addresses query Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1408 Re Jean Valentin's requests: (1) Yes, the Borgia collection is in the Vatican Library. An address of: Vatican Library, Vatican City, should get there. (2) Brill is simply a publisher, and no longer has a retail outlet (in the past--about 20 years ago--the did have a bookstore, but it was sold; then, for some years, they still had an antiquarian shop, but that has also been sold). The best theological collections are in regular university bookstores, of which they are numerous in Leiden, Utrecht, etc. In Belgium, Peeters (Bondgenotenlaan, Leuven--near the Central Station) has a good, broad collection of books, esp. deep in their own publications, of course (which are among the leading Oriental series [CSCO, etc.] in the world), but not ignoring other houses. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies >I need two addresses, maybe some members of the list can help me: > >(1) For my work on the Arabic gospels, I need to get a microfilm of a ms >of the Borgia collection. If I'm right, that's in the Vatican Library. >Where whould I write to ask for this reproduction? > >(2) I'll be in Holland next week-end for a family visit. On the way I >would like to stop in Leiden and visit Brill's bookstore. All I have here >is a postal address with a P.O. Box, can anybody tell me their "real" >address? > >Thanks for your help, > >Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 29 19:16:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA07338; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:16:34 -0400 Message-ID: <34303999.7B378B9F@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:28:26 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The Papyrus 52 dating evidence X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns2.accesscomm.net id SAA15762 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2010 Jim Deardorff wrote: > I'm trying to learn more about this evidence, the paleography behind > it, > and the conclusions stemming from it. An article that gets referenced > on > this is Kurt Aland's 1986 contribution in _Studien zum Text und zur > Ethik..._, which I'm trying to acquire. Meanwhile, I've noticed that > in > his (translated) 1989 book, The Text of the New Testament_, he states > in > different spots that P52 was written "ca 125", "in the period around > A.D. > 125," and "about A.D. 125" twice. > > But then in still another spot, he wrote, "The critical significance > of > P52... lies in the date of 'about 125' assigned to it by leading > papyrologists. Although 'about 125' allows for a leeway of about > twenty-five years on either side, the consensus has come in recent > years > to regard 125 as representing the later limit, so that P52 must have > been > copied very soon after the Gospel of John was itself written in the > early > 90s A.D.." I gather that this is the consensus Robert Waltz referred > to a > few days ago in expressing the opinion that P52 could have been > written no > later than 125. > > Does someone on the list know if there is some matter of substance > that > argues for "no later than 125" instead of "between about A.D. 100 and > 150? > The argument of silence suggests that K. Aland didn't know of such. > Jim: It was Adolf Deissmann who was convinced that P52 dated within the reign of Hadrian (117-138) with a probability that it could date to Trajan (98-117). The foremost palaeographers of this time lined up with Diessmann and Roberts (who found the scrap at the Rylands Library.) I am not sure what palaeographic parameters contributed to this dating but the information on this should be in Deissmann, A. "Ein Evangelienblatt aus den Tagen Hadrians" in Deutsche allgemeine Zietung 564 (3 Dec 1955). Jack -- D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Sep 29 23:34:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA08056; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:34:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:39:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The Papyrus 52 dating evidence In-Reply-To: <34303999.7B378B9F@accesscomm.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: 1006 On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > Jim: > > It was Adolf Deissmann who was convinced that P52 dated within the > reign of Hadrian (117-138) with a probability that it could date to > Trajan > (98-117). The foremost palaeographers of this time lined up with > Diessmann and Roberts (who found the scrap at the Rylands Library.) > I am not sure what palaeographic parameters contributed to this dating > but the information on this should be in Deissmann, A. "Ein > Evangelienblatt > aus den Tagen Hadrians" in Deutsche allgemeine Zietung 564 (3 Dec 1955). > > Jack Thanks very much for the information, Jack, which I greatly appreciate. I can understand that a dating estimate of this nature has to be somewhat vague, as one never knows if some particular older scribe, for instance, may have continued to use an older style of writing after the newer style became popular. Or if sacred literature was sometimes penned in an outdated style so as to appear more venerable. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 30 01:14:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA08223; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:14:50 -0400 Message-ID: <34308D98.17F53028@accesscomm.net> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:26:48 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The Papyrus 52 dating evidence X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns2.accesscomm.net id AAA04285 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2271 Jim Deardorff wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > Jim: > > > > It was Adolf Deissmann who was convinced that P52 dated within > the > > reign of Hadrian (117-138) with a probability that it could date to > > Trajan > > (98-117). The foremost palaeographers of this time lined up with > > Diessmann and Roberts (who found the scrap at the Rylands Library.) > > I am not sure what palaeographic parameters contributed to this > dating > > but the information on this should be in Deissmann, A. "Ein > > Evangelienblatt > > aus den Tagen Hadrians" in Deutsche allgemeine Zietung 564 (3 Dec > 1955). > > > > Jack > > Thanks very much for the information, Jack, which I greatly > appreciate. > > I can understand that a dating estimate of this nature has to be > somewhat > vague, as one never knows if some particular older scribe, for > instance, > may have continued to use an older style of writing after the newer > style > became popular. Or if sacred literature was sometimes penned in an > outdated style so as to appear more venerable. I would expect this in Hebrew texts such as the DSS Leviticus Scroll(11D1) or the use of Palaeohebrew by the Zealots but I am not so sure about Greek. The style of P52 seems a tad running-handish compared to P46 or P75. The interesting thing about P52, however, is it is a fragment of a codex which must make it the earliest, or one of the earliest known. There is a gif of my reproduction of P52 on my web page if you care to take a peek at the style. Just click