Subject: tc-list new SBL book series

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:47:11 -0500 (EST)

The SBL Research & Publications Committee has approved the creation of a
new book series devoted to the study of the biblical text, tentatively
titled SBL Studies in Biblical Textual Criticism (the official series name
will be decided in November).  This series is designed to complement, not
compete with, existing series, including The New Testament in the Greek
Fathers, Septuagint and Cognate Studies, and Masoretic Studies.

Submissions for the series are welcome, but potential contributors should
read the series description, submission policies, and book proposal
guidelines before submitting anything.  For more information, see
http://purl.org/TC/TCS/SBLSBTC.html, or contact me. 

Jimmy Adair
Editor, SBL Studies in Biblical Textual Criticism
-----> http://purl.org/TC/TCS/SBLSBTC.html <-----

---

From: "Bernard A. Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:06:06 -0800

> Fathers, Septuagint and Cognate Studies, and Masoretic Studies.

James,

That is certainly a worthy goal, but how do you see it playing out in
practice in relation to a field such as LXX, which is of course chosen
at random? Could it become a second court of appeal for books,
monographs, etc., that have been rejected for one series?

Bernard Taylor,
SCS Editor

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:20:44 -0500 (EST)

Jimmy,

   Do you know who the editor of the new series is?

-- Bart

---

From: Ken Litwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:43:20 -0800

I've been looking recently at Luke's Gospel and noticed something
that seems to me distinctive.  I'm aware of big blocks of text that are
questionable, like Mark 16:9-20, and of course I know abut the many
small variations in D in Acts.  WHile it may not be completely unique,
it seems to me that there are not many other NT books that seem to have
so many whole verses added or omitted in the MS tradition, and in such
an uneven way.  I'm trying to figure out what happened here.  For
example, Luke 22:17-20 seems to have pretty good Alexandrian evidence
for its inclusion (I think UBS3 should give it at least a B rather than
a C).  Then again, 22:43-44 have good support from other traditions but
not good evidence from the Alexandrian tradition.  22:62 seems to have
very solid evidence for it in the Alexandrian tradition, and I'm almost
certain that it should be regarded as original.  23:16 seems more
ambivalent in its evidence.  Then 24:12 has good Alexandrian support.  

   I guess I'm looking for some way to understand the inclusion or
omission of so many whole verses over several chapters, as opposed to
big blocks (like Rom 16), and trying to figure out what text form p75
therefore seems to reflect.  It frequently doesn't seem to reflect an
Alexandrian text to me.  Is anyone aware of detailed studies on this
issue in Luke or have any thoughts on it?  The above is not meant as a
detailed analysis but just an impression from reading through that
portion of Luke recently.  Thanks.

Ken Litwak
Univ. of Bristol
Living in Richmond, CA

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:05:20 -0600 (CST)

On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Tue, 28 Oct 1997 wrote"

>a C).

If you check UBS4, you'll note that this has been demoted to a B
decision.

In one sense I'm not sure I agree; it's a case of the "Western" text
versus the others, and the "Western" text has a right to be heard
(even if not strongly respected :-).

On the other hand, the fact that the "Western" text is so fractured
is good evidence that the longer reading is original.

[ ... ]

>Then 24:12 has good Alexandrian support.  
>
>omission of so many whole verses over several chapters,

I don't think I can agree with this. There are plenty of additions/
omissions in the other synoptic gospels, too (Matt. 16:2f., 27:35,
27:49 spring to mind; similarly Mark 9:44, 46). If Luke has more
such variants, I think it is because of the "Western" readings.

Although it's also worth noting that Luke was the gospel Marcion
used....

>as opposed to
>Alexandrian text to me.

This, actually, comes back to a point I raised some time ago.

There is absolutely no doubt that P75 and B go together. Take that
as given.

The question is, *do they go with Aleph and the rest of the Alexandrian
witnesses?*

I know that B has always been held up as the core witness of the Alexandrian
text. But -- since we don't have an agreed-upon definition of a text-type --
we cannot take that as certain.

Just something to think about, folks. I'm not taking a side here. :-)

>Is anyone aware of detailed studies on this

I think the place to start is the studies on Codex Bezae. Since we have
several experts on that (Holmes, Parker), I will defer to them....

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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)