on P52 in the left frame. It may be that the codex is a product of the desire of Christians to collate gospels and the letters of Paul in one form. There is a train of thought that this took place in Ephesus just around the turn of the 2nd century and the pseudopauline Ephesians was a revised Colossians that acted as a cover letter for this collation. Also significant is that P52 was found in Egypt which is kind of a "far piece" from Asia Minor. Of course, there is always the possibility that P52 is not a fragment of GJohn but of another gospel that used the same pericopae. Jack -- D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 30 07:15:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA08879; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:15:31 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:01:29 GMT Subject: Re: Kiraz's Harklean 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: 439 Kiraz's text is different from White's. His base MS is Vat. Syr. 268, using Vat. Syr. 267 where it is deficient (variants where both are extant are cited), and Florence, Bibl. Laur. Plut. I.40 for the end of John (where both Vatican MSS are deficient). He also uses Chester Beatty Syr. 3 for the marginalia. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 30 09:37:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA09238; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:37:24 -0400 Message-Id: <9709301440.AA06513@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Addresses query Date: Mar, 30 Sep 97 15:43:48 +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: 1205 >(2) Brill is simply a publisher, and no longer has a retail outlet (in the >past--about 20 years ago--the did have a bookstore, but it was sold; then, >for some years, they still had an antiquarian shop, but that has also been >sold). The best theological collections are in regular university >bookstores, of which they are numerous in Leiden, Utrecht, etc. > OK, I won't go to Brill's then... But I'll go around in Leiden and see if I find other bookstores. Do you have any good address? >In Belgium, Peeters (Bondgenotenlaan, Leuven--near the Central Station) has >a good, broad collection of books, esp. deep in their own publications, of >course (which are among the leading Oriental series [CSCO, etc.] in the >world), but not ignoring other houses. I go quite often there! :-) And they also have a smaller house in Louvain-la-Neuve. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "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" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 30 09:37:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA09253; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:37:32 -0400 Message-Id: <9709301440.AB06513@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: RE: Addresses query Date: Mar, 30 Sep 97 15:44:02 +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: 523 > >For reproduction of mss located in the Vatican Library write: > >Reparto Fotografico >Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana >00120 Vatican City State I will, thank you. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "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" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 30 12:42:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10363; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:42:20 -0400 Date: 30 Sep 1997 16:46:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19970930164634.26156.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <00CAD8410116B2D1@c2smtp.reliance.rockwell.com> (rolan@rcshvyin.reliance.rockwell.com) Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1517 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > I would like to know if there are already text or > database files available of individual manuscripts? p The IfNTTF in Muenster evidently has substantial files of that sort, but they treat them as commercially valuable secrets. The ENTMP has a few files, but there is more stuff on people's desks somewhere than there is polished up for public access. Swanson's apparatus of the Gospels exists on disk, but there are permission problems in making it public. Swanson had a friend of his write a program that would extract from the big apparatus document the text of any individual MS covered therein. Clint Yale is working on scanning the Tischendorf8 apparatus. There are one or two other people thinking about making similar typed-in materials available. There is a good selection of modern editions at my WWW site, http://www.znet.com/~broman/gnt/editions . 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 iQCVAwUBNDEsaGCU4mTNq7IdAQGWswP/Sf048Z0fcl3OmiyIRTv/4thWj27tCaNR IwFqzuOePNNX2cKKliIDESh4dZ7As5ly6Y0C4JxU+VRBc02t175cR4iX86kkOutP RHzDZV2B51KrUR15XwlntiR/vmWTMcBoi3MRaeEEQeMJT5YIR5jxyRNzBa7A4gfx pwMuFL9GB0M= =BB92 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 30 14:25:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10785; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:25:21 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:28:15 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 395 On Tu, 30 sep 1997, Vincent Broman wrote (inter alia): >> I would like to know if there are already text or >> database files available of individual manuscripts? >The IfNTTF in Muenster evidently has substantial files of >that sort, but they treat them as commercially valuable secrets. Where did you get this information from? Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Sep 30 19:25:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA12053; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:25:25 -0400 Date: 30 Sep 1997 23:29:33 -0000 Message-ID: <19970930232933.26260.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (schmiul@nias.knaw.nl) Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1601 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- me: >> The IfNTTF in Muenster evidently has substantial files of >> that sort, but they treat them as commercially valuable secrets. schmiul@nias.knaw.nl: > Where did you get this information from? The existence of the files is discussed in Aland's "Text of the NT" and in articles written by Muensteraner such as Gerd Mink, and it is demonstrated for sample points of variation by the printouts in "Text und Textwert" and for complete texts of the Epistle of James by the first installment of the editio critica maior. The motivation ascribed to them is my own conjecture, based on the observations that those guys avoided answering direct questions about access to the files, that late in 1997 no public electronic access to the files is provided, despite obvious public interest, and on my own projected image of sponsors not wanting to sow the effort of keyboarding without reaping the expected harvest of publications (ahead of the competition). 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 iQCVAwUBNDGLRGCU4mTNq7IdAQF95AQAwFtlgWvjmpUGT7+eTJVvkjJBBTQHHjnf 18qhL3pUOzLCv24le1xDcfTHBtJZaQNvzRtjhUZSI2eaFKlL20kUUtA3u3BMUNg4 cW0iP0xPrXhSncC03vB3euw9mTxlAqdd2Ws9Bvvm8XzfzivYbxGP9z1ewxNVSyCT I8SkBnZcoqc= =H3uo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----